On the last day this Bill was before the House—I forget exactly when that was—I think I had moved this particular amendment. The amendment is very fully set out and is self-explanatory. I would like now to have the views of the Minister. I would like to know whether or not the Minister will accept it?
Local Government (County Administration) Bill, 1950—Committee.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 71.
I was hoping the Deputy would say something about it. I was waiting to hear the Deputy.
That is why I am not saying very much about it.
The principles actuating the Deputy in amendments Nos. 71, 77 and 79 are, I take it, much the same in relation to the carrying out of certain functions by the county officer. The Deputy has already expressed the view that he wants to preserve the right and the principle of giving the maximum amount of authority to the elected representatives. That is the principle underlying this Bill. I have already explained that the principle of protecting the responsibilities of the elected representatives is adequately safeguarded already in the Bill. The carrying out of executive functions will be vested in them but there are other functions that can be more effectively performed by the individual county officer. It is for that reason that it is suggested that he should perform these functions—that is employment functions, tenancy functions and health functions. The argument against the Deputy's amendment in this particular instance is that the Bill is intended to give back real power into the hands of the elected representatives. If the elected representatives were to occupy their time quibbling over little jobs or examining into a dispute in relation to some employee or another, valuable time would be wasted. That type of thing can be dealt with more effectively by an individual. It should be no part of a body such as this to deal with individuals and their complaints.
Matters of that kind are better dealt with by the county officer, particularly having regard to the fact that he functions inside duly prescribed lines. I do not think approval could be given to handing these functions over to the elected representatives. In another section power is taken to ensure that there will be no undue increase, for instance, in staff without the sanction of the elected representatives. In earlier Acts the higher positions are adequately dealt with by the Local Appointments Commission. Power was taken in the past to have them dealt with by the Government. I see neither reason nor justification for cluttering up the business of the elected representatives by imposing upon them the duty of dealing with minor matters of the kind suggested by the Deputy. I suggest to the Deputy that his principle has been adequately preserved in the Bill since executive powers are being given back to the elected representatives. Under Section 27 of this Bill they will have control over staff matters. I think our method is the most effective way of dealing with the matter.
I will accept the decision on this in relation to amendments Nos. 77 and 79, as they cover the same principle. I do not suppose I would be able to carry it against the Minister unless I got support from my friends across the House. The only purpose behind this series of amendments is the principle that I stated here on a former occasion, that I wanted to give democratic powers to the local authorities. These amendments would provide that a local authority could itself decide to carry out the employment functions, the functions under tenancy or the individual health functions; or, if they do not so decide, then in accordance with the Bill, these functions would be exercised by the county officer. If I had any measure of support for that principle, I would press it. If I have not the measure of support that it deserves, I am not going to delay the House on it.
Does the Deputy conclude that he has not that support? Am I to take it that the amendment is withdrawn?
Yes, I do not seem to have the support.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 not moved.
I move amendment No. 74:—
In sub-section (3), lines 10 and 11, to delete "vacancy occurs in a permanent office under a council of a county or an elective body", and substitute "permanent office under the council of a county or an elective body is vacant,".
This is a drafting amendment. The purpose of this amendment is to alter the opening words of sub-section (3) from "Where a vacancy occurs in a permanent office under a council of a county or an elected body...." to "where a permanent office under the council of a county or an elected body is vacant...."
The sub-section provides as it stands that where a vacancy occurs in a permanent office the county officer shall not take any steps to fill the vacancy permanently save with the approval either of the appropriate executive committee of such council or of the elective body. The words "where a vacancy occurs" may give rise to difficulty. Suppose there was a particular statutory office which had never been filled under a local authority, then it would hardly be correct to say that a vacancy occurred. Again, if the vacancy occurred some years previously, then the words "where a vacancy occurs" would hardly be appropriate. It is considered that the expression "where a permanent office is vacant" is the more correct way to describe it and prevent any difficulty that might arise in filling that particular job.
I assume we are taking merely the drafting amendment first, for purposes of convenience. There is 72 and 73 to be disposed of.
It was agreed when we were discussing No. 29 that they fell or stood with that. There was a whole series of amendments concerned, about 20 of them.
May I respectfully submit—I was not here——
It was reached with the consent of Deputy Childers.
If so, if the position is that there was agreement——
There was a distinct agreement.
They are quite separate principles—the principles raised in sub-section (2) and sub-section (1). Sub-section (1) provides for the exercise of what one might describe as permanent employment functions of the council; while sub-section (2) relates to a proposal to increase the number of permanent officers. There are two quite separate principles involved. However, I will be bound by what Deputy Childers agreed.
If the Deputy would like to know the numbers, I will give them.
Yes. I am merely putting the point that they are quite independent principles, one is the employment function of the council, the other an increase in personnel or staff. It is quite different. However, I am not going to press the point of view.
Is the amendment agreed to?
I cannot see how amendment No. 72 could stand or fall by amendment No. 71.
Not by No. 71, by No. 29. There are 19 amendments which stand or fall. I will give the Deputy time to look up amendment No. 29.
Amendment No. 74 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 also fall with amendment No. 29. That is why I should like the Deputy to look up amendment No. 29. A whole series of 19 amendments falls with it.
Amendment No. 29 is an amendment to Section 16. We must be misunderstanding each other. It relates to the appointment of advisory committees.
Elective of advisory—that was the difference.
Are we not now on Section 29?
What does amendment No. 75 a propose to do?
Amendment No. 76 proposes to delete sub-section (5), but I am merely on the point that amendment No. 72 should be decided separately. It should not be possible for it to stand or fall by amendment No. 71.
No one claims that it does. It falls with amendment No. 29. I am not relating it to No. 71 at all but to No. 29, which first raised the question of advisory committees instead of executive committees.
If we get back to amendment No. 72, No. 72 relates to the council of the county or the elected body and not executive committees. The net point at issue is whether a proposal to increase the number of permanent officers in a council of a county or an elected body shall not be submitted to the Minister save with the approval of the county council concerned. The net point there is whether the approval should be given by the county council or by an executive committee of the county council. I agree to this extent that since the acceptance of the amendment permitting the whole body of the council to be members of an executive committee the matter does not seem to be of very great importance. On that basis, since the Minister has accepted the proposal to permit every individual who is a member of a council to be a member of an executive committee, I suppose there is not much point in debating the proposed amendment at length.
The main purpose of Deputy Childers' amendment was to have it advisory rather than executive.
We are on amendment No. 72.
No. We have finished amendment No. 74.
In amendment No. 29 Deputy Childers was aiming in sub-section (1), page 10, to delete all the words after "Act" and substitute the following: "appoint advisory committees consisting of members of the council."
Amendments Nos. 29, 32, 33, 35, 39, 42, 45, 48, 72, 73, 75, 76, 87, 88, 90, 105 and 106 are all part and parcel of that idea.
If that has been agreed upon, I am not going to be like a famous Deputy in the Opposition and try to get through the agreement; it seems to be an illogical agreement. Having said that, I think we had better allow the Bill to proceed. We are on Section 29 and not on amendment No. 29
Amendment No. 75, Section 29. Amendment No. 75 not moved. Either we abide by Deputy Childers' interpretations of his own amendments or we do not.
Yes, Sir, but I want to be quite clear that amendment No. 75 is deemed to have fallen with amendment No. 29.
Yes and amendment No. 76.
Question proposed: "That Section 29 as amended stand part of the Bill."
This section deals with the employment functions of the council and it is probably one of the important sections in this Bill. I doubt whether there is much change in the powers which the section gives from the existing powers under the County Management Act except that they are carried out in full in this Bill. The thought often occurred to me that the matter of employment functions is probably one of the big weaknesses—if weakness could be said to exist—in the County Management Act. I personally believe that the council, in some form or other, should come in for the making of appointments with the manager in the matter of getting the work done, so to speak. I do not want to bring in the council in every matter dealing with employees on roads or with operatives in housing. The council should definitely be brought in in respeet of the principal officers of a council of a county and have some function side by side with the manager. That would strengthen and add to the local government machine as it operates. I would like to see some amendment discussed here on Report Stage to see if it were possible to bring in the principal officers and council of a county, together with the manager not for the purpose of dealing with matters of discipline but, generally speaking, to deal with the matter of how they carry out their functions. If that could be done it would strengthen this Bill.
I am glad that Deputy Allen has raised this point, because it does certainly reveal what is a very difficult problem in this matter of county administration. Perhaps a great deal of the difficulty arose, in the first instance, from the unwarranted assumption of authority by inexperienced county managers, and, on the other hand, by a too ready acquiescence in that assumption by the members of the elected bodies. When the Act was introduced there was a great deal of prejudice created about it and, I think, a great deal of misunderstanding in the minds of the then members of the elected bodies. They did not grasp the full extent of their powers and the control which they could assert over the county manager. Therefore, thay assumed that they could not discuss with him the shortcomings of the heads of the various technical services administered on behalf—we are just dealing with county councils—of the county council. Of course, that was wrong. They were quite competent to raise with the manager any act of negligence, any failure, any deficiency in zeal or efficiency of any one of the officers of the county council. In fact, not only were they competent to do so, but it was their duty to do so and to pin on him definite reaponsibility for the act of every one of his subordinates and for the acts of every officer of the county council. If the county manager was not prepared to accept that responsibility and accepting it to ensure that the heads of the various county services under him would do their duty competently and zealously, then I would say that such a person was not fit to hold the post of county manager.
There is one thing, I think, that this Bill does—the County Management Act has done it also. This Bill definitely fixes responsibility on the county officers for the full control of the staffs; it implies full responsibility for what every member of that staff does. It is the duty of the county officer, in the first place, to see that every officer under him serves, as I have said, zealously, energetically, and efficiently, and to hold that officer accountable through himself as county officer to the elected body for everything that is done in relation to whatever particular service that officer may be head of. It also, I think, definitely fixes on the elected body the responsibility for seeing that the county officer discharges these employment functions of the council on their behalf, naturally, and on behalf of the ratepayers zealously and fearlessly. If that position is understood and made effective in actual practice, I think that many of the difficulties, which Deputy Allen and, I know, other members of local authorities have experienced in the past, will disappear. It all depends upon the county officer on the one hand being fit for his job and the members of the county council being prepared to rise to the height of their responsibilities.
Very often we blame on legislative enactments the faults which arise really from our own lack of moral courage. It does happen that members of county councils will hesitate to criticise, will hesitate to criticise the county manager because the officers under him do not do their job and will hesitate to criticise the heads of one or other of the technical services of the council because they do not want to hurt the officer or be on bad terms with him. That is where the great part of the difficulty to which Deputy Allen has referred is experienced. There are, of course, in all county councils men who are fearless and who will do their duty, but it is always difficult to single one-self out as a trouble maker, as the fellow who is the carping critic, and until it is realised by the members of the elected body that they must, if necessary, if the circumstances call for it, do things which are bound to make them unpopular with the officials, I am afraid we are going to have always an imperfect system of local government. I do not think we shall ever have a perfect system because these human factors come into play, no matter what Acts of Parliament you may pass in order to eliminate them.
We can get only a reasonable amount —a modicum, I might say—of efficient administration, when you have in every county council people who are not tied to any body of servants of the county council, who are not tied by personal sentiment or association to any individual in the council, but who are tied only to the ratepayers who elected them. If we can get that situation brought about, whether we call the officer a county officer or county manager, you will get reasonable efficiency and you will not get exceptional efficiency. You will not get 100 per cent. efficiency, because you will have to work with human instruments as you find them, and particularly with human instruments as they are bound to be moulded and influenced by the fact that they are dealing always with neighbours and sometimes with friends.
Instead of the Minister contemplating the drafting of an amendment, the real way to tackle this problem is to tackle it right from the top, for the Minister continuously to impress, first, on the members of the elected body that they are in fact the masters under this Bill, as they were under the County Management Act, and that it is only when they assert that control and superiority that either this Bill when it becomes an Act or the County Management Act could be made to work and, secondly, on the county officer, formerly the county manager, that he is responsible for every officer under him, that he cannot shelve that responsibility and cannot slough it off simply by saying that it is the job of the county medical officer of health or the job of the county engineer. He is responsible to the elected body for everything these officers do and particularly for everything they neglect to do which they ought to do. Until he is prepared to shoulder that responsibility—if he were not prepared to do so, I do not think he should be retained in his job any longer than is necessary —it will be very difficult to get this system, any more than the system which preceded it, to work without a great deal of criticism.
I endorse every word Deputy MacEntee has said. That is exactly my conception of how the Bill ought to work and how we expect it will work. I do not believe it could work otherwise. We must have responsibility properly centred on the officer for such work as is given to him in the Bill or delegated to him by the executive committee or council as a council. There will have to be a responsible officer carrying out that work and he must stand up to his responsibility and not seek to share it with others. Deputy Allen said he thought there was a weakness in the system in that too much independence was vested in the county manager. That has been covered by taking from the manager the executive powers and I am hoping that with the officer doing the job in relation to such work as is delegated or set out in the Bill—individual health, tenancy and employment functions—he will be responsible to the elected representatives.
The main factor was the giving back to the council of the executive powers and that provision has taken a lot of the power from the manager, so that these functions will be carried out under the direct control of the elected representatives; but that does not take in the least from the responsibility of the officer who will carry out these functions. Under Section 45, he is bound to give all kinds of information required by the council at any time. I am satisfied that there is ample protection given for the democratic principle, so to speak, and, at the same time, for securing efficiency in working by loading the county officer with responsibility and giving no option but to stand up to it. If he delegates it to another, he will still be responsible for the performance of these functions. I am grateful to Deputy MacEntee for his remarks because they coincide exactly with my own views.
Question put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 77 not moved.
I move amendment No. 78:—
To add to the section a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) Where the county officer proposes to perform the function of selecting a tenant—
(a) he shall first submit to the general executive committee or elective body (as may be appropriate) particulars of any applications received for the tenancy and the reports of the county medical officer thereon together with the name and address of the person whom he proposes to select as tenant, and
(b) such committee or body may by resolution require the county-officer to obtain and submit to them further reports from the county medical officer on the applications or on any matter connected with the selection of a tenant, and
(c) if such requirement is made, the county officer shall not proceed with the selection of a tenant until he has complied with the requirement.
The purpose of this amendment is to add a new sub-section to Section 30 which provides that the tenancy functions of the council of a county or an elective body shall, subject to the provisions of the Act, be performed by the county officer. The new sub-section provides that, where the county officer proposes to perform the function of selecting a tenant, he must first submit to the general executive committee of the county council or to the elective body particulars of the applications received for the tenancy and the reports of the county medical officer, together with the name and address of the person he proposes to select as tenant. If the general executive committee of a county council or an elective body are doubtful about any of the information given in the county medical officer's reports, they can query them and ask the county officer to get a further report from the county medical officer.
Members of a local authority may have personal information with regard to some of the tenants and they may discover cases where the county medical officer is misled by an applicant and they can then ask the county officer to get a further report. The county officer cannot make the letting until he has submitted the further report to them. The point is that a medical officer might make his report on a tenant and the county officer would be guided by that report in the matter of priority, but it is possible for misleading information to be given as to the number of occupants in a house and such matters. If any of the elected representatives are aware that false or misleading information has been given, upon which the decision of the county medical officer and county officer is based, they are entitled to have the matter reinvestigated in the light of that knowledge.
I am not prepared to say that the amendment is not desirable, but it does occur to me that, under paragraphs (b) and (c), it might be possible for a council to take up a completely non-possumus attitude and to require further reports ad infinitum, with the idea of preventing the county officer from selecting any tenant.
There must be a majority. I think that point is covered.
It is rather farfetched, I agree.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 30, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 31.
Amendment No. 79 not moved.
I move amendment No. 80:—
In line 37, to add at the end "on the advice of the county medical officer of health".
The purpose of the amendment is that the individual health functions of the council of the county or an elective body shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be performed by the county officer on the advice of the county medical officer of health. The individual health functions are to a large extent, and I think mainly, functions in which the advice of the county medical officer of health will be very valuable. The county medical officer of health has substantial responsibilities in regard to this matter. Where the health functions are performed by the county officer they should be performed by him on the advice of the county medical officer of health who is the appropriate person to advise him—and not some other person on his staff who may not understand properly the matter that is under discussion. I think the Minister will have no objection to accepting the amendment.
I think he will have great objection to accepting it.
There are obvious reasons why I could not accept the Deputy's amendment. The county officer would have to consult with the appropriate officer in all these particular functions, but there is no reason why it should be made a statutory obligation on him to consult with the county medical officer of health. The county medical officer of health will not be the sole authority to advise him of health matters. Take, for instance, the resident medical superintendent of a mental hospital. Then, again, there is the matter of tenancy functions.
In the matter of the selection of tenants, the county officer will have to be guided by the county medical officer of health, but he should not be restricted to a statutory obligation to perform his functions in the way which the Deputy suggests. As I have said, there is the matter of the resident medical superintendent of a mental hospital. He is the man who would have to be dealt with in particular cases. If this amendment were accepted it would be tantamount to making the county medical officer of health an additional county officer. We should have only one county officer in an area, otherwise we should have chaos. The county officer will have to consult with the county medical officer of health when it is his job.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 31 agreed to.
SECTION 32.
The principle of amendment No. 81 was more or less agreed to when the Minister decided that the executive committee would consist of all the members of the council—no longer one-third. The principle of amendment No. 81, which stands in my name, was, therefore, automatically adopted by the Minister.
Amendment No. 81 not moved.
Amendments Nos, 82, 84, 85 and 86 are all to the same purpose.
Amendment No. 82 not moved.
Amendment No. 83 is consequential on amendment No. 30.
Amendment No. 83 not moved.
Might I say now that on the Report Stage it is intended that Sections 16, 17 and 18 will be recast and that this sub-section will be recast with them, giving effect to the principle of amendment No. 40? It would be desirable, I think, to let the sub-section stand until the Report Stage.
Amendments Nos. 84, 85 and 86 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 32 stand part of the Bill."
I do not want to repeat what has been said before in regard to the general character of this Bill, but I think it is opportune to mention once again that there is an implication in this Bill whereby county councils did not have, before the Bill was introduced, the conception in their minds that they could exercise executive functions. I should like once more to take up the cudgels with the Minister in regard to the statement he has made on a number of occasions which would make it appear that he is conferring a privilege and greater democratic power on local authorities by giving them such executive functions as the planning of a housing scheme, the planning of a sewerage and water scheme, the planning of a hospital or the planning of any new amenity to be constructed or designed for the benefit of the people in a particular local area. I do not think the Minister is being entirely honest in his mind about it—I am not accusing him of deliberate dishonesty. However, a very great majority of county councils have, in a perfectly friendly and normal manner, consulted with the county manager in regard to the planning of their housing schemes.
Committees of the county councils have gone into the question of what site should be chosen, of whether the site was of the right price, of how many houses should be built, of what type they should be, of how many rooms they should have, of what rents would be envisaged and of what amenities should be included in the construction of a house. They have consulted with the county managers on the rate on which that work should be done and on the number and order and priority of sewerage and water schemes to be carried out. They have been doing that constantly. I have been assured by the chairman of at least three county councils that they have gone into the utmost detail in regard to these matters. They have not simply moved the rate that includes the county council contribution to the construction of a housing scheme, which includes the subsidy to enable an economic rent to be paid by the new tenants. When the Minister moves Section 32 of this Bill he is moving a section which contains, as I have said, a great many functions which were clearly already within the competence of the local authority concerned. I should like to recall to the mind of the Minister two or three directives which were sent by the former Minister for Local Government, making it absolutely clear to county councils that they had these executive functions and that they could exercise them. The Minister may reply that within, perhaps, the narrow strictness of the law they were in fact functions of the county manager and that what he wants to do is to make clear in law what already was the practice.
In actual fact, however, in connection with large sections of the County Management Act, as time went on and as the emergency with all its difficulties diminished, more and more county councils tended to co-operate in a friendly way with the county manager with regard to these matters. I am aware that there are some executive functions which are now to be definitely performed by county councils as a whole about which there may have been some doubt; there may be others which were definitely matters for the county manager before and are now matters for the county councils and I do think that the Minister should, at least, in the course of this very friendly debate we are having have the courtesy to admit that many functions are now being carried out by the county councils although the law may not be entirely strict and precise with regard to that matter. I do know definitely, in the case of Wexford County Council, that not a brick was put in place for the last five years since the end of the war which the members of the county council had not an intimate part in planning, designing and arranging with the county manager.
I think that the Minister has tried to be honest in the matter—he has been honest; but certainly members of his Party have gone around the country as though a régime of slavery were ended and that these matters were the concern of dictatorial county managers. That is nonsense and the Minister knows it is nonsense. As we are having a very friendly debate the Minister might admit that the application of Section 32 is now making legally watertight a condition that had grown up in regard to these principal functions.
If the Deputy were to leave the question of honesty and dishonesty out we could discuss this matter on a much more reasonable basis. I have never either in public or private claimed more for the Bill than it actually is, and I do not know that other Deputies on this side of the House have done that or suggested that the County Management Act was to be destroyed. I do suggest that the conditions described by the Deputy will continue in much the same way with just one reversal. County councils and county managers have planned together in a wise way and have discussed housing schemes, sites, the number of houses to go into a scheme and all such matters, and they will continue to do so now. The services of the county officer will not be taken away from the county council; the council will have at their disposal the services of the county officer, the engineers and the staff with whom at present they plan those matters, but they are now an executive function and the council are the people responsible. By all means they will consult the county officer as otherwise they could not carry on. I suggest that the county manager did not do all the work; he had to have consultants, treasurers and engineers, and they consulted with the council. The same consultations will take place except that whereas the county manager was the boss hitherto, the county council will now be the boss. They will have the services of those officials to help them to plan competent comprehensive housing and drainage schemes. I do not see why Deputy Childers should dread that these conditions will be altered; I do not see any reason for thinking that. I do not attribute dishonest motives to Deputy Childers and I hope that he does not attribute dishonest motives to me. I hope for nothing except what is witnin the four corners of the Bill. I have nothing against the county managers and never said that I have.
County managers are very efficient and they will be so under their new title. In the old days when we had neither county mangers nor county officers but county secretaries, houses were built and schemes of work were carried out with perfect consultation between the elected representatives and their officers and the same thing will happen under the terms of the Bill. It will produce not conflict or friction, I hope, but a harmonious atmosphere in which to carry out the work. The trained officers will be at the disposal of the elected representatives who have these executive functions to carry out with the aid of the county manager and his staff.
The Minister has made a very satisfactory statement but I must repeat that the Minister has said something which we have been longing to hear for a considerable time. I can assure him that other members of his Party spoke in a very different vein and tried to give the people the idea that there was a state of virtual tyranny and that the members of county councils were not able to exercise proper authority except under that section of the County Management Act by which they could direct the county manager to do a thing in a certain way.
Decapitate him altogether.
I do not know whether I could speak on this section of the Bill or on Section 34, but I think I had better raise my point here because it is one of the utmost importance and I can raise it again on Section 34. Now that we have agreed that most county councils have done valuable planning and consultative work with the county managers before and will now undertake all executive functions, the Minister so far has never given us any information on the timing of this whole problem.
Among a great many people who have been chairmen or members of the county councils there is the feeling that unless county councils delegate a great many executive functions to the county officers they will become civil servants rather than members of a legislative authority and that the effect of that would be that in certain areas where the tradition may not be so good as in others you will get a sort of professional politician, the member of the county council who will spend a very considerable number of days in the year carryiug out executive functions and doing work which really is of an administrative character. In other words, Section 32 is extremely vague. It may perhaps have to be vague; it would be very difficult to frame it otherwise, but you can divide Section 32 and divide the implications of Section 32 into two categories: a sort of executive function related to planning and an executive function related to everyday supervision of the work of the county officer in so far as that is related to executive functions. The Minister has never yet told us anything very much about how often he expects these various committees to meet. The executive committee is now the council, all the members of the county council, 21 or 26 or whatever number there is. In the case of Cork there will be 48. He has given us no lead as to what he expects people to do. Does he intend to send some directions or suggestions as was done for example in connection with differential renting? Is he going to give directions? Is he going to give an approximate idea of how much planning work county councils are going to do and how much administrative work which is definitely implied by Section 32? This will arise again on Section 34, and I have put down an amendment in which I have attempted to clarify the issue. I see beside me Deputy Allen who has had experience of county council work while I have had experience only of supervising them. It is possible to conceive certain county councils, unless they get the right tradiiion with regard to this matter, sitting once or twice a week while some members come in every day. The Minister has not given a lead up to now; he has simply lumped together "executive functions". Unless county councils are given some idea of how they should proceed many members will become professional politicians with nothing else to do but attend meetings, claim their expenses and then go home. The Minister should give us some clue as to how he intends this to operate, some idea of the way these executive functions are to be performed.
I do not wish to say anything which would make this very amicable debate in any way highly controversial; but I think I must take exception to the statement made by the Minister that, under this Bill, the relative positions of the county officer —the county manager as he is now, and the county officer as, I suppose, he will be—and the elected body will be reversed. In the course of his statement the Minister said this Bill would make the elected body the boss of the show. He did not use that exact phrase, but that was what he implied and, whereas, under the existing condition of things, under the County Management Act, he suggested the county manager was boss of the show. I take very strong exception to that, because there is full documentary evidence, apart altogether from the Act, in the letters which were issued from the Department of Local Government and in the various admonitions conveyed to individual county managers, that they were never bosses of the show; that the final authority always rested in the elected body.
I know Deputies, like Deputy O'Leary and others, have tried to prejudice the whole position by implying that, because of their incompetence and their inability to hold their own, to maintain their own position and exercise their own responsibilities vis-a-vis the manager, the manager has been the boss. That is not so, as I have said many times, and as the terms of the Act prove, and as these circular letters issued from time to time by the Department of Local Government, in order to clarify the position—not so much to clarify the position as to make the members of the county councils aware of what the real position is—indicate. There is no truth in that.
Under the County Management Act, the elected body is the supreme authority; it is the body which provides the money, the body which passes the final plans. There are only one or two matters in which it could not interfere, and practically every one of these matters has been carried over into this County Administration Bill. They could not deal with the question of employment, with staffs, with tenancies, and they could not deal with the granting of public assistance. One of the difficulties in the Bill is that the administration of public assistance will be made subject to the control—and not merely to the control, but to the administration—of the whole of the public assistance authority.
Having taken exception to that portion of the Minister's remarks, I should like to come to the section itself. Whatever may be the intention of the Minister when he brought in this Bill, quite frankly I may say that to allocate specific functions to a section of the county council is a good idea. I know a great many of my colleagues on these benches do not agree with me, but I certainly thought that, having regard to the complexity and extent of the activities of county councils, it would be quite a good idea to have placed on a particular section of the county council responsibility for the supervision of one particular field of the county council's activities, and to leave to the special supervision of another section of the county council another particular field or range of the county council's activities.
I think that is the way in which we can ultimately get these things working and, bearing in mind that we have now separate Government Departments administering what might be described as formerly the particular business of local authorities—rates, public lighting, housing and so on— that we have another Department now in control of what were formerly the public health and health functions of the local authority, and that we have still a third Department in control of the public assistance functions of the local authority, I think it will be found in actual practice, when these Departments get functioning according to their own particular line, that it would be a good thing—almost essential—to have the general body of the council divided up in the way in which the Minister first proposed. However, that is abandoned and we are now in the position in which all the executive functions of the council are to be performed by the general committee of the council, which means the whole body of the council.
I think two difficulties will arise there. First of all, we have no specific definition in the Bill of what the executive functions of the council are. They are defined by exclusion and we do not know, therefore, what residual function is left by this definition of exclusion. I think it is beyond the power of man to state specifically what are the executive functions of the council. Neither the angels in Heaven above nor the demons under the sea could possibly state in specific terms what are the executive functions of the council of a county under the Bill as it stands. Of course, there is bound to be, by reason of the way in which this problem has been approached, at every meeting of the county council where this question of reserved functions arises, if it arises in any acute form, a very great difference of opinion between the county officer, on the one hand, and some members of the county council on the other, as to what, in fact, are the executive functions of the county council. Whenever a grave issue, a big issue, arises, in which any difference emerges as between some members—it need not necessarily be all—and the county officer as to whether or not a particular act is an executive function, you will have a condition of crisis created for which the Bill offers no means of solution.
I am speaking now subject to a consciousness of the fact that my memory may betray me, but I do not think there is in this Bill any provision for resolving a difference of opinion, if it should arise, between the executive committee of the council, on the one hand, and the county officer, on the other, as to whether or not a specific thing, which it is proposed to do, is an executive function. I suggest that the Minister might, perhaps, address himself to that. It can be solved very simply by saying that where there is a difference of opinion in this matter the Minister for Local Government may decide. That might not be acceptable to everybody, but at least it is a precaution. It is a precaution that, I think should be taken if the position as I visualise it should arise.
Let us think of it from another point of view. I was saying that I thought the Minister was on the right lines when he decided that membership of the council should be divided, roughly, into three, that one-third of the membership should have particular responsibility for what might be described as the ordinary functions of the county council, that another one-third should be responsible for general supervision and conduct of the health functions of the county council and that the remaining one-third, which is not involved either in the immediate work of the general executive committee or the immediate work of the health committee, should stand, more or less, apart and, like the Minister for Finance in a Government, exercise a general supervision over them all, watching to make sure that they were not spending too much money and were not spending it foolishly. The fact that the council was divided into these three committees did not in any way oust the power of the council meeting as a whote to override any decision taken by either of these committees or, indeed, compel the third, which would be composed of critics, who always perform a very useful function in any assembly, or override the expressions of criticism.
However, all that is gone by the board and now we have the council in this situation, that the general executive committee of the council which, under the Minister's original proposal was to consist only of one-third of the members, is now to consist of all the members of the county council and, similarly, the health committee, which was also to consist only of one-third of the members, is again to consist of the whole body of members.
Let me get back to the point that I made at the outset, that the executive functions are very ill-defined, are defined by exclusion, that, undoubtedly, differences of opinion will arise as between the county officer on the one hand, who carries a great responsibility under the Act, and the general body of the council on the other hand, as to whether or not a specific thing is an executive function. How will it be resolved? It will be resolved by a body like, say, the Cork County Council, where, if my recollection is correct, the membership is 48. I am not sure that it may not even be 64. These differences of opinion will be solemnly resolved by a council at an assembly which will have the proportions of public meeting. Can anybody conceive that, with 48 members solemnly discussing, say, a point of vital difference between themselves as a whole and the county officer on the other hand, any solution will possibly be reached on a difference of opinion of that sort?
Then again, leaving this perhaps rather exceptional case out of it, let us come back to the other aspect of it. Supposing there is a housing scheme, or a sanitary service scheme or important road works to be carried out, and again differences of opinion emerge, as undoubtedly they will emerge wherever these questions come before an assembly of the size, say, of the Cork County Council or an assembly even of the size of the Longford County Council, who will come to a conclusion as to what is the proper decision to be taken, what is the proper line of execution? Is not it clear that you will have prolonged debates on many of these matters and that, in fact, instead of expediting business of the council and getting something done for the people and getting value for the ratepayers, you will have delay after delay until they become interminable?
That is why I think that in this Bill the grave, glaring defect is this question of making the exercise of executive functions a matter for the county council as a whole. It was bad enough and, while I would have been in favour of having the sub-division of the council in committees, I should never have allowed the executive functions to be vested in any particular section of the county council because I do not think that, in the circumstances as they exist to-day, with the pressing demands that are made upon county councils, with the multitude of affairs that they have now to contend with, they would be ever able to become efficient and expeditious executive bodies. We are on what I regard as one of the most glaring defects in the Bill.
I can see the possible difficulties that Deputy MacEntee points out and these difficulties will undoubtedly arise if the councillors generally are not reasonable persons. I am not a bit frightened about the 48 members of a council. There are many other bodies meeting, working, discussing and doing very valuable and difficult work. I have had quite a long experience, as a number of Deputies have had, of being a member of the Gaelic Athletic Association, being a council member on many councils of that body and there were often as many as 50 persons at council meetings where there was very serious, contentious work to be done, and, with a measure of goodwill, that work was done efficiently in all the councils. There are many other voluntary bodies, sports organisations and otherwise, that meet to carry out duties and the size of the body does not in the long run militate against efficiency.
You may find a long-winded individual anxious to make a long speech which will be reported in the local Press but, after a while, his comrade councillors will be able to reduce the length of his speech by a few acid comments. In some councils the work will be done without discord and will be done efficiently. In other councils there will be hold-ups. There is no doubt about that, but there would be some measure of delay whether the county manager had the responsibilities that he had under the old Acts or not. There are a few county councils that are notorious for not doing anything and, it does not matter what suggestion is put up, there is always somebody who has an objection to it and the matter is debated for a long period. We have seen that in connection, say, with the erection of county hospitals here and there, and probably in connection with the erection of houses. We have seen the great trouble there is over sites and places where hospitals and houses are to be built. You will have these things. There are one or two individuals in each council who cause trouble of this kind, but in the long run the people themselves solve the difficulty by electing better councillors.
Since I came to this House I have seen many questions on the Order Paper and heard many answers about hospitals in particular places. The ball has been thrown between the Department and the local authority in regard to these questions. Reading the local papers of that particular area, one, will find that the hold-up has been due entirely to the local council. If the same position arose in another area in the same county, or even in another connty, it would present no difficulty at all. I think it would be wrong to condemn the new system visualised in this Bill simply because in some particular councils— one or two throughout the length and breadth of the country—there may be a hold-up due to councillors who have too much to say. I said before on this Bill that the principle that is set out in it will have to be put into operation and that after three or five years of experience it may be that defects may be found in the working of it and these defects will have to be corrected by legislation. We cannot avoid that. Local government is like anything else. It is not static; it is moving. One of the problems is whether we are moving forward or backwards. I think there could be a good argument on that. Deputy MacEntee and Deputy Childers may hold that we are moving backwards instead of forwards, but we can only test that out by practical experience of the working of the machinery envisaged in this Bill. The principle is there and it will be up to the county councillors to make a success of it.
From my own experience here in Dnblin, which of course is different from experience in the country, I would say that the success of the Dnblin administration is due to the fact that we have a county manager who never endeavours to exercise himself any of the functions given to him by statute against the will of the council. Any problem that arises which may be difficult, whether it is concerned with the managerial functions or not, he refers to the council or to one of the committees of the council for their recommendation and for their viewpoint. I think the Minister will agree that that probably happens in a number of councils all over the country. I think Deputy Childers did make the point that, notwithstanding what was written into the County Management Act, there was the greatest co-operation between managers and the local councils but that in some areas there was not that co-operation. There was too much standing on ceremony or standing on rights. That is one of the reasons why it has been necessary to bring in this Bill to give back to local authorities the responsibility of which they were deprived under the County Management Act. The question as to which system is right or whether the system proposed in this Bill will be a good system, will have to be tested in the crucible of experience and I think every Deputy is anxious that it should be so tested. If serious defects should show themselves, the House would not be slow in making such amendments as may be necessary to correct an unsatisfactory position.
Deputy Cowan has stated that this Bill will have to be tested in the crucible of experience. A crucible is, I suppose, a sort of bowl for holding molten metal. I must say that if the Minister in introducing this Bill was looking for a means of crucifying members of local authorities he certainly found a very good means by giving them these executive functions. When the County Management Act first came into operation and for some time afterwards, members of councils, especially persons who were members of local authorities prior to the coming into operation of the Act, had the feeling that much of the power they needed as county councillors had been taken from them.
As time went on, however, I would say that almost all members of local authorities found that they had sufficient powers and sufficient functions fully to interest them in the working of the council. The Minister's Party before this Bill was drafted had been talking very loudly about the rights taken from local authorities and in drafting this Bill he drafted it with the idea in his mind that members of these councils were burning with a desire to get back something that had been filched from them and he set out to give them back these functions. He will find, however, when this Bill comes into operation that the councillors to whom he has given these executive functions will not be a bit thankful for them. In the average-sized county, members have to travel as much as 40 miles to attend a meeting and in counties such as Cork they may have to travel up to 100 miles.
Taking it all in all, some members will have to travel distances of anything from 20 to 100 miles to come to a meeting to perform functions of a very minor character. There is no question that many of these functions will be found to be of a minor character and I think it is hardly desirable in the year of grace, l951, that busy people who have to earn their livelihood, should be asked to travel such long distances to attend to duties of such a minor character, because of the fact that they were sufficiently public spirited to offer themselves to the electorate as members of local authorities. I think it unfair that the Minister should ask councils to perform these executive functions. He has already taken from them and reserved to the county officer all the employment functions, all the tenancy functions and certain of the more important functions connected with finance and health matters. What are left will have little effect on the finances of the county. The functions that are left will not affect the finances of the county to the extent of 5 per cent.
A local authority may consider tenders under this as an executive function, but there is already power under the County Management Act governing the taking of tenders and the making of regulations for opening them. The fact, however, is that very few councils made such regulations. They were quite satisfied to allow the county manager to do that. He would take the tenders and report to the council as to what the tender prices might be, etc. This proposal in the Bill will clog the whole machinery of local government. It will mean that only members of a local authority who have nothing else to do, who have no employment, or who may have retired, will have the time to spend hours dealing with these matters. It will probably mean a weekly meeting of the council. In fact, it may mean bi-weekly meetings, such as we used to have years ago when we had the old boards of health. I should say that 98 per cent. of the elected representatives on local authorities are very busy people. They have to make a living as well as being members of a local body. I suggest it is very unfair that they should have to be called together so often to deal with these matters. The county officer will be hamstrung and will not be able to carry out the ordinary day-to-day business of the council.
I am just wondering whether the Minister gave serious consideration to this section before he inserted it in the Bill. It is a section, if you like, which the Minister can call the key section, giving back all those wonderful democratic powers to the council about which we have heard so much nonsense talked. It is not giving back any democratic powers to the council. The councils had full democratic powers under the County Management Act. They will be sorry when they hear that these powers are to be given back to them. I think the Minister should reconsider this whole matter. He has not defined the particular matters which are to be executive functions of the council. I think there should be a provision enabling him to make regulations in that regard.
Are there not certain executive functions being given to the county officer?
Yes, under three main heads.
Would you not say, then, that everything that is left over, apart from these three main heads, is an executive function of the council?
Section 27 provides that the executive functions of the council shall be functions other than scheduled functions which are set out to be (1) employment functions; (2) tenancy functions, and (3) individual health functions. After these three, the residue is left to the council. In future the councils will become sort of residuary legatees. They will get what is left when the county officer has taken all the main functions.
And nobody knows what is left.
That is so. What is left is mythical. The result will be, as Deputy MacEntee has already pointed out, that in the future there will be many a bit of friction created between the council and the county officer as to what are his functions, and what are the executive functions of the council.
Is there not a definition of what the county officer's will be?
Yes, but they can cut across one another. It is not as easy as the Minister thinks to draw a straight line and say that on this side are the county officer's functions, and on the other side the council's functions. I think it will be found in the future that the operation of this section will cause friction between the county officer and the council. I think this section is going to lead to great waste of time, so far as the members of the council are concerned. As I said earlier, nobody except a retired person can afford to give all the time required of him as a member of a local authority in the performance of these functions.
I am surprised that Deputy Allen and Deputy MacEntee should have spoken as they have on this section. Deputy Allen was chairman of the Wexford County Council for a great number of years, and he often came into conflict with the county manager as to whether certain functions were executive functions or not. He always did not agree with the county manager, and could be told that he could have no say in some matter as it was an executive function of the manager's.
I always kept my end up.
Mr. Brennan
Deputy O'Leary cannot say that.
When people went forward at the last local elections they were anxious that they should get some powers back. The Minister in this section is giving back certain powers to the councils and some authority to the elected representatives to speak for the people whom they represent. I have before me a cutting relating to a circular which was sent out by Deputy MacEntee when he was Minister in 1947. It concerned an appointment that was to be made by the Wexford County Council. Deputy Allen knows about it. The circular stated that no permanent appointment was to be made, but only a temporary one. At that particular time, a member of the county council retired. He was appointed to the position, even though the job was never advertised. When I raised the matter I was told that it was an executive function of the manager's.
Quite right, and he will have the same power in the future to make appointments.
Yes, but we will have a say in it as members of a committee.
You will have nothing to do with it.
There was an appointment made in my town last week.
You will have nothing to do with the making of appointments.
That appointment was held up for a month. It was only a scavenging job on the streets. There were 11 people looking for it.
Is the Deputy now referring to employment functions?
Yes.
What the Committee is discussing are executive functions.
This was an executive function. The manager held the job up for a month. He referred it to the engineer for interviews. Finally, he sent the acting-county manager, who is the county secretary, up to make the appointment. The members of the council had no say in it.
And neither will they in the future.
We will see.
Ask the Minister.
You are all afraid to serve on committees or to give executive powers to the council. You are opposing the setting up of committees to go into these things. I know that Deputy MacEntee and Deputy Childers, who were responsible for the appointment of county managers, do not want to see them being put on the side line. This section proposes to give power back to the people, and I think that is a change which is long overdue. It is a change. Listen to what the county manager said in reply to me in regard to the circular sent down in 1947. He said: "They will, when you change the system." We are changing the system so as to give us the right to have a say in appointments.
You are getting none of these.
You are afraid that we will not get people to become members of local authorities because they will have to attend meetings to deal with these matters.
Ask the Minister if you can make any appointments.
You have not read the Bill.
I have read the Bill. Even the members of your Party who are on the county council are disgusted at being members of the council under the county manager system.
Will the Deputy read Section 29?
You are reading it the wrong way. It is just like what you are saying outside. Deputy MacEntee cannot agree, of course, with any change in the County Management Act. We cannot expect members of the Fianna Fáil Party who put the Act through this House to agree now to a change, any more than to a change of Government. The people who elected the representatives on the various councils want these representatives to have a say in administration. It was a shocking state of affairs to see 21 men coming to a meeting of a council of which Deputy Allen was chairman for years and when they wanted to do a certain thing, to hear the county manager saying: "That is my executive function." We are trying to change all that now by setting up committees to go into the circumstances of cases. Deputy MacEntee said we can strike the rate. We strike the rate, but we cannot challenge the county manager as to how he will spend the money.
You can.
He will not give you any satisfaction.
We can challenge him.
He will say that it is one of his executive functions. When there was a rate collectorship vacant, the manager said he assumed it would be advertised. But there was a letter dated November 8th, 1947, from the Minister for Local Government stating that in connection with such appointments he considered any new permanent appointment of an assistance officer should not be made for the present.
What is that an extract from?
From a Wexford newspaper.
Mr. Brennan
The Enniscorthy Echo.
No, the Wexford Free Press.
What was the date of that letter?
I suppose you will have an idea.
No.
It was published early in 1948 when I questioned the appointment of this man. Deputy Allen knows well what I am talking abuut. That man is working still in a temporary capacity. We want to have some say in the administration of the local authority.
You will have no say in making any appointments.
What is the objection of Fianna Fáil to this section to set up committees to go into details of the local finances?
Not to set up a committee.
I certainly attended meetings of the local council at great inconvenience. I often had to leave my work to go to a local council meeting. I do not see many people missing any of the committees that are set up because they are well paid. They are getting their travelling allowances. What is all the grousing and grumbling for?
Mr. Brennan
Therefore, you want a lot of committees set up.
I will attend any committee set up at which I can do any good for the people.
As long as you are well paid.
At present you have a county manager dictator over a council of 21 members. He has the superior power and the councillors have no function in the matter. This section will give us some power back again and take executive functions out of his hands. Deputy Brennan knows that the same thing applies in Wicklow County Council and in every county council. I certainly believe that the Minister should give us our full powers back. I will not be satisfied while we have a county officer in charge. Local administration was carried on in the old days by people who gave their time voluntarily. They got no payment for doing the business. It is only right that members of local authorities should have some say in the matter. One of the ten points in our programme was to give power back to the local representatives of the people. We want to see it given to them. The committees which are to be set up will do good work. No county manager is working for nothing. In my county the ratepayers are paying £1,000 a year to a county manager and £100 a year expenses for attending meetings. That work could be better done by members of the council who understand the position in different parts of Wexford. If a road worker is unjustly dismissed they will hear his case and give him a fair trial. Under the County Management Act the members had no say in the matter. They had no say in regard to the letting of a cottage.
They will have none under this.
When Deputy Allen was chairman the cottages were not given to the agricultural workers for whom they were meant. They talk about corruption. There is a lot of corruption going on, and county managers are not angels.
The Deputy ought to come to the executive functions.
We want the executive functions of the county managers done away with. We want to give them back to the local authorities. That is what the Minister is aiming at. If he does not do that, I can tell him that he will have very few people presenting themselves at the next local elections, because people at the moment are very dissatisfied that the county managers are there still. They say: "We thought the Govennment were going to do away with county managers." I hope this is the first step and that we will be given back some further powers. If the Minister does that, I will be with him all the way.
Mr. Brennan
I can probably express an opinion on this matter front an angle different from that of Deputy MacEntee or Deputy Allen and, to a certain extent, Deputy O'Leary, as I became a member of a local authority after the County Managemeait Act was passed. Whatever powers members of local authorities held previous to the introduction of that Act, I did not feel the loss of them because I never had those powers. Because of that I think I can express an honest opinion on this matter. The point I see about this is-that, whatever these executive functions may eventually turn out to be, they are bound to increase the work of a council. So far as the particular council of which I am a member is concerned, there is not a single council meeting at which we do not put in at least six or six-and-a-half hours dealing with the matters raised on the agenda. Now if minor matters, such as those to which Deputy Allen has referred, which may arise under these executive functions are to be discussed —matters that can be and have been more suitably dealt with by the county manager or, in future, the county officer—I can visualise a position when the particular council to which I belong will not be able to carry out the work of administering the affairs of the council in one day. We will require at least two days. In fact, I might point out that often in the past we have had to finish our meeting without dealing with all the matters on the agenda for the day, and we have subsequently had to hold a special meeting to deal with the items left over.
I think the Minister should leave the position as it is at the moment. If a matter arises, such as that referred to by Deputy O'Leary, where a man makes a complaint about not getting work on the roads and that matter is referred to the council, the position will be quite hopeless. As things are, if a councillor raises a particular matter at a council meeting, the matter is discussed there and things are quite amicably adjusted as often as not. Indeed, there may be no necessity to bring the particular matter before the council at all: all the councillor need do is approach the county manager, the county secretary or the county engineer in order to have the matter in which he is interested rectified. The position should be left as it is and no further work should be thrown on the shoulders of the members of the council. Extra work will inevitably entail more time on their part and eventually the day might come when representatives might be averse to putting themselves forward for election simply and solely because they are unable to devote the necessary time to carrying out the functions embodied in this section of the Bill.
I would ask the Minister, therefore, to reconsider this matter. I believe that the position obtaining at the moment is fairer and more equitable all sound. If any grievances are put forward by any member of the council I represent at the moment on behalf of a particular individual that member always gets a hearing. The matter is almost invariably rectified if the grievance is a genuine one.
I do not see what Deputy O'Leary hopes to gain by having this section put through. The minor matters that I visualise being thrown upon the shoulders of members under this are matters that could be more easily dealt with in the normal course by the county officer or the particular officer dealing with the particular department of the county council involved.
A Leas-Chinn Chomhairle, is léir dom go bhfuil an Teachta Ó Comhdhain cosúil leis an bhfear ar an gclaidhe. Chíonn sé an cluiche ón dtaobh amuigh. Deirim leis agus leis an dTeachta Ó Laoghaire nach raibh agus nach bhfuil cás ceart dá plé ag aon chomhairle ceantair go raibh agus go bhfuil an bainnisteoir na haghaidh nach raibh agus nach bhfuil an bhuaidh ag an gComhairle. I gcás mar sin titeann an teorann polaitíochta agus seasann an chomhairle le chéile. Ní gá dá bhrí sin, leis an méid cainte a bhí dá cloisteaíl ón mbeirt Teachtaí.
In connection with the case made by Deputy Captain Cowan I am very much afraid that he has an outsider's point of view. He looks on from a distance. He criticises the work of local councils. He is not alone in doing that here. I have heard Deputies who happen to be members of the Dublin Corporation putting forward here time and time again the point of view that a wonderful democratic spirit exits in the Dublin Corporation in contrast to the autocracy of the county councils throughout the country. That is absolutely wrong.
Deputy Captain Cowan referred in particular to hospitalisation and housing. No matter how controversial in spirit councils may be and no matter how much they may argue, that does not hold up for one moment proper hospitalisation or proper housing. The very fact that there are good managers in the counties of which I have personal knowledge and experience has speeded up housing and hospitalisation.
In answering the point put forward by Deputy O'Leary, wherever a council puts up a good case to the manager, the manager has always yielded. Political barriers cease to exist where there is a good case. Political barriers will never exist where managers exceed their powers or tend to do something unjust. The giving of certain powers and functions at present in the hands of managers to county councils and the making of the whole council into a committee will, in my opinion, lead to a very unsatisfactory position. Those of us who are familiar with county council procedure know what happens on the day of a council meeting. The chief engineer is there; the officer dealing with health is there; the officer dealing with housing is there; the county secretary is there and another officer whose functions I cannot at the moment recall. Their time is occupied for the whole day. They are not all the time engaged in discussion with the council, but they must be on the spot in case something arises concerning their departments. Those officers are there once a month —12 times in the year. If this proposal is adopted they will be there every week in future. Progress in housing and hospitalisation will be retarded as will also the other functions of the county councils.
I suggest to the Minister that he should reconsider this matter on the Report Stage. I think this would be a retrograde step on his part, even looking at it from his point of view. He has already agreed to amandments allowing the whole council to constitute the committees.
The discussion on the section falls practically under two heads; one is that the powers given in the section are unnecessary, as the local authority already have all the powers they want under the old Management Act. Deputy MacEntee pressed that he had documentary evidence that the elected people were the boss. That would be in direct contradiction of what the elected members say throughout the country. It is a matter of opinion. I was a member of an elected body myself and I was aware of Deputy MacEntee, who was then Minister, having sent circulars to managers telling them that they ought to use their powers with discretion and that they should work in harmony. That was an indication which made it perfectly clear that they had the powers. I do not know how he can suggest here that he has documentary evidence that the elected representatives were the boss. They were not the boss and everyone knows that. The managers had their powers and they were to use them with discretion and work in harmony and in conjunction with the elected representatives. It is one thing to have power of that kind, formal powers and goodwill, but the managers' goodwill is distinct from the legal powers given to the elected representatives in this measure. There is a very distinct difference. It looks as if some people were half afraid to trust the elected representatives with those powers. The manager was asked to take them into his confidence, but there seems to have been some fear that if the powers were given to the elected representatives they would be abused.
Deputy O'Leary complains that there are not enough powers given to them, that people will not come up for election on that account. Deputy Brennan was afraid they were getting overloaded and that they would not come up for election on the very same point but for the reverse reason.
In the earlier stages of the Bill complaint was made from the opposite side and this Bill was described as a whole lot of hypocrisy. It was said that really no powers were being given back at all, that it was just changing the label on, the bottle, changing the name. Now it seems as if we are giving too much back.
The next objection was that we are not clearly defining what is being given back. There is no definition of executive powers in this Bill, but I suggest there was no definition of managerial powers in the County Management Act, except by exclusion. The executive powers are clearly shown. The executive functions of the council are half the executive functions set out and after the three functions given to the officer every other function is an executive function. How is there anything misleading in that? The manager himself decides on tenancy, health and employment. The scheduled functions of the council are clearly set out, which they cannot delegate to anyone except themselves. Everything outside that is an executive function, to be dealt with by the council as an executive function.
The question of travelling has been raised. I do not think there is a terrible fear that the overlapping will be as grave as is suggested. Deputy Allen suggested there may be travel from 20 to 100 miles dealing with minor matters. You would not consider contracts a minor matter. For many questions, the correspondence and preliminary investigation will still be done by the officer. You do not bring the council together to deal with a letter. In Section 36 you will find it stated that the officer will prepare drafts for the executive committees. I do not see why the committee could not function quite as speedily. These bogies have been raised because those opposite wanted to put them up. Section 36 says—
"that the county officer shall at meeting of an executive authority submit to them drafts of executive orders relating to the executive functions performable by them, and every such order shall be deemed to have been duly proposed and seconded."
There is one council which is a big one, Cork, about 46 members, but the other councils range from 20 to 30 and are not terribly large. There is separate treatment in the case of Cork, as they have separate health areas. That is the only big council in the country. As a matter of fact, I would have preferred the third, as I thought it would be better, and let them act in rotation. However, that did not meet with approval here. The committee of 21 or 25 will be a health committee and the same people will be on the general committee. They are clearly apart. They may deal with health on one particular day and do general purposes on another day, or do both on one day if they can. I do not think they will be cluttered up with minor matters, as is suggested. These will be dealt with by the officers and buought to the notice of the executive committee by the officer dealing with the point._
The general charge that there is no definition of the powers is unsupported. I do not know how Deputy MacEntee contends to make that assertion. As is clearly set out and as read by Deputy Allen, the three functions are set down for the officers, the other functions, reserved for the council as a whole, the scheduled functions and then everything else is an executive function. That was a clearer definition than was given of the managerial powers. I do not think there is anything in that point which is really sustainable.
The Minister quite unwittingly has shown us the dangers inherent in this method of procedure. The executive functions in Section 27 are defined as the functions of the council other than scheduled functions, employment functions, tenancy functions, and individual health functions. Supposing an important letter is written to the Department of Local Government relating to a request for sanction for a proposed road work or to discuss the question of a grant or the amount of a grant or the conditions under which it would be given, is that an executive function or not?
It is not.
It is a function. You cannot write a letter without performing a function. Some people will say it is not a function, but what is it if it is not a function? It is not really an individual health function; it is not really an employment function or a tenancy function. It has relation to public works, to the construction of a road, or maybe to the conditions upon which a grant will be given for housing. You cannot say it is an act; it is a function. What type of function is it? That only shows the difficulties that would arise. If it is a letter which gives rise to contention on the council which some sections contend should not have been written by the officer who wrote it, the question will immediately arise, by reason of the method of approach which is inherent in the Bill, whether that is a function or not. If you write a letter you function, you act and you function.
In the writing of the letter? It is obviously the duty of the clerk. If the Deputy forces that sort of argument, he will have to abandon it.
Let us give an example to county councils and do a little work.
Could the council make a phone call? The Deputy wants to make the thing ridiculous by referring to the writing of a letter.
I am afraid we will have to wait for another day.
The councils display a lot more sense in applying themselves to the business than is being tried over there. We have the ex-Minister for Local Government stooping to the deepest nonsense.
The Minister need not be so annoyed, now that the absurdity is being shown up.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-morrow.