Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Oct 1950

Vol. 123 No. 2

Local Government (County Administration) Bill, 1950—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Last night I had practically covered all the ground I intend to cover, with the exception of one matter to which the Parliamentary Secretary alluded with regard to members attending council meetings, that in future travelling expenses will be paid to members who live only one mile from the council chamber. I wonder would the Minister consider another aspect of that and have some curtailment of the amount payable. As the Minister is probably aware, in Cork County members have to come very long distances, in some cases a distance long enough to enable a member attending a meeting to draw £7 travelling expenses and even more. I would suggest to the Minister that there should be some limitation. If he is giving allowances to men who are only a mile out, I think there should be some curtailment of the expenses allowance in respect of long-distance travelling. I could give him cases where members have drawn up to £35 a week in travelling expenses for attending county council meetings and meetings of subsidiary bodies.

£35 a week?

Yes. The Minister has stated in the Bill that the council can appoint any number of sub-committees. He can realise the manner in which that permission will be used. I hope he realises that. I suggest to him that he should have some curtailment of travelling expenses.

There is one thing I would like the Minister to give some attention to and that is the unwarrantable interference with the work of local authorities by Departments other than his. As an instance of that, a tar boiler that was purchased by the Cobh Urban Council has been held by the customs authorities for the last three months. The Minister is aware how useless it is doing roads in November, in wet weather. This tar boiler would be required particularly during the summer months; that would be the best time to do the roads. That tar boiler is still being held up by the customs authorities. I think the Minister ought to take some steps to curtail this unwarrantable interference.

I got a letter yesterday, when I arrived here, from the Youghal Urban Council complaining that an excavator that they were bringing over was also held by the customs authorities, thus depriving a town where there is a large amount of unemployment of facilities in connection with what would be a useful local industry. This kind of thing is happening and the Minister should carry out an investigation and seek some remedy.

We heard complaints here previously with regard to Governments that were not democratic. I suggest that the Minister's Department is far more rigid in relation to local authorities now than it was when a previous Government was in office. Apparently there is no limit to the interference in that respect. I do not wish to hold up the House any longer, but these are a few of the matters that I am anxious to have examined by the Minister.

A Bill of this nature has been advocated, pressed for and promised over a long period. One of the points I see in regard to the present production is that it adds to the difficulty of understanding local government law. It is another Bill changing titles and altering names and creating quite a number of difficulties of interpretation. There is a considerable amount of what I might term complexity arising from the change in the name of county manager to county officer. I wonder is all that difficulty and trouble necessary?

Those of us who were opposed to the County Management Act, in principle, had one very clear idea in mind. We did not condemn managers as such, but we advocated that the manager ought to be the servant of the local authority rather than the master of it. I should have imagined that an amendment simply transferring powers and control from the manager to the local authority would have met the case. Now the matter has become complex and while there are quite a number of things in this Bill that are desirable and that are to be commended, it does not go quite as far as I should like it to go. I hope when we reach the Committee Stage to put down amendments which will get nearer the idea that a number of us have in mind in regard to the whole management system.

Quite a lot of the debate has been devoted to the managers. One of the things I was afraid of in regard to the management system was that county managers might, in the early stages, have co-operated to such an extent with the local councils that there would have been no general desire to change the system and that later on, gradually, bit by bit, the managers might have exercised the very wide powers that were given to them in the Act. Fortunately, from my point of view, some of the managers did not act in that way. They set out from the beginning to enforce the powers that were given to them, in spite of the local authority. Those managers are largely responsible for the general demand for an amendment of the system.

Where is the general demand? Where was it?

There was a general demand.

Some of us could not find it.

That is the difficulty. You know the story about the person who looks out through prison bars. He may see very muddy ground or he may see the stars.

We know a lot of stories —and stories is the proper term.

Well, that is the thing—it is a matter of where you are looking and what you will see. Undoubtedly there was a general demand all over the country. As far as I could see—I may be entirely wrong—there was general objection to the powers that were given to the county managers and there was a general desire, as expressed by the present Government, which undoubtedly represents the majority of the people, that the system should be altered. I think the Minister is familiar with the case of a structure—I do not want to go into this in any detail—that was erected by a county manager in spite of the appeals of his council. It was erected in a spot where he ought not to have erected it, and he would not have erected it if the advice of the council had been taken. However, contrary to the advice of his council, he proceeded to do it. The matter ended up in the court and the particular structure had to be removed. A system of local government that allows a thing like that to happen is not a satisfactory system and ought to be changed. I am certainly very pleased that the Minister has changed it. There have been instances of a county manager feeling that it was his responsibility to invade the privacy of a man's home and examine a person who was ill. That has been done by a county manager. I do not think anyone contemplated, when the County Management Act was going through, that a manager would act in that fashion. There has been at least one serious strike which would never have occurred or should never have occurred had the particular county manager been advised by his own council or even by the Department. One might go right through a record of things that have been done under the County Management Act which were completely contrary to the whole conception of democratic Government.

If I find anything to quarrel with in this Bill, it is that more power is not transferred to the local authorities from the manager. I can understand his having certain executive functions, but it is hardly advisable that he should be in control of technical officers like the county medical officer of health who, because of his position and responsibility, ought to have direct approach to the local council and should be entitled to appear before it and put forward his own recommendations. There was a question on the Order Paper to-day from Donegal in which it was found that certain inspections could not be carried out for a period of 12 months. I understand that county medical officers of health have been pressing very strongly for necessary staff increases. They had to do that through the manager and only in a couple of cases have their reasonable requests in regard to staff been met. The same thing should apply in regard to the county surveyor or county engineer. I see no virtue in having the recommendations of those very experienced officers transmitted through another officer who certainly has not the same technical qualifications and may not have the same experience.

To the county council?

Yes. I admit that the same system does not operate in every county: I am dealing with the theoretical aspect of it. This Bill should be availed of to bring about a vital change that will improve local administration generally. I do not like this idea of the executive committees. In the long run, the local authority will be responsible, but very important work will be given to these committees under this Bill. The council are bound to set them up—an executive committee will consist of approximately one-third of the council—and they will be elected by a system of proportional representation. I can imagine the position where there might be one or two very valuable members in the council but, just because they are not associated with one or other of the political groups, they may be kept off these executive committees.

Do not be dealing with personal matters now.

I am not dealing with personal matters, as I have had no experience, until the last couple of weeks, of working in a local authority. I think even Deputy Smith ought to agree with me on this, that a very able individual may be elected to a local authority with the largest number of votes anyone might get, because of his efficiency, and he could be kept, under this system, from contributing whatever he could to the work of the council. I say that that is wrong. It is introducing a principle that will be unsatisfactory and to a large extent it is depriving the local people of power they should exercise through their own council. I think that is a grave defect in the Bill. I hope that method will not be passed, but if it is, it will be found in practice to bring about results that are undesirable, and we will have an amending Bill to get over the difficulties caused by this one.

I was surprised last night by some observations made by Deputy Corry. He states he has been a member of a local authority for 26 years. A person who has been a member for 26 years should have a very wide knowledge of local administration, but I do not think we ought to allow to remain on record uncontradicted the suggestion that, in the recent election, candidates went forward, believing the County Management Act was to be changed, with the intention of making money personally out of their membership of local authorities. That was a gratuitous insult to the people who stood as candidates, a gratuitous insult to the people who voted for them and a gratuitous insult to the country. In the distant past there may have been corruption in local authorities, there may have been individuals who were corrupt, but they were a very small number of the body of local representatives who gave their services to the community willingly and well and often at great loss and expense to themselves. I take it that the number of corrupt councillors in the distant past was probably no more than might be found in other countries; that being so, I think it was both improper and wrong that an allegation of the kind made last night against the country should have been made here in the Parliament of the country. In so far as the Bill is intended to reduce the powers of managers, I am in favour of it. In so far as it does not go the whole way in that respect, I think it needs amendment. I hope to be able to convince the House on the Committee Stage that certain vital amendments are necessary. As far as the present reading is concerned, I think the Bill should receive the unanimous support of the House and, irrespective of Party views and Party affiliations, each and every one of us ought, in the interests of the country, to avail of removing the defects that appear in the Bill at present and the defects that would remain in the management system if this Bill were to pass into law in its present form.

I sat in here yesterday and it was my intention to sit in to-day and listen to the discussion on this Bill. It was not, however, my intention to intervene in the discussion because I may as well admit at the outset that I had not prepared myself as well as I should have done had it been my intention to take part in the debate. The worst of listening here is that, if the subject is one of interest, there is the temptation to intervene in the discussion. I have noticed on many occasions, and not only yesterday and this afternoon, a tendency on the part of some Deputies to talk about the managerial system as extended by the Government as something inherently objectionable to the majority of our people. Even more noticeable is the tendency to suggest that it was the intention to introduce into local administration a new system which tended to relieve local representatives of powers which they formerly held just for the sake, as some Deputies put it, of relieving them of that power or authority.

I have always disputed these allegations. I have always disputed the claim that it was because of any desire on the part of the then Government to rob county councils and other local bodies of their authority that the managerial system was extended. I was at one period a member of a county council. I was chairman of a county council for years. I have often been anxious to put on the records of the House when these claims were being made here what my own experiences were during the years when I was connected with a county council. I know from experience that even amongst those who have practical knowledge of local administration it is impossible to get agreement as to the need for amending the law in relation to matters of local administration. I heard the Minister introducing this measure yesterday referring to the old board of health, which existed in my time, and expressing his regret, as I think I am correct in saying, at the disappearance of the old board of health. I was a member of a board of health for years. I was also a member of this House. As a result of the experience I had as a member of a board of health and without any desire to rob local bodies of the authority they were supposed to exercise and without being influenced in any way or affected by the allegations made by some people as to the extent to which corruption existed in local bodies, since it was something I never could discover to any considerable extent, I came to the conclusion, as a result of my membership of such a body, that that form of local machinery was no longer capable of dealing with the problems local bodies had then to handle.

If I am inclined later, like Deputy Cowan and some other Deputies, to express some doubt about the wisdom of the setting up of these two executive committees provided for in this Bill, that is because of my experience in the past as a member of a board of health. What were those experiences? The duties of a board of health as a committee of the council were clearly defined. The committee met on perhaps the second Tuesday of every month, or perhaps twice or three times in a month. From 1932 onwards there was a big housing drive: there was generous provision for water and sewerage schemes all over the country; there was the question of improving hospitalisation. There were smaller matters that had to be attended to, such as the selection of tenants for labourers' cottages, the appointment of nurses, doctors, sick leave regulations, rations for patients in public institutions and a hundred and one other details. It was my experience that the ten gentlemen who constituted the committee or the board of health usually met at the appointed time. Perhaps six or seven of the ten gentlemen were interested in the selection of a tenant for a labourer's cottage in their particular district or in a whole lot of footy matters. They proceeded to the Chair and they said, indicating the items in which they were interested: "Would you mind, Mr. Chairman, taking these items at the beginning of the meeting?" That request was usually acceded to and when all the footy little items had been disposed of this board of health, this committee set up by the council to look after public health matters, was usually reduced to two; it would be very lucky if three remained to deal with the problems of water and sewerage and the erection of labourers' cottages and legal disputes of one kind or another arising between contractors and the authority concerned and to make important decisions very often affecting the Exchequer and the ratepayers to the extent of thousands of pounds.

I want to emphasise again that it was not because of the extent, because I really never noticed it, of the corruption existing amongst these local bodies, but because I was completely satisfied that that system would not survive and was incapable of handling the growing problems of local government, that I, as an individual Deputy of this Party which was then the Government, recommended a change in the system. I want to confess—in doing so I think I am representing largely the views of many members of this Party— that it was not because of our desire to introduce something with the term "manager" or "managerial system" that we did that. It was because of the fact that many Deputies like myself had the same experience that I had, and as a result of that experience had come to the same conclusion. It was because the Minister who was then responsible for local government, with the experience which he had through his Department, also came to that conclusion that the managerial system was extended in 1940 to the country.

I think Deputy MacEntee made our position in regard to that Act very clear yesterday when he said that we, as any Government here should, approached it with a view to watching closely the workings of that Act to see to what extent it called for amendment in order to make it more perfect. What entirely puzzled me, and what has puzzled me from the first day this Government came into office, were the repeated announcements by the Minister responsible that the County Management Act was going to be repealed without any explanation as to what was going to succeed it. Now that we have seen what it is proposed should take the place of the County Management Act which is being repealed in name, it is made all the more clear to me that there was no need whatever for all this elaborate effort in order to convince the public that something radical was taking place.

Down through the years I have often had discussions with members of county councils as to what they thought of the managerial system. It was because of my failure to discover amongst them any of the deep-seated objections to the Managerial Act to which Deputy Cowan referred—I may say that my contacts with members of county councils were fairly widespread—that I interrupted him during his speech. My challenge to the members of local bodies, to any of them who claimed that the managerial system robbed them of powers which the local bodies formerly held was this: Well, gentlemen, if you want this Act amended, why not take it as it is; why not take the functions that are reserved to the county council and those that are reserved to the county manager and examine both lists and say the number of those which are reserved to the county manager, which should be taken out of the managerial list and transferred to the council? Except for the desire, which I understand was expressed here yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary, merely to change the name of the county manager to that of county officer, I cannot for the life of me see why it has been necessary to have all this elaborate effort in order to effect any change that might be thought necessary to improve the managerial system as it has existed.

I think it was Deputy Sweetman who lauded this measure here yesterday because, as he put it, in the Managerial Act the functions reserved to the council were specifically mentioned, while in this Bill the functions given to the county manager are mentioned and all others are given to the local bodies. It is a reversal of engines, if you like, but I cannot see what great advantage there is in that. In the Bill before us there are three functions given to the manager: employment functions, tenancy functions and individual health functions. What surprises me, seeing that it comes from a Labour Deputy who happens to be Minister for Local Government, is that the functions that are given to the county manager are, in the main, functions that I would have expected a Labour Deputy who occupies the post of Minister for Local Government to have given to the elected bodies. In my experience of local bodies, these were the three functions—employment functions, tenancy functions, and individual health functions—that attracted members of committees. When these functions were disposed of by the old boards of health that I have referred to, the remaining business was left to be disposed of by the two or three members of the committee who remained, so that these two or three members had to deal with what were really the important and constructive problems of the council or committee concerned. When the Minister boasts of the success of his efforts in this measure to give additional power to the local bodies, I am very anxious to know from him why it was, and why it is, that he did not consider giving to the local bodies these tenancy functions.

Are you in favour of it?

I want to know the Minister's reasons for not taking the course that I would have expected him to take. If he had taken that course, I would have no hesitation in expressing my view as to whether it was the right course or not. I again ask the Minister to explain when replying why, if there is such a desire on his part to restore democratic control to local bodies, the tenancy functions reserved to the county manager have not been transferred to local bodies. After all, the Department itself has laid down conditions for the guidance of local bodies and county managers as to the manner in which tenants should be selected for houses erected by these local bodies. As a matter of fact, even before the managerial system was introduced at all, the board of health was not free to select what tenant it liked for houses erected by these bodies in connection with slum clearance or other schemes. The Minister has failed to hand over these functions to the local body which would be guided by the instructions issued by his own Department plus the recommendation of the county medical officer of health. Could the medical officer of health not advise the locally elected body or the executive committee as to the persons who should get houses erected by these bodies just as effectively as he can advise the county manager? I think since this measure is being hailed by the Minister and those who support him as an effort to restore to local authorities the democratic rights that were taken from them, as alleged, by the County Management Act, an explanation is due from the Minister as to his reasons for not giving to these elected bodies the power of selecting tenants with the assistance, advice and recommendation of the medical officer of health.

Section 25 of the Bill states:—

"The tenancy functions of the council of a county or an elective body shall be the functions of the council or body with respect to cottages, houses and other dwellings provided under the Labourers Acts, 1883 to 1948, or the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, 1900 to 1948, or in respect of which advances are made under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts, 1899 to 1948, which relate to the following matters:—

(a) selection of tenants,

(b) making of lettings,

(c) recovery of possession,

(d) making of advances,

(e) recovery of instalments of annuities or mortgage payments,

(f) fixing, revision and recovery of rent,

(g) enforcement or waiver of covenants or conditions (including statutory conditions."

The sub-paragraph in which I am really interested is (f)—fixing, revision and recovery of rent. I am expressing surprise at the Minister's failure to give to these local bodies these tenancy functions. Authority is being given to the county officer to fix rents. I do not know if I am right in suspecting that that is because of the difficulty which the Minister has experienced in inducing county councils and other local bodies to accept the differential rent system which he has been endeavouring to put over on the country, that it is because of his desire to have some instrument, democratic or otherwise—whether it is democratic or not apparently is not going to trouble the Minister very much—to operate that system. I suspect that it is in order that he may have some instrument, which is not accepted generally by these bodies, to put over this system on the country that this function is being given to the new county officers. I should certainly like to hear the Minister give his reasons to justify his failure to make the provision which I have suggested he could easily have made. That was, in fact, a function that he could have with the greatest of ease transferred to local bodies if there were not a desire on his part and on the part of the Department to get some instrument in the form of a county officer who would be more easily handled, who would toe the line and give effect to some scheme or other that members of local bodies would in no circumstances agree to.

I have some difficulty in clearing up what is meant by Section 24, which deals with the employment functions, especially having regard to the provisions of Section 29. What is meant by Section 24 of the Bill is clear enough but, when you come to Section 29 and read sub-sections (3) and (4), it is rather difficult to know to what extent this employment function is really given to the new county officers. I am not in the least interested as to whether the new county officer should have this authority or responsibility, but what I am dissatisfied about is the difficulty that an ordinary layman, as a result of this unnecessarily cumbersome measure, will have in understanding what exactly is meant and what is really conveyed to the county manager under Section 24, dealing with the employment functions, especially having regard to the provisions of Section 29.

Section 24 says:—

"The employment functions of the council of a county or an elective body shall be the functions (excluding scheduled functions) of the council or body relating to persons employed, to be employed or formerly employed by the council or body (whether as officers, as servants or on the basis of fees, commission or taxed costs), including, in particular, functions relating to appointment or employment, promotion, service, duties, control, supervision, status, remuneration, privileges, removal or dismissal, suspension and superannuation."

That is clear enough until you come on to Section 29, which says:—

"(1) The employment functions of the council of a county or elective body shall, subject to the provision of this Act, be performed by the county officer;

(2) The county officer shall not submit any proposal to increase the number of permanent officers under the council of a county or an elective body for the sanction of such Minister as may be empowered to sanction the proposal save with the approval either of the appropriate executive committee of such council or of the elective body (as the case may be)."

That is all right, but it goes on:—

"(3) Where a vacancy occurs in a permanent office under a council of a county or an elective body the county officer shall not take any steps to fill the vacancy permanently save with the approval either of the appropriate executive committee of such council or of the elective body (as the case may be)."

That is all right.

I think that is all right, but it goes on:—

"(4) Where the county officer makes a temporary appointment to an office under the council of a county or an elective body, he shall, at their next meeting, inform the appropriate executive committee of such council or the elective body (as the case may be) and, if at such meeting such executive committee or elective body so decide, the appointment shall terminate."

That is all right, is it not?

It is and it is not.

They can use their reserved functions. That was happening.

First of all the county manager never had power to make a permanent appointment. Is that not admitted? If a permanent appointment was called for the county manager had to notify the Department of his intention to advertise a vacancy. The vacancy was filled as a result of the activities of the Local Appointments Commission or as a result of a local competitive examination. Therefore, the question of making appointments arose only in the case of temporary work. I do not want to claim that he should have employment functions at all. I am not in the least interested but I am expressing a criticism; in Section 24, you give employment functions to the county manager and you set them out fairly clearly, while, according to sub-section (4) of Section 29, you do not know whether he has those functions or not. If he decides to-day to exercise the powers given to him in Section 24 and makes a temporary appointment, he must appear before the committee to-morrow to tell them that he had made the appointment and they could terminate it. I do not care one way or the other except to achieve the position in which the Bill will contain reasonable provisions. I see the need to ensure in some way that the county manager could not continue in employment temporary employees for longer than they should be retained, but I cannot see the sense of pretending to give him functions like these and at the same time qualifying them to a degree that reduces the whole business to absurdity.

It is a bad look-out for the unfortunate persons appointed.

It is an effective check.

It is too effective a check because it does not make any sense. Why not give it to the committee? I am not arguing in favour of leaving these functions to him.

That is what they are getting.

Then why not say so? Deputy Davin has voiced my criticism. He says that the elective body is really getting this power. If it is, say so. I am only a layman, all I want is a wee bit of clarity and consistency. As Deputy Martin O'Sullivan suggested, not only those of us who have had short periods of membership of local bodies, but all of us in this House have a fair idea of the working of local bodies and we all want to examine the Bill in a constructive way. As a layman I am expressing the opinion that there is no need at all for all this ambiguity. If you want to give the function of employment to the elective body, then give it to them and get to a fuller and more complete extent what Deputies Davin and Cowan are apparently enthusiastic about. If, however, you are not going to give it to the elective body, give it to the county officer, since you have released the office from the stigma of "county manager" and since we are all going to be enthusiastic about the new title, "county officer". It will make no difference if he exercises employment functions so long as they relate, as they do, to temporary employment only.

Section 26 says:—

"The individual health functions of the council of a county or an elective body shall be the functions of the council or body—

(a) With respect to decisions as to whether or not any particular person shall receive treatment under or otherwise avail of a health service (other than decisions as to whether or not a person shall be granted medical assistance under the Public Assistance Act, 1939 (No. 27 of 1939);

(b) with respect to decisions as to the extent to which and of the manner in which a person shall receive treatment under or otherwise avail of a health service (including the service provided under the Public Assistance Act, 1939, in relation to medical assistance);

(c) with respect to decisions as to the amount of any charge (the amount of which is not fixed by or under an enactment) which may be made in respect of a particular person under a health service."

That is a section that leaves me in some doubt also, and I do not think that the Minister in introducing the measure or the Parliamentary Secretary, speaking at a later stage yesterday, made any attempt to give to the House a clear statement as to what was intended by that section. I think that was a very great mistake, because these three sections are very important, and I would have thought that most of the Minister's speech would have been devoted to an explanation of them. I do not know enough about that particular section or about what is intended to make any extensive comment upon it, but I would ask the Minister to deal with it in full when concluding.

I come back now as a last point to something which I mentioned when openning my speech. These executive committees are to consist of one-third of the council, which means that the two will consist of two-thirds. What happens to the other one-third? What does that one-third do? I did not get any clear explanation of the position in that regard, and, when Deputy MacEntee was speaking, and speaking more or less in a friendly way about the proposal to set up these committees, he mentioned that the two of them would consist of two-thirds of the council, and I asked what would the one-third left do? He said that that was for the Minister to explain, but the Minister had spoken and had not explained it.

These committees, we are told, can delegate their authority to the county officer. That looks rather funny, too. Having given the councils their schedule of responsibilities, would it not have been much more tidy to let them use their discretion as to whether or not they would delegate them? County councils delegated powers to their officials long before there was a managerial system introduced either by a Cumann na nGaedheal or a Fianna Fáil Government. Years before there was any managerial system county councils delegated authority to their county surveyor, as he was then known, or their county engineer, as he is now known and gave to that individual complete discretion in the matter of the employment, dismissal, organisation and so on of all those who worked under him.

Should we not expect from the Minister who has been talking about the drastic improvement which is being effected with regard to the managerial system some clear reference in his speech as to how all these committees were going to function and how the other sub-committees which he mentioned could be set up as a result of the passage of this measure? He mentioned a sub-committee which would look after and supervise the expenditure of public money. My own belief is that all this business of the setting up of committees is complete and absolute window-dressing. To the extent to which you compel a local body to set up committees by law, it will have to set them up, but so far as expecting a local body to set up these sub-committees we hear about is concerned, the point is that these bodies will be composed largely of sensible people who will not touch these sub-committees. A sub-committee set up by a county council to keep an eye on expenditure and to make recommendations as to how expenditure could be reduced—is that a likely thing?

While admitting that any Government should have kept this managerial system under review and should have come forward as it thought fit and proper with whatever amendments it felt were desirable, I have never in my life seen such an attempt to bamboozle and confuse this issue, which, looking at it from the point of view of a layman, was a completely simple issue of making a thorough examination of the extent to which county managers should have been relieved of powers which they had under the law as it was and what these powers were, and introducing a simple measure to transfer these back to the local bodies. Instead of that we are presented with this Bill which tends, as I think I have succeeded in indicating, to confuse us all with regard to what exactly was intended by it.

I rose to my feet not so much for the purpose of examining in any detailed way the proposals before us, but because I have very often walked out of this House when I heard certain criticisms and certain efforts by some Deputies to represent this Party as a Party which was desirous of introducing a system such as the managerial system and to suggest that, when it was introduced, there was a wave of public opinion against it. I have seized this occasion to give my own reasons. They may not apply to every member of my Party but they are certainly my own. They arose from my conviction that some alteration in the local government system would have to be brought about in view of the extended activities of local bodies from 1932 on. I was not at the time wedded to or enthusiastic about the managerial system and it was because of these experiences that the change was made.

So far as I am concerned, I know of no wave of public criticism of that system since, nor do I accept the statement sometimes made that, as a result of this system, the tendency was for decent men to refuse to offer themselves for election to local bodies.

I repudiate that suggestion because it is not my experience and I can say that, over the past number of years, the standard in the matter of character, capacity and ability of local bodies was in every way as high as ever it was. There is no truth in that statement. There is no obligation on any Deputy who holds the opposite view to accept my assurance to that effect, but, at the same time, I am entitled to put forward my own experiences and beliefs. We are not opposed to an amendment of the managerial system, but, to tell the truth, I think it should have been amended in a more honest fashion. If there was any desire on the part of the Minister to repeal, as we are supposed to believe he is repealing, the managerial system, there are several powers which I have indicated, and several others which I could indicate, if I wanted to, which are given to the county officers which could have been given to the elected councils so as to restore the complete democratic control of these bodies.

I do not think this is a Bill about which Deputies need get unduly excited. We are not, in this Bill, making any drastic changes in our system of local administration. Neither can it be claimed that there is any likelihood that this is the final settlement of local government in this country. Since the establishment of this State we have been enacting legislation for local government almost every year. The number of Bills which have gone through during the last 30 years is enormous. We started out at the first stage when this State was established and we abolished the local district councils; we abolished the local workhouses and established a centralised system in each county. By so doing we thought that we were making a far-reaching reform. We found, however, that it was no advance whatever. We went on further and we extended the franchise to every adult citizen. There again we thought that we were making some reform. We found, however, that the condition was no better and, if anything, was worse.

Then, in 1940, we had the County Management Act which I would be prepared to acknowledge was not inspired by any desire to destroy democracy, but had behind it a feeling on the part of the then Government that local administration was unsatisfactory and they were honestly anxious to improve it. I think that the members of the present Opposition Party, if they were seriously questioned on this matter, would acknowledge that they were disappointed with the working of that Act. Now we have to-day an effort being made to take from county managers some of the powers which they possess and to transfer to the local councils those additional powers. I am satisfied that this is a step in the right direction, but I am not satisfied that the position will be entirely satisfactory after the passing of this Bill.

I believe that there is need for a far more drastic reform of local government and for a greater simplification of the system of local administration under which we live. Like other Deputies, I was shocked by the statement of Deputy Corry about the extent of the corruption which prevailed before the passing of the County Management Act and the likelihood of similar corruption prevailing in local affairs if complete powers were restored to local councils. I do not believe that our people are so corrupt as Deputies suggested, particularly Deputy Corry. He may have some reason for referring to his own county, but he certainly was not referring to Irish counties generally. I am satisfied that the overwhelming majority of locally elected representatives have endeavoured to discharge their duties honestly. I am satisfied that there has been no real dishonesty prevailing amongst our elected representatives on these bodies.

There may have been and I think there was, and is still, perhaps, a certain amount of carelessness in the discharge of their duties by locally elected representatives, a certain amount of lack of consideration for the many matters entrusted to them to decide and administer. But I think that, in the main, arises from the fact that it is very frequently difficult for locally elected representatives who are ordinary farmers, workers or business men to grasp all the details of administration put before them or to digest all the figures and facts laid before them, including technical reports from engineers, doctors and experts of that kind which it is very difficult for a layman to follow. For those reasons there may have been a certain lack of live interest by local authorities in the matters entrusted to them. But, so far as corruption is concerned, I think it existed on a very, very small seale, if it existed at all. I do not think that there is any real danger that it will arise again.

The danger that I see in regard to local administration is that the system is so complex that it is difficult for local representatives to master it entirely and secure the efficiency in administration that is so desirable. No business man can manage his business unless he understands it from top to bottom. No farmer can manage his farm unless he has a clear grasp of all the operations which go to the working of a farm. In the same way, it is impossible for county councils to manage the business of a county with honesty and efficiency unless they have a complete knowledge of their own powers and functions and of the work that has to be carried out in local administration.

I think, therefore, that there is need for simplification of the functions which councils have to perform. There is need for simplification of the manner in which finances are provided for the running of local administration. Nothing makes more for confusion and lack of efficient and effective control by local representatives than the uncertainty which frequently prevails in regard to the finances of their administration. The local authorities never know for certain how much money is to be allocated to them from the Central Fund for various functions which they have to perform. They never know whether a Government or a Minister in a generous mood may come along and allocate special grants for special purposes. Thus they can never look ahead and plan their administration as an ordinary business man can plan his business.

I often wonder if it would not be better if the finances that are provided from the Central Fund were kept absolutely separate from the finances raised through rates. In other words, that certain services should be financed exclusively out of local rates and the balance of the services financed exclusively from the Central Fund. In the administration of the services financed out of local rates the locally elected representatives would have complete power and in regard to the other services financed exclusively out of the Central Fund they would only have certain powers. That is a method of local administration to which, I think, some consideration should be given.

Another question which arises is whether we ought to revert to the system of local district councils. I do not think it was any reform to abolish the local district councils. Faults had arisen in that system of administration as in many others. These councils were too large and unwieldy and for that reason they may not have been able to perform their duties efficiently. But, with smaller bodies for every local area, for every parish, if possible, I think very useful work could be done. Certain functions could devolve upon these local bodies which would have a real and very close association with the ordinary people of the rural areas. Very frequently we find the people of local areas meeting together and declaring that they are completely neglected, that the county council has completely lost touch with them and with their affairs and they are protesting for that reason. I think that a great deal of distrust in local administration arises from that fear. Democratic government should be brought closer to the people by way of election of parish councils in every parish and the giving of certain specific functions to these councils to perform.

In so far as this Bill ends the unwieldy and undesirable system of the grouping of two counties together for the purpose of administration, I consider that it is a step in the right direction. In my opinion, there was no justification for appointment of one manager for every two counties. The system could not have been expected to work satisfactorily. When that Bill was going through this House I was one of those Deputies who expressed the belief that the system would not work satisfactorily and time has proved that to be the case. A county manager in control of two counties had to cope with two separate sets of administration which it was absolutely impossible for one man to control. Again, when the County Management Bill was going through this House a lot of us who listened to the then Minister, now Deputy MacEntee, and other advocates who were, perhaps, ordinary, innocent Deputies, were inclined to feel that if the Bill went through, some sort of. supermen would be found to fill the posts of county manager. It was impossible to imagine that any ordinary man would perform efficiently and effectively all the functions which a county manager would have to perform. From experience we have found that county managers are ordinary human beings who were forced to a great extent to perform executive and other functions of such a varying and extensive nature that it would be absolutely impossible for any one ordinary man to perform all those functions himself. Therefore, I think it will be admitted that there was not any real improvement in local administration. Certainly, there was no improvement in efficiency. To a great extent there was a departmentalisation of local administration. The multiplication of officials in county offices was rendered ineffective by reason of the fact that the county manager was to a great extent responsible more to the central Government than to the local authorities and was, therefore, more concerned with having every action of his documented. There was a great deal more clerical work in the county offices because of the managerial system, but no greater amount of ordinary real work was done in the counties—work such as the improvement of roads, and so forth.

We are getting back now, in theory, at any rate, to the system whereby we shall recognise the county council as the supreme local authority and whereby the secretary of the county council will become the chief executive officer. That is a step in the right direction. However, I do not approve of the further step that we are taking, namely, that, having restored a certain amount of power to the county council, we delegate those powers to a small committee of the councillors. I can see a great deal of evil in such a delegation of the county council's functions and I can see very little good in it. We frequently hear that a small staff will perform the administrative work quicker than a large one. I do not think there is very much substance in such a statement. Very often most of the delay that frequently occurs in the carrying out of business by a locally elected body is due to long arguments which, sometimes, are inspired by honest motives, sometimes by personal motives and, very frequently, by a desire to secure publicity in the local Press. If a body of five or six or seven members transacts its business in public and in the presence of Press representatives, these five or six or seven members are as likely to spend as long debating any particular question as a larger body of members would. I know from experience that when the old boards of health were in existence three or four pages of the local paper used to be devoted to the proceedings of one board of health meeting and the fact that that board of health did not consist of more than ten members and that not more than four or five or six members might be present during the discussion did not tend to curtail the discussion in any way. The curtailment of long discussions on a matter of this kind should be tackled by the council itself through the chairman and with the co-operation of all the well-meaning public representatives. Futile discussions are as likely to arise among a small body of six or seven members as among a larger body of 20 or 25 members.

I do not consider that a council of 24 or 25 members is too large to transact the ordinary business entrusted to the county council under this Bill. If county councils hold regular monthly meetings and deal with their business in a business-like fashion, they will be able to discharge efficiently all the duties entrusted to them without delegating any of their functions to a smaller body. I should like to point out the evil of the delegation of the county council's functions to a smaller body. In dealing with an entire county, a small body which would consist of county councillors would not be as representative of the entire area as the larger body. The danger that would arise is that those members of the county council who are not members of the executive committee would find that their particular areas in the county would be completely neglected and that they would have very little real redress. That point of view ought to be carefully examined by the Minister. Again, with the transfer of a very large proportion of the business to a small group of members of the council, the remainder of the members of the council may feel that they have no function and there is a danger that they will lose the active interest which all local representatives should have in local affairs. With the efficient discharge of the business which is provided under this Bill for the county councils, with regular meetings—perhaps monthly, or, if necessary, fortnightly—of the county council, I think there is no danger that each county council will not be able to perform their duties adequately and efficiently. The transfer of the functions of the council to a smaller body is altogether undesirable. It might be necessary from time to time to appoint a committee to examine some particular matter or to deal with a specific matter which the whole council would not be able to deal with but that would be simply a sub-committee which would report back to the county council. In large counties it might be desirable to have sub-committees to deal with matters affecting particular areas. The idea of the general executive committee discharging functions which ought to belong to the council is altogether wrong and would be found on test to be wrong.

It is desirable and right that employment functions should be left to the executive officer. He is charged with the responsibility of carrying out the administration on behalf of the council and should not be interfered with by individual members of the council or by the council generally in the management and control of staff. He is entrusted with that duty and the council should insist on his performing it. I am not, and I have never been, very much in favour of county councils having the power to make appointments. It is better to recruit staff by competitive examination or through the appointments commissioners and I would be prepared to extend that principle to rate collectors. I do not see any reason why the county council should be charged with the duty of appointing rate collectors. The tendency at present is to make that position more or less whole-time and, therefore, it should be dealt with in the same way as other staff appointments are dealt with.

There is one reform which the Minister ought to include in this Bill if possible. It is a reform of the present system of levying rates, particularly in regard to the time at which the rate is struck and the time at which the financial year begins. Under the present system the financial year begins on 1st April but the rate is not made until some time later and the rate books are not signed until some time subsequent to that. The warrants are not in the hands of the collectors for some months after the beginning of the financial year, with the result that very little time is allowed for the collection of the first moiety. In the ordinary course of events it would become due on 1st April but the warrants are not in the hands of the rate collector until close to the final date for collection. The position then is that the second moiety becomes due immediately after the first has been collected. It often happens that the ratepayer is called upon to pay his first moiety in September or October and to pay the second moiety in November. The law in that respect should be changed. Two definite dates should be set down as the dates on which the moieties become payable and there should be a period of six months between the dates on which the first and second moieties are due. Ratepayers are very anxious to secure such reform. In the case of land annuities there are two dates each year fixed for the payment of the half-yearly annuity and everybody knows the dates on which they are due. In fixing dates for the payment of the moieties I would suggest that the 1st May and 1st November would be most suitable with perhaps three or four weeks' grace in each case. Each ratepayer would then know the exact period within which he should pay and all rates should be collected within that period. That is a reform which is long overdue.

The present position is that the county councils generally have to carry on on charity of various kinds for the first three or four months. If they have not a credit balance, they must get an overdraft or other accommodation. The whole system is inefficient and altogether wrong. It is objectionable from every point of view. It is objectionable from the point of view of administration and from the point of view of justice and fair play for the ratepayers.

There is another matter which it might be possible to include in this Bill, that is, the fixing of a statutory limit beyond which rates may not be increased. The county committee of agriculture is limited to a certain fixed rate. I think the maximum rate is 7d. in the £. Local authorities should be limited similarly and compelled to manage their affairs within a fixed maximum rate. That would safeguard the ordinary citizen and would make for a higher standard of efficiency.

Another reform which would improve efficiency would be to keep State moneys, in the way of grants and so on, separate from money raised by local rates, with the exception, of course, of the agricultural grant which is not really a State grant but rather an attempt to offset an injustice in the present system of valuation.

Major de Valera

This Bill is best approached in the light of one fact, which is this, that in modern times the development of local government, the multiplicity of powers and the number of detailed functions passed on to local authorities made it necessary, if they were to function at all, to supply some kind of executive officer roughly corresponding to a manager in a business concern. The amount of detail that came within the scope of such an authority was such that some officer to perform managerial functions for the body as a whole was necessary. It was because of that necessity that the County Management Act, 1940, was passed. It is patently clear that in this Bill that necessity is still recognised.

The first thing that one has to ask is this: if, in essence, the problem is that you must, for practical purposes, supply an executive officer or a manager of some description, and having done so, as we did in the 1940 Act, whether it would not have been better to adopt some amending schemes; in other words, to adjust the 1940 Act in the light of experience gained to date while still basing oneself on that Act, rather than to attempt to recast the whole thing, de novo. That question would have arisen, in any event, but it is pertinent to ask it again for this reason, that this Bill which we are asked to pass now—notwithstanding that the White Paper talks about abolishing the managerial system—is nothing more or less than a recasting of the managerial system, leaving it essentially the same thing, namely, a legal provision for supplying the manager or an executive officer in the nature of a manager for the local authority.

We all know that, prior to the local elections, and, in fact, during the past few years, the Minister's Party made a good deal of capital out of talking about abolishing the managerial system. I will parse this in a moment and I will examine how far that succeeded, but I can ask whether the Minister has not been defeated in this again by the interests of other Parties or the bulk of other Parties in the Coalition. All he has succeeded in doing, to a large extent, is to provide alternative names. Essentially and at the root the manager remains; the concept of an executive officer remains. The statement in paragraph (1) (e) of the White Paper is hardly accurate. It talks about abolishing the county manager. It does no such thing. It merely changes his name.

The 1940 Act provided for the setting up of a county manager, the Minister will recollect. Under the provisions of that Act all the functions of a local authority were divided into two parts; the functions which were to be reserved to the local authority itself for discharge by that authority were listed and put into the Schedule of the Act of 1940 and were called reserved functions; all the other functions, all functions other than those so reserved by means of specification in the Schedule of the 1940 Act, were made executive functions. So that what the 1940 Act did was to partition the functions of a local authority into two parts. That was done under the provisions of Section 16 and Section 17 of the 1940 Act. The parts specified in the Schedule and exercisable by the council were called the reserved functions, and all the other functions were called executive.

The next thing the 1940 Act did was it made the executive functions the province of the county manager; in other words, where the reserved functions or the functions specified in the Schedule were to be directly performed by the council, all other functions were performable and to be performed by the county manager. There were other provisions in the Act which gave some powers to the local authority over its county manager, namely, the powers conferred by Section 6 of the Act of 1940 for the removal or suspension of a county manager, and then, notably, the provisions of Section 29 of the same Act. I would like Deputies to advert to what was done there, to be clear in their minds on the effect of the Act and take these sections and compare what this Bill does in relation to the Act of 1940.

Let us take the county manager. This person was found necessary by experience and the Minister does not purpose to abolish him. He is to perform certain executive or day-to-day duties, managerial duties as they are best described. That officer remains. The first thing the Minister does in relation to him is to change his name. The county manager now becomes the county officer. That does not abolish him nor does the fact that he changes his name in any way per se alter his functions. Therefore, when this Bill becomes law, exactly in the same way as under the 1940 Act we will have the local authority and the managerial officer, albeit he will now be called the county officer instead of the county manager.

Now let us look at the question of powers and functions. Under the old Act there were certain reserved functions appropriated to the local authority. What happens under this is again nothing more than a change of name. In one sense the Minister is restricting the powers of the local authority. Let us take the point about the change of name. Exactly as in the case of the 1940 Act, the powers reserved to the local authority, the functions of the elective council or body, are listed in a schedule. They could just as well have been called in the 1940 Act "scheduled functions". They can just as well be called in the 1950 Bill "reserved functions", because in both cases they are scheduled and reserved.

I would hesitate to accuse the Minister, but when you find a number of examples of the changing of names like this, I think I am justified in using the word bluff. You have changed the name to county officer but he is substantially the same. You have changed the name of the functions of a county council but they are substantially the same. In the Schedule there are a number of functions listed under Acts subsequent to 1941. I have not checked them, but I ask the Minister whether these do not happen to be functions that are reserved to the local authorities themselves by these later Acts. The Minister says in his own White Paper—he admits—that the scheduled functions comprise the more important of the reserved functions which are at present discharged by the county councils and elected bodies. As far as these two things are concerned, there is no substantial change. There are certainly no changes that would warrant any more than a mere amending Bill to the 1940 Act.

I am dealing with the legal content of this Bill and am not going into the merits or demerits of what should be the functions exercised. I am leaving that to members of local authorities, who are more competent to deal it. I will deal with what will be the force in law, in comparison to what has been the law heretofore. Let us take the functions other than the reserved or scheduled functions. Under the 1940 Act, all functions other than reserved functions were executive functions and they were functions proper to be exercised by and appropriate to the county manager. What has the Minister done? He has split what generally corresponds to executive functions under the 1940 Act into four different parts and these four different parts are separately called "employment functions", "tenancy functions", "individual health functions", the residue, "executive functions".

In other words, what were executive functions up to this have been split into four parts and the last part has been called executive functions and is given to certain executive committees. There, for a start, we find again the bluff. The bluff of changing a name is continued. We have had it in the name of the officer and in the name of the reserved functions. Here we have the same bluff continued in the powers of the county manager, since three-fourths of the functions of the county manager at least are still tied up with him and left to him, even though they are under different names. While these powers are left to the county manager under the new names of employment, tenancy or individual health functions—left to him exclusively— there is the pretence that the county manager is abolished and is no longer the person of independent powers that he was under the old Act. The fourth that you are left with is the executive functions, as they are called now, a much more restricted class than executive functions under the old Act.

It is a dishonest suggestion—I have not heard it in the House, I am glad to say, but I have heard it outside—that the Minister is now going to give the executive functions to the local authority to exercise through executive committees. I say it is a dishonest suggestion, as here is the little bit of bluff there. They use the words "executive functions" in the sense of the 1940 Act when they are talking about it and try to pretend that, in giving the executive functions, as defined by this Bill, to the committees of the local authorities, they are giving the executive functions which were exercised under the 1940 Act. They are doing no such thing. You have to take the executive functions under the 1940 Act and lop off the three-quarters I have mentioned, at least—namely, the employment, tenancy and individual functions—and all you are giving over to these executive committees are the leavings or residue. When one finds this type of thing, it is an exceptionally bad headline for legislation in this House that we should have what has the appearance of a bluff. Whether it is a bluff or not, the very fact that it has the appearance of a bluff, when analysed in that way, is a discredit to all concerned and to its sponsor.

Let us take, now, after getting that far, what is being handed over. I have had the greatest difficulty in trying to ascertain exactly what, in practical effect, is comprised in Section 27 as executive functions. What are you handing over? The Minister will very quickly and glibly come back to me and say something about roads. Let me turn to the sheet again and see what he said in his White Paper. You find here that the executive functions are defined as being functions in regard to home assistance, acceptance of tenders and making of contracts, erection and repair of houses, construction and maintenance of roads, provision of water supply and sewerage systems, and so forth. But when you start to look at the qualifications imposed by the others, these powers are not nearly so wide as is suggested here. For instance, it has been suggested that there are functions in regard to works, water supplies, sewerage systems and, I think, roads. The trouble is that in the discharge of any such functions you are so intimately tied up with employment functions, with personnel, with the power exclusively conferred on the manager by Section 24, as largely to defeat the effective control of any such body over these functions.

I am not going into great detail as to what it comprises. I have some difficulty in exhaustively appreciating it. I will go this far and say that it does seem that there are some functions comprised there which were executive functions under the old arrangement and which now do go to the executive committees; but when one takes other things into account, one wonders whether the balance of what is taken does not offset the balance of what is given. Let us take the balance of what is taken.

I have referred to reserved functions, now to be called scheduled functions. Under the old Act, there were two very important provisions—I should nearly say three—which gave a council a very real control over its own affairs; and I am asking the Minister the question now as to whether the council will have the same control as heretofore. First of all, let me take Section 16 of the old Act and compare it with Section 23 of the new one. In both cases I am dealing with the section that defines reserved or scheduled functions—to give them their old or their new name—and the section which provides for the Minister's power to do things in relation to declaring functions as such. Under the old Act, Section 16 (1) excluded employment functions from the county council. But note this, that the wording of that section was:

"Neither the council of a county nor any elective body shall directly exercise or perform any power (other than a power which is vested by law (including this Act) in such council or body and is by this Act expressly made exercisable by resolution of such council or body), function, or duty of such council or body in relation to the officers or servants of such council or body, or the control, supervision, service, remuneration, privileges, or superannuation of such officers or servants or any of them."

You can very fairly say that that section included employment functions, but are they the same employment functions? Contrast the words "officers or servants" in that section with the words used in Section 24 of the present Bill:—

"The employment functions of the council of a county or an elective body shall be the functions (excluding scheduled functions) of the council or body relating to persons employed, to be employed or formerly employed by the council or body (whether as officers, as servants or on the basis of fees, commission or taxed costs), including, in particular, functions relating to appointment or employment, promotion, service, duties, control, supervision, status, remuneration, privileges, removal or dismissal, suspension and superannuation."

Now, if we take these definitions, it is obvious that it is more restrictive in the Minister's Bill and that it is worded for the express purpose of capturing certain types of functions and certain types of employment that may not have been covered by sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the old Act. On a comparison of the wording of these two sections, the first part of the Minister's section is more restrictive on the local body than was the section contained in the old Act.

I am not now dealing with the merits. I am dealing with the Minister's and his Party's representations. There may be a case that can be argued, but I want the bald, naked truth of the content of this section to be put clearly before the House. It will be another day's work to argue the merits of the case. I think I am certainly entitled to call the bluff in relation to the content of the greater portion of this Bill. Section 16 (2) of the old Act said:—

"Subject to the provisions of the next preceding sub-section of this section, every council of a county and every elective body shall directly exercise and perform the powers, functions and duties (if any) of such council or body in relation to each of the several matters mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act."

That is roughly equivalent to what is provided in Section 23 of the present measure. Now let us take sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the Act of 1940:—

"Save as is otherwise provided by this section, the Minister, whenever he so thinks proper, may by Order direct that the powers, functions, and duties of every or of any particular council of a county or of every elective body of a specified class or of any particular elective body in relation to any matter specified in such Order (not being a matter mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act) shall be exercised and performed directly by such council or such body, as the case may be."

Under that sub-section in the old Act, not only was it the position that there were certain functions reserved to the council, but the Minister, in the exercise of the powers conferred on him by that section, could reserve certain powers to the county council and there was nothing in the Act to prevent him from exercising those powers. It says:—

"may by Order direct that the powers, functions and duties of every or of any particular council of a county or of every elective body... or of any particular elective body in relation to any matters specified in such Order... shall be exercised."

In other words, it would have been competent to the Minister to give to the county council any powers as reserved powers that he thought fit and there was a safeguard in the section through giving the Minister power by his own Order and act to give such reserved powers as he desired to the county council. Is there any such safeguard in this measure? Section 23 says:—

"The scheduled functions of the council of a county or an elective body shall be—

(a) the functions of the council or body relating to the matters specified in the Second Schedule to this Act, and

(b) any functions of the council or body (other than employment, tenancy or individual health functions) declared by the Minister by Order to be scheduled functions for the purposes of this Act."

What is the position? By virtue of Section 16 (1) of the Act of 1940 the Minister could by Order declare any function to be a reserved function unless it was an employment function, though it was not specifically called that in the Act. I think I pointed out that employment functions as specified in this Act are, if anything, more stringent. Now, the Minister, under this measure, can only declare a function to be a scheduled function when it is neither an employment function nor tenancy nor individual health function. They are excluded so that the effect is that powers are being taken from the Minister under this Bill to grant powers to the county council should he desire to do so and should it be politic to do so. I am not straining the wording of the section when I say that this Bill in so far as it restricts the Minister's power to declare what was formerly an executive function or a managerial function, to give it a neutral name, to be a reserved function exercisable by the county council, and in so far as that power is now curtailed by the addition of tenancy and individual health functions as ones the Minister cannot delegate under such Order, to that extent deprives local authorities of power and vests more firmly in the county officer or manager of the county, more tightly confirming in him, those powers which heretofore were giveable to the local authority. It is necessary to point this out because of the misrepresentation that is taking place in relation to this measure.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present. House counted and 20 Deputies being present,

Major de Valera

Perhaps I should at this stage point out that I am not concerned so much with discussing the merits of certain proposals in this Bill as making a comparison between the old and the new and, shall I say, exposing the fraud. The principle remains the same. There have been a number of changes in name. I was pointing out that in regard to reserved or scheduled functions this Bill is, if anything, more restrictive on the powers to be given to the local body generally than was the old Act. Under the old Act any function, unless it was an employment function, not so tightly defined as in the present Bill, could be made a reserved function by ministerial Order. Not only does the new Bill exclude employment functions, but they are more stringently defined and to them are added tenancy and health functions. These have to be substracted before there is any power of delegation and in that respect this measure is more restrictive on the powers giveable in the sense of their being potentially exercisable by a local authority than was the Act of 1940. To the same extent the powers reserved to the manager of the county under the name of county officer are more stringently defined and more exclusively defined than under the Act of 1940.

There are certain other provisions in that regard. In the 1940 Act there were two very important provisions, and this is an aspect of the matter with which I wish the Minister to deal when he is replying. Under Section 6 of the Act of 1940 there are the following provisions:—

"(1) The county manager for a county shall not be removed by the council of that county without the sanction of the Minister.

(2) The county manager for a county shall not be suspended or removed by the council of that county save by a resolution passed by such council for the purpose of such suspension or such removal and for the passing of which not less than two-thirds of the members of such council voted and of the intention to propose which not less than seven days' notice was given to every person who was a member of such council when such notice was given."

That gave a very wide power over a county council and I think there is a Deputy on the Government Benches who remembers that very well. I think a Deputy of the Minister's Party invoked that power not so very long ago. Come now to Section 29 of the old Act. In Section 29 of the County Management Act of 1940 certain powers were given. They were powers of direction. I am not going to pretend that they were what you might call universal powers of direction but, nevertheless, provision was made in Section 29 of the old Act for requisitions in regard to what I might call particular cases by which the county council could, in effect, compel the county manager to carry out their desires. The absence of such a provision in the present Bill again warrants me in saying that the comparison does not warrant the suggestion that there is a great return of powers to the county council. I might summarise it this way in an objective comparison of the two Bills. I hope the Chair will permit me to do so even though it may involve slight repetition on my part.

It is this: The Minister, and I can well understand it—in principle I have no objection and no quarrel with the Minister and I am not dealing with the merits of it—has accepted the managerial principle for this Bill equally with the principle in the 1940 Act. You have the same principle underlying each. It is, I am afraid, a principle dictated by the needs of modern society and present-day conditions. That principle is that, in regard to much of the detailed functioning of a local authority, the day-to-day carrying out of its affairs, it is necessary, as in the case of any other business, not only to have a board of directors but also that you must have a general manager.

Hear, hear, a general manager.

Major de Valera

I will come to the general manager. Now, that principle, as Deputy Sweetman says, underlines both Bills.

No, I do not. It underlines this Bill, but not yours.

Major de Valera

You have not abolished that person. You have merely changed his name, but the powers reserved and exercisable by the board of directors remain substantially the same under both measures. I have already made a comparison between the scheduled functions in the old Act and the reserved functions. In the case of both the Bill and the Act, they are scheduled and reserved. You have, generally speaking, the same powers together with a few powers extra reserved under Acts subsequent to the 1940 Act. I have not made a check-up myself, but if that is done I think it will be found that these have been made reserved functions in these Acts so that there will be no change there except a change in name.

In regard to what were called executive functions, under the old Act, the bluff is continued by splitting these into four parts. By labelling the fourth part "executive functions" you are trying to pretend that you are handing it over under the old name while in reality you are trying up the tenancy functions, the health functions and the employment functions more rigidly and exclusively in the county officer than was the case under the old Act. Deputy Sweetman has been trying to pretend that he was a manager, so to speak, and not a kind of dictator. Will the Deputy deal with this point? Will he say if the county officer is to be any more amenable to the council under the new Bill than under the old Act? Functions corresponding to tenancy and health functions under the Bill are taken out of the Minister's power to give back, whereas, up to this, the Minister could do that by writing his name and could, so to speak, put these functions on a plate to the council. When this Bill becomes law he will not have the power to do that. To that extent it is a restriction on the council's powers and is an exclusive confirmation of the powers vested in the county officer.

Will the Deputy allow me to ask him a question?

Major de Valera

Yes, fire ahead.

In August, 1950, the Kildare county manager made 237 orders. There is the book containing them. Under this Bill, of these 237 orders he can now only make 23. The rest will be for the council to make.

Major de Valera

I have not examined these orders. You could make 2,000 orders on a particular subject. Will the Deputy contradict me on this? Is it not true that functions corresponding to tenancy and health functions under this Bill which hitherto could have been reserved to the county council by ministerial Order will no longer be capable of such restoration when this Bill is passed? In regard to the employment functions, there, again, they are rigidly defined, and an exhaustive examination may show that the practical effect will be the same. The section in the Bill reserving exclusively employment functions in the county officer is more stringent and more limiting than the similar provision in the old Act.

In regard to executive functions, there are two comments that I should like to make. There is first the fact that many of these functions which will remain within the ambit of Section 27 will also possibly be within the ambit of Sections 24, 25 or 26, and that in so far as they come within the ambit of these sections they will go into the excluded categories. Suppose one takes the example of sewerage or water supplies and matters of that sort. You cannot deal with these without dealing with the whole question of labour employment, personnel engaged and so on. One of the major things in a building scheme will be an employment function. In so far as these come under the head of an employment function they become exclusive, without the ministerial power of adjustment as was the case under the old Act. They become exclusively the province of the county officer.

The next thing is the power of delegation. One of the difficulties that I see in regard to this is that a number of these executive functions will be such that I find it hard to believe that any part-time unpaid executive committee will be able to discharge them, and that as a result, the powers given in the Bill of delegating executive functions to the county officer will in effect be exercised with no substantial change. Now there we have something, coming to the merits, where there is a question of argument and ground for argument. If the Minister were to come in here with, shall I say, an amending Bill to the Act of 1940, there might be very much that could be argued and talked about. Though I have been a little bit severe in my approach to this Bill, it has been not so much on the principle or because of what is involved in it; it has been rather because there has been so much misrepresentation about its content. There is very little being done by this Bill which could not have been done by ministerial Order under the old Act —very little of a substantive nature that the Minister could not have actually achieved by ministerial Order. For instance, taking Sections 23 to 32, inclusive, he could have achieved the purposes aimed at in every one of these sections by a ministerial Order. You come then to the point that, in effect, after all the talk and all the effort, you are really doing little more than introducing an amending Bill to the Act of 1940. But it has this objection, that in view of the repeals achieved by this Bill, you may introduce certain complications. It might, however, be more fitting to deal with that in the courts than here.

Coming to the merits, I see great difficulties for the Minister in this problem. One of them springs from the fact that the local authority will have to deal largely with three Ministers—the Minister for Local Government, the Minister for Health and the Minister for Social Welfare—and that these three Ministers will all have a finger in the pie, so to speak. That complicates things. Already the Minister is, under Section 26, in a sense restoring a kind of board of health with limited powers. That is a very loose way of saying it, I admit, but that is an administrative trouble. It seems to suggest that the only way out of this dilemma would be to have sub-committees, executive sub-committees, of the council. I grant there is a case to be made for that. I certainly grant him that probably, under the Act of 1940, there were things to be adjusted. It is inconceivable that the first tryout, so to speak, of any radical change in the system, such as was essayed by the 1940 Act, would not require consequential amendment and adjustment and a certain experience has been gained since that time. We must not forget that a large part of the period during which the 1940 Act was in operation was a period of emergency, not a normal period, and that perhaps we have had only one or two years of what I might call a normal experience of the Act that would warrant changes. I shall not be surprised, for one, if it is necessary for this Minister or some other Minister to come again at some later stage and make other adjustments.

I do not think we can regard this Bill as anything more than an amending Bill, a Bill which tries to make adjustments in certain regards. Mind you, though I have criticised the representations made about the Bill, it may, in the light of things, be quite a good decision of the Minister to decide to restrict his own power and to declare certain functions to be reserved in the way he has done in this Bill. There may be a case to be made for that and there may, indeed, be a case for what I might call sub-committees or local cabinets, executive committees. It may be a good thing, too, in view of the experience already gained and in view of the three ministerial Departments involved, to have segregated what were the old executive functions into sub-heads. These are all matters on which many members of the House who have long experience of local bodies will be competent to speak. I, who have not served on local bodies, will not claim any competency to discuss their merits but this I think I can claim—the right to look at what is expressed in this Bill and to compare objectively what this Bill proposes with what was enacted under the 1940 Act. Having done that, I come then to a number of conclusions which are these.

In principle, the managerial system remains. The appropriate officer has his name changed. There may be a case even for that. The name is changed but he remains. The functions reserved to the county council and the local body remain but, if anything, there is a restriction on them in so far as the Minister's power to make any function, except an employment function, a function of the council is restrained. In regard to the manager himself, he is confirmed absolutely in regard to three-fourths of his old functions. That might not be the best way of putting it because, quantitatively, there may not be three-fourths, but I say that in regard to three of the four categories into which these functions are divided, he is confirmed absolutely, more absolutely than ever he was under the old Act. It is quite true that under Section 16, sub-section (3) of the Act, the Minister could have declared functions which are now to be tenancy and health functions, functions reserved to the council. That power is being taken from the Minister by virtue of the repeals contained in this Bill.

In regard to control over the county manager, the discrepancies in regard to Section 6 and Section 29 of the old Act, I think, warrant my saying that to that extent the control of the council over the county officer is decreased by this Bill. Finally, I say that, whereas I personally cannot evaluate exactly the functions under Section 27, nevertheless, a mere listing of functions will not quite account for the matter. I can see that, with regard to housing and things like that, the powers reserved in Section 24 will override at points the exercise of powers conferred by Section 27. They will not prevent in theory the exercise of the powers conferred by Section 27, but in practice, because of these exclusive rights of dealing with personnel under Section 24, the exercise of the powers conferred by Section 27 will be inhibited. After that it is a case of merit with regard to these other things.

Finally, I would like to say to the Minister that he has had an opportunity in this Bill of making what are probably necessary amendments to the 1940 Act. Problems are arising which even then did not arise, and they will have to be fixed. I would like to help him as much as I can in that, but I am sorry that this Bill, which is of great importance to the country, should have come out under circumstances which are a bad example. The thing has all the appearance both in its sponsoring and in its actual draftsmanship in comparison with the old Bill of being a bit of window dressing. I think that is a pity, because a bit of direct work in relation to the other Act would have been a neater and more effective job and would probably give rise to less litigation than may happen under this Bill. It is only fair to say, however, that the draftsmanship of the 1940 Act is not just the best example in the Statute Book. In some regards the present Bill is cleaner and neater in its wording. So much for the Bill.

I have heard Deputies say that it would be better to keep the county as the unit, and there is something in that, but there is the germ of an idea in the regionalisation to some extent provided for under the old Act. Again it is a subject into which I do not feel competent to go except to the extent of saying that this is a Local Government Bill. If in the future we must unfortunately face a time of crisis or emergency one of the big problems will be the question of suitable regional organisation. I am afraid that such a possibility and development in that line either for peace, war or emergency has not been considered in the drafting of this Bill. I would recommend it to the Minister for his attention.

In connection with this Bill I do not want to travel over all the ground covered by other speakers but I may have to do so in the course of the argument I wish to put forward. Like other members of this Party I believe that this Bill should have been called "The County Management (Amendment) Act, 1950." That would have been a fairer and juster title for it. The Minister, in the preamble to what he had to say on the Second Reading, spoke of the abolition of county managership. That, to my mind, is simply untrue, completely and utterly untrue. The Bill perpetuates and stabilises the county managerial principle. It gives powers to county councils many of which they can exercise under the present law or by simple prescript of the Minister issued under the present Act. It relates in different form the many powers and functions reserved by law to county councils and in many respects it also confirms the powers of county managers but I think that perhaps I might mention one point which was hinted at by Deputy Martin O'Sullivan in the course of yesterday's debate. He gave away the whole clue to the discussion of the county managerial principle when he said that the term "local government" was a misnomer. I think largely because of the original function of county councils in this country which was to stir up trouble against the enemy, we continue to talk in this House and down the country as though county councils were autonomous bodies, little local parliaments which proceed to carry out their laws without respect for the laws of the Oireachtas and the enormous control exercised by the Minister. The Minister in this Bill has tried to give the impression to the country that he has abolished the idea of county management. The Minister is the person who controls county councils in this country. He himself can, under the law of the Oireachtas and under hundreds of statutes passed since 1800, control practically every single act of every single local authority in this country. A county councillor can hardly speak on any single matter affecting local administration without having regard to what the Minister will consent to, what he will ordain under the law and it is just about time that we stopped this nonsense of talking about county councils as though they were local parliaments to whom a former Minister for Local Government sent county managers to dictate as to their procedure and working.

Most members of this House know the background and history of local administration in this country. They know that the local district councils, the boards of guardians, the boards of health and the burial boards were abolished in turn because the areas of their control were too small and the type of function which they had to carry out became too specialised; they all had varying standards of performance and a varying amount of money derived from the rates with which to serve the public. The result was that we now have larger and more compact bodies acting over larger areas and that has made a great difference to the position of the Local Government Department acting on the advice of the Minister with regard to these local bodies.

Then following upon those changes and also taking place at the same time as them, there were numerous Acts regulating conditions of employment, remuneration and numbers of local officers and providing for the appointment of officers of all kinds by competitive examination. There are various clauses in this Bill which suggest that county councils will in future have some greater control than before over the staffs with regard to the appeals they can make in certain circumstances. The county manager will continue to exercise his control over employment functions. In actual fact, as far as I know unless things have changed since my day, the Minister himself controls 99 per cent. of the staffs of local authorities. As far as I know this is made by Orders passed under the Local Government Act, 1941, and previous enactments prescribing the number of officers for each local authority, prescribing their remuneration and conditions of employment and prescribing wages even down to the typists. As far as I know the county manager cannot even employ a typist without having regard to the Orders regarding the typist's remuneration, her age and what kind of educational qualifications she should have. The Minister already controls effectively the whole of the staffs of local authorities through statutes and enactments.

Then many Acts were passed, mostly under the Fianna Fáil Government, directing local authorities to extend and modernise the whole of their services, including housing, tuberculosis services, health, sewerage, water and fire services. Local authorities were given altogether, as far as I can remember, 40 entirely new functions to perform between 1932 and 1948, and I think that in every one but one of those functions the Minister exercises absolute control because the function to be carried out is performed with the aid of a central grant and in every stage of the performance of the function the Minister controls the activities concerned.

Then, as if that was not enough, Acts have been passed by the dozen since 1921 by which the Minister can insist on a general minimum standard of performance of every function by a local authority. The Minister has a power to insist on the maintenance of health. To a very great degree, the whole of the health functions of a county council are mandatory, consequent upon Acts of the Oireachtas. In regard to the upkeep of roads, the Minister has the right to insist on a minimum performance on the part of any local body. If the Public Assistance Act, 1939, is examined in relation to previous Acts, it will be found that there again, although perhaps there is less interference in regard to the award of public assistance of the ordinary home help than in the case of other functions, the Minister can direct every local authority to give an adequate and minimum amount of public assistance.

Finally, the Minister has an absolute control over the manner in which county councils levy rates, the manner in which they conduct their finances, the extent to which they can have overdrafts, the extent to which they can borrow money and the extent to which they can carry out changes in their plans during the financial year, necessitating the raising of a Supplementary Estimate. He has control over them in every one of those ways, and, as I have said, that is the background to which we should have regard in examining this Bill—the fact that, because of the intervention of the Minister through the giving of grants, through the inadequacy of rates for carrying out all the new functions of local authorities, he is the person who controls very largely their activities.

So far as I know, either by reference to general performance or through a direct sanction being granted or not granted, the Minister can control very nearly 99 per cent. of all the moneys spent by a local authority. I heard Deputy Cogan talking about the county councils having supreme authority. The word "supreme" cannot be used in connection with the authority of any local body in this State.

That, to me, is the background in regard to the administration of local bodies. The reason for these things is well known—that it is utterly impossible to determine a national standard of efficiency and performance, unless the central Government has a very strict control over the operations of a local authority. It is utterly impossible to provide the same standard of performance in the western part of Galway as in Kildare, unless the Minister makes grants which make quite sure that any deficiency of money required for western Galway is made up from central sources. Then also the technical knowledge required to administer the many Acts passed by the central Government is such that the help of the central body is constantly required.

In view of the enormous amount of extra expenditure by local authorities in the past ten years, the very great increase in the number of their functions, it became quite obvious that it was necessary to have a general manager over the local authority, a controlling influence, somebody at the head, and, when we came into office in 1932, we passed a great number of Acts, all of which brought new duties and responsibilities to local authorities. As time went on, it became quite obvious that there would have to be more control by an officer in the local authorities responsible to the county council, the servant of the county council, but nevertheless able to give orders from day to day on every kind of matter.

I think it just as well to go back and mention to the House the kind of reasons why county managers were appointed and the tremendous work done by them in overhauling county administration. Shortly after the county managers were appointed, the work of the auditors of the Department was speeded up. The Minister for Local Government in 1932 left an enormous number of audits outstanding and it must be admitted that for a number of years the audits were not undertaken in sufficient time.

About 1944, it was decided to speed up the work of the audit section and by that means an enormous number of very useful reports on the administration of all the other bodies were obtained which made it possible to get the county managers to reorganise virtually the whole of their administration. One of the difficulties was the fact that the staff of local authorities was totally inadequate. It was the influence of the manager which largely made it possible to recruit new staff, to give them their functions and to enable them to carry out the many increased activities consequent upon legislation. Not only that, but in actual fact the relation of one type of officer to another was not properly determined. The hierarchy within the staff had not been determined properly. There were wide variations between county and county in regard to conditions, remuneration and pay. All these matters had to be straightened out if there was to be efficiency.

Then another function of the county manager which was most useful was the overhauling the whole of the public assistance section, which became a county council activity after the boards of health were abolished. Public assistance in many counties was grossly maladministered, until the whole of the administration was overhauled by the county managers, as I have said. The standards of pay of home assistance officers varied from place to place and the special services they had to undertake were not undertaken in a proper manner in many instances. In regard to roads, there was an enormous amount of work to be done. The standard in relation to the number of engineers to 2,000 miles of road varied by 80 per cent. from county to county. There were areas where one engineer would have 1,000 miles of roads and there would be nothing but gangers between him and the actual workers— no overseers, no officers, who could work under him during the period when he was unable to be present and to supervise the work of the gangers.

The whole of the relationship of engineers to the county engineer in relation to the conduct of health, housing and road functions had not been determined, but all over the country there was a kind of loose administration whereby in some places engineers were doing both road and housing functions, and, in others, health functions only. In many counties there was no proper hierarchy of officers, no proper staffing in that sense, and the whole of that had to be overhauled. Rent collection was grossly in arrears in many counties, as were the repairs of cottages, and a great effort had to be made to get the arrears of cottage repairs cleared up and a better system of inspection instituted. Sanitary services in some areas were not very well administered and the officers concerned were not altogether well taught as to what their activities should be. There were virtually no proper fire services in country areas and one of the many things the county managers had to do was to see that engineers carried out an inspection of all premises where there were fire hazards throughout the length and breadth of the country and the tragedy of the Cavan fire served as a good example as to what needed to be done in that respect.

Then again in connection with mental hospital development there were very wide differences in efficiency and the method of treatment as between one hospital and another and there had to be all sorts of changes as well as the inauguration of new principles under the Mental Treatment Act of 1945, all of which required the work of the county manager. The libraries throughout the country varied enormously from a ramshackle building in one area to a very fine library service in another. There were very great differences in efficiency and performance in that regard. Such matters as the rate collection and estate duty collection varied from area to area. I have only mentioned about half of the functions of a local authority in which the managers played their part in the early stages and in which very fine work was done by the great majority of them in modernising and making efficient local administration.

We appointed these managers, as I said, because it was essential to have someone at the head. I think I should make it quite clear that, so far as I am concerned anyway, it never troubled me at all for the first two or three years of county management that certain county managers may have been a little too dictatorial. The county managers barely got going in 1943 and for the next two years there was a stage of transition. The county managers had to appreciate their position, get to know their county councils and, if you like, interpret the County Management Act in the best way they could, because many of the clauses in that Act could only be interpreted in a personal way and having regard to the personal relationship that could be created as between the county manager and the county council.

I am a believer in democracy as much as anyone else, but certainly it never troubled me that for two or three years there may have been this intermediate stage when certain county managers — very few of them — undoubtedly took rather a high-hat attitude. The important thing was to develop the system and then to see what was required in order to ensure that county councils would have a sufficient say in local administration, that they would be able to do what they are supposed to do, which is to adjust the rate to the central grant and to apply Acts of the Dáil to local areas, to see how they suited them, and to make quite sure that every Act could be worked to the greatest and most satisfactory degree in any given area.

I have heard references of a critical kind made in regard to certain county managers and, undoubtedly, they were not all perfect. Looking back on it all, I must say that at the end of the period of the Fianna Fáil Government the vast majority of county managers were extremely able and sincere and honest men doing an extremely good job. I do not think the occasion should pass without someone in this House paying a tribute to the county managers as a whole both for their work during the war and the emergency in most difficult conditions and for their work in making county administration run smoothly. Before they came, the officers of the local authorities were like civil servants without any director to a department. They were like civil servants without a chief over them. They were like the Department of Industry and Commerce without any secretary. They were like the Special Employment Schemes office without any director. It was absolutely essential that there should be a director.

Twice during the period of office of the last but one Minister for Local Government circulars were sent to all members of local authorities, large and small, defining their powers under the County Management Act. As soon as there had been a general overhaul of the administration when the worst of the war was over a very important document was sent some time in 1945 by the Minister for Local Government to all members of local authorities showing how the County Management Act could be interpreted in a way by which members of local authorities could influence the county manager at every stage of his activities, give him advice, make suggestions, and, in fact, do very largely the work which county councils are now going to be compelled by law to do, namely, to carry out the executive functions which form part of this new Bill.

I think that some of the paragraphs in this document should be recorded in the House. I might add that at the time no one in the Dáil contradicted a single word of this document. There was never a suggestion that it was in any sense illegal or that it went beyond the provision of the County Management Act, and I think therefore it has some interest for the members of the House in discussing this Bill. One of the paragraphs in this document reads as follows:

"A county manager is not an authority exercising powers independently of the local body. He is by law an officer of the county council and the responsibility of the county council in relation to him is quite clear. The county council are the general supervisory authority in county affairs and the manager comes within their jurisdiction. If, for instance, the county council have reason to believe that the manager has failed to perform the duties of his office satisfactorily or has become unfit to hold his office, they can by a majority of not less than two-thirds, suspend him whilst the question of his fitness is being investigated, and if after investigation it is found that he should not remain in office, they can by the same majority and with the Minister's consent remove him."

Then another very important paragraph is as follows:—

"The manager has certain executive functions which he must carry out from day to day. Normally he will follow the general line of policy laid down by the council. It may happen that the local body desire the manager to do a particular thing which he is not prepared to do on his own responsibility. In that case the local body have power at a specially summoned meeting to require him to give effect to their wishes provided that what they want done can be lawfully done and money for the purpose has been provided. It should not, however, be necessary, unless in exceptional circumstances and on rare occasions, to resort to a special resolution. In actual practice councillors find it sufficient to bring to the manager's notice matters that they consider demand attention. The system works best where there is active co-operation between council and manager. Councillors by reason of their intimate local knowledge are often in a position to give a manager valuable advice and assistance regarding matters arising in their own areas."

Then in relation to executive committees now to be established by law this document stated:—

"Every local body retains the right to elect persons to be members of another body. They also can decide on the committees to be appointed to exercise reserved functions or supervisory powers. If, for instance, a council decided to appoint a `roads committee' to consider the roads estimate and to obtain information from time to time about road plans and works, it would be within their powers to appoint such committee. Similarly, the council can appoint a committee to perform reserved functions or exercise supervisory powers in relation to any matter which arises within a particular portion of the county. Committees for housing, town planning, estimates, school meals and general purposes exist in the county boroughs."

I wanted to read these extracts because they help me in developing the next portion of my argument, namely, that many county authorities had formed committees of the executive type before this Bill was ever heard of. County Wicklow has a housing committee and a public assistance committee. Although I am not in favour of the intervention of any local authority in deciding who is to get public assistance, the fact remains that at this moment, I think almost contrary to the law, the public assistance committee in Wicklow county council debates the award of public assistance to various individuals in Wicklow county council.

There is a housing committee also in the Wicklow county council. Other county councils have road committees who not only check the work being done by the county manager and the county engineer in regard to road work but who examine in very great detail the roads estimate for the coming year, long before it comes before the estimates committee at the time the rates are being decided.

Other county councils have finance committees who undertake the work of examining the general financial position of the county administration. At present, all sorts of miscellaneous committees exist under the law which have the nature of these executive committees which are proposed to be formed by the Minister. Of course, I might add that there are other committees in relation to local authorities over which the county manager has no authority at all, such as the vocational education committee, the agricultural committee, and so forth.

It would have been possible to have amended this Act in a manner which would simply have encouraged local authorities to form these committees, without giving the impression to the public—quite falsely—that the county councils, through the performance of their executive functions, were going to have all sorts of new powers that were denied to them before by the county manager, acting under the law. I would almost challenge the Minister to secure from the county councils the list of committees that actively interfere with the work of the manager— supervise his work—in every county council, and lay the list on the Table of the House before we reach the Committee Stage in relation to the sections of the Bill under which we are now going to appoint these executive committees. He would be very surprised if he got the full list of the committees now working in county councils throughout the land.

I do not wish to deal with many of the sections of this Bill which have already been the subject of comment by other members of the House. I wish to say a few more words about executive functions. According to the Bill the executive functions of the council of a county or elective body shall be the functions of the council or body other than scheduled functions, employment functions, tenancy functions and individual health functions. What exactly does the Minister mean by an "executive function?" He mentions in the White Paper that examples of executive functions are functions in regard to home assistance, acceptance of tenders and making of contracts, erection and repair of houses, construction and maintenance of roads and provision of water supply and sewerage systems. I should like the Minister to give the House a specific reply to the questions which I now put to him. Is it impossible now for county councillors to initiate a housing scheme in a particular area, so long as they obey the law, so long as they do not spend too much, so long as they borrow in an appropriate manner and so long as every single penny they are going to spend is sanctioned by the Minister? Is there anything which prevents them at this moment from doing so? Is there anything which prevents them at this moment from discussing with the county manager exactly where the houses are to be built, the kind of site to be bought, the kind of houses to be erected, whether they should have sanitary accommodation, and so forth? I should like to ask the Minister what he means when he says that the county councils are now going to be given—for the first time—the executive function of housing.

Is it now impossible for a county council to initiate a sewerage and water supply scheme in a particular town where there has not been one before? Is it now impossible for a county council to insist that there will be no delay in the carrying out of a sewerage and water supply scheme in a particular area or have they to wait until this Bill passes before they can have a discussion with the county manager, vote the money for the purpose and obtain the sanction of the Minister when the plans are prepared?

I wish to ask whether the present work of roads committees on county councils is highly illegal? I wish to ask whether, in a county council where there is a roads committee that goes through the preliminary roads estimate of the county council in which is listed every single road to be repaired during the coming year, they are acting illegally because this Bill has not been passed and because the county councils have not been declared solemnly to have powers in regard to the administration of roads? Have they or have they not these powers already?

Further to that, the implication behind the executive functions is that in some way or other county councils might be able to interfere to a greater extent than before in the work of the county manager. On that matter, I think we definitely need some advice from the Minister on the Second Stage, before we start framing amendments, as to what degree of interference is implied by the carrying out of an executive function by a committee of the council. Does the Minister mean that it will now be possible for an executive committee to meet on Saturday and to say to the manager: "We will stop work on roads Nos. X, Y and Z. We will commence work next week on roads A, B and C," and that the manager, therefore, must immediately obey that order? Does it mean, for example, that the executive committee has power to say: "You will cancel the rest of the expenditure in regard to roads A, B and C and you will forthwith proceed to spend that money on local authority works which have been held over and can now be performed because the weather is better?"

Can the county council executive committee give an absolute order interfering with the day-to-day and week-to-week administration of the county manager—or are they, as at present, simply to give the manager reasonable advice and to make suggestions to him, knowing that any undue or continuous interference will inevitably get them into financial trouble because, almost inevitably, it will involve, in the long run, the spending of more money, the building up of a deficit and cause further trouble in that a break-down in the smoothness of administrative control will make it difficult for the county manager and his staff to carry out their work properly? Therefore, before we come to the Committee Stage of this Bill we should like the Minister to tell us what he means by these executive functions.

I should like to say, in regard to the passing of draft orders, referred to by Deputy Sweetman, that I have no particular objection to an executive committee presiding over and passing draft orders issued by the county manager. If it is going to be a triumph for the Labour Party that some 300 draft orders a year in a county council are going to be passed by the executive committee in order to administer the powers of the county council I have no particular objection. However, I can see the system holding up the work of the county manager. I can see, in a county where housing has to be carried out speedily, where materials have to be brought together for purposes of housing activity, where the whole administration is in a constant state of flux, that it may cause considerable disruption unless the executive committee delegate the function of signing draft orders to the county manager—or county officer as he will now be called—or at least delegate to him the function of signing draft orders in respect of the miscellaneous functions with which they could not possibly deal and which it would take them nearly six days of the week merely to examine.

Of course, the saving section of this Bill is the section by which executive committees can delegate their functions back to the county manager—or county officer as he is now to be called. It is quite evident to anyone who has examined the work of a county manager during his day, who has seen his agenda and the list of his activities, that neither he nor his staff would ever have time to attend the meetings of executive committees unless they, in their wisdom, delegate to him a very high proportion of the functions which have been assigned to them under this Bill —functions which have been described as not being scheduled, employment or tenancy functions.

I should like to ask the Minister if, in the course of his activities, he has examined the agenda for a week of some county managers who keep diaries. While we were in office we asked the county managers to send us a copy of a diary for a week in order to gain an idea of their work. I do not know whether the county managers have changed very much since then. I know there are some managers who will find it very hard to attend executive committees if their presence is required there, as I have said, unless a good deal of work is delegated back to them. Otherwise it will mean increased staff and increased expenditure by local authorities, a huge increase in travelling expenses and a huge increase in the super-secretarial service required to get these executive committees going.

Like the former Minister for Local Government, Deputy MacEntee, I have a very open mind about whether it is not a desirable thing to encourage county councils who have not formed these voluntary committees to form them. I am not in the least opposed to the Minister in that. I might have tried a different method if I had been in the Minister's position.

I might have tried to get committees formed, if possible, through an Order under the present Act and also by public speaking and see whether any changes required in county management might not have been effected in two stages instead of one, one in which these committees could be formed voluntarily, and indications could be given to the members as to how they could order their work, indications of a purely informal kind, so that they could in fact take a greater interest in local activity and could in fact do more in the way of carrying out the very clear direction given by the then Minister for Local Government in the circular that he issued in 1945. Then, if that had not succeeded, it might have been wise to amend the Act in a different way and to have an amending Bill providing for these executive committees. Of course, one of the difficulties is that the moment you insist on the formation of committees on a legal basis you run into all sorts of snags in regard to legal procedure, in regard to the way they act and the performance of their powers. I can see that the Minister for Local Government some five years from now, whoever he is, is going to harvest a very rich crop of snags which will arise as a result of creating these committees through Acts of Parliament.

I do not want to be too political in my remarks in this debate, but I am not going to let the Labour Party get away with what they said at the election about the abolition of the managerial system. I pay every respect to the manner in which the Minister introduced this Bill. I never heard the Minister during the election say any of the things that are now going to be repeated by me in this House as a record of what the Labour Party thought was going to be done and of their reasons for changing the law. It is not going to be left unsaid.

During the election I heard members of the Labour Party advocate the complete abolition of the county managerial system on the ground that the county councils were the slaves of the Minister for Local Government, his absolute slaves; that the Minister for Local Government used the manager as his agent; that that system was started by Fianna Fáil and must be ended; that county councils must have their full independence—I have already indicated that the Minister controls 99 per cent. of every single activity by every single local authority from day to day under enactments passed ever since 1898—but that was the first thing we heard.

The next thing we heard was that Fianna Fáil county councillors were in corrupt conspiracy with the county manager and with the former Minister for Local Government; that they were the slaves of a dictator; that the county managerial system was instituted with that in view and in order that all sorts of unnamed preferments would be given in regard to employment, despite, of course, the fact that it was Fianna Fáil who completed the work of making practically every single post of an important kind in local authorities, including minor positions such as typists, filled by competitive examination. I heard that.

I heard, of course, the suggestion that the wrong kind of county councillors had been appointed as a result of the county managerial system, that they were weak men, capable of corruption, who were not looking after the interests of the workers; that there should be a clean sweep; that one of the best results of a victory for the Labour Party during the election would be the clean sweep of the county councils—the air would be purified and then the county managers would be removed. I think, by now, the Labour Party know the results of that propaganda. They were the ones who in most areas suffered during the election. They were the ones who, on the whole, lost more seats than the others. The Parties which retained their position or increased it were the Parties which stood for the managerial system—this Party and the Fine Gael Party. The Fine Gael Party—one has to admit it—had quite a startling success in a number of areas at the expense of the Labour Party.

What I am leading up to is this, that the Minister in one sense has acted rightly in not abolishing the managerial system because the local elections showed, if nothing else, that he had no mandate whatever to make any substantial change in the managerial principle. The election, whether the vote was small or large, confirmed that fact because it left the number of Fianna Fáil county councillors and corporators virtually the same as in 1945 and increased the number of Fine Gael county councillors and corporators. So, the whole of that propaganda about corruption, about the macabre influence of the county manager acting for the Minister, was completely wrong, did not appeal to the electors in the least. For that reason, as I have said, the Minister at least is right in this that he has not abolished the managerial system.

I have noticed during this debate that Deputy O'Leary is one of the very few Labour Deputies who have been present here. They have been conspicuous by their absence, no doubt because they have now discovered that that kind of wild talk, in the long run, serves no purpose and does not benefit them any more than it can benefit the country.

I do not think there is any need for me to repeat many of the observations of Deputy Major de Valera. He seems to have dealt very thoroughly with the various sections of the Bill in which comparison can be made between this Bill and the County Management Act, 1940.

As I have said, I think the most important matter for the Minister to consider and in respect of which he should give information in his reply is this question of the executive functions and what he means by an executive function in relation to an activity such as housing. It will be a very valuable thing if county councils can, within the time available to them, take greater interest in administration rather than in political talk. It would be a much better thing if every county council had a committee who would discuss in greater detail what roads were to be repaired, whether they were being repaired properly, whether the machinery to repair them with was modern or not, rather than debate such matters as the adequacy of Clause 44 of the Constitution. If this Bill will enable county councillors to take a more intimate part in administration it will have done something for the country. I am perfectly prepared to grant the Minister that the formation of sub-committees within the county council is worthy of deep consideration on Committee Stage and we should examine these sections of the Bill most carefully with that in view.

My own belief is, however, that the Minister made one mistake. I do not believe in the degrouping of counties. I believe that there are far too many authorities in this country for 3,000,000 people. We have simply copied the British system and sooner or later it will have to be changed. I know that already there is very great need for a change in regard to the administration of health functions. That has been foreseen already by the former Government when they issued a White Paper on the next stage of the carrying out of health services.

The formation of regional health councils was suggested, in which there should be larger bodies of people more specialised in the particular function of local government and able to carry out the service more efficiently. I would much prefer to have larger local authorities, on the one hand, and to see whether the parish council system at the other end could be stimulated. I would much prefer to see three county councils grouped together and a sound system of parish councils instituted at the same time. It would lead to far greater efficiency and far better work being done.

My belief is that millions could be saved which could be spent on other types of national activity, such as civic improvements, parish activities, the development of local culture, the provision of libraries and agricultural development. I believe that in a period of ten years we could make considerable progress in that direction. I believe that each year as much as £5,000,000 is now being spent in one way or another on an antiquated system of local administration and if we were to reconsider that matter a considerable saving might be effected which could be devoted in the way I suggest. At any rate, it will be somebody's headache one day to reform our whole local government system.

In conclusion, I would like to say, in fairness to the Minister, that he was very reasonable in the way he presented the Bill, far more reasonable than many of his followers who went around the hustings during the elections talking as though county councils were autonomous bodies completely free of all influence and as though county managers were dictators.

I want to say one word, following what Deputy Childers said.

The Deputy will not be allowed to speak again.

I merely want to correct one thing he said when he referred to the Labour Party.

The Deputy will please sit down. I will not permit him to speak again.

This change has been talked about for a long time; we have heard a good deal about it for a number of years. I am sorry the present Minister finds himself in the invidious position in which he has been placed as a result of this Bill; he is practically deserted by his own Party.

They are at a conference.

He is completely abandoned by the other members of the Government. As Deputy Allen remarked this evening, one would imagine they had abdicated because very few of them were in the House during the debate. None of the principal members of the Government has thought it worth while to come here to defend this change. The Minister reminds me of the position in which I found myself when I was a youngster when, with a number of other children, I was playing the game of bubbles. It was a very pleasant amusement for the children to follow the bubble and keep it in the air until it burst, but oftentimes it was not so pleasant for me when, in my impetuosity, I sucked some of the suds into my mouth through the old pipe. So far as this Bill is concerned, the Minister is in a somewhat similar position here now.

What was the foundation of the managerial system? As was stated by Deputy MacEntee, it was introduced by the Cumann na nGaedheal Government. It was introduced and applied first to Dublin City. During the years when Fianna Fáil were in office, and even previous to that, there was a section of people in this country, not an inconsiderable section either, principally the supporters of the type that Deputy Cogan and the Clann na Talmhan Party represented in this House, and they went much further than advocating a managerial system; they wanted the abolition of local authorities altogether. We had various farmers' organisations and business men's associations adopting resolutions asking that commissioners be appointed in every county. That was going very much further than the managerial system.

When we come to examine this managerial system and why it was extended to the counties we have to throw our minds back to the system that obtained in the years prior to its extension. We had the county council, the principal elected body in each county. The council had a county secretary who in nearly every case afterwards became the county manager. When the estimates for the year came due for discussion, it was the county secretary who prepared them. There was an estimates meeting and the estimates were duly discussed. In some instances, in very few instances, they were revised slightly, but in many instances they were adopted completely.

Then we had, as was mentioned by Deputy Smith, the board of health. I happened to be a member of a board of health for eight years—in fact, I was chairman of it. We had numerous functions to fulfil, notably the acquisition of sites, either voluntarily or by compulsory means; the placing of contracts, the erection of cottages and the selection of tenants. It was stated by Deputy Smith that even previous to the County Management Act there were certain conditions laid down in respect of all cottages erected under the provisions of the 1932 Housing Act. We had for a certain time the privilege —if it was a privilege—of selecting a tenant for any of the old cottages that became vacant. In regard to that old cottage, very often we found that there was a big difficulty in making a proper selection. You would find different sets of circumstances, and even when you would take all the circumstances of the different applicants into consideration, it was problematical whether the tenant eventually selected was the best choice.

When it came to the county managerial system we had altogether a new line, a line I am in through agreement with. I am in through agreement with the county managerial system. In this matter I am offering no apology to anybody in this House and if I had a majority to support me in my own Party I would not merely stand up here to criticise this measure, but I certainly would do my utmost to oppose the Second Reading of it. As far as I see, there is absolutely no improvement. There is altogether a dis-improvement in the system, as a result of the Bill now before the House.

I mentioned about the selection of tenants and other functions we had, such as public health schemes. I well remember when schemes were initiated for giving a water supply to a particular village or small town. The engineer came along and prepared the scheme and the estimate. He submitted his blueprint, which had to be sent along to the Department. We held our meetings monthly, of course.

The next monthly meeting came and we had got an acknowledgment to say that it had been received and was being submitted to the appropriate officer in the Department for examination. Perhaps the next monthly meeting came and we still had got no word as to what stage the examination had reached. The secretary would get on the phone and it would take perhaps an hour or an hour and a half to contact the Department and he would get back a reply that it was still under examination. All this was very irritating to the members of the board of health and to the people who were anxious to get on with the work. It might be a year and a half, or it might be even three years, as a result of going back and forward and the delay from one meeting to another, when that scheme would be finally sanctioned.

You had the same thing in relation to housing schemes. When the engineer presented his housing scheme, there were several snags, perhaps, found in it and it would take a good while before any decision could be reached. Then we had what is known as a hospitals and dispensaries committee, dealing with hospitals and also with medical staff and with the patients. As was pointed out by Deputy Smith, we were sure of having a full meeting the day a dispensary doctor was to be appointed. Make no mistake about that. Section 5, I think, of the 1926 Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act gave us the power of promotion. We were well canvassed, undoubtedly, by numerous applicants for the position before it, to ensure that the vacancy would not be referred to the Local Appointments Commission, that we would make application to have the vacancy filled on the promotion system. In most instances, of course, I am sure good men were appointed, but remember that, no matter what Party were in the majority or in the minority on that committee, the appointments always gave rise to suspicion. There were always people who would say that so-and-so's got it because he was so-and-so's brother-inlaw or was the 31st cousin of someone else. I always doubted the wisdom of having allowed that section to operate. I know there were special cases where it was useful to have it, whereby you could promote the man who was in the service and was a native of the county so as to bring him back into the county where he would be more useful and perhaps he would come back, even though he had a better practice in another county.

Then we had the committee of management of the mental hospital and it was not always we could engage in discussing the things of most concern to the patients and the general public. The same thing applied as regards the staffs in the other institutions. Every other day your whole attention was expected to be directed to examining and relieving the personal grievance of some member of some particular staff. As a result of all this, I, for one, was very pleased when the county managerial system was introduced—and introduced as an experiment. I knew that, in taking away from us those matters which could be described as matters of mere routine in administration, we would have ample time to deal more fully with the things that mattered to the general public and to the large sections of the community.

Now, what restrictions are placed upon us? Board of health functions were transferred to the county council, administered of course by the county manager. The same is true of the hospitals and dispensaries committees. The home assistance committee was another one where, if one acted at the request, perhaps, of some individual, they might spend two hours debating what amount of home assistance should be given to a particular applicant. As regards hospital bills, the same thing might take place. What any reasonable committee would do in a matter of that kind was to act on the report of the local home assistance officer. If something transpired or it was brought to their notice that he had made a mistake, they could easily go into it and—after the time of the appointment of superintendent home assistance officers—they could have it referred to the home assistance superintendent, who, being very often a stranger to the people of the district, could examine it himself in a very detached way.

In my opinion the committees were always wise in accepting the recommendation and report of their officials in that respect. Were we deprived of any of these privileges under the County Management Act? I have yet to be informed that we were. We had the right to strike the rate. The county manager presented his estimate. On a few occasions we appointed a small committee to examine that estimate prior to its being generally discussed by the county council. At first it was examined in camera without any of the Press representatives being present. We found that that did not work so well because there were certain gentlemen appointed on the committee who did not turn up to that particular meeting because the Press were not present and they were therefore denied an opportunity of “playing to the gallery”. We decided, therefore, that we would hold our estimates committee meeting comprising the entire county council present, if they so desired. If they failed to turn up to the meeting, they had no excuse. The estimate was then dealt with at a general meeting and if we found that there was an unnecessary increase in expenditure or what we believed to be unnecessary expenditure itself we recommended a curtailment and in every case we found that the county manager and his officials met us reasonably and fairly.

We had the power to initiate schemes. We could by resolution and by motion request the manager to go ahead with any particular scheme. We also had the power of directing him. In my opinion we had just as much power and, in fact, a better system than we had under the old system that obtained before the County Management Act came into operation. We could. after all, deal with the general business which mattered most rather than take up time examining petty, routine matters which were more appropriate to be dealt with by an official who was there every day.

Deputy Cowan mentioned this afternoon that there was a general demand either for the abolition or the revision of the managerial system. When a Deputy makes a statement of that kind I think he should back it up with proofs. When the managerial system was introduced and put into operation a number of county councillors criticised it. Some actually condemned it.

Having had experience of it and having seen it in operation they became in time its greatest advocates. I have not heard of any county council passing resolutions and forwarding them either to the present Minister or to any of his predecessors asking to have the managerial system withdrawn. When all is said and done, the members of the county councils are the people who have the best idea as to whether the managerial system is a good or a bad system. They have a much better idea of it than those who have had no experience of acting on local authorities either under the old or under the new system.

I do not see any great changes being brought about under this Bill. I admit that I am only a layman and I have not the power of interpreting sections that those with a legal training have. The only difference I can see is the setting up of these two executive committees. What powers will they have? What assistance will they be to the people of the county? In my opinion I believe this step will retard progress. If they will have a say in certain matters and the county officer cannot act without consulting them or without making some order in relation to a particular matter, then there are many things in which progress will be retarded. This will be a serious handicap to housing. It will be a serious handicap in the implementation of public health schemes if the county officer has to wait until a meeting takes place. Very often it is necessary to make certain orders even during the actual progress of a contract when matters of vital importance crop up.

I do not think there will be any economy. I think it will be a much more costly system than the existing system. When we in the past travelled to board of health meetings, hospital and dispensary committees, meetings of the county council and other subsidiary bodies prior to 1947 we were paid the princely sum of 2½d. per mile one way and we received no subsistence allowance. That has now been changed. It is just as well that it was changed because that pittance would not bring a man three miles, never mind bringing him 60, 70 or 80 miles. What will we have now? We will have the committees envisaged in the Bill.

The members of those committees will be paid much more generous travelling expenses than we were accustomed to receiving prior to 1947. They will also be paid a subsistence allowance. If they so desire, they can have two meetings of the committee each week, plus a county council meeting once or twice a month, plus meetings of other committees. I wonder will that make for economy as far as the ratepayers are concerned and as far as the committees are concerned. Is it suggested that the county officer, who will be transformed later on into the county secretary, will act as secretary to the various committees? I am quite sure that application will be made, and that that application will have a strong backing, to have assistant secretaries appointed and I am quite sure that it will be necessary under this new departure to have such assistant secretaries appointed or to give some increased remuneration to some of the senior officials on the county council staff to act as secretaries of the various committees.

That is a big change in my opinion from the present system, and it is not a worthwhile change, because, after all, in the main what can they do? They are going to be given the right to deal with the administration of home assistance. That is one thing that I strongly resent because, I believe, that under the present system the dispensing of home assistance, and its administration in every county, is fair, just and equitable. It remains finally, of course, for the county manager to sanction. The county manager acts on the recommendation of the home assistance officer. If representations are made to him that the home assistance officer, for some reason or other, did not act fairly to any particular applicant, he will have that case investigated by the superintendent assistance officer who, as I have said, is a complete stranger in nearly every part of the county. He will go into the case and will make his recommendation. In my opinion, that is much fairer than have a committee, let it be composed of a majority of one Party or the other, that can use that fund for certain motives that perhaps could not be considered very worthy motives. That is a very dangerous system in my opinion to reintroduce, and I think the Minister should consider it.

Now, as regards this question of employment and appointments, as was mentioned here by Deputy Smith, there is something very ambiguous in all that. There are two sections in the Bill—I think Sections 23 and 29— which, to the lay mind, are completely contradictory. Is it suggested that the county officer cannot go on with the appointment of a local medical officer of health, or that he cannot go on with any of those major appointments? Is he restricted in these cases or is he restricted in all cases?

Another section that occurs to my mind is that which deals with the appointment of a temporary county officer. I think it is Section 9 of the Bill that deals with it, where the Minister has power to nominate and, apparently, can keep his nominee in office at his sweet will in a temporary capacity as long as he likes. I am sure that if I went to the trouble I could go into many more sections of this Bill which, I think, are worthy of consideration and of great consideration on the Committee Stage.

As I said at the outset, this is a Bill that has been brought in to please some of the unthinking sections of the people in this country. It is brought in under the guise of abolishing dictatorship and of establishing democracy. In my opinion, any stamp of dictatorship that was there, and I hold there was none, is as much there under the present Bill, if not more so, than in the County Management Act which has been so much despised and so much decried by certain elements in this country. I say, again, that the people of the country have not called for any change in the existing system. I say that, in the main, county councils, the majority of them, in this country were quite prepared to work the managerial system, and desired no change whatever in it for years to come. I am quite sure of that. I am quite sure they felt that they could discharge the duties for which they were elected much better under the managerial system than under the old system that obtained.

Certainly, this is not a repeal anyhow of the managerial system. It is just a mere change in the name and term from county manager to county officer. I think that change from county manager to county officer does not add one bit to the dignity of the local authority or to its principal official. In fact, I think it takes a good deal from it. I think that the change that has been made in that way is more a degradation than it is an appreciation. I do not think it would have been any insult, or any degradation, if, when the County Managerial Bill was introduced, the term county councillor was changed to that of county director. It would be quite all right and would be more appropriate, and consequently I think that this Bill is a very great mistake.

I am surprised altogether at the Labour Party being the sponsors of this Bill. I hope that Deputy O'Leary will permit me to conclude my remarks in peace. We have heard a lot of talk, a great deal of it most unfounded—in fact 99 per cent. of it was unfounded at all times. We heard of this question of graft in the making of local appointments. We were told that certain people purchased their way into certain positions because they drove the representatives of the local authorities who had the filling of the appointments. Perhaps there were isolated cases of that kind. I believe they were very isolated cases. But if the Labour people and those who talk so much about corruption were to study the managerial system then, in my opinion, they are the people who would most stoutly defend it, because, after all, the working classes stand to benefit most under it. There are many children of people of the working class who are most intelligent. Many of them won their way through to the university and graduated but, even though these children had brains to win their way through, they had not the money to buy their way through. Neither, if all we have been told about the purchase of positions by professional men is true, had they money to buy their way to these positions such as children of the wealthier elements of the community might have. Under the managerial system, and as a result of the method of appointments instituted under that system, in every case the children of the working classes got a fair and square deal and they could not be denied their just rights because of the fact that they were not sufficiently wealthy to purchase their way through. That is why I hold that of all the Parties in this House, the Party that should most strenuously defend the managerial system is the Labour Party, but yet they seem to be the Party who most despise it.

I think the debate on this Bill has been conducted on a very high level. It has been quite a useful debate and there has been a useful exchange of opinion on what is a most important subject for the country. We are discussing local government, a form of government which obtained in this country long before this Dáil was established, a form of government which dates back many, many years. Listening to the debate and following the speeches that have been made here in relation to this Bill, it struck me that the object of some Deputies seems to be more to restrict local government than to discuss the manner in which local government can best be carried out.

I heard Deputies mildly critical of this Bill on the grounds that it might not make for efficiency in local administration. It seems to me that is not the real issue to be discussed here because I think that our concern really should be the best manner to make local government really local and, if possible, efficient also. It would be very easy to obtain complete efficiency in the administration of local affairs and at the same time do considerable harm to people throughout the country, or certainly bring about a state of affairs which would not be acceptable to our people. We could easily devise a system—and I think Deputy Childers almost suggested it—whereby certain regions in this country could be governed completely by one super-individual who perhaps might bring to these areas complete efficiency but who certainly would not bring to the people living there complete satisfaction.

From my knowledge of different local government measures from the Act of 1898 down to the Bill we are discussing to-day I think there always has been— and I suppose there always will be—a certain conflict of view between those who are anxious to obtain efficiency in local affairs and those who are anxious to retain some local power in the administration of local affairs. I think we may regard the Local Government Act of 1898 as perhaps the first measure taken by the central Government to provide for the administration of local affairs by local councils. In 1925 we had another Local Government Act, under which considerable powers were retained by the Minister for Local Government in relation to local affairs. Then, in the County Management Act of 1940, we saw the climax of the efforts made by those who were anxious to have an avuncular supervision by the State in local affairs. I think much can be said for those who believed that general supervision by the State of local affairs was necessary but that point of view has passed now beyond the stage of argument. It can now be viewed by its practical effect on the country.

We are now in a position to review ten years of local government under the managerial system and I think that, in reviewing those ten years, the first thing that must occur to anybody in discussing the managerial system is that while it can potentially make for greater efficiency in different counties, nevertheless it was open to the great defect that for its success in each county it had to depend completely on the individual who was county manager in that county. The managerial system was bound up completely with the character, personality and the energy of the individual county manager. I think it right to say that most county managers appointed under the system have been excellent officials. A great number of them have been efficient officials but the success of the administration depended completely on the individual county manager. I think a system that has to depend for its success on one individual in that way is not a sound system. It is open to many criticisms. It may possibly be a success in some counties and not a success in others. That is the first criticism that I think experience of the last ten years would prompt one to make of the county managerial system.

The second criticism is that while the managerial system has made for efficiency in some counties, nevertheless in practically every county in Ireland it has completely destroyed the intelligent interest that people should normally display in their own local affairs. People in each county in the country—and I make no exception —have come to regard local affairs in the last ten years as being the sole concern of the Department of Local Government acting through county managers. I think that is regrettable. It has meant that the people in each county have ceased to show any concern about many of their own local problems. They have felt all along the last ten years that these problems really were not theirs but were the problems of the central Government acting through the county manager.

If any proof of what I am saying were required we find the evidence in the number of people who go out on the occasion of local elections to record their votes. I think that consistently in the last ten years fewer and fewer people have bothered to say which of the different candidates should be elected to the local authority. That general lack of interest, I think anyway, can be traced in large measure to the fact that responsibility for local affairs has under the managerial system been removed from the people in each local government area. I do agree that were we solely concerned with the question of efficient administration we might be quite complacent about that lack of interest in local affairs but we are not solely concerned with that efficiency because we have accepted the principle of government in each county by the people affected by that government. We have accepted the principle of local government and accordingly our overriding concern must be to maintain the interest of the people in the affairs of their own county. If we do not do that then we are not fulfilling our duty and I would therefore view this entire question from the point of view that the system at present operating, the managerial system, has been the final effort to restrict the powers of the local bodies in this country and if this Bill tries in some measure, big or small according to our view of it, to undo the more harmful effects of the present managerial system then I think it is a Bill that should be welcomed.

The main defect of the managerial system has been the manner in which it smothers interest in local affairs among the people. Because this Bill gives to the members of local authorities some say in the shaping of housing policy, in the manner in which the rates are to be spent and in policy generally, I think it will help to restore local interest in county affairs and for that reason I think that the Bill is a step in the right direction. It certainly cries a halt to the various legislative Acts which culminated in the County Management Act, 1940. It cries a halt to that tendency and restores in some measure the powers at present withheld from the local authorities. It may, by restoring that power, reawaken an interest in the affairs of local councils.

I do not think—and I do not agree with those who have said it—that the Bill will impair in any way efficiency in local administration. It may in some respects increase it for the reason that as it restores to the representatives on local bodies a responsibility for policy on housing and matters of that kind it also gives to them the duty and obligation of seeing that that policy is carried out efficiently and well. One trouble with the present system has been that although each council in the main consists of some 20 or 30 elected representatives of the people nevertheless the ordinary voters can, in conscience, hold no one responsible for their grouses and difficulties because all the power is retained in the hands of a person who owes no responsibility to the people living in the county. To the extent that he shares the responsibility for shaping policy each member of a local body can now be called to account to the people whom he represents and who elected him and it may be that by doing that, by placing that responsibility and obligation on the members of local bodies, many of these matters of policy will be carried out more efficiently. Certainly there will be a more urgent enthusiasm behind them than perhaps obtains at present.

I do not want to detain the House much longer by discussing this Bill. It has been very adequately discussed by a number of Deputies. I do not propose to deal with any particular sections of the Bill. Again that has been done very thoroughly by different Deputies. But I do think that the outstanding feature of this Bill, the restoration of certain executive functions to each local body, should commend itself to all sides of this House. It is perhaps regrettable that in discussing this measure some Deputies could not resist the temptation of political gibes at different Parties here on this side of the House. I suppose that that is the ordinary weakness of human nature.

The Deputy is above that of course.

I never do wrong to anyone. Nevertheless I do congratulate the Minister for Local Government on the measure which he has introduced. I think it is a good Bill. I think it is a fair compromise between the existing system and the system that obtained in the days before the Custom House sought to interfere in local affairs. I think it is a compromise that will work just because it is introduced modestly and because it appears to be a modest attempt and a modest effort.

I suppose that in matters of this kind compromises are perhaps more often successful than the extreme either way. As a compromise, as an effort to restore powers to local bodies, as an effort to re-instil interest in local affairs, I think it is a welcome Bill and a Bill that should be supported by all Deputies.

I was very glad to hear Deputy O'Higgins speaking because I had great sympathy with the Minister in being almost deserted. I have been here during almost all the debate for the past two days, and I heard very little from the Government benches. Deputy O'Higgins has called this measure compromise. I am not a lawyer, but it appears to me that it is an exact copy of the original Act, with no change that I can see. I suppose that would be more or less a disappointment, because, when it was introduced before the local elections— it did not get a Second Reading then— a very considerable amount of propaganda was made about it. I do not say that Fine Gael made much propaganda about it. They could not do so as this measure is their child—it was they first introduced it. The Labour Party, however, did and they shouted from the house-tops. They talked about dictatorship and said that the county manager system was a most demoralising business, and that no public man would present himself for election, and so on. The result in the elections was that they were almost wiped out. I am wondering if we have any orders from the community now to introduce this measure at all, and I suppose that that is the reason why this is such an exact copy of the original measure.

Local government is a very important institution. It is second in importance to the Dáil, and, since the foundation of this State, has become more and more important every year. Any measures we may pass in relation to it should receive a good deal of consideration and a good deal more consideration than we are prepared or evidently propose to give to this measure. It is quite true that we will have a Committee Stage and that is an opportunity for a very detailed discussion, but I hope that the Committee Stage will not arrive for some time, so that members of local authorities and others will have an opportunity of suggesting amendments. My reason for saying that is that the local bodies spend something around £10,000,000, which is a good deal of money, and, if we add other grants to that amount, the sum must reach considerable proportions.

With regard to the statement by Deputy O'Higgins that there is apathy amongst the people and that it is due entirely to the fact that this managerial system is in operation, a system which they described as dictatorial, I was surprised to see the huge number of candidates at the recent local elections. Parties had to cut down candidates.

There were more candidates than voters.

The Deputy is a very bad mathematician, if that is the conclusion he has arrived at.

Therefore, it is wrong to say that the people do not appreciate the importance of local government. It was because Cumann na nGaedheal recognised its importance that they introduced this particular system. As work increased for these bodies, some other method had to be adopted for the rapid and efficient transaction of business. There is nothing wrong that anyone can see with the measure which is to be abolished and the measure which has been introduced is just the same. We have a peculiar habit here of changing names. The county surveyor is now the county engineer, but it is very hard to see the difference. There will now be two managers in each county, where we had only one, and that will tend to be rather confusing. So far as these committees which have been mentioned are concerned, have we not got all these committees now? Various committees are appointed and the first thing the public bodies did after the elections was to appoint all their committees.

I am told that they have no powers. That statement was made, but the point is that they have complete control over the county manager, even though he is called a dictator by some, and that was proved on several occasions in County Meath. There the county manager was checked in his policy and he had to agree. The county council collects the money and any county council which was not disturbed or led astray by the nonsensical propaganda used—and it has been used here for years—would have done the same as the local authority in County Meath and the happy relations which exist between the manager and themselves would have developed. Every county councillor knows that the manager can be suspended, if he does not satisfy the council. They must have a two-thirds majority, but what is the use of calling that man a dictator if that is the position. The very moment he goes wrong he can be suspended, and I do not think Deputy O'Higgins will deny that. Is that not correct?

I do not know anything about Meath.

He does not know what he is talking about.

The managerial system is absolutely democratic, and, where the people know and realise their powers, they have complete control. It is very important that every effort should be made to make this measure as perfect as possible. That is all to the good, so far as the local body is concerned, but I am afraid that here at headquarters we have a little to do as well. I am afraid that that is where all the delays occur and some of the misfortunes arise—acknowledging receipt of proposals, with no results for a couple of months or a couple of years; turning down schemes for houses and sending engineers and inspectors down to devise new schemes, and so on. These are some of the causes of delay and I feel that, instead of wasting time on this measure, which is not wanted—evidently the people do not want it—we ought to try to do something to remodel the Local Government Department. It is an old Department and it is my view that every old Department in this State should be completely remodelled. It belonged to another age and the old traditions are there, cropping up on every staircase in it, and these are the causes of much of the delay, dissatisfaction and loss.

I do not know who forced the Coalition into doing this. I suppose it is usual with coalitions to make some bargain and there must have been some sort of bargain made. I do not think Fine Gael would be so foolish as to do this if they had not to satisfy some other section. I do not think that that should be permitted or that this House should in any way support a type of business like that, when, as I said, huge sums of money are being spent by county councils. They actually have the custody of hundreds of thousands of pounds for unfortunate people who have to get home help. They have control of all the hospitals. In regard to that matter, the first impact we had in County Meath was that the visiting committees to the hospitals ceased, believing that the manager would do the work. The manager could not have done it. It was a pity that these visiting committees were done away with for a time as they visited hospitals and other institutions. They are now functioning again and that is an extremely good thing as it shows the interest they take in these institutions.

Therefore, the county councils are very important bodies and we should not lightly pass this measure. I hope it will be carried over until we meet again and that there will be sufficient time given to the Committee Stage so that many improvments can be made. I hope that the Minister and the Government, if they have time, will give some consideration to the Department in the Custom House and try to oil some of the parts which are not functioning properly, because the fault is not with the county councils or their staffs; the fault is up here. It takes months and months to get sanction for things. I can give an instance where a rate collector was appointed. He was certified by a doctor to be well fitted physically to carry out his duties and his guarantors were all right, but he has not been sanctioned. Therefore, I hope that this measure will be fully considered and that ample opportunity will be given to Deputies and county councils to bring forward amendments so as to make the measure as perfect as possible. We must not forget that the local bodies are next in importance and sometimes even more important than the Dáil and it should be the business of the Dáil to give every opportunity to these bodies to function freely and properly.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted and 20 Deputies being present,

As one who at the time of the introduction of the County Management Act opposed it, I should like to say a few words. At the time that Act was introduced, my opinion was that rather sweeping authority was being given to the county managers and that a great deal more power should have been retained by the county councils. I was of the opinion that the work done by the boards of health had become so onerous that it was impossible for them to carry on. I was a member of a board of health and chairman for some time and I found that although we met once a fortnight and sometimes oftener a great deal of the work had to be passed over very lightly and had to be done in a very unsatisfactory way. I considered then that the functions of the boards of health at that time might be passed on to an executive officer and that the function of the county manager should be the administration of the business of the board of health. Instead of that, a great many more duties were handed over to the manager.

For a considerable time, anyhow, I was in very grave doubt as to the wisdom of that Act. I must say that as time went on, as managers learned the limitation of their powers and the councils began to realise they had certain authority, things went on better. I believe that in the last few years the affairs of the local bodies were well administered and, I think, generally administered in a more satisfactory manner than formerly. It is true, I believe, that the management system has made for higher expenditure. Undoubtedly, at the same time it has made for more efficiency. The question is whether the greater efficiency is worth the money. In many respects I believe that it is.

I must say that I am frankly disappointed with this measure. That is not because I am in opposition to limiting managerial power. I am disappointed with the fact that it does not appear to be democratic. To my mind, it is much less democratic even than the County Management Act. Under this Bill, the councils must appoint executive committees. In other words, they must hand over their duties to executive committees. If that is so, I wonder where the democracy comes in? I am very foggy as to the authority and functions of the general executive committee. I understand clearly enough the functions of the health committee. In my opinion, that is a committee which could very well be done without. The administration of home assistance is a matter that requires close investigation. At present, the system followed is that where an application for home assistance comes in the manager notifies the home assistance officer in the particular area and that officer makes inquiries and reports on the means and circumstances of the applicant. Are we going to get rid of that now? Will this health committee be in a position to know the circumstances of even a few of the applicants for home assistance? I do not believe they will. I believe that the same system will be resorted to that is now in practice, that they will have to apply to a home assistance officer for a report on each individual case and when the report comes before the committee they will make a decision. Where is that an improvement on the position which exists at present? In my opinion, it is not any improvement. Probably it will cause more delay.

With regard to the whole framework of this Bill, I think it is anything but democratic. The county councils must appoint an executive committee. In other words, they must delegate their authority to a committee. That committee, even if all its members meet, certainly is not the county council. However, that executive committee may delegate its authority to a sub-committee and that sub-committee, again, may delegate its authority to the county officer. Apparently, at meetings three is a quorum. If nobody but the chairman turns up, the chairman is the quorum and if the chairman does not turn up then the county officer does the business. Where is the democracy in that? I cannot see it. This system of delegating authority all round seems to me to be humbug. It would be a lot better, in my opinion, to specify definitely what the county council should do and let there be no doubt at all about their functions.

There is a clause which indicates that an outsider may be appointed on a committee. Where is the democracy in that? After all, that outsider was not elected by the people to represent them. Such persons may be selected on a committee and I think it is entirely wrong. If the system is to be democratic then quite definitely those who were elected by the people should carry out the duties.

I consider that this measure will prove to be very expensive. Let us assume that a council will consist of, say, 27 members, and that a committee will consist of nine members. If such committees meet to transact all the business which they are supposed to transact, their expenses will be paid— car fare both ways, for example. Generally speaking, the cost is one shilling per mile throughout the county and if the members sit over a prolonged period there is the question of the provision of meals, and so forth. Surely all that will prove to be very expensive. Just think of at least two committees and maybe a number of sub-committees and all of these members entitled to claim expenses. Apart from the fact that it is going to prove very expensive, I do not believe that, in the long run, it will make for better administration.

I am anxious to be helpful in relation to this measure. For a long time past I have been on local bodies and it is my honest opinion that the multitude of sub-committees will not be an improvement on the present position. It would seem that there is provision for more managers or county officers than we have at present. The ordinary people throughout the country are agreed that the managerial system has been rather expensive. The manager gets a big salary but if there are to be two or more county officers surely that will prove to be quite a big drain on the ratepayers, in addition to all the committees and sub-committees provided for in this Bill. I think that in the long run this measure will prove to be foolish and I suggest that it be deferred for the present. Those of us who are and have been members of local bodies have been anxious for a proper system of local government. If I were the Minister I should seek the assistance of the whole House in protitud viding a comprehensive measure in regard to local government. If that is not done now it will have to be done later on. There may be a small step forward in this Bill but, generally speaking, the step forward is very slight indeed. When one considers all the functions that must be performed, by law, by the county officers, there is not very much left, in reality, for the local bodies.

I have not ever said much one way or another about the administration of the County Management Act but, as I have already indicated, I was not satisfied that it was a progressive measure. I thought it was not democratic. I was surprised yesterday to hear a Deputy—I think it was Deputy Sweetman—say that under that system the managers were allowed to become autocrats. That has not been my experience. I have been chairman of my county council almost all the time since the Act in question came into operation and my experience has been the reverse of what Deputy Sweetman suggested. I found that when Deputy MacEntee became Minister for Local Government he sent circular after circular to the managers pointing out their functions and their duties to them and, also, he let the county councils know what authority they had.

It is my opinion that Deputy MacEntee, while he was Minister for Local Government, did a great job in bringing the managers to realise that they had a duty to the councils and to the people. I may say that from the time Deputy MacEntee took over as Minister for Local Government there was a marked improvement in the conduct of the county managers and in their relations with the local bodies. That was my experience, and I believe it was the experience of every local body in the country.

I do not wish to say, by any means, that the County Management Act was perfect, but certainly I do not think that this Bill is an improvement on it. If the Minister will consider the matter he must realise that the delegation of duties to executive committees and then by executive committees to sub-committees is a wrong principle. He would be well advised to scrap that part of the measure and give certain functions to the county council to carry out and certain functions to the county officer to carry out. If that were done, I believe the measure would be much more satisfactory.

As Deputy O'Reilly has pointed out, we already have some committees but these committees, except in the case of agricultural and vocational committees, have not absolute authority. However, they have been useful. They have considered various items put before them for consideration, and they have reported to the local bodies. In many instances their recommendations have been adopted in toto or at least in part. That system is more democratic than the delegation of business to all these sub-committees. It is very foolish to delegate authority first to executive committees and then to sub-committees. Without wishing to attribute any bad motives to anybody, there is no doubt about the possibility of cliques being there. If there should be a clique on a few of those sub-committees it certainly would not be fair to the community.

As one who is genuinely anxious to get a sound system of local government, I suggest that the Minister should, if necessary by means of a committee of the whole House, reconsider this question in its entirety. We on this side of the House are not approaching the matter in any spirit of opposition and we are not trying to thwart any designs of the Minister. It would be better at this stage if we were to consider seriously almost a revolution in the whole local government system. The time is opportune. I can see that there is a spirit of co-operation on all sides of the House. This Bill could now be left over for a while. Let us have the whole matter reconsidered. If we were to get a committee representative of the whole House I believe we would get a measure much better than the measure which we are now debating.

My only experience of the working of the County Management Act comes from my experience as a member of my county council. I remember the time—before the County Management Act was passed—when it was decided to set up the Local Appointments Commission. That decision was made during the régime of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government, and it was not a very popular decision with many members or with local bodies throughout the country. There were resolutions of protest against the taking away of the powers of the county councils in regard to appointments but the working of the Local Appointments Commission convinced all fair-minded people and people who wanted clean administration that it was a good system although it meant that the greater part of the powers of local bodies was taken away.

The managerial system was first introduced in the Cities of Cork and Dublin. Local bodies had not very much interest in it at that time. That was the first experiment and it was carried out by the Cumann na nGaedheal Government. Fianna Fáil decided to extend the managerial system to the county councils. I remember that at that time a big section of Fine Gael in this House were supporters of the managerial system. The Labour Party were very hostile to it and throughout the country and on local boards they opposed it. It was said about that system, as was said about the Appointments Commission, that it was autocratic; that it was taking powers from the local representatives. That was the main campaign that was carried on.

In the local elections in 1941, before the managerial system was set up, in Kildare, the candidates condemned the system inasmuch as it was taking away their powers and they said that they would abolish the managerial system when they would get an opportunity. A big section of the people were misled. They said, "What is the use of voting now that the people's powers have been taken from them? The manager is a dictator." We heard that often. It is no wonder then that the managerial system may not have worked as satisfactorily as it should.

At the first meeting of the county council in Kildare, where the Labour Party had a majority, when the chairman was elected he said that his Party did not believe in the managerial system, that they were opposed to it and would abolish it as soon as they possibly could. I had great sympathy with the first county manager who was appointed at that time. He was a man of experience. He had been secretary of a county council. That is the atmosphere in which he took up his duties. He carried on for a while. He had great difficulty. He got no direction or co-operation from the council and at the first opportunity he applied for another county and left Kildare. The council had certain differences with his successor on the interpretation of the Act. Deputy Sweetman was a member of the council at that time. I was chairman at the time and I agreed with Deputy Sweetman that the manager's interpretation was not correct. I refer to that because of Deputy Sweetman's speech last night. I was not here when he spoke and all I know of what he said is what I read in the papers to-day. He blamed Deputy MacEntee, who was Minister for Local Government at that time, for the fact that the Managerial Act of 1941 did not function properly. I took it from the Press report of his speech that Deputy Sweetman was able to find very little fault with the Act that is in existence at the present time. He had to blame something or somebody. He did not blame the Act but he blamed Deputy MacEntee for his dictatorial attitude and his interference. It was dishonest and mean of Deputy Sweetman to make that statement, if what I read in the Press is correct, because when we had our difficulties and differences with the county manager at that time the then Minister for Local Government, Deputy MacEntee, co-operated with us in every way to make the position clear and to help to bring about an understanding and to uphold the rights of the council against the county manager. It was subsequent to that that he issued a circular which made the position perfectly clear and which I believe went a long way to obviate misunderstandings.

If the County Management Act of 1941 has not functioned properly or has not been as satisfactory as it might have been, it is not due to the Minister who introduced it and put it into operation; it is not due to the Act itself but, in my opinion, it is due to the people on county councils who did not understand the position. Some of them, honestly enough, really believed that their powers were taken from them and some of them were out to make propaganda about it because it was brought in by Fianna Fáil. I do not see that there is any drastic change being created in this Bill. I would not go so far as to say that the Act of 1941 is perfect and that it could not be improved as a result of the experience we have gained. This Bill does not carry out the promise that was made during the election that the managerial system would be abolished and that powers would be restored to councillors. It does not make any change. The only change I would hope for is a change of heart on the part of the people who, for Party and political purposes, opposed the working of the managerial system. If there is such a change it will be all to the good. I have no objection to them using this measure to save their faces, if you like, and to enable them to say "We have made a change", if in the future there is more co-operation. If there is, it will be all to the good and the managers who have been so handicapped and who did not get an opportunity of functioning properly in the past will have a better opportunity in the future of doing their work efficiently.

A Chinn Comhairle, nuair a tugadh an Bille seo isteach sa Dáil roimh an ath-ló, do scríobhas leitir chuig an Roinn atá fá chúram an Aire, ag iarraidh na toghacháin áitiúla a chur ar bun gach cúigeadh bliain in ionad gach triú bliain. Do fuaireas leitir ar ais, agus táim chun í a leigheadh as Béarla. Ní thuigim í agus ba deacair d'aon duine í a thuigsint. Molaim-se go gcuirfidh an t-Aire duais ar bun i gcóir daoine gur féidir leó leitir cosúil leí a scríobh. This is the letter:

"With reference to your letter of the 25th instant, in which you suggest that the code of legislation applying to local administration be amended so as to provide for the holding of local elections every five years, I am directed by the Minister for Local Government to inform you that amendment of the existing statutory provision for triennial elections would be a matter appropriate to the local elections code and not to the local administration code."

I have been suggesting in Irish that the Minister should present a prize to the writer of that letter and present prizes to others who may write similarly clear letters.

What has it to do with the Bill?

It has to do with triennial elections, and I am advocating quinquennial elections. I advocate them now and I suggest the Minister might introduce them into this Bill by way of amendment. I suggest that the local elections should be held every five years and this Bill should be amended so as to permit that. Those people who give their services free, gratis and for nothing are put to considerable expense and I believe the elections should not be more frequent than they are for parliamentary purposes—than for the Dáil, for instance.

I heard Deputy Sweetman last night criticising the managerial system. One of the statements he made was that a county council had decided on certain road expenditure and had allocated certain sums to particular districts for the making of certain roads. Then the manager came along and transferred these moneys from the particular districts to which the county council had allocated them and he gave the money to other districts. All that is news to me. It is certainly a surprise to me and I doubt it very much. We have to accept the Deputy's word, but I have never known that to happen in any other county—where a county council voted so many thousands for the making of a particular road and the county manager arbitrarily came along and transferred that money to another district. If that has happened it is unique. I have not known it to happen anywhere else. I am sorry Deputy Harris was not here at the time because he would be in a position to verify or contradict that statement.

When the County Management Bill was being drafted and was submitted to the Party I, as a member of this Party, opposed it tooth and nail. I saw that Bill when it became an Act operating later in my own county. I saw three managers working there and I have become convinced that it is a very good system and this National Assembly should hesitate and should ponder before it does anything that might radically amend the operation of the managerial system. It has achieved efficient administration, it has brought about consultation and it has introduced a businesslike atmosphere into the whole business of local administration.

It has been stressed here—and I want to emphasise what has been said by Deputy Martin O'Sullivan last night—that local government is becoming wider and more comprehensive as time goes on. Some Deputy, I think it was Deputy O'Reilly, mentioned that we are now collecting a rate of £10,000,000 annually. If we examine the national expenditure and take the proportion spent by local bodies— councils, corporations, urban councils and town commissioners—we will find that it represents a very big amount, and when this Legislature is dealing with this matter it should be very wary and cautious.

There has been no national agitation whatsoever to do away with the managerial system. Deputy O'Sullivan last night held up for our approval the City Management Act. He spoke about its operation and then he spoke with his tongue in his cheek indicating that there were deficiencies in certain county administrations, in the application of the managerial system in the provinces. I submit he was talking on a subject about which he knows nothing. I might as well attempt to talk about the managerial system in Dublin, Cork or Dún Laoghaire. I know nothing about those places, but I do know something about the managerial system in my own county and in Meath and Longford. I have a fair knowledge of its working in those counties. The Deputy was just beating the big political drum when he started running down the managerial system in the provinces and praising it in the cities.

I will give one instance to the House. In the filling of certain local appointments our present manager, a few years ago, held a competitive examination and a number of individuals succeeded in that examination. The examination was held about four or five years ago. Three of these young men have succeeded within the past couple of years in securing major positions—important local government appointments. At the time that examination was held there was a terrible hubbub from certain quarters that the system was wrong and could not be fairly administered and there were questions raised about the personnel and the supervisors. However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and these young men have been appointed by the Local Appointments Commissioners to three major local government positions.

As regards the matter of tenancy. Deputy O'Sullivan said that the system at present in operation in Dublin—and I think it is legalised here in the Bill, so far as I can read the Bill—might be applied with advantage to the country. That is a system whereby the status of the individual applying for a house, the number in the family suffering from tuberculosis, the floor accommodation in the present house would be examined by the county medical officer of health and, after these things have been examined and the county manager makes his decision, his decision would be circulated amongst the councillors and there would be hell for leather at a county council meeting over the decision of the medical officer and the county manager. That is not democracy at all, that is leading only to bedlam. You might as well have no system at all as have that.

I submit—and those who are in local councils will agree—that the present system of appointing tenants in county council areas is a good system. It often does not please us. Some of those whom we know intimately and who want a house—and there is a big scarcity of houses—do not succeed, in spite of representations to the manager and to the medical officer; but, taking the long view, we all must agree that the present system of appointing tenants to vacant cottages and new cottages is a good system. The Minister should hesitate before he does away with that system.

We are told that there is provision for committees on housing. In Westmeath we have our committee on housing and it is an effective one. We close the doors. we have no Press there, and we get down to brass tacks. The whole county council sits down with the manager and they examine this very big national problem, where, for instance, we want between 500 and 1,000 houses in the rural areas, where we supplement the work of the Mullingar Town Commissioners by putting up a couple of hundred houses, as we are doing and have done—they are nearly complete now— and where we co-operate on the outskirts of Athlone in building houses and getting an extension of water works and sewerage from the urban council there. We sit down, and have sat down, with the manager and worked out a scheme and, as the Minister has the whole country under him, if he examines our records he will see that they compare very favourably with the progress in housing in other parts of the country. That has been carried out under the present managerial system, and there has been a completely democratic operation of our housing work. In the same way, when a cottage becomes vacant, the manager circulates a prepared document giving the names of the applicants, their abode, how many they have in family, and he asks for the comments of all the councillors in the area. He examines these comments and makes his judgment afterwards. In 99.9 per cent. of the cases I think all the councillors in my county are satisfied.

There is one thing I agree with that will come into operation as a result of this Bill. I never agreed with one manager managing two counties. It is an impossibility. I do not care what we say about the size of the area or the population or anything else. When you have two counties together, you have two capital towns and, as we say in Irish, "Ní féidir leis an ngobadán an dá thráigh a fhreastal le chéile." When the manager is in Longford, he is wanted in Mullingar, and vice versa. If there is a big waterworks or sewerage or housing scheme being carried out in either county and his immediate advice is needed, it is not possible to get the best results under the managerial system. The distances are too great and the means of locomotion are not the best. Consequently, I welcome in this Bill the provisions whereby there will be a manager in each county. While I am talking about that, I will pose a question to the Minister to consider when he is replying. Where there are two counties grouped, we have the manager and the secretary in the county in which he is resident and we have the secretary in the other county. What becomes of the secretary if he opts to stay in one county?

It has also been put to the Minister from these benches to say how he is going to officer his two committees. He certainly will have to get particular officers to do the duties, to carry out the secretarial work and to carry on the machines of these two committees. We all know the operations of the old board of health and I do pray that when the Minister has his committees in operation we will not have the usual letter from Dr. "X" asking for his leave on the 3rd June and then a discussion by the new committee as to whether he will go on the 3rd, 10th or 18th June and whether it will coincide with Dr. "Y's" leave, and then it goes to the Department of Local Government and awaits sanction there. I hope we will not have all this rubbish that went on in the old committees. I was chairman of a board of health and I hope the new committees will not have all that old tomfoolery, but that it will be dealt with executively so that we may get on with more important things.

There should be a standard fixed— and I think county managers have a standard fixed—for the application of public assistance. I know it is very difficult. I know that a home assistance officer has to meet an emergency and has to come to a decision and must have his head screwed on. He must be a practical individual who will deal with an emergency, but after that there should be a certain code for the application of home assistance and certain amounts granted for certain cases —where you supplement the pension, —where you supplement orphans' allowances, where you help persons who are disabled. There should be a fixed code of allowances for these people. I think it is being worked out, yet it is anything but perfect at present.

A lot of talk has been heard from all sides about travelling and subsistence allowances of county councillors. Let us approach this in a proper and right way. These men give their services, free gratis and for nothing and the Dáil and the Government and the whole Oireachtas should be generous with them. I resent this thing of putting up a form to a county councillor: "What time did you leave home? What time did you reach the council meeting? What time did you leave the council meeting? What time did you reach home?" and basing the subsistence allowance on that. It is mean and it is wrong and anyone who does away with that will find me with him wholeheartedly.

These men give their services free and I was glad to hear Deputy Corish say that a man in the vicinity of the town should get an allowance. I know that, even if he is living within a mile of the particular town in which the council meets, he has to go in there and cannot bring a lunch basket on his back. He has to stay there and must provide the meals out of his own pocket and the allowance is not generous enough. They have to buy their meals and should be dealt with generously, if we want results from the county council. I am certainly not advocating pay for county councillors and I would oppose it, but they should get a subsistence allowance. They give up their occupations. Some of them give up work on the farm, some have to leave their shops, they have to put a man in their place in every case, some are heads of families, some are very poor, with a wife and family to support and a day's wages are gone. When they make that sacrifice, I say the Dáil should be generous, the Government should be generous and everyone should be generous in their approach to this matter.

Deputy O'Higgins talked about central control and he made a very extraordinary statement. I know he is a Tory and I know he comes from a Tory family but, when he boldly announced that in 1898 the first attempt was made centrally to control democratic government, I decided he was a dyed-in-the-wool Unionist, and his statement certainly proved it. How could anyone put down the Grand Jury as a democratic system of local government ! What are we coming to in this House? I do not know.

There are other points which struck me but I think most of them have been covered by speakers on this side. It has been stressed that the importance of local government is increasing. Certainly in relation to housing local government has one of the biggest national problems the country has to face. Therefore, when we are legislating for the future and for a good and efficient system, we should be hesitant and we should "go slow."

If the Minister filled one of these forms to which Deputy Kennedy has referred and told us thereon what time he left home this morning, what time he got to Dáil Éireann, what time he left Dáil Éireann and what time he reached home again I am sure we would all agree that he earned his subsistence allowance and expenses. I shall be very brief. I wish to elicit some information that we did not get from the Minister when he was introducing this Bill. I have not the same experience as other Deputies have in relation to the functioning of local bodies and from that point of view my contribution may not be as valuable to this debate. There are, however, certain items in the Bill and certain proposals which are not quite clear.

I wish the inter-Party group would harmonise their voices a little more closely so that I would get just one song in my deaf ears that would reassure me that they are working in unison. The Minister says: "I propose with this Bill to abolish the managerial system." I did not actually hear the Minister but I read all the Dublin dailies this morning and they all made the same reference in that respect. Then the Parliamentary Secretary said, in effect, that it is only a change in name. Finally, Deputy O'Higgins said it is a fair compromise. Deputy O'Higgins was nearest the mark; it is a compromise. It certainly does not bring about the abolition of the managerial system—nothing like it. Let the Minister therefore, like the forthright man he is, tell us the exact truth and we shall be more than helpful. We would like to have, as he desires to have, a local government system that is as perfect and effective as one can get. But success will not be achieved along the line he is pursuing if he does not tell us the exact truth in relation to his proposal.

The county manager, as the Parliamentary Secretary says, becomes under this measure the county officer. That is one change. In Section 16 it is specifically stated that there shall be "a committee to be known as the general executive committee of the council, and a committee to be known as the health executive committee of the council." Then in Section 19 it is specifically stated: "An executive committee of the council of a county may elect such and so many committees (in this Act referred to as executive sub-committees) as they think fit." It seems to me that under the terms of this Bill, if it passes into law, the county councils will be more prolific of committees than Deputy Corry's boars were last night. I do not wish to be coarse, but it does seem to me that we are going to erupt into committees all over the place. Recently the Cork County Council at one of its meetings abolished a number of committees which were regarded as redundant.

A good deal of praise has been given to county councillors to-day and to members of local boards. Deputy Cowan got quite hot under the collar over any suggestion being made that any county council might be corrupt. It is rather amazing that Deputy Cowan should take up the cudgels on behalf of even Fianna Fáil county councillors when he thoroughly agrees with the Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Dillon, that all Fianna Fáil T.D.s are corrupt. It is a bit late in the day to be white-washing county councillors when we have put up so long with all the talk about corrupt Fianna Fáil T.D.s.

Section 22 is a most interesting section: the chairman of the committee or sub-committee—and there will be a lot of them—"if he is present, shall, by himself alone, constitute a quorum for the purpose of holding a meeting" to perform the executive function and "shall hold such meeting accordingly and shall be chairman thereof". There is one very onerous condition imposed upon him: he must be present. But he is the chairman of the committee. He is the committee. As chairman, he puts the proposal before the committee and the committee replies; when he has decided that everybody is satisfied he makes the decision, and that is that. Talk about Pooh-Bah, the ruler of the King's Navee and the polishing of the knocker on the big front door, there is nothing in the Mikado to come up to this proposal.

I come now to Sections 23, 24 and 25. If this is the abolition of the managerial system, why is the county council or the local authority completely deprived of the functions of employment, tenancy and health? As far as I can see, these are still in the hands of the manager. Deputy Smith referred to Section 29 and I think there is some ambiguity there. I am anxious that the Minister should clear that ambiguity up. I have looked at the Second Schedule which contains all the functions appropriate to the elected body. There are 33 items in it. I looked at the 1940 Act; it also has a Second Schedule and there are 22 items in it. Added to these powers in this Bill, the county council has the authority to admit persons to the freedom of the borough. They can, apparently, have the same functions in regard to parliamentary and local elections; they can adopt their own procedure; they can appoint a person to be a member of another body. As a matter of fact, apart from this padding, the scheduled functions of the authority are practically and entirely, I might say, the very same as those contained in the 1940 Act in the Second Schedule.

But there is a more interesting thing —it may be possible of understanding by a lawyer, but I confess I do not understand it. The Minister says that he proposes to abolish the county managerial system. We have been told, time and again from platforms, that the County Management Act of 1940 was to be repealed. If you are to abolish the county managerial system you must repeal that Act, but in the First Schedule to this Bill we find a number of Acts which, in some sense or other, will be repealed by this Bill when it is law, but there is no mention there of the County Management Act. I should like the Minister to tell us why, if we are abolishing the county managerial system, is not the County Management Act included in the Schedule here of the enactments about to be repealed? The Minister knows as well as I do that we will get no forrader in doing anything by pretending. Let no one pull the wool over the Minister's eyes. Let him not tell us that he is doing something when, in fact, he is not doing it. Honesty is the best policy.

Finally, I should like to refer, as Deputy Kennedy did, to a statement by Deputy O'Higgins in regard to the first intervention of central Government against local authorities under the 1898 Act. Now, local government legislation up to 1922 was English legislation, and English local government legislation developed purposefully, gradually and properly down all the years through English history from, roughly, the time of Elizabeth. But such legislation coming from England to Ireland suffered certain sea changes and before 1898—I say this for the benefit of some of the younger members—we had the Grand Jury system. Surely, anybody in this House who knows anything about democracy will not suggest that the creation of the 1898 county councils interfered in any way with the democratic rights of people who could not have existed under the Grand Juries. It was the first piece of legislation that led the way up to the establishment of this Dáil. That is what I believe it to be and nothing else.

I do not want to delay the House on this Bill, but I think it is only fair that two matters which Deputy Moylan referred to should be corrected. I merely want to call Deputy Moylan's attention to these matters because I am quite sure that his reference to them was due to a misreading of the Bill rather than to a deliberate attempt to mislead Deputies. Deputy Moylan complained that the County Management Act of 1940, despite ministerial pronouncements, was not affected by this Bill. One of the very early sections, Section 5, I think, deals with that particular Act, and provides that

"the County Management Acts, 1940 and 1942 (excepting the provisions consequential on the dissolution of boards of health, contained in the Third Schedule to the County Management Act, 1940), shall cease to have effect save in relation to the Borough of Dún Laoghaire."

Look at page 32.

I am looking first at page 6, which is 26 pages earlier. That is the first point. The second is in relation to Section 22. A number of Deputies have criticised Section 22 and have endavoured to make the case that this Bill was providing that, whenever any executive committee or sub-committee of an executive committee met, it was merely necessary for the chairman to be present, and that once the chairman was there he could himself constitute a quorum. That is not so. If there is not on the agenda a particular home assistance case in which his decision is necessary—any Deputy who has been a member of a local authority who has come across cases where home assistance is necessary will appreciate that that particular type of case is very frequently, in fact, practically always a case where a decision must be urgently made—then, Section 22 merely provides that, if the meeting has been duly convened and the members of the executive committee or sub-committee do not turn up, and if the chairman is there, he can give a decision on that particular home assistance case. That is the provision in Section 22. I think it is unfair to attempt to deceive Deputies by saying that anything else is in the Bill. As I have said, I acquit Deputy Moylan of doing that deliberately, but I do suggest that he might read the Bill before he speaks again.

When I heard that the Coalition Government proposed to repeal the County Management Act of 1940, the meaning that I attached to that statement—it was made more than once to the public since the Coalition Government took office—was that the managerial system, as it existed under the 1940 Act, was to be done away with completely, and that the system it replaced was to be reintroduced. That is what I understood. That, too, is what the general public, I think, understood from the various statements made on this matter from time to time by the Minister, by his predecessors, and by other members of the Party supporting the Government. But does this Bill, which we have before us now, proceed to do that? In actual words it does not say that the 1940 Act is being repealed. "It will cease to have effect." These are the words, I think, that are used. I submit to the Dáil that this is a fraud of a measure. It purports to do away with the system that was introduced under the 1940 Act and to reintroduce what was there before under cover of this Bill. It is true enough that the name of county manager has been done away with, and that the same individual will be known in future as the county officer.

I think it was Deputy Sweetman, at a meeting of the Kildare County Council some moths ago, who described this Bill as an integral measure. It is very hard for anyone like me, who has never been a member of a local authority, to see what great revolutionary changes have been introduced under this Bill. It is a face-saving measure and, in my opinion, a fraud on the public. With regard to the abolition of the managerial system, there has not been any public demand for it. The managerial system has been accepted by the ratepaying public and by others concerned and there has not been any approval or any mandate, for any fundamental interference with the system introduced under the Act of 1940. As I saw the system working in County Limerick, at any rate, I think it was a very good system, very much better than the system which it replaced, and it should not be interfered with. Perhaps we were fortunate in Limerick in that we had a man as county manager who is probably better than any other manager in the country. I do not know; perhaps people from other counties would say the same for the managers in their counties, but at any rate, the man in Limerick was a man of tact, a man of great experience in local government, a man who was always the servant of the council and of the ratepayers and never tried to be their master. He operated the system in the spirit in which it was intended to be operated from the first day it was introduced. The system worked very satisfactorily and, so far I know, it is far more acceptable to the public generally—I speak as a member of the public rather than as a member of a local authority which, as I said before, I have never been—than the top-heavy, inefficient, complicated system which it replaced.

Another point to be remembered is that when the 1940 Act was debated in the Dáil, a majority of the members of the Fine Gael Party voted for it. There was a minority of them who went into the Lobby to vote against it. Other Parties like the Labour Party opposed it from the start, but it was generally accepted, not alone by the Fianna Fáil Party but by other Parties in the Dáil. As I have stated, more than half of the Fine Gael Party went into the Lobby to vote for the Bill. I say that this pretence of purporting to do away with the system, while at the same time we are re-enacting it, is not playing honestly with the public. So far as I can judge, any of the changes introduced into the old system will mean a complication rather than a simplification of the local government system and will entail delays and unnecessary friction and irritation amongst the public. There are sufficient committees as local government is functioning at present. You have the general council and its subsidiary bodies—the county committee of agriculture, the mental hospital committee, the vocational education committee and, perhaps, in different counties one or two other subsidiary bodies as well as representatives from the council on other bodies. There may be a necessity for this health committee in view of the extensive powers that devolve on local authorities as a result of the passing of the Health Act of 1947, to which we had such serious opposition in the Dáil when it was going through. There may be a necessity for that committee but these other extra committees that are envisaged in the Bill will only mean more complication, added expense, more rates and less efficient administration in my view. I am sorry also that any attempt is being made in this measure to make any change in the present system of administration of home assistance. My experience—it is very slight but I have had experience of it—is that it has worked very satisfactorily and very efficiently. I think I can say that it was administered more fairly, more humanly and in a much better manner than the system which it replaced. I, for one, would be sorry to see any interference with the present system of administration of home assistance. I do not think that it will make for any improvement in the present system as I know it, at any rate, in County Limerick.

When the Committee Stage of the Bill comes along we shall try to deal with the various points I have raised by way of amendment. I want to reiterate that this measure is not what it is cracked up to be or what the Minister who introduced it pretended it to be, it is not a repeal of the county management system. It may in actual effect be repealing the Act of 1940 but it is re-enacting it in its general features and making very little change. It has been well described by some county councillor down the country as the difference between tweedledum and tweedledee. I think it a pity that we are asked to waste our time with a measure of this nature simply brought in for the purpose of face-saving and nothing else.

It seems to me that the best approach to this Bill is to say that when the appropriate time comes anything that is good in the managerial system will be utilised and anything that is good in what I might call the elective system, will also be added in such a way as to make the Bill the measure the Minister apparently intends it to be. It was rather refreshing yesterday to hear Deputy MacEntee welcome many provisions in the Bill, but he was guilty of a rather ambiguous statement, as reported in the Irish Press, when he said that the Fianna Fáil attitude was that in so far as there were good things contained in it, they would be welcomed, but in so far as it was intended to deceive certain people, particularly that section who had given their support to the Minister, they considered it a despicable trick. I really do not know who are the people to whom Deputy MacEntee's words refer. Does he refer to members supporting the Government or does he refer to the Department of which the Minister is head and of which, at one time, he was also the director? At any rate, I am perfectly certain that he has a thorough knowledge of the working of the Department of Local Government and that if there are tricks in the trade, he knows all about them.

I have no confidence generally in the Department of Local Government, and in expressing that diffidence I make no reflection whatever on the Minister or his predecessor but I do view with some suspicion any Bill which comes from that Department because, as I have frequently stated here, I believe that any Bill which emanates from the Department of Local Government is simply a continuance of a system which is foreign and alien to our people. If when Deputy MacEntee was Minister for Local Government and had the opportunity he had demolished that Department and organised it on lines more in keeping with the outlook and desires of our people I am quite confident that the political situation of this country would have been changed and that we would have had in existence a Department which would earn the confidence and have the trust of the people, but he did not do that and neither did his predecessor. There are many of us who thought that that might have been done. At any rate be has welcomed some sections of the Bill and so certainly do those of us who appreciate, I think, the honest efforts of the Minister to remedy some of the defects which appear to have been present in the Acts of 1940 and 1942.

There is a section in the Bill which to me seems to be rather alarming. It is Section 58, and as far as my reading of it goes, in that section machinery is supplied whereby the servants of a council of a local authority of any class, description or grade, may issue an appeal against decision:—

"An appeal against the decision may be made on behalf of such servants to the local authority."

It seems to me that if the subsections of that section are put into effect there is a great danger that every appeal will be upheld, no matter what view the county officer or responsible official may take. It is only human that the committee of councillors who would investigate that appeal should sympathise with the person who has a grievance because they know the danger of losing votes at the next election. I am afraid that we are not sufficiently above reproach to exclude from our thoughts the possibility of such a development.

My main purpose in speaking here to-night is to express regret that the Borough of Dún Laoghaire has not been included in this Bill. This borough which, I think, may now be regarded as the third city in the Twenty-Six Counties is entirely neglected. It has a population of something like 50,000 at the moment and the control of the municipal organisation is in the hands of the corporation and the assistant manager. I think it is reasonable to suggest that the size and importance of Dún Laoghaire are sufficient to merit a whole-time officer. Instead of that, the unfortunate official who exercises control or part-control there spends his time going from the city to Dún Laoghaire and from Dún Laoghaire to the north county and to the county council. The result is—and the Minister, I think, should appreciate this— that the citizens of Dún Laoghaire who pay very high rates for public services receive little or no public services and when the corporation is sent a bill from the county council for rates and subscriptions—whatever that may be—no items whatever are mentioned; it is simply a demand for the moneys and for these moneys, I think it is quite obvious to anyone, the Dún Laoghaire people receive little or no facilities. The latest incident in the administration of that borough, or rather the maladministration, is that due to conditions which prevail, the ambulance service is taken away.

Administration does not arise. Items like that do not arise on this.

No, but I am trying to prove the necessity for a permanent official who will manage the affairs of the borough in order that the people of the borough may benefit in the same way as citizens of neighbouring towns and I am asking the Minister to provide in the administration of Dún Laoghaire means by which the citizens may get a reasonable return for the rates they pay. I do not know what the Minister's intentions are regarding Dún Laoghaire——

It is in the Bill.

——but I would like to press him if I could as to what his intentions are. While this Bill does not apply to Dún Laoghaire——

One section applies to Dún Laoghaire.

Section 64 and the Third Schedule. The Third Schedule is more what counts.

The Third Schedule applies to Dún Laoghaire but except for that, no provision is made for the administration of the affairs of the borough comparable with those which exist in the case of county councils.

I hope the Deputy did not misunderstand. He is quite right in making a plea for having it in the Bill, but I should not like to see a full debate on the details of its administration. The Deputy is within his rights in pleading that it be included.

It is not my intention to refer to matters which would not be in order, but I am asking the Minister to include it in some such Bill, if not in this Bill. That is the main purpose of my plea.

Deputy O'Higgins referred to the Local Government Act of 1898 and I could scarcely believe the approach he made to it, because he seemed to be entirely unfamiliar with the history of the origin of that Act and what happened after it. He seems to think that some sort of democratic powers were taken away by the abolition of the Grand Juries and the introduction of that Act. Deputy Brennan seemed to object to it too, as being something evil. It was, as a matter of fact, the result of a conflict which arose between Gladstone and Chamberlain and as a sop to meet the situation at the time, with a view to splitting up the Irish Party and the Irish movement, that Act was brought in, in an effort, if you like, to dissipate the national movement. Its result was the opposite because it gave our people their first experience of self-government in detail and turned out to be the best training possible for our people.

One of the reasons why people are against the managerial system now is that a tradition was created, a tradition of freedom and powers which were given through the 1898 Act. We all felt when the Management Act was brought in that we resented it. People who had experience of the older system felt it was an attempt to interfere with the liberties of the people. That still remains and has become a sort of shibboleth with a section of the Labour Party. That is what we resent most of all—the way in which members of the Labour Party went out during the elections and denounced the measure. Now this measure is brought in with some useful amendments in it. We have an open mind on the matter, because our approach to the managerial system always was an experimental attitude. The system must be amended from time to time and adapted so as to combine the two big principles of efficiency and leadership or management from the top, with, at the same time, a proper adaptation to local needs and local initiative and giving as much power as possible to the people. The Bill for that reason is deceptive, because it does not change fundamentally the position and certainly does not carry out the ideas of certain Labour Deputies that the whole managerial system was to be swept away.

Who said that?

Speeches were made, and Deputy Davin knows it, that the system involved a principle of tyranny, that it was to be repealed and that we were to go back to the old system. Deputy Davin knows that as well as anybody else in the House.

If there is no change, what is all the talk about?

There is no real change in the position. Deputy O'Higgins referred to it as a fair compromise. It reminds me very much of Mark Twain's compromise with his wife. They were disputing what colour a room was to be painted and afterwards Mark Twain told a friend: "We came to a compromise. She said it was to be painted red and I said it was to be painted blue. The room was painted red." It is that kind of compromise, a compromise in regard to which Labour has had to give way to the very reasonable attitude of the Minister and the Department of Local Government and maintain the principle of the managerial system which was originally established by the Fine Gael Government, and that is probably the reason why the Labour Party has got such a headache that it has to leave the House and go into conference to see what their attitude on the Bill is to be.

That is a discovery.

The increased powers, functions and duties of local bodies have been increasing and multiplying— and they have been well dealt with by other speakers already—and these involve a certain transitional period in local government which meant that possibly greater powers had to be taken for the time being by the manager, because of the enormous amount of work to which they gave rise and the rapid decisions which had to be made. As things settle down, it will probably be possible to allow the members of the various councils to balance up and to take a more active part in the work of these councils. I know that I welcomed greatly the appointment of the commissioner and then the establishment of the managerial system in the City of Waterford, because there were quite a number of things to be done there which could only be done by a very energetic manager. There was a question of enlarging the boundaries and incorporating areas outside the city, the Kilbarry marshes, and of exploiting the surrounding area for the benefit of the citizens of Waterford. If that had to be carried out under the old cumbrous system of local government, it could not have been done with the same efficiency.

As time goes on, I assume that when the stress of housing and of shaping out the various functions which have been added to the work of local bodies has slackened off the work of the manager will become easier and greater responsibilities will fall on the ordinary members. I think that a great deal of the lack of enthusiasm throughout the country in the matter of going forward as candidates for local councils is due rather to propaganda, to the fact that the managerial system was attacked and people were discouraged from going forward. They believed that they did not have the powers which actually were there for them, and, as Deputy Childers pointed out, the actual contents of the circular setting out the powers which could be exercised by the members of a council were not realised by the public.

The members of these bodies had much more control than they thought they had, and it is only a question of members of local bodies becoming experienced to get to know what these powers are and how they can exercise them. It is very important that enthusiasm should be aroused because local government has become so very important that we want to get the very best types of people into the local bodies, which are the best possible training ground for those who afterwards become members of the Dáil, judging by the debate which has just taken place and the excellent speeches which have been made, especially from the Fianna Fáil benches. I do not want to make political capital out of it because very few of the Government supporters took part in the discussion, but certainly the experience and the knowledge of local affairs which have been shown by Deputies from our benches was a good example of the advantage to be gained by people first getting experience in local bodies before they become members of this House.

Did you hear Deputy Burke, for instance?

One matter referred to by Deputy Cowan is worth following up. He said that this Bill is going to add to the confusion of local government law. Everybody has complained from time to time of the confusion which exists already. There was an attempt made to approach the problem of consolidation of local government law and I should like to know from the Minister whether he proposes to follow it up. The former Minister, Deputy MacEntee, did approach the matter and took the first step by getting an examination made, which I imagine should still be in progress, as to the obsolete local government enactments which could be got rid of before an attempt was made to consolidate local government law. I think that, from the point of view of increasing the interest and enthusiasm of our people, without respect to Party, the simpler the law is made the better. People do not like getting involved in an organisation where the law is so complicated that they get out of their depth. For that reason I think every attempt should be made both by propaganda and simplification of the law to make local government a source of enthusiasm for the very best elements in the country so that they would try to become members of local bodies and thus raise the standard of local representation.

I would not have intervened in this debate but for the fact that I want to make my position with regard to this Bill clear, not alone to this House but to my constituents by having it placed on record. I can only speak for myself. I am sure that Deputies supporting the Government find pleasure from time to time in expressing their views and even criticising Government policy. I am sure that the Taoiseach would certainly be displeased if he knew that any Deputy supporting his Government was supporting any measure which he did not believe was in the best interests of the country. He would expect Deputies to express their opinion. I disagree completely with this Bill which the Minister is bringing forward. I think it is dishonest; I think it is tripe. I think it is a Bill introduced by the Government in order to comply with the promise made to the people by certain Deputies on this side of the House when they were on the other side of the House. I was one of the Deputies who made such a promise. I said in the House and in my constituency that if the opportunity ever arose I would do all I possibly could to bring about the death and burial of the County Management Act.

In my opinion, this Bill is even worsening the position. I am a member of a local authority and have been associated with local authorities almost since I left school. As local government stands at present owing to the existing legislation every Party, Fianna Fáil, Labour, Fine Gael and Independents had the greatest difficulty at the recent local elections in getting candidates to contest them. Business men would not touch them because, if they had any connection with persons who had served on the local authorities since 1942, they were given to understand that the only business presented to them on the agenda at meeting after meeting in most local authorities was a number of motions from councillors requesting the county manager to do this, that, and the other but, whether the resolutions were passed or defeated, the county manager could crack his fingers at them and do what he liked. I have been chairman of a local authority in my constituency since 1942, and the only items on the agenda that came before us were "minutes of the last meeting, correspondence, any other business."

I want to be honest and I am speaking for the purpose of having it recorded in the Official Debates that I oppose this Bill because I think it is dishonest. The Bill brought in by Fianna Fáil in 1942, was bad, was rotten, and prevented decent men from contesting local elections and taking an interest in local affairs because the members of local authorities had no powers whatever. This Bill is a complete disappointment to me and to the members of local authorities throughout the country who were expecting that they would be given back certain powers. As a Fianna Fáil Deputy said last night, the only change that we can see in it is changing "county manager" to "county officer." In my opinion, it is only brought in in order to be able to say to the people: "We did something; we gave back this, that or the other." I cannot see where the powers are being given back to local authorities. I can even imagine more confusion being caused under this Bill than under the legislation at present in force.

I know that the Fianna Fáil Party are not going to oppose this Bill because what the Minister is doing is simply confirming what Fianna Fáil did. For that reason I cannot see any great opposition to it coming from Fianna Fáil as it is only an improvement of their own handiwork. If there was a division on the Bill I would go into the Lobby and vote solidly against the Government on this issue in the full knowledge that I would be doing what I believe to be right. Like other Deputies who have been on local authorities since the County Management Act came into force, I cannot see what use we have been. We could not even select a tenant for a labourer's cottage. We could make a recommendation to the county manager if we thought there was a deserving case for home assistance, but we had no power to say that such a person was entitled to home assistance and should get it. The complete control of staff was an executive function of the managers.

Assuming for one moment that there was some little dispute either over promotion or anything else, certainly the county managers used their offices to victimise as far as possible officials whom they did not like and who were probably too popular under them. That was so even though it is true to say that under the legislation there was a right of appeal to the Minister. In most instances, however, the county managers were able to put up such a convincing case to the Department that the Department accepted the case put up by the county manager and the local authority as against the case put up by the officer or the officials.

It is absolutely ridiculous to have town commissioners, urban councils or even county councils under the present legislation. I thought that when the present Government had this legislation in mind they were going to do what should have been done, what could have been done and what would have been welcome, namely, to clear out the county managers and the County Management Act, roots, branches and brambles, and to give us, instead, some type of local government whereby the elected representatives would at least have some say in regard to the requirements of their areas and the wishes of those who put them into the offices of county officers, town commissioners and urban district councillors. I wish to express my very deep regret at the introduction of this legislation. In my opinion it has been drafted and dictated by the mentality that has always prevailed in the Custom House. This is an officials' Bill. It is a Bill which I do not like and in my opinion it is a Bill which will make the County Management Act concrete and firm for all time in this country.

It is surprising that Deputies even on this side of the House who know that the Bill is not all they expected it would be, and who now have an opportunity of calling attention to the whole question of local government— as we did on many occasions when we were sitting on the opposite side of the House and when we called for the death and burial of the County Management Act—do not stand up and say: "We do not like this Bill and we do not want it. We want our full powers and if we are not being given those full powers we will have nothing else." If the County Management Act, coming from Deputy MacEntee, was wrong, and if the present Government accepts it with some changes, well then, they are still accepting something that is wrong and trying to improve something that is wrong. Therefore, I wish to have recorded on the records of this House that, as far as I am concerned. I disagree completely with this measure and I may say that at every opportunity I get in this House I am going to vote against every section of this Bill, left, right and centre. I think it is a dishonest Bill and a Bill which is masquerading as a measure that is going to give back powers to the elected representatives of the people. It is not going to give back any powers. The powers which are going to be given back are practically nil.

I disagree completely with the idea of these executive committees where one-third of the council will be formed in an executive committee to perform certain functions and duties. Is it not true that whatever political group has the majority in the county council will have the majority on the committee, and that the remaining members might as well be whistling jigs to tombstones? Why not give these powers and authorities to the council as a whole? I hope I get an opportunity of going into the Division Lobby and voting against that section. It is madness and ridiculous to give a sub-committee of the council more power than the council as a whole. Is that position not worse than the present position? We have the appointing, at the moment, of a rate collector—not saying that that is any great asset. However, bad and all as it is, it goes now.

Of course it does not.

It does not.

Have we not the appointing of a rate collector?

Will we have it under this Bill?

If the Deputy had read the Bill he would know that.

I have read the Bill. We cannot appoint a tenant to a labourer's cottage—and that is a very important matter. Therefore, I consider that this measure is absolutely dishonest and I strongly oppose it in every possible way. There are Deputies on this side of the House and, I may say, Deputies on the Opposition side of the House who disagree with the present system of local government and who have, time and again, stated that an attempt should be made to restore the powers to the elected representatives of the people. It is too bad that now, when we have an opportunity of cleaning up the unfortunate mess which Fianna Fáil got us into, we have not availed of it. I am sorry that the managers are going to be left at all—even as officers. A majority of the council should be the deciding factor in all cases of local government. It would have been far better if these managers, or county officers as they are now going to be called, had been dispensed with altogether. If there were any powers to be exercised they could have been vested in the secretary of the county council.

I very much regret that it is the present Minister for Local Government who has introduced this Bill, because he is a man who has had experience of local government for a number of years. I believe that he has been associated with local authorities even under the County Management Act. As one who has been associated with local authorities under that Act, I may say that you would spend your time far better at home than at meetings of the county councils, urban councils or town commissioners. I should have preferred to have seen powers restored to the local authorities and, again, I want to express my very grave disappointment in this measure. I thought we were going to have so many powers restored that the county councillors would be so busy exercising the duties vested in them by the votes of the people that there would be more frequent meetings of the local authorities because the members of the local authorities would then have some powers, and that would have the effect of giving them an interest in the work.

Is it not true that there are several local authorities in this country and that it gives the town clerks and secretaries all they can do to get a quorum to carry out the work? Public representatives have lost complete interest in local affairs under the present system. I cannot see, under the present Bill, what encouragement they are going to get to interest themselves in local affairs. The Minister may see something in it and the officers of the Department may see something in it, but certainly I cannot. Therefore, I think it is only whitewashing, and that it is a Bill which will not have the effect of improving or making local government any sounder or any healthier than it is.

In so far as certain expectations were created in the section of the people which took interest in alterations of the local government code, I think that Deputy Flanagan has spoken the truth and that the statements that were made by a great many public representatives created the impression, without any ambiguity whatsoever, that the managerial system, not the Act, was to be abolished, and that substantially the old pre-managerial state of affairs was to be restored. I do not think there can be any doubt at all in the minds of anybody who, since this Bill was mooted, has discussed the matter with persons of various political views. Occasionally one met a Fianna Fáil supporter who would say: "You made a great mistake in bringing in the County Management Act and these people are doing the right thing in abolishing it." I have heard that suggestion made by an occasional Fianna Fáil supporter. I have heard it, of course, in much stronger language from people who are not Fianna Fáil supporters. I do not think there can be two views as to the impression that was created in the public mind about what was proposed to be done.

There are provisions in the County Management Act which I personally think should be changed or amended in some way but that is not being done in the present Bill. If I took the extreme view that is held by Deputy Flanagan I do not think I would have any option but to challenge a Division. To make a speech so that it would be recorded in the report is not commensurate with the vehemence with which Deputy Flanagan expressed his views. If he holds such strong views as his speech would indicate, he should challenge a Division. I do not think that there will be much use in doing that because Deputy Flanagan will have to admit that there has been a change of stance in regard to this matter since this measure was brought in. Probably Deputy Flanagan is adhering to his original view about the managerial system but it seems to me from the speeches I have listened to that he is the only one in that position.

I should like to offer a word of criticism about one or two matters to which some attention should have been given by the Minister in this Bill. I refer to the matter of the appointment of temporary executive officers. It was a fault in the Act that power to make temporary appointments was not placed in the hands of the council. When the Bill was going through I had no views on that particular matter and did not advert to it but, from experience of the working of the Act, I have been led to the view that the council should have that power. If there is a vacancy for a county surveyor, county medical officer of health or county secretary, the power to make a temporary appointment to cover the period between the occurrence of the vacancy and the making of a permanent appointment. That power at present rests with the county manager and the Minister proposes to continue that position by giving that power to the manager under his new title.

The main objection I see to the present system is that it has been an exercise of patronage by the manager. These temporary appointments can be held for very prolonged periods. I do not think it is fair, where competition is to take place before the Local Appointments Commission for the particular post, that a candidate should be allowed to get two years' experience in a temporary capacity as against other competitors and that experience so gained, as a result of the exercise of patronage by the county manager, should place that particular candidate in a favourable position. I do not see what way there is out of it. It is an exercise of patronage in so far as an appointment by a manager or county council is regarded as patronage but if there is any element of patronage in it then I think it should be left in the hands of the council as a whole. That would have one effect. It would spur the county manager to apply to the Local Appointments Commission at the earliest possible moment to have a permanent appointment made. The present position tends to prolong temporary appointments, particularly if the manager likes the particular person who holds the temporary appointment. The references to temporary appointments in the Bill seem to indicate that the Minister fears that the appointments are made rather too quickly. I think the reverse has been the position.

Criticism of this measure means criticism of the present County Management Act, because there is no material difference between them except possibly in regard to the appointment of the general executive committee, the health committee and the very minor matter of the change of name. When the scheduled functions and the county officer's functions are eliminated, it seems to me that there cannot be very many executive functions left to the council but, assuming that there are, and that they are of importance, I think it is unwise to select one-third of the elected council and turn that part of the administration over to them for the period of the council's existence. On the other hand, if the duties are not onerous or very important, why not leave them to the Council as a whole and not appoint an executive committee? If they are of importance, there ought to be a system of rotation of membership of the committee so that every member of the council will have an opportunity of gaining experience of that particular facet of administration. If it is a question of keeping travelling expenses down to a minimum and that you do not want to form a committee of the entire council, the rotation system should be devised.

In any event, the Minister has shown a tendency in the Bill to delegation of power. The council delegates to two committees. These two committees are given power to delegate, and it is obvious that finally all these powers will be funnelled into the hands of the manager. It seems to me that the Minister and his advisers are of the opinion that if that power were not there the duties would not be carried out because the committees would not act. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 8th November.
Top
Share