Deputy Childers was very clear in his approach to this matter. He confined himself to the amendment. I intend to do my utmost to do that, although some Deputies strayed considerably from it.
Local Government (County Administration) Bill, 1950—Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 29.
I understand it is a question of advisory committees instead of executive committees. There is a whole series of amendments dealing with that point.
Deputy Childers' view appears to be that they should be advisory rather than executive committees. That may be all right in the case of small counties where the distance to be travelled by members is not very great but I do not think the suggestion is feasible in the case of counties in which the members would have to travel long distances to the meetings. Deputy Corry referred to the advantages being obtained in Cork at present. I understand that the position there is extremely satisfactory. The kernel of the question referred to by Deputy Childers is the question of a possible reduction in expenses and a possible reduction in the number of officials dealing with these meetings.
If we are to consider, in connection with this Bill, as in connection with any other Bill, certain advantages that may be gained by making full use of the powers given to members, then above all things, if we are dealing with the question of expense, we must first of all consider the best possible results that can be achieved through a system of full co-operation. I think it is right to say that if we adopt a system of advisory committees, as suggested in this amendment, we are automatically going back to the time when many sections of the community could not be fully represented by members of county councils who would otherwise be anxious to attend. It will be realised that many members have to give up their employment. They lose the full day when they are at these meetings.
A lot is tied up with the question of whether there will be advisory or executive committees. I have in mind various dates when we were on sites committees. They were advisory committees. Many members were not able to attend various important meetings because, financially, they could not stand up to the strain. I believe if we adopt the system that is suggested we will be going back to the times when local government simply meant the controlling of finances and all the other administrative functions in a county, not by a county manager, but by certain sections representing the people, men who very often were not progressive in their ideas.
I would like Deputy Childers to realise that in certain small counties it may be suitable for members of committees to attend, but, on the other hand, difficulties arise in different counties and you can realise fully the importance of getting full co-operation and that sense of co-ordination in regard to all services and the need of having the members there. You achieve that through the system set down here in this section of the Bill.
The Deputy mentioned the value of the work done. I see there that we differ, perhaps, in our views. I might point out that with the small House at the moment we have this little advantage, that we can discuss these matters in a more simple way than if we had a full House.
We have not even a quorum now.
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present,
Deputy Childers referred to the value of the work done. I can see the impossibility of working under the system of advisory committees, because it means a considerable amount of time given by a number of members in an advisory capacity. The officials also will have to be in attendance. The committee will report to the full county council and that means that a lot of work will be duplicated. That is definitely a point against the idea of advisory committees. The advantage of having an executive committee is that through their consultations with responsible officers decisions can be arrived at very often at one meeting, whereas if they are attending in an advisory capacity it means extra time and ultimately this will go, as Deputy Corry mentioned, against the ratepayers.
Deputy Allen was extraordinary in his attitude. He went around in such a way that I thought we would all be found in the Bog of Allen by the time he was finished. Not alone did he proceed to deal with all the amendments, but he almost covered the whole Bill by himself. However, we will all have a chance of dealing with the section later. Deputy Allen said that one danger of an executive committee was that some members might not be available. I think he should clarify that statement. It could happen that at certain times members would not be available, possibly through illness or prior engagements. Is Deputy Allen going to suggest that members who stand for election would not make themselves available for committee meetings? That seems to cut across the whole sense of genuine representation on the various county councils.
We are not dealing with the section now; we are tied up completely with the amendment. That is why I asked earlier if we could discuss all the amendments together, but apparently we cannot. As we go down the list of amendments we may be able to clarify the position. We cannot discuss certain matters now, but I rose to speak largely because Deputy Childers said the whole section would either stand or fall on this amendment. He seems to attach considerable importance to it, and perhaps he is justified in so doing. I believe it is essential to draw attention to the views some people have, and the Deputy and others must realise that while we are speaking on this amendment we are not tied to it; there are other amendments to be considered in connection with the same section, amendments of importance which aim at improving the section. Even without the amendment debated by Deputy Childers the Bill can be vastly improved. This object can be achieved, in my opinion, by other amendments that will come to be considered. They are there quite clearly to be seen. If they are studied and considered in their full aspects, their advantages will be realised by every member.
I think there is little more to be said except to refer to a statement by Deputy Allen—I am glad he is in the House again—about the question of reference back. Deputy Corry is fully aware that when we in Cork are dealing with board of health matters and various matters of importance we do not have to refer them back. We have the advantage of the system at present where we have the members of the council present. We have split up the work. We have our committee dealing with the health section and with the assistance work. We have the advantage of being able to come to a decision on any important question as it arises.
It is of the utmost importance to realise the difference between the two words and between all the works connected between the two words—"advisory" and "executive". On the one hand "executive" means that the members are entitled to be present. On the other hand as Deputy Corry is aware we have cases where we have advisory committees and it is not fair to expect members to travel long journeys and lose a day's work to come in to attend such committees. If we adopt that system of advisory committees it means that we are taking a retrograde step and that you will not have genuine, constructive viewpoints expressed in the various county councils by representatives of all sections of the community.
I should like to call Deputy Desmond's attention since he questioned Deputy Allen's statement on Section 18——
On a point of order, I have been trying to keep within the rules of order. I asked what exactly we were discussing and we got a clear ruling, to which I tried to adhere to the best of my ability, that we are discussing amendment No. 29.
That is so.
I wish to point out to Deputy Desmond that this executive committee can be established out of the 46 members——
Again on a point of order, I think Deputy Corry should try to play fairly. I have expressly avoided any reference to numbers as that matter can come up later.
The question is are these committees to be advisory or executive? The numbers constituting them might be considered on other amendments, but that matter does not arise here.
I should like to point out to Deputy Desmond as, I pointed out before to the Minister——
On this?
On this. Deputy Desmond did not seem to grasp what I had in mind. For a number of years Deputy Desmond has been a member of the Cork County Council but it was only at the last election that Deputy Desmond became a member of the South Cork Board of Public Assistance, which is one of the committees to which reference is made here. I know that Deputy Desmond must have felt that he was unjustly treated in having been deprived of his right by Act of Parliament to look after the home assistance matters for the people whom he represented in the county council. That is the whole thing lying behind this executive committee.
No, no.
A number of men will come in there and do the whole job and there is nothing left for anybody else. There is no reference back to the county council or anything else. It is just the same in working as the board of assistance is at present. We have, roughly, about 21 members in the South Cork Board of Health. Of these, only seven or eight can act as members of the board of assistance. The balance of the members are completely knocked out and have no power over assistance matters. It is the very same thing with this executive committee. Under this system of the executive committee, one-third of the council, 15 members, can form an executive committee.
That is wrong. We are not speaking now of numbers. The Deputy can see that that matter can be dealt with under amendment No. 44 on the Order Paper.
I am not worrying about any amendment in regard to the number that may appear on the Order Paper. The Deputy will find that that, too, will be murdered by the Minister's voting machine.
The Deputy is not worrying about this amendment either.
I advise the legal luminary who apparently drafted this provision not to interrupt me or he will be sorry. I advise the Deputy for his own sake to refrain from interrupting. The Deputy will see from Section 17—and I thank the Minister, who corrected me previously in regard to this matter—that "the number of members of an executive committee of the council of a county shall be, where the number of members of the council is an even multiple of three, one-third of that number".
That does not arise on this amendment.
There are two sub-committees.
The total strength of the Cork County Council is 46. Of that number only 15 members, or at most 16, are going to have any power and the balance can go home. I should like to see some Deputies standing up in this House and moving, after the election of Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries, that the rest of the Deputies should go home and stay at home for five years. This is the same proposal. It is a proposal that the Minister dare not suggest in regard to the administration of this House but apparently it is good enough for the local authority. I challenge the Minister on that.
Is it not perfectly clear that Deputy Corry is out merely to disturb and distort the discussion on this Bill? This is a serious Bill but he has deliberately avoided discussing the amendment before the House since he got on his feet.
Deputy Corry is discussing the Bill and that is what is getting under the Minister's skin.
Would the Deputy confine himself to the question of whether this is to be an advisory committee or an executive committee?
I am in favour of an executive committee if it is comprised of all the members of the county council.
That does not arise.
Under Section 16 the number of this executive committee——
Section 17.
Section 16 is the section which we are discussing. We are discussing an amendment to sub-section (1) which states that the council of a county shall elect two committees.
No numbers mentioned.
We have an amendment to that by Deputy Childers which suggests that these committees shall be advisory.
That is the point.
I object to the proposition that one-third of the members of a council can disfranchise the remaining two-thirds.
The numbers do not arise here.
They do, later on.
Then the Deputy may discuss them.
But once this section is passed the rest will follow in due course.
The Deputy is not committed to any number when this is passed. He can fight the question of numbers later on.
I should like to relate what my experience has been as a member of local bodies. Take a roads committee. A number of members are selected to go minutely into the question of road administration. That is a committee which has only the power to make recommendations. I have found very keen jealousy amongst the ordinary members of the council who are not on those committees.
Are they statutory bodies?
No. They are committees appointed by the county council from amongst the members of the council. As I have said, these committees have the power only of making recommendations. In very rare cases indeed would the council refuse to carry out a committee's recommendation. The point I want to make is that I have found very keen jealousy amongst the members not on those committees. I do not blame them for that, because, after all, they were elected to represent the people of their areas. Under a machine such as we have in this section, they will find themselves cut out from doing the work which the people of their areas elected them to do. That is why I am so strongly against this executive authority being vested in a portion of the council.
I am in favour of this amendment only because it would prevent what I consider a greater evil arising. I had not the advantage of hearing Deputy Childers moving his amendment. My only objection to it at the moment is that it makes it mandatory on a county council to elect those two advisory committees. I cannot see that any strong case can be made for compelling a county council to appoint an advisory committee. I think it should have a free discretion in the matter of reserving in its own hands all powers, executive and administrative. A council should have the right, at its own discretion, to elect as many advisory committees as it may think fit from time to time. I cannot see any case for compelling a county council to appoint two advisory committees to perform two specific functions. I assume that, if this amendment is carried, it will provide that there will be what is known as a general advisory committee to advise the council generally on a considerable number of matters, and that there will be another committee to advise on health matters. I suppose a case could be made for that arrangement.
The main argument, I think, in favour of the amendment is that it cuts out completely this idea of delegating functions to an executive committee. The question of numbers has been raised, and I expect will be raised again. At the moment, I cannot see any advantage in appointing an executive committee if it is to consist of every member of the council. I think that the whole case for appointing an executive committee is that it would be smaller than the council. That is why I say that, if we carry this amendment, we will be defeating the idea of executive committees, and so will be leaving it to all the elected representatives to carry out the business which they were elected to do. I think that is a sound and sensible proposition because the members can hardly be called elected representatives if they are not allowed to take part in the discharge of the important business which they were elected to do.
I support the amendment. I do so because, during the past four years, I have had practical experience as a member of an advisory public health committee. As a result of that experience, I am satisfied that it is more desirable, and more in the interests of the community as a whole, to have these advisory committees set up than to have what is proposed in the section. The decisions reached by the advisory committees, whether on housing or any other matter, will eventually come before the council as a whole for decision. I could not visualise any executive committee as a workable proposition that did not include every member of the council. Deputy Cogan has just stated that he could see no point in having every member of the council as a member of the executive committee. On the face of it one might be inclined to agree with him, but, occasionally, matters will arise where it would be desirable, if you decide to set up an advisory committee, to have it composed of every member of the council.
In support of my argument for the setting up of advisory committees, I may cite as an example what happened in the case of the local authority of which I am a member. About two and a half years ago we started a big housing drive in the County Wicklow. It was initiated in 1946. In 1948 we had just reached the stage when construction work could be carried out. The council decided to set up a housing committee which met monthly and dealt with all matters pertaining to housing, even including water and sewerage and applications under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts. The findings of that committee came before the council in about a week's time. The report was discussed and questions were raised by other members of the council with regard to matters in their own particular areas and they disagreed with the findings of the committee. It was not a question of a few isolated cases; it was happening constantly and, as a result, the council decided to appoint the full council as a housing committee. The full council meets perhaps a week previous to the ordinary meeting of the county council and they deal with all matters pertaining to housing.
If you had an executive committee in the same category, if I might use the word, as an advisory committee with this difference, that the advisory committee would have to report back to the council but the findings of the executive committee would be final, you would find yourself in the position that our advisory committee were in, that their reports dealing with certain matters would come before the council but, when dealing with an executive committee, the other members of the council would have no redress. For that reason I think it is more in the interests of the community as a whole and of every member of the council, from the point of view of representing his particular area, that we should have advisory committees as against executive committees. The question of the personnel of the committees is dealt with in another section and I hope to say something about it.
On the question of whether the committees should be advisory or executive, I feel no difficulty at all in finding in favour of an executive committee. Advisory committees have their part to play in local government where you select specially qualified members of a council and add to them a number of outside people to deal with subjects such as scholarships, libraries, etc. But, where you are dealing, as you will be dealing in county councils, with housing, sewerage, water, home assistance and the various day-to-day activities of both committees, surely there is nobody more qualified to speak for the people and to express their wishes than those who were elected by them. I feel that an advisory committee would be a waste of time because every conclusion they come to would be reexamined at the next county council meeting to which they would report back and another day would be spent discussing, not what was on the agenda, but the report of the advisory committee. Deputy Allen said that the numbers of the committee——
That will come up on the next section.
I was going to point out to Deputy Allen that, if he feels worried about that, there is an amendment standing in my name and in the name of Deputy Desmond which will give him full scope. Therefore, he should not allow the question of numbers to worry him. He also said that one member could come to a decision and that the whole of the council would be tied by his decision. Is it not correct that at present the county manager, who may not even be as qualified as such a member, can give a decision and the whole council are tied by it?
I welcome the fact that the Minister has seen his way to hand back to the elected representatives of the people additional powers to those which they had, and I welcome in particular the fact that the members of one of these committees will have the right to decide on the amount of home assistance which should be given to a person who is in need of it. If, as Deputy Allen says, any council wishes to delegate certain powers to the county manager or any other official, I feel that they should do the honest thing and not stand for the council.
We are proceeding gradually to outline the distinction between advisory committees and executive committees, but I feel we have reached the stage now where we would like to hear more from the Minister in regard to the suggestion which has been made that a portion of a county council, one-third of it, will have a right to make decisions which affect very often matters of grave importance and that they can only be prevented by the county council from making these decisions in connection with executive functions if they choose to invoke Section 38 of the Bill. Section 38 is the one in which a county council is given some overriding power over the executive committees. I remember in connection with the County Management Act that one of the criticisms of the Act was the fact that, although the county councils could require the manager to do a certain thing by calling a meeting in a certain way and moving a resolution, notice of which had been given in advance, that he should do that thing, it was cumbersome and members would not indulge frequently in the practice of invoking that particular section directing the county manager to do certain things. It seems to me that exactly the same thing applies to Section 38 and that it is not likely to be utilised very frequently—the section under which the county council can direct an executive committee to carry out an executive function in a particular way. In other words, it is a section to which county councils will have recourse rather more in desperation than anything else. Therefore, we get back to the fact that these bodies are going to have important executive functions and that they will consist only of one-third of the members of the council. Further, these committees frequently will not consist of members of minority parties. Moreover, if they do consist of members of minority parties, they almost certainly in that case will not represent the whole area of the county. Therefore, the executive committee as proposed by the Minister would have definite executive powers to do a number of important things and the committee may not, as I have said, represent the whole area of the county and, on the other hand, they may not represent the parties who are in a small minority.
I should like to ask the Minister how he regards that matter and whether he does not feel it desirable to reconsider, before the Report Stage, the whole question of the formation of these executive committees. Why should a committee of the council decide what type of houses should be erected? Will the Minister explain that? Under the arrangement proposed in my amendment the county council will have an overriding power in all these matters. They can appoint an advisory committee and give that committee definite instructions at the beginning of the financial year which the advisory committee will have to carry out. They will only refer back if there are matters of a particular kind for discussion or particular problems to decide. But in this case a section of the council can decide how many houses will be built with a given sum of money. The council as a whole raises the rates and borrows the money but leaves two-thirds of the council in a matter of that kind, a virtual power, and that two-thirds can only be estopped by virtue of Section 38. The same thing applies to the maintenance and repair of roads. Having struck a given rate, they will give two-thirds of the council power to do a whole series of road works and the county council as a whole can only override it in a special way by directing a special committee to perform certain things or carry out specified functions in a particular manner.
We shall have to discuss that matter when we come to Section 38. I have to mention Section 38 now because Section 16 obviously relates to it. If we are to discuss whether or not we will have executive committees we must at the same time discuss what power the county council will have over these committees. The Minister has not replied to the question I asked him as to how far he thinks this will result in overburdening county councillors who are members of these executive committees with work. That is a reasonable question. The proposition is not an unreasonable one. As will be seen from further sections of the Bill, these executive committees will automatically have all the executive functions until such time as they delegate them to the county officer. They start off with all the trappings of the entire administration. Will the Minister answer the question as to what will be the burden of work placed upon them?
I should explain to members of the Labour Party who suggested that our advisory committees would not have travelling expenses that we never proposed that. We made no suggestion that we would not have travelling expenses. We did suggest, however, advisory committees which would arrange their own rules of procedure and, if they got into difficulties, they could apply to the Minister to arrange them for them, and the Minister could limit the number of their meetings for which expenses would be paid to prevent these advisory committees becoming a temptation or an attraction to the professional type of local politician. We suggested, too, that these advisory committees would furnish reports to the county councils and that the county councils could act on these reports. That suggestion was quite a reasonable one, as Deputy Allen has already pointed out in the course of this debate.
The Minister's objection that the county council would have too much work to do is overruled by the fact that at this moment there are advisory committees all over the country preparing reports for consideration by county councils and for adoption by them, amendment or reference back. That is taking place all over the country. All we ask is that that system should be allowed to develop in its own way and that there should be the least possible interference with the general activities of these committees and that they should be permitted to proceed on an evolutionary basis.
We did assume in proposing the formation of these advisory committees that in the first instance the county officer would undertake all executive functions until the county council had decided which functions it wished to take unto itself and which it wished to leave to the county officer. The idea of not overburdening advisory committees with work is based on another amendment later proposing that the county officer in the first instance would be given these executive functions so that the county council would have time slowly and by degrees to decide which functions it wished to take unto itself and the advisory committees would then work in with the county council. That seems a reasonable proposition designed solely for the purpose of preventing county councillors from becoming professionals and civil servants as well.
In many cases our advisory committees would settle matters voluntarily with the county manager. Why should we then have this hard and fast system in local authorities while the Minister himself controls 99 per cent. of the work that is done by them? Why should we have a hard and fast system until such time as we have discovered for ourselves how the voluntary system works? In 99 per cent. of the work that is done, if advisory committees plan housing, sewerage, water schemes and roads, in the ordinary way they will get their directions from the county council as to how much money will be spent on these schemes and as to the general character of the work; in the ordinary way they will settle the issue voluntarily with the county manager without the necessity of directing him to do a certain thing, and they have not even to make a decision as to what the particular powers of the county manager are in relation to certain aspects of local administration. Putting it in more detail, the county council will decide how much they will spend on housing, work out a general plan as to the number of houses to be built and the housing committee would then decide with the manager the type of houses to be built and the site on which they will be erected, examine the contracts and so forth, and in a great many cases there will be no necessity for any legal routine as to who has what power. There is no necessity at the moment. There are thousands of houses being built to-day in the erection of which no Act of Parliament intervenes in the personal relationship of the county manager with the housing committee. That is the system we would like to continue. That is the system we would like to see expand. We would like to encourage these housing committees to do even more work if possible than they have been doing up to this, while at the same time avoiding an excessive number of meetings by encouraging them to appoint advisory committees where they have not so far appointed them, particularly in connection with reports of the work done for the year by the county manager and the work to be done in the following year, and the amount of money to be spent in relation to the work under each section of the Department of Local Government.
Deputy Childers in the opening portion of his speech at least addressed himself to the amendment and to the particular matter under consideration. He made a reasoned case. Deputy Corry throughout the whole of his speech did not appear to realise what the problem was, and thought he would substitute an argument on something that was not there for an argument on the amendment on the particular section. May I put one matter clearly to Deputy Childers? I agree with him that in order to consider this problem one must consider Section 38 at the same time. I think Deputy Childers' point would be met and the executive committee point would be met if we had executive committees that could act as such and carry out decisions.
If one had only the specialised individual case direction to these executive committees that there is in Section 38 and if one handed to these executive committees the power of the council making a general direction, then one would get away from the necessity of having a purely advisory committee and the decision of the executive committee would be much more subject to the general control of the council than it is at present under the provisions of Section 38. If you have purely executive committees then—if I may trespass, Sir, on your patience by referring to a meeting of a body of which we sometimes hear something in this House, the Cork County Council— I am quite sure that what will happen is that you will have Deputy Corry raising the roof at a meeting of the advisory committee and, at the meeting of the county council following, Deputy Corry raising the roof, which has been put back in the meantime, again
I must admire the astuteness of Deputy Sweetman in gulling the two unfortunate individuals who happen to be the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary as to the real thing that is being inveigled in behind this Bill. I want to warn the Labour members as to what is behind this, and I will give an example of what will happen under it and what Deputy Sweetman intends will happen under it in the County Kildare. I do not know what number there are in the Kildare County Council.
21.
Deputy Sweetman is chairman and he will succeed anyway in gathering seven boys together there and those seven boys, having duly got together as an executive committee under——
Do you mean seven supporters of mine?
You know very well they will have to be dyed in the wool, tried out and——
Will you read sub-section (3).
I will not, but I will tell the House what you intend to do with them. We find this committee of seven meeting and then they proceed to delegate the powers they have got now from the county council back again to the county officer.
A Deputy
We are not such fools.
I am giving what I know is behind all this manæuvring of the Deputy. I am giving what I know is behind the whole thing. There will not be anything like "may" in Deputy Sweetman's mind. That is what will happen if Deputy Sweetman has his way and then the county officer or, at least, the manager, who is known as the county officer at the moment, will proceed in the good old way. The council having given the powers, the executive committee having sold them out, they are back again on the manager. That is going to be the end of this game. The manager can then pass them along to any official he likes under him under this Act.
That would be very much like the Mulberry Bush.
I gave a description of the whole thing as I saw it. That is my honest opinion of the manner in which this Bill gives powers to a county officer in seven sections and removes them in the next.
We are not dealing with this Bill now.
I will have an opportunity again on Section 16 of dealing with that. I would advise Labour Deputies particularly to read each particular line of those sections in relation to the sections that follow and see what the complete picture will be. I am giving them the complete picture of one phase of this manæuvre under this Bill. That is Deputy Sweetman's council, Deputy Sweetman's manæuvre. I am surprised how he inveigled the Minister into fathering the Bill in this House at all. Apparently he did. I know the Minister feels half sorry for himself now. It is amazing that this Minister of a most democratic Party should come along now and select, as in Deputy Sweetman's county, seven out of the 21 and should tell the other 14 they had no power at all. In my county, it means picking out 15 of the 46 and telling them they have no power. I am amazed that a Minister of such a democratic body as the Labour Party should father a Bill of that description.
Your imagination amazes us.
I will have a better opportunity, in the next fortnight, when I am dealing with the amendments to this particular section, of going into them in more detail.
I do not think it would be wise that the Minister's words of wisdom should fall on such a small House as this. I suggest that a quorum should be called.
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present,
In the wide field of the discussion on this section the point was more concealed than ever, accidentally sometimes and sometimes not so accidentally. It became much more obscure as a result of the discussions and debates about it. Let us get back to the point at issue. The point at issue is whether we are to have advisory committees or executive committees. Provision is made in the Bill itself to enable the county council to appoint certain advisory committees. Deputy Corry is a member of a county council; Deputy Allen is a member of a county council; and so is Deputy Harris. Several members of this House are members of councils and I put it to each, considering the matter in a reasonable common sense way, would there be more chance of having the work of the council done by delegating it to an executive committee or by having the work solemnly handed over to a committee called an advisory committee who will sit back and do nothing? The powers we are handing to the executive committee in this Bill are the powers that up to now were exercised by the manager. The manager dealt with these executive functions and now these functions are being handed over to the elected representatives. They must be dealt with expeditiously and in a sensible and businesslike way. This House has accepted the principle of the Bill in departing from the managerial system, but, judging by the discussion, some Deputies seem to have a hankering for a restoration of that system. The House, however, as I say, has decided that we are not to have managers and something must be put in their place. We do not want to have in their place a system that will be ineffective; we want a system that will do the business in the most efficient way. I suggest that provision has already been made for advisory committees for such matters as require special advice and in respect of which expert opinion might be called in, but that has nothing to do with the ordinary day to day business of the council, the things that require to be attended to Deputy Corry and several Deputies spoke about them. You cannot afford to keep these waiting indefinitely.
The things that were done by the manager formerly without any consultation with the council, the council must do, through executive committees or through the whole council, and I suggest that Deputy Childers' amendment to call these advisory committees in relation to the normal business of the council is going to make the Bill unworkable. I do not think that is Deputy Childers' intention, but that would be the net effect of it. A council can appoint advisory committees for such matters as they need to have advice on, but surely not in relation to such matters as applications for home help. In such circumstances, it would mean that an application would come before the advisory committee and the committee would say: "We will report back to the council in due course and you will get your home help next week or whenever the council meets."
Deputy Childers wanted to know what power the council will have. I do not know that that is very germane to this discussion, but so many irrelevancies have been introduced that I do not know where to get on or get off. The council has all the powers that Deputy Childers and Deputy MacEntee alleged the councils had over the managers, and much more. They have much more power over the executive committees than they were supposed to have had in respect of the two-thirds majority for a specially convened meeting. If a county council does not approve of the way an executive committee is doing its work, it can indicate the particular way in which it wants the work done and can recall the delegation of the powers to the executive committee by simple resolution. Furthermore, the committees will be replaced every year. There is no question of functions being taken from the council. The council delegates functions to the executive committee to carry out this normal work. The committee reports back to the council and the council can require the committee to perform these functions in a special way. The point is that the work is done and recipients of home help will not be kept waiting. The council retains the very last word of authority in every vestige of the Bill.
At no stage is there any question about final authority resting with the elected representatives, and Deputy Corry knows that perfectly well. His talk about committees having more power than the whole council is pure "boloney". The committees have not got overriding power at all. The council gives them power to perform executive functions. There are scheduled functions which must be dealt with by the council as a whole. There are a small number of functions which have been delegated to the county officer, but the executive functions we are dealing with are the functions formerly carried out by the manager and we entrust these to the elected members of the council. We had no objection when the county managers performed them, but we have all this suspicion now when they are to be performed by members of the council.
On the next section, we will deal with the question of numbers—whether or not we should have a committee of the whole House, or, as suggested in the Bill, one-third of the members on each committee; but the principle at issue is advisory as against executive committees and anybody who is anxious and serious about having this Bill a success—and I believe that every Deputy, irrespective of Party, ought to want to see an effective instrument in the hands of local authorities—would not favour advisory as against executive committees. Surely the county officer or county secretary can advise on these matters, but the power to deal with them is given to the elected representatives and under the Bill the county council would say: "These are matters calling for urgent attention. You will do the health side and you will do the general purposes side. You will report back to us in a general way and if we do not like the way in which you are carrying on, we can amend the way in which the functions are being performed." As I say, the committee is revised from year to year. On the other hand, we have a proposal to appoint these people in an advisory capacity, with no power to do anything.
That is the net effect of the proposal and you are going to make confusion worse confounded by bringing people in from all over the county to discuss an agenda and to make recommendations back to themselves as a council for a meeting the following week. That means that one day has been wasted, because, if they had executive powers, they could have dealt with the health side and the home assistance side, but they will merely sit down and go through this fatuous business of reporting back to themselves. I do not think Deputy Childers has given any very serious consideration to the effects that would flow from having advisory instead of executive powers. If he had, I do not think he would have gone the length of putting down quite a number of these amendments. I am convinced that having advisory committees would mean cutting right across any hope of success for this measure, which we hope is to be a success.
The suggestion has been made that election to the committees be made on the basis of proportional representation from the membership of the council in respect of health and general purposes. That, however, is a detail. I think it is the best way of electing them, but if the House feels it has a better way, I am quite prepared to agree with what the House says. Deputy Corry spoke about this being a nullification of democracy. How he makes that out, I do not know. This section is a nullification of democracy, says Deputy Corry.
What was the one-man band business?
What is the idea of cutting out two-thirds of the members?
The Bill aims at restoring democratic control in local councils and every part of the Bill is designed for the restoration of that control and, at the same time, at the securing of efficiency in its working. How Deputy Corry got his brainwave about a nullification of democracy, I cannot make out. Taking powers from the manager and giving them to the elected representatives is a nullification of democracy, according to Deputy Corry. That, however, is a digression which I should not have made, as I am trying to keep on the line of the principle at issue.
The amendment tabled by Deputy Childers would rob these bodies of the right to have executive committees and give them advisory committees with no power to do anything. The Bill proposes that they must elect two executive committees. They may elect as many advisory committees as they like. The county councils must elect two committees to do the work. Everything outside the scheduled functions and the three functions reserved to the county officer—everything else that comes under the description of executive functions, of the functions up to the present done by the manager—is to be done by these committees. To do this, it is absolutely essential that they have executive powers if the Bill is not to clog and overload the whole administration. I resist this amendment as making the Bill completely unworkable.
The Minister in his last address, evaded most of the important points made here against executive committees. He chose to evade the issue of having an executive committee probably selected from one electoral area of a county and probably three-fourths of that county disfranchised and with no representation on the executive committee.
Can we not put that right in the next amendment?
It does not apply to Dublin, anyway.
It is possible, under proportional representation, for that to happen under the present machinery in this section. Is that desirable?
No.
I put it to the members of the House: is it desirable that three-fourths of a county council area should be disfranchised from representation on an executive committee that will have the powers, functions and responsibilities given to them under this Bill?
The Deputy knows that that will not happen.
Three-fourths will not be disfranchised.
It is possible that they could be.
We will not agree to that.
I can imagine an area in Deputy Davin's own county where, if you had six other councillors like Deputy Davin elected for one area, possibly his county might select them, if they were of the grade, calibre and intelligence of Deputy Davin. They would be selected from one area and put on this committee.
That is an example of the Deputy's elastic imagination.
It is quite a possibility. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent it.
Will Deputy Allen vote for Section 44?
A few moments ago, Deputy Kyne told us he approved of executive committees in preference to advisory ones, but he gave us no reason why they should function better. The House is concerned mainly with getting a machine to make local government work. The machine which this House will produce, as a result of our deliberations here and the proposals put before us, will determine how smoothly, how usefully and how effectively local government may work and serve the people in the immediate future.
Previous to the passing of the County Management Act of 1940, we had a system of local government operating in this country from the late years of the previous century. For almost 50 years, I think, that system was in operation, with slight changes. There were fairly substantial changes in 1921, when boards of guardians and District Courts were done away with, but the county councils remained. The system, by and large, served the needs of the community for 50 years. The Management Act of 1940, based on the experience of the City Management Acts for Dublin, Cork and other cities, which had been in operation for 15 years or more, made the House decide that it was the system of local government best suited to the community. That Management Act came into operation in 1942.
The history of local government is very interesting, but I do not see how relevant it is to this amendment.
We are proposing in this section to set up a new principle of local government.
We are discussing whether the committees will be executive or advisory.
While Deputy Allen is settling his mind on the relevancy of his contribution, might I ask for a quorum?
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present. House counted and, 20 Deputies being present,
Section 16—
No, amendment No. 29.
As amending Section 16. I take it that it must be amending something, that it has some relation to some section of the Bill and that I am entitled to refer to the section it is amending. Section 16, as proposed to be amended by amendment No. 29—will that bring me in order?—is the point in question. I was just saying that the duty of this House is to provide a machine that will work and function smoothly and efficiently and give service to the community, one that will enable local representatives to perform their functions with the aid of their officers, so as to operate an efficient machine of local government to serve the community interests and to provide their needs in the matter of social services. That is what they are concerned with and nothing else.
Under some recent legislation of this House, the numbers on all the councils were reduced. They are very limited at the moment and each councillor represents a large area of his county. I wish to point out that, under Section 16, unless amended in the manner now suggested by Deputy Childers, three-fourths of the people of any particular county may be disfranchised. It is an important representation. I am surprised that a Labour Minister backed up by the Labour Party in this House would stand for legislation which disfranchises two-thirds of the elected representatives and gives them no interest or responsibility in the major decisions which may be taken by the executive committees. That should be kept in mind. It is quite possible that under the section two-thirds of the representatives will scarcely have any functions.
Is it not better than what occurred in Limerick?
I am sure they have as much intelligence in Limerick as they have in Cork.
More so.
I hope they have.
The cutest place is Dublin that kept out of the Bill—try it on the dog.
Advisory committees are more desirable and would perform more useful functions. I say that with all deliberation.
And all repetition.
If they must, the councils will of course try to work this, but it will clog the wheels of progress. We do know the main reason for this suggestion. Members of local authorities have had in recent years the experience of knowing that the Department of Health and the Department of Local Government each wanted its own separate officers as officers of county councils, and that each objected on principle to its own officer performing the functions of the other Department. Now the general executive committee will be the committee of the Minister for Local Government, while the health committee will be responsible only to the Minister for Health. The Minister for Social Welfare may want another committee. I wonder why he has been left out of this Bill, and why he has not been given a committee, because home assistance will be administered under the Department of Social Welfare.
The Deputy said that he was left out; he is not in the Bill.
We must try to get a place for him later on. I believe that the whole council of a county could perform the functions of the county more usefully than an executive committee.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 56
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.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Flynn, John.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Halliden, Patrick J.
- Hickey, James.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Keane, Seán.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kinane, Patrick.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, James.
- Lehane, Con.
- Lehane, Patrick D.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- MacBride, Seán.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Óg.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- McQuillan, John.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, John A.
- Cowan, Peadar.
- Davin, William.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Fagan, Charles.
- 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.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Colley, Harry.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Davern, Michael J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- De Valera, Vivion.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Friel, John.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lahiffe, Robert.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lydon, Michael F.
- Lynch, John.
- McCann, John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- Maguire, Patrick J.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Ó 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.
Question declared carried.
That disposes of amendments Nos. 35, 39, 42, 45, 48, 49, 72, 73, 75, 76, 87, 88, 90, 92, 105, 106, 107 and also 32 and 33. That was announced by the Ceann Comhairle.
I move amendment No. 30:—
In sub-section (1), line 52, page 10, to delete "elect" and substitute "appoint".
As has been stated during the course of the discussion on the previous amendment, in effect, this amendment will provide that the executive committees will be appointed and not elected. As the Minister has agreed, the amendment will decide the principle of whether the executive committee shall consist of the small number provided in the Bill or of all the members of the council. It is for the purpose of having that matter determined that I move this particular amendment.
On the previous amendment there has been considerable discussion of this particular principle. If the Minister accepts, as I believe and hope he will, the principle of appointment rather than election, it will be an indication to the House that he will be prepared to accept the principle in other amendments of appointing the executive committees from all the members of the council and not from a select body of the members.
It is no harm to mention some matters that have already been pointed out by Deputy Corry, Deputy Allen and others, in the course of the debate, namely, that a county council is elected by the electorate to do the work of the county council; that it is undemocratic to provide that part of that work, such as the general executive functions or the health functions, should be carried out by a section of the elected councillors and not by the whole council, and that, even under the system of proportional representation that has been referred to by Deputy Allen, it is quite possible that the committees elected to carry out the general executive functions and the health functions, conceivably, could consist of members from one part of a county. It is obvious that in the appointment or election of executive members, there probably will be a very intensive canvass to get particular individuals elected, for one reason or other, perhaps because of their political affiliations and, with a small electorate, say one consisting of 21, there may be not only a very intensive canvass but very detailed instructions to the voters as to how they may exercise the vote so as to make sure that a majority of their particular political persuasion is elected. Therefore, undoubtedly, having had the election of the council on a political basis we will have sub-elections on a political basis and we may have the undesirable result that has been obtained in certain councils. I have read about it happening in, I think, two counties—in one case there was a Government majority; in the other case an Opposition majority. The majorities exercised their functions so as to prevent the minority having representation.
The Minister may say that he has avoided that pitfall by the proposal to have proportional representation. I say he has not. I say that all this possibility of intrigue, of canvass, in regard to these particular matters should be eliminated by providing that the general executive committee and the health executive committee shall consist of all the members of the council. Some of them may not attend. Some of them may not find it convenient to attend. That is all right. That can happen. But, if a member is willing and anxious to attend and anxious to carry out the duties for which he was elected by the people in his area, no junta on the council should be permitted to prevent him carrying out those duties. That is what may happen under the system envisaged or proposed in the Bill. On the general principle of democracy, I say that those executive committees should consist of all the members of the council.
How does that come into your amendment?
I want Deputy MacEntee to understand because I do not want him to start criticising me or to say it does not come into the amendment. The Minister has indicated in the course of the previous discussion that this particular principle will be dealt with on this particular amendment, and it is a matter of convenience that I am linking up the discussion and suggesting that there will not be an election of the executive committees, but appointment, and that they will consist, as is provided in subsequent amendments, of all the members of a council. In particular, I want Deputy MacEntee, who was not here during the discussions, to understand that the approach I am now making is due to the indication given by the Minister in regard to this particular discussion. I have moved the amendment for the reasons I have given.
As explained by the Deputy, the amendment deals with the question of the constitution of executive committees. I was anxious to get down to this point, which is clearly distinct from the discussion on the previous amendment. In the Bill we have set up two committees, a health committee and a general executive committee, comprised of one-third each, on proportional representation, of the general body of the council. I do not want Deputies to get the impression that that is the be-all and end-all of the work of the elected members. There are other duties which members of the council would have. They may be appointed on various committees. They may be elected for 12 months and reelected at the end of 12 months. There are the advisory committees such as the estimates committee, the rates committee, the vocational committee, the agricultural committee.
Not committees of the council.
The intention in limiting the size of the committees was with a view to making it more workable for the council. The ideal would be that if you have a reasonably small working committee you designate powers to them and they will report back to the council in the normal way, unless there is something wrong with the method of operation. If the council do not like the way they are functioning, they can be directed to do the job in a particular way.
It is really a question whether a big or a small committee would be the most effective instrument for doing the work of the council. I heard various expressions of opinion to-day in the discussion of Section 16, certain Deputies favouring the full membership of the council on committees. Some Deputies seem to hold the view that the Bill strikes at a democratic principle in robbing an elected member of a council of some of his rights or powers. I would like to make it clear that I have no intention of doing that. There are various Deputies in the House who are members of councils throughout the country and they have experience of the working of these councils and on this matter of committees they have formed their own views. I think the small committee is the better one, but if the view of the House is that there is in this any attempt to nullify the rights of elected representatives on councils, then I am not going to press that point.
I am leaving it to the House to discuss this matter fairly, freely and impartially. I put it to each Deputy: "Do you honestly think that the council will be better served by a whole house health committee and a whole house general committee?" If the House thinks that, then I am not raising any objection and I am prepared to take the views of the House on it. Personally, I think the council would be better served by a smaller body on the health and on the general committee. Even with that, there will still be functions left to the elected representatives. They can go on to other committees. Again, there is a swing around from one 12 months to another.
I am not prepared to ignore Deputy Cowan's point. It is possible that you would have the same seven people getting on committees. It could be described as a kind of freak, yet it is not outside the bounds of possibility. I admit it could happen.
My attitude is that as long as I have the acceptance of the principle of executive committees, I am satisfied, because I think that is vital to the success of the Bill. Having got that, I am not at all adamant as to what the House should do in this matter of committees—whether they will have the full committee or a reduced one.
I do not propose to enter into the discussion as to whether it is, on the whole, better that the executive committee should consist of the total membership of the council or whether they should be elected in the manner in which the Bill originally proposed. What I am concerned about is this, that we are considering an amendment which is self-sufficient and which is not linked up in any formal way with amendment No. 40. The position could be easily created that Deputy Cowan's amendment No. 30 could be carried and then amendment No. 40 could be defeated. We would then be in the position that, I think, obtains at present, that these committees could be constituted only of a fraction of the total membership of the council; they could be appointed in such a way that sections of the elected body would not be represented on these committees at all.
I think we ought to be careful to avoid the possibility of that happening. If the principle of this amendment is going to be considered—and I am not entering into that—it should be put before the House in a proper way. If the general feeling was that we should accept the principle which Deputy Cowan has ostensibly submitted to the House—that is to say, that the committee should consist of all the members of the council—then there ought to be consequential amendments, which Deputy Cowan has not put down.
Yes, read amendment No. 40.
Amendment No. 40 is not linked in any formal way with amendment No. 30. Amendment No. 30 could be carried and amendment No. 40 could be defeated. I am wondering, with an experienced draftsman like Deputy Cowan, if that was not what the Deputy had in mind.
The Ceann Comhairle has ruled that amendment No. 30 will be taken with other amendments including, I think, amendment No. 40.
We were doing something before Deputy MacEntee came into the House.
Any person can challenge a division on amendment No. 40.
Perhaps it would be better, so that there will be no misconception, if I were to make clear what the Ceann Comhairle's ruling was. He has linked with amendment No. 30, amendments Nos. 41, 46 and 83, not amendment No. 40.
That is quite evident from the text of the amendment. If Deputy Cowan wants to secure the objective which he has indicated here in the course of the debate, what he ought to do is this: he ought to delete the word "elect" and, if he likes, substitute the word "appoint"; he should have gone on to say that these executive committees shall consist of the total membership of every council.
That is what I have done in amendment No. 40.
No, you have not done it in amendment No. 40.
It is in that amendment.
I am too old a parliamentary hand to be caught by that trick; it has been played in this House on a number of occasions before. If Deputy Cowan had desired to put down a straightforward amendment—and I doubt now, in view of the attitude he has taken up, if his intentions are straightforward and honest in relation to amendments Nos. 30 and 40—if he had desired to be straightforward and honest about it—I am giving him a lesson in parliamentary draftsmanship if he will only listen to me, but apparently Deputy Cowan cannot comprehend common sense——
He cannot recognise it over there.
I accept Deputy O'Higgins' interpretation of the position—he cannot recognise it over there. However, if he wanted to do this properly, and if the Minister is going to consider this amendment, he will have to draft an additional amendment and incorporate it in one composite amendment to Section 16, because that would be necessary. The amendment that I think is necessary is an amendment which would specifically declare that these executive committees should consist of every member of the council and then, following that, sub-section (3) might be deleted; that is, if it is proposed that all the executive committees should similarly consist of the total membership of the council.
There is no use in having sub-section (3) in if Deputy Cowan's amendment to delete the word "elect" and substitute the word "appoint" is carried. It is necessary that we should have a proper safeguard if we are going to agree to delete the word "elect" and substitute the word "appoint", and the safeguard is that there should be a specific declaration that these executive committees shall consist of every member of the council.
I disagree with the amendments which have been tabled by Deputy Cowan, but I think it is due to Deputy Cowan to say that at any rate he has been very consistent in the amendments he has put down, starting with amendment No. 30.
I do not understand the attitude adopted by Deputy MacEntee on this amendment at all. Deputy MacEntee was unable to be present during the discussion on earlier amendments. Perhaps if he had taken part in these discussions and given the House the benefit of his advice, he might have a better understanding of the situation at present. At any rate, he might understand that these amendments and the sections were discussed in the spirit of helpfulness, in a rather constructive spirit, before he deigned to grace this chamber with his presence. So far as amendment No. 30 is concerned Deputy Cowan suggests that the executive committees should be appointed by the council and not elected. Deputy MacEntee pointed out that if this amendment were adopted, it would be necessary to have a number of consequential amendments and to provide that sub-section (3), Section 16, should be deleted. Deputy Cowan has tabled such an amendment, amendment No. 34. Amendment No. 34 is to the effect that sub-section (3) of Section 16 dealing with the election of executive committees should be deleted. Later on, although the Ceann Comhairle may not have ruled that it should be discussed with this amendment, Deputy Cowan perfectly consistently tabled an amendment to Section 17, that instead of having executive committees consisting of a fraction of the total membership of the council, the executive committees should consist of all members of the council. That is the proposal made in amendment No. 40. I am not in sympathy myself with the amendments suggested by Deputy Cowan but I think, in fairness to him, Deputy MacEntee should not have made the suggestion which he did regarding the Deputy. I believe the work of the executive committees will be done very much more expeditiously and efficiently if a smaller number than the entire membership of the council is placed on those committees.
A Deputy
I wonder.
A number of people do wonder about it and it is a question on which probably members of local authorities—and there are a number of them in this House at the moment—will hold very different views. Although the Dublin Corporation is not, strictly speaking, affected by this measure, I think it might be helpful to Deputies, in considering the various amendments, to know that we have had to a certain extent the same problem here in Dublin in dealing with the committees of the Dublin Corporation which are set up under the standing orders of the corporation. Originally the various committees used to consist of different numbers of councillors but some time ago it was decided, because of reasons such as those mentioned by Deputy Cowan here to-day, that it was not fair that some members of the corporation should be excluded from taking part in the decisions of the committees. It was decided then that all committees of the corporation should consist of the entire membership of the corporation, that is to say, of 45 members.
There is a view held by a number of members of the Dublin Corporation that that was a mistake and that that decision should be altered. That view is not confined to members of any one political group in the corporation. I feel myself that it is a mistake to have the committees consisting of all members of the corporation. I gave expression to that view at a meeting of the corporation, and I was supported by two members of the Fianna Fáil group who are members of this House and, who believed with me that the work of the corporation and the work of the committees was carried out more efficiently and more expeditiously when the committees consisted of smaller numbers than the entire membership of the corporation. Neither of the members to whom I refer is in this House at the moment, but I feel that if they were here, they would corroborate what I am saying and they would support the views expressed by the Minister on this amendment, in relation to the executive committees to be set up under the Act. I feel that if you have an executive committee, which consists of the entire membership of the council, you might as well call a meeting of that committee a meeting of the county council. I think it is well known that the larger the number of people collected together in a room around a table, the more tedious and the longer will be the ensuing meeting, and that it will not be possible to discuss matters in a committee atmosphere, as distinct from the council atmosphere which prevails at a meeting of the entire body.
If the suggestion made by Deputy Cowan is accepted, I would suggest to the Minister that these sections of the Bill should be redrafted in their entirety, that the idea of setting up a group of committees should be dropped and that the authority which is given to local members under this measure should be exercised by the councillors sitting as a council and not by the councillors sitting as an executive committee set up under this Act.
What about democracy?
I do agree that there are a number of different views with regard to this particular matter. I do not think however there is any very substantial objection along the lines argued by Deputy Allen on an earlier section and mentioned in an interruption by Deputy Keane just now, that there is any negation of democracy involved in setting up smaller committees. Deputy Allen argued that if a small committee, or at any rate a committee that did not consist of the entire council, were set up he could visualize a situation where an entire electoral area might be disfranchised, that they might have no representatives at all on the committee. I suppose it is possible that that might happen but Deputies will appreciate that if that happens, it would happen only because councillors from that particular electoral area themselves decided that they did not want to be on the committee. If the committee is to be elected by the system of proportional representation—take a council with a membership of 21 setting up a committee consisting of seven members—I am certainly not an expert on the working of the proportional representation system but it seems to me that in an election carried out on the system of proportional representation under those conditions, the quota necessary for election to the committee would be something in or about three votes, probably under three votes.
If the members of a particular electoral division decide that they want representation on the committee they can get it by nominating a candidate and voting for him. I may not be quite correct as to the quota, I think if Deputies work it out they will find that under those circumstances the quota is in or about three. Possibly, two votes would be sufficient to elect a member. Having regard to that, if my facts are correct I think Deputy Allen will agree that it is unlikely, except by a decision of the members in that particular area, that any area is going to find itself bereft of representation on a committee consisting of seven. However, further to eliminate that danger, it would be possible to increase the membership of the committee. The Minister has indicated that he does not feel tied to the number suggested in the Bill: that, as far as he is concerned, and if the House looks for it, the committee can consist of the entire membership of the council.
I speak with deference, at any rate, as far as county councillors are concerned because their work varies somewhat from the work of a city councillor. Nevertheless, I had occasion to visit a rural area in the West last Sunday. I found that a meeting of the council had been held the night before. It started sometime during the day and finished at 1.30 the following morning. I was told by people in the locality, some of them county councillors, that that was by no means unusual: that, in fact, it had been quite a normal practice with that particular county council for meetings to last until the early hours of the following morning. Some people disagreed as to the reason for that, but to me the reason seemed to be that you had a county council trying to get through a large agenda. You have a large membership on a council and the meeting is unnecessarily protracted. I think you would find exactly the same experience with the executive committees. Possibly, the experience would be worse with them if they were sitting as an executive committee and not as a council. However, the position, as far as I am concerned, is that I honestly believe the work of the executive committees would be unnecessarily protracted and unnecessarily clogged the larger the committee is.
At the moment, I do not feel there is any danger at all of disfranchising different electoral areas or different sections of the people. I think that Section 38 gives the necessary overriding authority to the council to review the work done by the committees and to direct the executive committees in any particular direction by means of a simple resolution. I would suggest to the Minister that rather than alter Section 17 it would be better to give wider powers, as was suggested earlier by Deputy Sweetman, under Section 38 in order that the council, as a council, would have absolute power to review any work done by the executive committees. Otherwise, you are going to come up against a situation where it might be possible, if Deputy Cowan's view is to prevail, for a committee of the council to be equal in status and in authority with the council, sitting as a council. I do not think that would be desirable, and for that reason I, personally, am against the suggestion.
The Minister, very wisely, in my opinion, has decided to leave this matter a bit open. I can quite understand the viewpoint of Deputy O'Higgins. I would be satisfied to have an executive committee running the Cork County Council to-morrow morning if it consisted of one, and I was that one. When a man is elected as a member of a local authority he is elected to look after the interests of the people he represents in the matter of roads, public assistance, health, housing and all the rest. No member is entitled to divest himself of the right he has got to represent his people in relation to any of these matters. In my opinion the executive committee should consist of the whole council in regard to all matters which are county-at-large charges. Beyond that, I do not want to have any power or say in what the people in the north Cork area consider would be best for that area as far as health charges are concerned. I say the same with regard to west Cork and to south Cork. At present we have three committees looking after the services in those three areas—housing, sanitary, home assistance and other services of that description. As far as the area charges are concerned, give those three executive committees full power, but not in regard to county-at-large charges. Let all the representatives of those areas be on the executive committees for their different areas. It would be wrong, however, if a man elected by the people on a county council were to find that he was not one of the chosen few selected to act on one of these executive committees and so was deprived of having any voice as regards expenditure on the roads in his area, in relation to housing in his area or health services in his area. That is how I look at this matter.
Is not the matter before the Committee amendment No. 30?
Together with——
I do not know anything about "together with". The matter before the Committee is amendment No. 30, under which Deputy Cowan seeks to substitute the word "appoint" for the word "elect".
The Minister agreed that, on this amendment, the principle as to whether the committee would consist of the whole council or a proportion of the council, would be decided.
I suggest that should arise on Section 17.
I am not concerned with what arises on Section 17. What I am concerned with at the moment is the statement made by the Minister.
On this amendment?
On this amendment, and with the statements made by Deputy O'Higgins. I am only following on the line that they took.
I think the Leas-Cheann Comhairle read out a number of amendments which were being considered together.
Yes, they are on the same point — amendments Nos. 30, 41, 46, 83.
Yes, but the Minister indicated that he would accept the decision on this to cover that principle and I think that is why it is being debated.
If the Minister so declares, then the Deputy is in order—if it decides a series of amendments.
I do not think the Minister said that. It is not for me to tell the House what the Minister said, but I understood him to say that he had an open mind on the matter.
I had regard to the amendments quoted by the Ceann Comhairle and I was prepared to have the principle of the whole council committee or the reduced number committee discussd on this amendment.
All right.
We are anxious to make this Bill as good as we can, and I think it should be the duty of all Deputies, irrespective of Party, to do that. We are the people down the country who will have to work it, not the boys here in Dublin who very cutely decided to keep the Dublin County Council and the Dublin Corporation out of this Bill and to try it on the dog. We happen to be the dog in this case. As we are the boys who will have to work it, we are entitled to decide on whether we are going to disfranchise as far as most of the work of a county council is concerned one-third of the members altogether, two-thirds of them as regards roads and two-thirds of them as regards health. Apparently, that is the object of the one-third provision in this. I admit that there are Deputies like Deputy O'Higgins, and probably myself, who would not be above saying: "Very well, we are going to have the chosen few on this." But that is the position that is being created and that is why I definitely have an objection to it. I was amused to hear Deputy O'Higgins say that the council should have an overriding authority over the executive committee after voting ten minutes ago in favour of that executive committee being an executive authority and not an advisory one.
That was decided.
It was rather amusing to hear the Deputy's suggestion afterwards that the council as a whole should have an overriding authority over the executive committee after voting previously that they should not.
There is nothing inconsistent in it.
That is what you did. However, I agree that a councillor, when elected, should be able to carry out the work which the people elected him to do, that he should have a voice in connection with the expenditure on roads and everything else. Cork County is different from other counties perhaps. There are three separate areas of charge in County Cork. If we can fit in these three separate areas so far as the areas of charge are concerned, I am satisfied, but I certainly object to having any executive power vested in any committee smaller than a committee of the whole council.
I should like to ask Deputy Corry if he is moving my sub-section.
He has no power to do that.
No, but when Deputy Keane proposes it I shall have the greatest pleasure in supporting it. Since it has been decided not to try it in Dublin, I do not see why they should try it in Cork either.
I should like to tell Deputy Corry that I did not rise to question any of his remarks as I am in absolute agreement with him in everything he said.
The Deputy will have an opportunity on the amendment.
On a point of order. As I understand, the matter immediately before the House is Deputy Cowan's amendment No. 30. If we take a decision on that amendment, how can it possibly determine the principle which is in sub-section (2) of Section 17? That is what I am concerned about, because we are getting into a state of the utmost confusion. We have been told by Deputy Cowan that the Minister is prepared to consider that a decision on amendment No. 30 is going in some way to affect sub-section (2) of Section 17. There is an amendment to delete sub-section (2). If that sub-section is deleted, that does not settle the question unless we can in some way take amendment No. 44 before we take Section 17. I put the point that it would be quite open to the House to accept Deputy Cowan's amendment and that it would then be quite open to the House to reject Deputy Cowan's amendment No. 34. in the first place, then his further amendment No. 40 and then the further amendment No. 44. If so, what position will we be in?
What about sub-section (3) of Section 16?
One solution would be if Deputy Cowan withdrew all the amendments to Section 16 on the understanding that the principle of them would be discussed on Section 17 on his amendments Nos. 40 and 44.
I am prepared to withdraw this amendment if the Minister will undertake to recast sub-section (1) on the Report Stage in the event of the subsequent amendments being carried, because I can see the difficulty if the word "appoint" is put in. I ask the Minister to agree to recast sub-section (1).
I have indicated that I am willing to accept the decision of the House upon the main principle, but you do not want me to make an amendment to this sub-section without getting a decision from the House.
That would appear to be the correct procedure. If the Minister gets a decision of the House on amendments No. 40 and No. 44, it would be necessary for him to recast sub-section (1).
That will be perfectly all right.
Then in order to get down to that, I withdraw my amendment.
Suppose sub-section (3) of Section 16 is passed, where are we?
That is important.
"The election of an executive committee shall be conducted...", if that is passed where are we?
Without holding up the House, would it be possible at a later stage to formally accept Section 16 and recommit——
Accept Section 16 without prejudice?
——recommit the Bill for discussion on an ordered amendment which will do what Deputy Captain Cowan wants to do, without involving the dangers which are inherent in the present procedure?
But the Deputy's hands will be tied if you pass sub-section (3).
Not if we recommit for the purpose of getting an ordered amendment.
Take a decision on amendment No. 40?
Yes.
Because the Deputy could not move that if the House passes sub-section (3). We are passing without prejudice.
What about amendment No. 37?
I think that is dependent on the passing of No. 38, is it not?
Correct.
No. 37 is consequential on amendment No. 38.
We will move amendment No. 38 first.
I want the House and Deputy Cowan to take Section 16 as passed without prejudice.
I accept that.
Let the other amendments go for the present and, if possible, get reasoned amendments later.
The procedure would be that we should formally accept Section 16, but amendments should be put down on the Report Stage and the Bill should be recommitted for the purpose of considering those amendments.
Before we go as far as accepting it formally, there is just one point: there is the principle of committees in Section 16. Unless the Minister indicates at this stage whether or not he intends to use the Government majority to adhere to the principle of committees of the council——
Of the whole council?
No, of a section of the council; the Minister has indicated that he has an open mind on the matter and he would like to hear the House argue the pros and cons of a committee consisting of a section of the council or of the whole council to act as an executive committee.
Does that not arise under Section 17?
No, this section provides for executive committees.
That has been carried.
If the Minister would indicate whether or not he is prepared to consider having the whole council as executive committees, that would clear the minds of Deputies and help us in forming our view-point on this section and the next section also.
Another question for consideration is whether the Minister would be prepared to give an indication of his view on amendment No. 81 on Section 32 in which the executive council functions of the council are given to the whole county council because it would seem that that would flow in the same way from the previous decision. In amendment No. 81 the executive functions shall be performed by the county council as a whole; it would seem as if the same principle is involved there.
I suggest the Minister should accept amendment No. 38.
Suppose amendment No. 40 were affirmed, where would you be then?
We want amendment No. 38 anyway.
Let us decide on something. If amendment No. 40 is passed, what happens to Section 16 then?
I ask the Minister to indicate to the House that he will accept amendment No. 40. If he does that, that clears the air.
As there are only five minutes to go, it would be better for the Minister to consider this matter before the House meets again. There will be a whole series of consequential effects. Once the county council becomes the executive committee many sections of this Bill will have to be reexamined before the House can proceed any further.
I want no misunderstanding. I still hold out for two executive committees. That is clear.
Weekly?
On the question of constitution and numbers, I am leaving it to the House to give a decision. My own proposal in the Bill is one-third. Some members have amendments down. Possibly it may resolve itself into two halves. On that particular aspect I am not committing myself yet. I am holding for two committees.
We are agreed on the two committees.
Yes.
We are not.
As far as Cork is concerned, everybody realises that Cork is different from any other county in Ireland.
That is so.
I do not know whether or not it was Deputy MacEntee who was responsible but somebody in the Fianna Fáil régime was responsible for putting through an Act under which we had thrust upon us three boards of health in Cork.
Would the Deputy allow me to interrupt for a moment? We will take it that Section 16 is agreed without prejudice and that we will get a definite decision as to the numbers on amendment No. 40 to-morrow.
That is agreed.
There is only one objection.
You can raise that objection to-morrow.
I will not allow Section 16 to pass unless it is agreed now.
Then we are back where we were.
We are back far enough on it.
I think some of the speeches that have been made here would be more appropriately made on Section 17. We cannot allow the Dáil to get into the sort of mess into which it will get unless we formally allow Section 16 to go, as you have said, without prejudice and have a real discussion on Section 17, which is the effective section.
Section 16 agreed to.
Progress reported; the Committee to sit again to-morrow.