The debate is being resumed on Section 15. For some recondite reason, the discussion on this section seemed to have degenerated into a Second Reading debate on the last occasion. Perhaps we could get ahead with the section now.
Local Government (County Administration) Bill, 1950—Committee Stage (Resumed).
We are objecting to this section.
Question put: "That Section 15 stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 51.
Tá
- Beirne, John.
- Belton, John.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
- Coburn, James.
- Collins, Seán.
- Commons, Bernard.
- Connolly, Roderick J.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, John A.
- Cowan, Peadar.
- Davin, William.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Esmonde, Sir John L.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Halliden, Patrick J.
- Hickey, James.
- Hogan, Patrick.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kinane, Patrick.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, James.
- Lehane, Con.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- MacBride, Seán.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- McQuillan, John.
- Madden, David J.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, William J.
- Norton, William.
- O'Gorman, Patrick J.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Sullivan, Martin.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Sheehan, Michael.
- Sheldon, William A. W.
- Spring, Daniel.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Timoney, John J.
- Tully, John.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Colley, Harry.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Kilroy, James.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lydon, Michael F.
- Lynch, John.
- McCann, John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- Maguire, Patrick J.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Walsh, Thomas.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Sweetman and Spring; Níl: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy.
Amendment declared lost.
SECTION 16.
Deputies have been written to, regarding a series of amendments which, I think, will be taken as standing or falling together. For Deputy Childers, I think they would be amendments Nos. 29, 35, 39, 42, 45, 48, 49, 72, 73, 75, 76, 87, 88, 90, 92, 105, 106 and 107 and, more than likely, the cognate amendments, Nos. 32 and 33. I think Deputy Cowan had also suggested that amendments Nos. 30, 31, 41, 46, 50, 55, 56 and 83 might be taken together.
I move amendment No. 29:—
In sub-section (1), page 10, to delete all words after "Act" in line 51, to the end of the sub-section and substitute the following: "appoint advisory committees consisting of members of the council".
As you have said, a Chinn Chomhairle, this is one of the principal amendments to the Bill in that it deals with the whole question of the appointment of executive committees. In the course of the debate last week, one of the Deputies of the Government Party made the rather astonishing admission that, if county managers had not exercised excessive authority in the first two or three years of their office, part of the psychological objection to the county managerial idea and to the use of the name "county manager" might never have arisen. It was an interesting admission because the same Deputy implied quite clearly that when the Minister for Local Government of that date gave directions, I think, on three occasions to each member—one was the notice issued to members of local authorities entitled "Powers and Functions of Elected Members of Local Bodies, 1945"—he did advise local authorities that, in fact, they possessed more authority than they imagined, that they could make use of the County Management Act to exercise their authority, that they could avail of the county manager's advice on the year to year working of each department of the local authority and, in so doing, exercise what would, in fact, be very wide powers.
It was a most valuable admission, on the part of a Deputy from the Government side, that, apparently, the Minister's directions to the local authorities were not given early enough, and that, if they had been given earlier, the objection that arose later might not have occurred. The facts were that the Government of the day deliberately postponed any action of the kind until the county managers had performed their duties for a few years, until they were properly installed and, above all, until the worst of the emergency was over. At the time that they were appointed the war was still on, housing was at a low ebb and road maintenance expenditure was at a low ebb. It was a matter of carrying on from day to day. There was very little short-term planning to be done except in connection with emergency matters, and it was felt wise to allow the managers to proceed and see how the system worked. But, from 1944 onwards, as I have said, three different sets of directions, suggestions or proposals were given. I can hardly call them directions. They were proposals as to the way in which the Act was to be operated. The most important was the one which I have cited. It was issued in 1945. In that publication, a paragraph occurs which is the underlying factor in the amendment which I have moved. The paragraph reads:—
"Every local body retains the right to elect persons to be members of another body. They also can decide on committees to be appointed to exercise reserved functions for 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 power to appoint such a committee. Similarly, a council could appoint a committee to perform reserved functions or exercise supervisory powers in relation to any matter which arose within a particular portion of the county: committees for housing, for town planning, for the estimates, for school meals and for the general purposes existing in a county borough. In other words, where the county managerial system had been in operation prior to the County Management Act, these committees were in operation, and there was a clear precedent for them to be formed within a county council.
To whom were those proposals circulated?
To all the members of local authorities, to the county managers and to the secretaries of county councils. In other words, what the Minister was proposing was an experiment in revising the operation of the County Management Act, on a voluntary basis, within the law as it stood, to see how far members of local authorities could act in an executive capacity, while at the same time ensuring that the administrative machinery would run smoothly under one single head, namely, the county manager.
As the Minister knows, from that day onwards the practice varied very widely. I may be wrong, but I believe there are some councils to-day where there are very few such advisory committees. There are other councils where they have estimate committees, roads committees, public health committees, housing committees and sewerage and water committees. I can say this, that before this Bill is enacted and at the present time, there are a great many counties where, in connection with housing, for example, the sites of the houses, the cost of them, the design of them, the period of the building of them and any peculiar features in connection with their construction, are considered in great detail by the members of the county council and the county manager, and that in no sense does the county council in that particular area simply vote a given sum of money, to which is added the Government subsidy, and then proceed to tell the county manager to erect so many houses in the county, of which so many shall be in the county area, and so many in the town area. Nothing of the kind occurs. The plans are discussed in detail at every stage, not only before the tenders are invited for the houses, but after the tenders have been accepted, in connection with the general construction of the houses.
We on this side of the House do not want to prolong this debate unnecessarily because this is a highly technical matter, and the discussion could become very wearisome. I hope the Minister will accept that from me, because the fact is that we have Deputies on this side of the House who can testify to the work that is being done by members of committees which are, in fact, advisory committees, and which, in fact, do work in connection with all the powers exercised by the county manager which are not scheduled functions, employment functions or tenancy functions. These latter are now to be termed, under a later section of the Act, executive functions. As I have said, that principle has been adopted by many local authorities. We, on this side of the House, wish it to be extended. We have no objection to this Bill in so far as it can extend the working of voluntary advisory committees. If the Minister wishes to make it obligatory to have a number of such advisory committees, we have no objection. If the Minister wishes to control, in some way or other, even the method by which such committees are elected we have no objection, provided the system is left flexible; but we do feel very strongly that the Government's decision to appoint executive committees, and, with some executive committees, individual health committees raises a very important issue in connection with the whole function of county councils. It raises the question of how far, in fact, the members are to act as civil servants and how far as elected members of the local authorities: the question of how frequently it is intended they are to meet, and as to how frequently the Minister thinks they will meet, and to what extent it would be possible, after Section 16 is passed and enacted with all the numerous subsequent sections which hang upon it, for the average county councillor to be a part-time worker for his local community, and as to how far, having to attend so many meetings, he will, more or less, become a professional county councillor by being obliged to attend meetings a great many times a week in order to do all this kind of work. We believe, moreover, that these executive committees should have been given the power and the executive functions which are taken away from the county council. That is a power which should be theirs. We believe that ultimately the county council should have the supreme authority in regard to executive functions, and that it should not delegate such functions to the executive committees if it is decided to define by law the powers which county councils have already got under existing legislation, namely, the scheduled functions.
As the Minister knows, in this Bill there is no limiting provision in regard to how often these committees can meet. There is no limiting provision as to how often travelling expenses can be incurred for attendance at meetings of these committees. Apart from their election, they can, apparently, meet as often as they want to, and do as much or as little work as they want to. We claim that a great deal of their work, if done wholly by them and not delegated to the county officer who in turn may delegate it to another officer, will be in the nature of Civil Service work which is not their business as it is not the business of this House to be responsible for the day to day working of administration. As I have said, the advisory committees, such as we propose, can do all the planning they want to. They can ask the manager any question they want to, and they can question any act of the manager under the existing law. They can direct the manager by special resolution which, if necessary, can be amended, if the Minister so desires, to be more direct and more immediate in character, a special resolution which can be found in the old County Management Act. But that they should act as civil servants, that they should be given an opportunity of doing the vast amount of work that is done from hour to hour by the county manager and which should be done by him seems to us most illadvised.
We are, therefore, moving this amendment, which is very inadequate in the sense that it would really mean, if adopted, a recasting of Part III of the Bill. I quite recognise that the amendment could not be taken by itself and the Bill left in the same form. Part III would have to be entirely withdrawn and re-enacted in a different form once amendment No. 29 was adopted. The amendment is put down as the best way of describing our view with regard to the situation: that the Minister, having decided what should be the functions reserved to county managers, what should be the functions reserved to what we believe should be the local authority, should then direct the local authorities to appoint advisory committees to the number they wish, have some responsibility in regard to their formation and operation, some responsibility in regard to how soon they should decide which functions they wish to carry out from week to week and month to month, and give them some direction in regard to the amount of expenses in travelling and other costs which can be incurred. The adoption of the amendment would be a full evolutionary step in the progress of the working of county councils, an actual evolutionary step causing very little trouble to county councils, giving them the opportunity of feeling their way, encouraging those who have not formed those advisory committees to form them, encouraging them to move by gradual stages towards having greater power of supervision over the county manager than they have had in certain cases.
As I said, there are some county councils where the result of the present proposal will be more expense, more administrative complication, more officials attending those meetings, more officials to record the speeches made at those meetings, more officials to co-ordinate the work of the county manager with the work of the committees, and more time taken. Our amendment allows a gradual process to be evolved which will not immediately result in an enormous complication of administrative red tape which arises inevitably when there are a great number of statutory meetings directed to do certain things in certain ways at certain times in certain manners and to delegate their responsibility according to a prescribed formula to another officer or not to delegate it.
Our point, therefore, is, as I said, a gradual evolution of this principle of the advisory committee. It is regrettable that there are some county councils—I would be unable to name them now because I only know those who have—who have not gone nearly far enough in the direction of appointing these committees. There is no reason under the present law why, in advance of the striking of a rate, a county council should not form itself into an estimates committee exactly the same as this House and gradually bring together all the main items of costs, take the costs for the coming year, assemble them together, and consider the whole lot in committee, proceeding finally to the striking of the rate. The Minister cannot deny that it is entirely possible for county councils to do that at present. There is nothing to prevent them having this advisory committee for that purpose. Councils vary widely in regard to that practice. Some of them, more or less, do that, others of them have a rates committee and an estimates committee, but perhaps do not enter in very great detail into a discussion of the estimates.
Our amendment encourages them to indulge in such activities and, as far as it is possible, to copy the procedure of this House at the time of the Estimates and to do so having regard to the very great difference in the character of the bodies concerned. I should not make too close a comparison with the central authority because, as I said before, an attempt was made by some Deputies to hoodwink the public in regard to the amount of authority which local authorities have in any event. So far as I know, 99 per cent. of their money, if not 100 per cent., is spent with the consent of the Minister of the day and on the advice of officers of his Department and the Minister has not made the smallest attempt, so far as I know, in any matter, to alter that principle. Every penny spent on housing and sewerage and on certain types of roads is subject to ministerial control and approval. There is a whole mass of regulations and laws in regard to the manner in which even the rate is struck. County councils are compelled by the Minister to spend enough money on every service to satisfy a standard proclaimed by him as being essential in the public interest. Under the Public Assistance Act and a number of other enactments, they are bound to spend a sum of money which, in his view, is sufficient to defray the expenses and to maintain a good standard. Therefore, the powers left to a local authority with regard to a high or low rate and all the calculations leading thereto are limited by ministerial authority. They are bound to spend a certain amount and, if they spend more than a certain amount, the Minister can catch them in connection with permission to raise loans and in connection with a number of other enactments. He can prevent them spending too much and he can prevent them spending too little. It is absurd for Deputies to talk as if local authorities were little Parliaments of their own when everyone knows that that is the position. As I said, the comparison with this House is limited. I merely mentioned the question of our having a committee on estimates as being one matter in which there could be some parallel in local authorities and our amendment substituting advisory committees enables that to be done to the extent to which it is not being done already.
There are a number of other sections following upon this upon which, although our amendments have been struck out, it will be necessary for us to say a few words showing how we wish other proposals to follow the main one of forming advisory committees. I think, however, I have said enough to give some idea to the Minister of our intentions in moving the amendment. It is not done with any idea of attempting to maintain the full strength of the present managers' authority in areas where the local authority has not attempted to adapt it by custom or encouragement from the Minister. There is no attempt on our part to disagree with the Minister that an evolutionary change in the managerial system is overdue, but to encourage him in carrying out that evolutionary change. Our objection is to the complication that will arise from these executive committees and the number required. There are other complications, such as the effect of Section 16 in connection with certain counties and so forth. I can well leave that to other Deputies. I am trying to give an overall picture of this. Other Deputies who wish to speak on it in so far as it affects their particular areas can speak more usefully than I can because it is difficult to speak generally on the matter. This matter requires a great deal of detailed discussion and I ask the Minister to consider it on its merits without prejudice. As I said, it is an effort to cause an evolutionary change in the county managerial system without creating a great increase in expenditure, a great increase in administrative red tape and without encouraging county councillors to become professionals and to take far too much time in doing county council business.
We are arriving at what I consider to be a vital stage in the consideration of this whole problem of local administration. I am particularly worried by one matter. Local administration and local government are very important from the point of view of the people. We have had discussions on the County Management Act and on proposals to amend that Act over a period of years.
We have a number of Deputies who have had long experience in local administration and one would imagine that those Deputies would show some interest in this particular Bill; one would imagine that they would at least come into the House and listen to the arguments advanced in relation to it. Apparently they are not even prepared to do that. Apparently they are only prepared to troop in if a division is challenged and vote on one side or the other. Obviously they are not prepared to contribute anything towards improving the Bill at this stage. So far as I am concerned, I shall either continue in my endeavours to improve the Bill or I shall simply throw the whole thing up and ask myself: why waste my time in regard to the Bill? I think in a measure of this kind, which affects the whole country and every local authority in the country, there should at least be a quorum. I shall not proceed until there is a quorum present.
Is the Deputy raising the matter?
Certainly, and I will raise it every time the House falls below a quorum.
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present,
I hope the Whips will take note of what I have said, because the division bell will ring very often if Deputies show themselves uninterested in the subject matter of this very important Bill. Deputy Childers has put forward a very reasonable argument in regard to county administration. So far as I can follow his argument, he suggests that, instead of having those two executive committees, the council should have as many advisory committees as it thinks necessary, that these advisory committees would report back to the council and the council would act on the advice received as they thought fit. I have one difficulty in regard to his argument. Does the Deputy intend that certain powers previously exercised by the manager, and which are now to be exercised by executive committees under this Bill, should still be exercised by the county officer?
By the county council as a whole.
That was the difficulty I had. If these powers are to be exercised by the county council as a whole we get back then to the idea of restoring to democratic councils certain powers which have been exercised by managers up to the present. A question then arises: in the amendments I have down, following on the amendment of Deputy Childers, I propose to allow these two executive committees to remain but, instead of consisting of a small number of councillors, I propose that they will consist of all the councillors. I think it will be necessary in this connection to discuss the principle of my amendment at the same time as Deputy Childers' amendment is under discussion. The same point arises.
Knowing the constitution of a number of county councils throughout the country, knowing what happens when members are elected as representatives of different committees, knowing that they are influenced now and again by political considerations and knowing that now and again a certain section of the council can combine to refuse representation to another section, which is only a little less in strength than they are, I can conceive some difficulty arising in the election of these executive committees. I have, therefore, an objection to the appointment of small executive committees because, instead of having executive committees really representative of the council, one will have an executive committee, elected as it is under this proportional representation vote, which will to some extent be representative but may nevertheless result in some councillors of outstanding ability being deprived of the opportunity of rendering valuable service to the people who elected them. Executive functions are very important functions. They appear to be very important functions in the Bill.
The difficulty arises, however, that a particular county councillor may be a most estimable man in his own area; he may have been elected with a very large majority but, under the system proposed in this Bill, that very estimable councillor may be deprived of the right of rendering valuable service as a member of either of these two important executive committees to the people who elected him. That is a serious defect in the Bill, since a substantial part of the work of a county council will be done in future in these two executive committees, and what I have proposed is that these two executive committees should consist of all the members of the council. They should have a small quorum. If a councillor wants or does not want to attend, that is a matter for himself, but if he can attend and is desirous of attending and anxious to render service, then he ought not to be prevented from doing so by the machinery set up in this Bill and by that particular piece of machinery envisaged in this Bill you are, in effect, depriving elected representatives of the people of doing the work of the people.
Deputy Cowan is discussing the matter in globo.
I thought Deputy Cowan was prepared to accept a decision on this. There is a very different point at issue. Would he confine himself possibly to Deputy Childers' amendment?
Take the Bill and see how difficult it is to keep them apart. Although there may be mechanical difficulties about discussing them together, it probably would have been better if they were discussed together and the decision taken on them afterwards. Deputy Childers says that instead of electing two committees, the council should elect small advisory committees as they wish and let the council have full authority to deal with recommendations of the advisory committee. If there are to be two executive committees they should consist of all the members of the council. It is pretty difficult to separate and segregate them. I think that the executive committee idea is a better idea, as the executive committees will consist of all the members of the council and not a selected few.
As I was saying, when the Minister intervened, we are sent up here as Deputies of the Dáil representing the people and if very essential work of the Dáil was to be done by a small body, say, on financial matters, I think there would be grave objection to it. I think the same principle of objection should arise as far as local authorities are concerned. However, there are a number of other points that I should like to put forward in regard to it but, perhaps, I would be able to make them better after hearing the Minister's view in regard to Deputy Childers' amendment.
The reason I intervene is that I consider there was a very great difference between the two points put forward in Deputy Cowan's amendment and in Deputy Childers' amendment. Deputy Childers spoke very eloquently in support of his amendment, but it is very simple to analyse this matter. The Bill proposes to have the county council supplied with two executive committees. Certain functions are transferred to them that were formerly held by the county manager. That is going to add very much to the work of the county council. The manager has been left just three items, tenancy functions, employment and individual health functions. That is all that has been left to the manager. All between that and the scheduled functions will be executive functions. It is proposed that the work will be carried out by two executive committees, a health committee and a general committee. Deputy Childers suggests that there be not executive committees but advisory committees. What will the advisory committees do? In the normal day-to-day executive work of the council I suggest that it would be no help to the council to have advisory committees. They would not have power to grant home assistance. They would sit solemnly and recommend back to the council that John Blank be paid so-and-so. They will have a long list of things to do in regard to housing, town planning, sanitation, etc., but if they merely sit down and advise the county council, if they merely make recommendations to them, they will not have done anything.
In this Bill, the members are entrusted with power to do practical work, and the work they do on a particular day is done and accomplished. When you come to the business proper of the council, the provision of sewers, houses, sanitation schemes, etc., these ought to be done by somebody, and the question is will the whole council do them or a committee who will have power to do so? Deputy Childers' amendments were, to say the least of it, contradictory. In some places, he gives to the county officer a continuance of the powers that the county manager had. The Bill determines what the executive functions are.
I intervened in the discussion because in another amendment Deputies Cowan, Desmond and Kyne admit the principle of the executive committees. That is a different thing entirely— whether it is to be a whole house committee or a committee of a section of the house. I could not see eye to eye at all with Deputy Childers. The council could not work and this Bill would be ineffective, if we were to depend on advisory committees and not executive committees. The health and general committees will have cleared their respective portions of it, merely reporting back to the council that the work is done and get on with their scheduled functions. I do not see any force in the appointment of the committees suggested by the Deputy, and I do not know why he should depart from the executive committee to the advisory committee. Deputy MacEntee, during the Second Reading debate, was in favour of these committees and expressed the view that they were one of the good features of the Bill. I believe that anybody studying it carefully will see that the executive must have an advantage over the advisory committee, which would have no power except to keep talking and then to go back to the council to get the work done by the council.
I have a very definite objection to this executive committee business as defined in Section 1 and I say that this Bill, if this principle is embodied, will be completely unworkable, at any rate, in Cork County. I remind the Minister that Cork County is as big as three counties and I may also say that we have a far higher opinion of the Cork County Council than we have of this Dáil. It is a superior body in every respect.
Everything is what you make it.
Under this section, the Minister will have 15 working members in Cork County and 31 ornaments. The members of the elected body of the council are to be cut down and we are to appoint, instead of the one manager whom we had before, 15 managers. The other 31 members are to stand by and are to have nothing to do. They will not be allowed to do any business. Any one of our three separate areas, South Cork, North Cork or West Cork, is as large as any one of the other little counties in the country. In fact, any one of them would be nearly as big as two counties, but there is a very definite conflict of opinion as between these different portions of Cork County and the way in which we have got over that up to the present is by having the North Cork Board of Health, the South Cork Board of Health and the West Cork Board of Health dealing with housing, sanitary arrangements and so on. These bodies are practically county councils in themselves. They do the work and do it most satisfactorily. All the elected representatives for the particular area are members of that committee. Under this scheme, North Cork, South Cork and West Cork are to be piled in together with 15 representatives for all to do the work, so that the other 31 might as well not be there at all. It is a nullification of democracy —instead of having one county manager, we are to have 15 for these executive functions.
I do not wish to interrupt the Deputy, but I should like to know if we are discussing the question of executive or advisory committees or the numbers to be on such committees.
We are discussing Deputy Childers' amendment.
There are no numbers in that amendment.
The point is whether or not there should be these executive committees.
The net point is whether they are to be advisory or executive.
Irrespective of number.
There is nothing about numbers in the amendment.
My attitude towards this matter is that, when a number of men are elected as a local authority, each one of them should have equal responsibility. On the basis of this system of picking one here, one there and one elsewhere and saying these are the county council so far as business is concerned and that the rest of them can go home, we might as well say in relation to this Assembly that, after Ministers have been appointed, the rest of the Dáil should go home and not be seen here again for five years, which would be a very happy position in which to place Ministers.
The Deputy would probably be able more relevantly to raise these points on Section 17.
I will get them on Section 16, if I wait long enough, but I do not want to have to wait until next month when we come to amendment No. 37. I think the Minister is doing a wrong action in removing the executive power from the general body of the council and investing only one-third of the members with that power.
Two thirds.
Even if you knocked out only one, I would not be satisfied. I claim that each member elected has an equal right and should have equal power. I have seen this type of filing down process working already in Cork and that is why I hate it so much. We have in Cork, a body known as the South Cork Board of Public Assistance. It is a joint body composed of members of the Cork Corporation and members of the county council and I have been the jealousy that arises between the elected representatives of South Cork when they have to select a member from amongst themselves to act on that committee. I have been a member of that board of assistance for the past 22 or 23 years and it is because I have seen this system working there and have seen, after each county council election, the wretched position in which the representatives of that area were placed, that I have such a hatred of this system of picking out certain members to do certain work and handing over to them all the duties which the other members as well were elected to do. It is a ridiculous position.
I am entirely against this idea of handing over administrative functions to a section of the county council. If we are to have local government, the only sane and sensible way to have it is by the transfer of all the functions which are not reserved to the county officer to the entire council. It is easy to understand the difficulties that will arise in the election of a small committee. If a committee were to be elected at all, I would be in favour of the proposition that the committee be elected by proportional representation, and I have consistently advocated that that is the way the Government in this House should be elected. That is a fair principle enough, but——
I do not like interrupting the Deputy, but we are getting away from the issue. The issue involved in the amendment is whether the committees are to be advisory or executive. That is not what I understand the Deputy to be discussing.
I want to make it clear that I favour, in certain cases, advisory committees. There are quite a large number of minor matters which the county council could transfer to a small committee to deal with. The committee would present a report which would be accepted in globo by the council, and any very long discussion would not be entailed, except where some particular matter might be singled out for discussion. In general, however, these small committees might transact a certain amount of the minor business of the council. In addition to that, there is the question of fairly large counties where it might be advisable to transfer to advisory committees certain local matters affecting a particular electoral area or a section of the county. There again, a local advisory committee would report to the county council, which almost invariably would accept the recommendation unless there was something seriously wrong. That is being done at present in a number of counties and it is a fairly good idea, but the transfer of business from the council to a smaller body would be quite wrong and would not facilitate business in any way. The six or seven called upon to transact the business would be ordinary members of the council and they would not be able to devote any more time than the other members.
If it is desired to get the business transacted quickly, a simple way would be to prepare an agenda in such a manner that the business would be properly segregated, so that on one day the council might deal with roads, on another with health matters, and so on. Then the members would know in advance what particular section of the whole business would be dealt with and if they could not attend at every meeting they would attend at least for those matters in which they were particularly interested.
This section is the key section of Part III of this Bill. If this section is adopted, many other provisions follow from it. If the amendment by Deputy Childers is defeated, many other amendments will fall also, as already ruled by the Ceann Comhairle. Therefore, I submit that we might discuss some of the results which would flow from the adoption of this section.
What we can discuss is the amendment moved by Deputy Childers. The section will be moved afterwards and the Deputy can deal with the section then.
I will deal with the amendment first. Then we can have a wider discussion on the section.
If the Deputy wishes.
I believe that advisory committees are more desirable than committees consisting of portion of the elected members, with executive powers. Any Deputy who worked on boards of health long ago will fully appreciate what that means. Under this Bill, we are to take a small section of the council and give them executive powers, without reference back to the council for any of their actions. They are to be selected by proportional representation, but still they will be one third of the members. In County Wexford seven out of 21 will have general executive functions and health functions. Each of those committees will be far more powerful than the whole council. It may be one single seven who may be on each committee.
It is clear that they would be.
There may be only seven men on a council of 21 prepared to devote the time necessary.
They may get the vote.
Some of them may not desire it, as they may not have the time. Others, even though willing to work, may not be elected by the council. It may mean that seven men out of 21 will do almost the whole work of the council. I cannot see what functions are left to the council under this Bill. They will be the minor body, while each of the executive committees will be a superior body. That was one of the main reasons why the boards of health had to come to an end. The Minister must be aware of that.
This means putting the majority of the elected local representatives into an inferior position. It means handing over to one-third of the council the determination as to how nine-tenths of the total revenue of the council is to be spent and probably leaving the council as a whole the influence on only a very small fraction of the total revenues.
Might I remind the Deputy that we are handing back to two-thirds of the council the functions performed by one man up to now? The manager's functions are being given to these executive committees.
We will have to be drawn into a wider debate, from what the Minister is suggesting.
The Deputy should not follow the Minister's bad lead.
Against your ruling, I somewhat agree with the Minister that we have to widen out the debate, if we want to discuss the functions that are given back to the council from the manager.
The Deputy is to discuss the amendment. We can discuss the section afterwards.
We must discuss what is in the section and is being amended.
There is no use in protracting this argument. The Deputy will take the amendment and discuss it.
The amendment proposes that the council will have the right to have advisory committees instead of executive committees. On the coming into operation of the Management Act in 1942, most councils proceeded there and then to elect advisory committees, to consider certain matters and give them minute attention and to make representations to the council. Most councils had such committees. They made recommendations on important financial matters, on important housing and sanitation problems, on many of the important matters that needed detailed examination and discussion before they came to the council in public. These advisory committees operated quite successfully and gave service to their councils and to the people of the county. There was no question or doubt about that. It is far more desirable—though perhaps not in Cork where there is such a big council—in the ordinary council of from 21 to 26 members that the whole council should have an equal share in responsibility. The executive functions handed back to the councils are almost nil. They have been given back the function of distributing home assistance which, I believe, 99 per cent. of the councils will immediately delegate to their county officer. I can assure the Minister that it will work out that way. Councils with experience are common-sense men and women and realise quite fully that to have these functions performed by the responsible officer of the county is the better way.
I notice that sub-section (2) of this section provides that an elective body may elect as many committees, in the Act referred to as executive committees, as they think fit. Most of the elective bodies are composed of nine or ten members.
The Deputy seems to be travelling far away from the main point.
I am trying to prove to the House that the executive committee as visualised in this section cannot function properly or to the advantage of the councils of the counties and I cannot do that or discuss the amendment without referring to what is in the section. An urban council or town commissioners will have nine or ten members and a corporation of a borough about 12. Take the ten. They will elect three or possibly four. They can have a dozen executive committees, but to perform what functions? It is no harm, I think, to ask that at this stage. Very few executive functions can be handed back to the elective bodies and performed by them at the moment. In a further section of the Bill I see where the executive committees can elect sub-committees.
This amendment has reference to two executive committees, and the whole point before the Dáil is whether these committees are to be executive or advisory. The Deputy must confine himself to that.
The advisory committees which have operated for the past eight or nine years under the County Management Act have, I maintain, advised their councils and they have had an opportunity of going into all the details of administration with the county manager and all details of the executive functions performed by him. They went minutely into finances and recommended to their councils whether additional housing was required or whether sanitation schemes — very large ones sometimes — or water schemes should be undertaken. Generally speaking, they went into details just as minutely and gave them just as much attention as did formerly the boards of health, plus the county councils. At this time of the year when the estimates were being prepared the advisory committees which in some counties were called "general purposes committees", examined in detail with the manager the estimates under the different headings. They examined each branch of all the services functioning in the county and made detailed recommendations to their council as to the rate that should be provided under each particular heading of the services. These executive committees will be a law unto themselves. They will determine the full spending power, and the council, according to this section, will no longer determine what the rate should be for the county.
They will if the Bill becomes law and they operate it.
They will not. The executive committees will fully determine it.
The council will have that power under Section 38.
No. It will be like the vocational education committees or the county committees of agriculture at the present time or the boards of health in the past. Instead of giving more power to the councils of the counties Section 16 is taking from the full councils of the counties the powers they have at the present time.
They have the scheduled functions at the present time.
They are very minor functions and well the Parliamentary Secretary knows it.
That is all they have.
And that is all they will have when this Bill is passed, with the addition of home assistance functions which they are almost certain to delegate to the county officer if they are not fools—and none of them are. The scheduled functions under the County Management Act and the scheduled functions under this Bill differ very little.
Agreed.
They are only minor matters, child's play.
Except the striking of the rate.
Councils very seldom concern themselves with these scheduled functions.
I agree.
What is the need for the Bill at all?
They are minor matters and will be minor matters when this Bill becomes law. The determination of the taxation to be raised by way of rate in a particular county will be done by a small section. It may be done by only seven out of a council of 21. It will be determined by two committees which will be composed of the same seven persons. It can happen that if the members do not attend the meetings of these executive committees, even one member of the council can form a quorum and can make decisions committing the whole council of the county. Even one member of the council can make decisions as an executive committee and that will be binding in law on the council of the county. The Bill before the House is an important measure. It proposes to set up machinery to enable local authorities in this country to function smoothly. I move to report progress.
Progress reported. The Committee to sit again later.