Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 17 Feb 1955

Vol. 148 No. 4

City and County Management (Amendment) Bill, 1954—Second Stage (Resumed).

Mr. M.P. Murphy

When the debate closed last evening, I was dealing with the question whether the County Management Act of 1940 had effected the improvements in local government legislation that it was set up to effect. I have no hesitation in saying that it has not. It was supposed to effect a good deal of economy. It was supposed to co-ordinate local government services and generally give to the people a better system of local government than they hitherto enjoyed.

What do we find since 1940? The principal feature we find under the County Management Act, 1940, is that you have this small country swarming with hordes of highly-paid officials all enjoying substantial salaries, plus travelling allowances. That is the main measure which in my opinion the County Management Act, 1940, has effected in this country. I have no doubt that if the position which obtained prior to 1939 was in existence during the past ten years the number of these officers would not be near as great as it is to-day. I am not implying in my statement that there was need for some improvement. I appreciate the difficulty of the elected members of a local authority dealing with minor matters, but I believe that the people who are put on county councils by the general public are entitled to direct policy; that power was taken from them in 1940 and it is clear that this Act does not give the power to them in any measure of consequence.

Another important reason for the introduction of the County Management Act, 1940—some would say it is one of the main reasons—was that a good deal of corruption existed in local authorities; in other words, that county councillors in this country were incapable of carrying out the duties assigned to them in a straightforward and honest manner. That was a very important point in the bringing in of the County Management Act, 1940. If we examine that contention we find that all Governments in this country believe in the maxim which we very much objected to when it was used by the British: that the Irish people were not fit to govern themselves. That was the implication behind the introduction of the County Management Act when corruption was generally alleged in local bodies.

I believe it is a great reflection on local authority representatives. I also believe from my own personal knowledge that irrespective of what Party local authority representatives are elected from they are generally honest, and reasonably capable and efficient. I am definitely of opinion that probably as much corruption exists in local authorities to-day as it ever did under the system which obtained prior to the 1940 County Management Act. If this allegation of corruption in local authorities is true, is it not reasonable to assume that the same allegation can be made against the members of the Government or against Deputies elected to this House? Are we not all elected on the same basis? Every county councillor in this country was elected by the votes of the people, mainly by the votes of his own neighbours and I have sufficient respect for the intelligence of the Irish people to know that they will not elect to any county council in this country a councillor who is not worthy of such a position, except in very isolated cases.

In addition, if an unworthy representative of the people secured election and if he failed to implement any assurances he gave to the electorate, the people get an opportunity periodically of removing him from office or at least of passing judgment on him. Every member of a county council retains his position only for such time as he retains the confidence of the people. Can we, as members of this House and members of successive Governments, claim that almost all power should be removed from these councillors and that any powers allowed to them should be of little or no consequence?

I have indicated the position of local councillors, but let us take the position of the county manager. The county manager is appointed by the Local Appointments Commission. He is assigned to a county and if he does not measure up to the requirements of the people who put him there it is unlikely that he will be removed from office unless he commits some grave blunder. We all know very well that once any of these officers are appointed it is almost impossible to remove them from office. Of course, at this stage I want to make it quite clear that I am dealing with this question in a general way and speaking on a national basis —the basis on which we should approach the matter.

Mr. Allen

It is not about Cork alone?

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I am not reflecting on Cork. I am not bringing it into the discussion.

Mr. Allen

This talk of corruption——

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I think there is more corruption in the Deputy himself from what I know of him than in the 46 members of the Cork County Council put together.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Allen should not interrupt and Deputy Murphy should ignore interruptions.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I never like to ignore interruptions. I think that Deputy Allen does not understand the position because my statement——

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Murphy on the Bill.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Once the county manager is appointed, he never has to go before the people for their views in regard to the way he is looking after the affairs of the county. He never has to submit himself to the judgment of the people like the elected representatives. He is in office, and if any person feels aggrieved about any decision of his it is more than likely that he will have to bear with his grievance because the county manager cannot be approached. That is not the position with the elected representative. He moves among the people, and if they have a grievance they will go to him and not to the county manager. The unfortunate position is that a county councillor has no power whatsoever in 99 cases out of 100 to help that person, unless he gets the manager to agree with him. This puts the local representatives in the position that they are nothing more than contact men between their constituents and the county manager. This leads up to the position that councillors have to try and get into the county manager's good offices or curry his favour in order to retain his seat.

This Bill opens up a wider avenue for corruption and misrepresentation than under the system which obtained prior to 1939. It is not a well-known fact that if a member of a county council is not in favour with the county manager it is more difficult for him to hold his seat, and help people, than it is for a man who is on the right side of the county manager? Unfortunately in a few counties we have the position where probably some county councillors in order to help their constituents will sacrifice to some degree their principle, if you like, on many matters, and try and agree with the county manager and the other officials. That is the deplorable position which obtains in this country to-day, and it is well for the Minister to bear that fact in mind.

The Minister may say that he is as conversant with local government as any member of this House. He may state that Deputies who do not agree with this measure have no practical knowledge of the subject on which they are speaking. How is it that local authorities carried on efficiently before 1939? How did they function at all, if what we are told now, and the statements made in support of the County Management Bill are correct? Judging from what I have heard in County Cork—and I was not a member of the council under the old system—from members of the county council who had given service there before the County Management Act, matters were as efficiently carried out as they are to-day, with this exception, that there was much more economy effected. While services have been improved one can see in County Cork that the rates have been trebled since this new method of local government legislation came into being. Reading over the Bill and the explanatory memorandum, there is little or nothing in it. As I mentioned last night it is a bulky document which contains very little.

Mr. O'Donnell

I would like to consider carefully any amendment the Deputy may like to put down to that.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I mentioned that last night, but there is so little in the Bill that unless it is substantially amended I think it will not be——

Mr. O'Donnell

You have power to add to it as much as you like. I would welcome any suggestion you wish to give me.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The only section which I would call useful is Section 4 which gives a council some control over the number of permanent officers.

Mr. O'Donnell

That is not Section 4, Deputy.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

It is Section 6, excuse me. In that section there should be included temporary officers as well, because that is a new way of giving jobs now by the county councils, which employ a number of temporary officers and keep them going until such time as they are able to get a permanent job for them at public expense, without doing any useful work. If members of this House who believe in the City and County Management Act, and who believe that it is altogether better local government legislation—now that the Act has been in force for 14 years—I believe that the question could be posed: what useful services do the county councils give at the present time? Why not suggest abolishing county councils? If the members are incapable, as the general opinion here in Dublin seems to be, of carrying out any worthwhile functions, then what useful purpose do they serve?

Mr. O'Donnell

We abolished one, but I understand it was very anxious to be reinstated.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

We will go into that later. What I am now referring to is a general abolition. Every county council is abolished if it does not obey the county manager. Is that the position? Is it not the position that, say, at the estimates meeting— and that is the only meeting where county councils are supposed to have any vital say at all—if the county council refuses to pass the estimate as prepared by the county manager, the manager can get the Minister, as he has got him on a number of occasions, to abolish the council? Examining it from that light the council has no power even at that——

Mr. O'Donnell

Not under this Bill.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

No matter how you read this Bill. We have clever men in Ireland who draft these Bills, very clever men who can write sheets containing little or nothing.

Mr. O'Donnell

It will take a lot longer to understand it, I am afraid.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Will the Minister agree there is little in this Bill, and well he knows it? Before I leave that point, I would like again to say that if the elected members of county councils are not entitled, as they would seem not to be entitled, to powers of worthwhile consequence, a good case could be made for their abolition. I believe that the Minister, no matter what Government is in power, should, if he has no confidence in local authority representatives, say that they should not be there at all, and abolish the farce of holding local government elections next June, costing thousands of pounds. In County Cork 46 members from different parts of the county come to the meeting at public expense. There are also a large number of highly paid officers at the meeting. To my mind, the county manager is fully entitled to sit back in his chair, put cotton wool in his ears if he likes, and nothing can be done about it. I for one expected that the Minister would do something to improve the existing position. While he has made a step forward, I must say it is a very small step indeed.

One improvement that the Bill could effect would be that the council would have a vital say in the number of officers. It is referred to in the Bill but that power extends only to permanent officers. I hope before the Bill becomes law it will include temporary officers and we will give over this idea which seems to have taken root of appointing temporary officers here, there and everywhere.

Mr. O'Donnell

That has been amended by regulation. You cannot appoint them now for longer than nine months.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

You have this business of appointments being renewed.

Mr. O'Donnell

Not now.

Mr. Casey

Somebody else gets the job then.

Mr. O'Donnell

If the jobs are there at all they will be permanent instead of temporary, but we are receiving a lot of opposition and I am surprised the sources it is coming from.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

If anything goes wrong in a county, it is not the county manager who gets the blame but the county councillors who unfortunately have no responsibility for what happens. People around the countryside who find it difficult to meet their commitments either by way of rates or taxes will comment to us how difficult it is for them to pay their rates. They refer to swarms of officials knocking around the country employed by the council. I believe that statement is true and the county councillors get the blame for it but they have no power whatsoever. They are getting powers now so far as the permanent people are concerned. It is the general opinion that county councillors have far more power than they actually have as the public are not thoroughly conversant with the terms of the County Management Act.

You often hear derogatory comments on county councillors. Possibly there is no section of the community who suffer more unfair criticism than they do. I would say for the body with which I am associated, the Cork County Council, we have people there of all shades of opinion and while we disagree on many items I believe it can be said generally that every member of that council is in his own way trying to do the best he can for the people he represents even though his views may be quite the opposite to those of another member of the council.

I deplore the practice which appears to be creeping in of people, particularly newspapers, and so on, availing of opportunities for criticising local authority representatives and commenting in the most derogatory fashion on their activities. I think it may be put down as unfair and unjust criticism. This is a democratic country and if any member of the public finds fault with the way the county council is carrying out its duties there is nothing to prevent him from standing at the next election and if he can secure the confidence of a sufficient number of people he can become a member himself and point out where all the improvements can be effected. Adverse comments on the activities of county councillors have come mainly from people who if they went before the electorate might not receive a dozen votes.

There is another provision in the Bill to which I wish to refer. It deals with all officers and employees of the council. The Minister has approved in no uncertain terms in this Bill of giving to the manager complete control over every employee of the council. If any improvement could be effected in this measure I believe it is that of giving to the elected members of a county council the right of comment on how officials or workers employed by the county council carry out their duty. The people who are on that council representing those who have to find the wherewithal to pay all these officials should surely have a right, if the occasion demanded it, of commenting on the manner in which council officials or any of their employees carry out their duties. It is specifically set out in this piece of legislation that elected members of the council should have no right or say as to how any officer of the council, irrespective of whether he is big or small, should carry out his work. I hope some amendment giving power to the county councillors to have some say on the activities of the employees of the council will be embodied in this measure before it becomes law.

It is also clearly set out that so far as health functions are concerned the local authority members will have no say whatever. It is completely and entirely a managerial function and the manager can act as he thinks fit. He is not responsible to the council for his activities in that matter nor is he obliged to make any statement as to his attitude in that connection. Then we have the question of appointments. It may be said, of course, that that should be taken out of the hands of county councillors. We all agree to that, but surely county councillors have the right, as members of the local authority, to get some information as to how these appointments are made.

I listened very carefully to Deputy Smith, the former Minister for Local Government, speaking on that subject a few months ago in this House. I feel sure he had first-hand information in his capacity as Minister for Local Government. He deplored the normal line of action now being adopted by county managers that when an appointment is to be made a selection board is set up and whoever the board recommends is appointed. That may sound very well. If any person then questions the county manager he knows nothing about it: "I appointed so-and-so on the recommendation of the selection board." We must bear in mind who set up the selection board. Are not public representatives entitled to know the composition of the selection board? Is there any danger that corruption may exist in that body just as it may exist among the elected members? Are we to assume that every selection board set up in this State is infallible, that it is completely honest, that there is no dishonesty or personal influence in any shape or form? I say it does exist and it is just as likely to exist in that type of board as among the elected members of the council. I believe the manager should—subsequent to the appointment being made—at least give to the elected representatives of the local authority concerned a concise account of how the appointment was made, the number of applicants, a synopsis of the qualifications of the successful applicant together with a statement as to the composition of the selection board. That would help to do away with the allegations that some of these appointments are already decided before the selection board sits. I wish to stress that the elected representatives of the people are entitled at least to some information as to how appointments by local authority managers are made in each case. I feel sure the former Minister for Local Government, Deputy Smith, would not comment adversely on that system were it not that he is well aware that everything is not as it should be.

Another unfortunate feature of this measure, as against the amending Bill introduced by Deputy Keyes when he was Minister for Local Government, is that no reference is made here to the title of these administrators. It may seem a small point but in my view the very expression "county manager" implies that he has full and complete power. Every county manager is a little dictator in his own territory. In my view, the amendment introduced into this House by Deputy Keyes to change the title of "county manager" to "county officer" was a reasonably good proposal. It is unfortunate that even that small amendment is not contained in this Bill.

Several Deputies who contributed to this debate commented on the method of appointment of rate collectors in this country. Many of them deplored the fact that rate collectors are appointed by the vote of the council. I believe we should have no rate collectors and that, instead, the rates should be collected through the office because it is a better and a more economical method. Leaving aside, however, that question—because it is a matter for each individual council to decide upon—if we are to make appointments, I believe that an appointment made by the county council members by way of a vote is just as good as one made by a manager or interview board. Whilst it is quite usual for county councillors at such elections to vote on a political basis, at least every candidate knows how he fares. With a selection board, however, a candidate has no knowledge as regards his prospects, good, bad or indifferent. He is called into a quiet room, looked over by two or three individuals and, except for the successful applicant, the next thing he hears is that his application was unsuccessful. He is given no further information whatsoever.

We are rather disappointed with this Bill. It does not measure up to our requirements and it is not giving the elected representatives of the people a fair chance in this country. If you like, it is completely leaving to the county managers the administration of millions of pounds—just as obtained hitherto. The councillors in any elected body, whether in corporations or in county councils are getting no say. They must levy the money and, under existing legislation, the manager is entitled to spend it as he likes because very few obstacles are placed in his way by legislation. I hope that, before this Bill is passed through this House, some vital amendments will be made to it so that it will help to make local authority legislation much healthier than it is.

I am sorry I must be critical of this measure but I believe it deserves to be criticised. It is a very small step forward—and a welcome one—but some of us who have good experience in local authorities feel that it is disappointing.

Mr. Corry

I had hoped to see in this measure not so much a curtailment of the powers of the manager as some curtailment in the powers of the Department of Local Government. I think that is mainly where the shoe pinches. A lot of the increases to which Deputy Murphy has alluded are not increases due to action of the council or due to action of the county manager but are increases due to action of the Department of Local Government and the other different Departments. We have bitter experience of that. The thing has gone so far now that I suggest to the Minister that he give it an overhauling himself. For example, we got a bill this year for a sum close on £10,000 for engineers. We were informed that their application had been received from their organisation some time in 1952 and from 1952 to the end of 1954 the officials of the Department of Local Government were hatching on it. The result of the hatching was that they decided the officials were entitled to the increase and that it should be given to them. However, the retrospective payment went back to 1952.

An Ceann Comhairle

How does the Deputy relate that to the Managerial Bill?

Mr. Corry

Because this is the time for changing the Managerial Bill. I am suggesting now that any application for any change in the conditions of employment of any official of a local authority—whether by way of an increase in salary, or otherwise— should first be made to the local authority and dealt with by the local authority.

Mr. O'Donnell

That is in the Bill.

Mr. A. Barry

It is here in the Bill.

Mr. Corry

If it is, I should like to know where it is. I have gone over the Bill fairly thoroughly.

Mr. O'Donnell

Have another crack at it.

Mr. Corry

I suggest to the Minister that what happens is that the ratepayers of the county suddenly find themselves saddled with not alone the increase for one year but the increases for two years back.

Mr. O'Donnell

I have remedied that in this Bill.

Mr. Corry

I hope you have. I should be delighted to see it remedied.

Mr. O'Donnell

Perhaps the Deputy would look at Section 6.

Mr. Corry

Section 6 merely says that the manager shall not submit any proposal to the Minister.

Mr. O'Donnell

Read on.

Mr. Corry

Without the consent of the council. I am not speaking of any proposal sent by the manager to the council. I am speaking of a proposal put in by officials of one organisation to officials of another organisation and considered by them and the manager has assured us that he has not got any application——

Mr. O'Donnell

That cannot be done when this Bill becomes law.

Mr. Corry

That is all I want the Minister to look into. Conditions are such at present that those engineers, through their engineering union, apply to the Local Government Department and not to the manager. The Local Government Department negotiates with them without informing the manager or the local authority.

Mr. O'Donnell

That can no longer happen after we pass this Bill.

Mr. Corry

Unfortunately we had a little bill amounting to some 3d. or 4d. in the £ to pay this year as between arrears and otherwise. If there is in the Bill power to deal with these matters I shall have a good "sconce" at it, in order to prepare any amendments that may be necessary.

Mr. O'Donnell

The Deputy had a right to do that before he stood up.

Mr. Corry

I promise you that I shall give as much time to it as I gave to the Youghal bridge.

Mr. O'Donnell

That is a brave time.

Mr. Corry

That is one of the anomalies that has occurred. We find that the Local Government Department and other Departments in dealing with local authorities have developed a nice little habit. We are told: "The Minister has no objection to an increase" or "sanction may be presumed to an increase of so much in the salary of a local official". That is the first thing you get down.

Mr. O'Donnell

Will the Deputy thank me for remedying it?

Mr. Corry

I say that is the job of the Minister in charge. I would rather see an amendment put in by the Minister to deal with these anomalies. You have what amounts practically to corruption carried on in these matters. For example, on one occasion a committee of which I am a member, decided to increase the salaries of certain officials. They sent that up for sanction to the Department. We received a letter back stating that the Minister considered that the increase granted on a certain date was a basic increase and he, therefore, refused the application. That was in February. There was a general election in May. Four days after the Dáil dissolved, the Minister, who was still Minister, decided to change his mind and he sent us down another letter.

Mr. O'Donnell

Was he not the Deputy's colleague?

Mr. Corry

No, he was not.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is this relevant to the Bill? A good deal of this is purely administration.

Mr. Corry

I am dealing with what, in my opinion, should be in this Bill. I say that if it is going to effect an improvement in local government, then we should not have such opportunities provided for putting burdens on local authorities.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is discussing administration to a great extent.

Mr. Corry

On the occasion I mentioned, we got a refusal from the Minister when we put the matter to him in February. Then when he decided to give the increase, he gave it back to the previous November. He did that four days after the Dáil dissolved and each gentleman had six months' back pay in his pocket when he went to vote. It was a very good incentive to these men to vote in the right direction. These are things that should not happen or should not be allowed to happen. I suggest this is the time that these things should be cleared up and finished with.

An Ceann Comhairle

Any improvement the Deputy suggests should be within the scope of the measure.

Mr. Corry

I am hoping to put in amendments and I shall leave it to you, Sir, to judge whether or not they are within the scope of the measure.

An Ceann Comhairle

I shall endeavour to limit the Deputy to the scope of the measure on this stage also.

Mr. Corry

If not, I shall have to bring in a new Bill. At present I do not see how local authorities, no matter how diligently they work, can work without the assistance of the county manager. I admit that we have been very lucky in County Cork in the manager we have got. Take the present position and consider it in relation to the proposed estimates committee. I can see no use for that committee, to be quite frank. At present you have a committee for housing and sanitary matters. You have three of these in Cork County and if the Minister wishes to make one improvement I suggest that he gives them autonomous powers, not to have them as a recommending body but to give them power to do their work in their own areas. They need not be bringing everything into the county council afterwards for sanction because the expenditure is levied as area charges, chargeable to the particular area concerned and it is unfair to have councillors from other areas deciding whether people will get the benefit of these works or not. Then you have a mental hospital committee and a board of assistance dealing with South Cork and Cork City. I wish there was some clause in this Bill under which we could have a divorce of these two areas; it would give considerable relief to the ratepayers in the South Cork area. Then you have a health committee and a sanatorium committee, an agricultural committee and a special roads committee. You have in all eight different committees outside the county council proper. I think that any member of the county council has his hands pretty full attending to those committees. I admit that there are sections in this Bill for which I have looked for a very long time.

When I tell the Minister that it was only a month ago that I looked for the salaries of certain officials, and I think there should be some kind of stay on the appointment of extra officials, I was informed by the legal advisers that my opinion in that respect was illegal and could not be taken. Thank goodness, after this it will have to be taken. Provision is made for that, and I am glad to see such provision. Because of all the committees the members of local authorities have their hands pretty full. I would like to impress on the Minister in that connection that every one of these committees go into their own respective estimates. The estimates are prepared by the manager in conjunction with his officials. They are then examined in detail by each of the committees and dealt with by them.

Mr. O'Donnell

There is no obligation on the manager to present his estimates to each committee now. That is something I am making provision for in this Bill.

Mr. Corry

The committee of the board of assistance is a statutory body and the manager must present his estimate to that committee for examination. The mental hospital committee is another statutory body and the manager must present his estimate to that committee. I suggest to the Minister that in relation to the other committees, they should also be made statutory bodies and should be given full powers. It is very unfair that if the people of South Cork decide something is required and are unanimous in that respect, their recommendation must subsequently come up before the county council and it is then the West Corkman and the North Corkman who will decide whether or not South Cork will get something and vice versa. I think the Minister could easily give statutory powers there. As far as the other committees are concerned, we have always looked for separate estimates and we have never had any difficulty in getting them. Perhaps we were lucky in the managers we have got but, since the State has taken on the job of appointing the managers, it is the duty of the State to see that the manager sent down to the particular local authority receives proper instruction in his duties and responsibilities.

Mr. O'Donnell

After this Bill becomes law we will not appoint the managers any more. The local authority will do that.

Mr. Corry

By what power?

Mr. O'Donnell

Under the same power as the Minister appoints them to-day.

Mr. Corry

Instead of the Minister calling the boys together we will call them.

Mr. O'Donnell

Yes.

Mr. Corry

But the boys will be here all the time, and it is they who are going to do the job.

Mr. O'Donnell

Do you want the job yourselves?

Mr. Corry

I think it would be a good thing if we had it.

Mr. O'Donnell

Then the Deputy would have to amend the 1926 Act and not this one.

Mr. Corry

As far as selection boards are concerned, and I have examined this matter pretty thoroughly, I agree with what Deputy M. P. Murphy has said. I do not think these selection boards set up by the manager get the best material. I do not think they have the knowledge and experience that is supposed to be possessed by these selection boards. I will go further and say that, in my opinion, the elected representatives of the council should be members of every selection board. Every selection board should have on it either the chairman or some appointed member. In that way, some local knowledge would be brought to bear in relation to work done by such boards.

I do not agree with Deputy M.P. Murphy in his remarks about discipline. If any discipline has to be exercised over officials, then the manager must have full control. I certainly would not be prepared to take any of that responsibility from the manager. The manager is responsible for his staff and it is his duty to supervise that staff properly. I have frequently heard Deputy M. P. Murphy very fluent in his criticism of officials who, in his opinion, were not doing their duty. Any member of a local authority has power to do that. I intend to bring in some amendments to this measure. If they are not proper to this measure, then it is always open to a Deputy to bring in a private Bill and I intend to take full advantage of that. If I cannot get it one way, I will try to get it another.

Captain Giles

This Bill should not be a very controversial measure because it has been sponsored by both sides of this House. This system was first introduced by Cumann na nGaedheal, but it was left to Fianna Fáil to bring it into operation. The inter-Party Government now intends to remove some of the defects that have become apparent over the years. There are four or five major defects which, when remedied, should render the county managerial system a fairly satisfactory one. This will not be the final Bill. As time goes on and local government becomes more complicated further Bills will be necessary.

The question of housing, the employment of staff, the estimates committee, the issuing of tenders, the requisitions for special meetings, if necessary, are all matters that needed to be remedied and the Minister has dealt with those in this Bill. That is a step in the right direction. In our county we have been very lucky in getting good managers who worked harmoniously with the council. There was very little controversy over the years.

This system was first introduced because of local representatives falling down on their jobs. Had we had the proper type of representative there would have been no necessity for a County Management Act. Political controversy was introduced into councils and people became soured with public life. The type of representative needed would not come forward and we were left with the third-rate and fourth-rate type seeking representation on our councils. That type does not take responsibility very seriously. As a result of that, the running of the county councils was anything but satisfactory and the managerial system had to be introduced to clean up the mess. The defects that are being remedied now will allay much of the bitterness and misgivings in some counties in connection with the managerial system.

The passing of the County Management Act originally brought with it an enormous increase in staffs year in and year out. These staffs were invariably made permanent and pensionable after a month or two in office, and in each county council area now big staffs are employed. I do not believe that the staff of Leinster House 25 years ago was as big as the staff of a county council to-day. That is a thing I do not like because I am quite satisfied we have far too much staff. I do agree that things have become more complicated and that there is more work, but I am equally satisfied that if those people on the staffs of county councils would work their due share there is no need for us to be cluttering up our offices with so much permanent staff. I am satisfied also that as far as tenders are concerned it is only right that public representatives should have the right to examine them before they are given because there are many things that do happen at the moment in which local representatives should have a say. I think now that the public representatives have the right to see the tenders being opened, these things will not happen in future. That is a provision that will allay some grievances in my county.

As far as the giving out of houses is concerned, I am satisfied that before the County Managerial Act came in it was a public scandal in my county. Unless you became a strong member of Fianna Fáil in those days you could not get a house because all voting was on the Party line and Fianna Fáil had the majority in the council, with the result that whether the man was most deserving or not the man Fianna Fáil wanted got the house. Since the Managerial Act came in its operation has immensely improved that position. Houses are now given out in my county on merit. There may be a few grievances, but by and large, the allocation of houses is giving a fair amount of satisfaction due to the manner in which the Managerial Act was operated in my county. Again where my county is concerned we will not feel much of a change through the passing of this Bill because the council and the manager— there were a few managers—have always worked in fair good harmony. Though the manager had the power and could do certain things he always consulted us and took a broad minded view of the work on which he allowed the county council to co-operate. That is, of course, with the exception of the appointment of staffs. In that particular domain we had some grievances.

However, as far as the giving out of houses was concerned there was a fair amount of satisfaction in my county. In any case where there was a controversial issue about the allocation of a house the councillors for the particular area concerned always got a note from the manager asking for their views on the five or six applicants for a particular house. That would arise only where there was a controversial element involved. The manager could not know at all times who was the right person to have appointed and so he would ask for the viewpoints of the local representatives in the district concerned and he always got good guidance. The manager always held over the controversial problems and consulted the people from the area concerned in such problems. In such cases he nearly always came to a final decision that a certain person was the right person on the views expressed by the councillors from the particular area. He was always satisfied that such things were matters which a manager should concede to us and which he might not if he did not like.

But in the past before we had any county managers there was far too much wire-pulling. Everything was done through the medium of political pull. The coming into force of the managerial system eliminated that to a great extent. If it were not for the advent of the Managerial Act I am satisfied that most of the people on my side of the House in my county would have had to emigrate if they stood in need of a house because they would not have got a house under the old system. Neither would they have got work on the roads had the Managerial Act not come into being and had it not cleared up the mess. I always supported the country management system as an improvement on local administration. But then we had the county managers tending to form their own organisations and we have now a managers' association and I do believe such an association could be a menace and should be nipped in the bud. There is too much of a tendency nowadays towards regimentation. People try to get more control than they are entitled to so that they can force their way too much. I would ask the Minister to keep a close eye on those associations and see that too much power does not get centralised in them so that they would not be able to force the Government and the Ministers concerned to do certain things. I know the Minister is a strong man who will see what is going on and nip it in the bud if necessary.

I am glad also that councils cannot now, under this Bill, hide behind the manager's cloak. Since the Act came into force there has been a great lot of talk by certain members of local councils who say: "Since this so and so Act was brought in we have no powers and if we had the powers what would we not do." All was blamed on the manager. I am satisfied that much of that blame would rightly rest on the councils and I am equally satisfied they have now got back some powers and I hope they will act up to them so that they will always stand up to their duties and not throw the blame on the managers as heretofore. Everybody wants to take the easy way, and up to now certain local representatives always had the excuse if anything went wrong that the blame was with the manager. And it was not the manager's fault at all. The blame should have been on the clamour for more services from the people and on the weak type of councillors who fell for that clamour. That was the cause of most of the high costs of our local councils. There was too much sucking after people. Because councillors listened to the clamours thousands of pounds were squandered and wasted.

I hope the coming local elections will remedy things, supported by the enactment of this measure. I hope these things will result in a better type of local administration and in a better type of representative being elected. We have had far too many of the you-scratch-me-and-I-will-scratch-you type of candidate getting elected. I hope we shall have a change now and root out these people from our local councils. We want manly, strong people in our local councils. We want that type of person on all sides of our council chambers. Up to the moment on all sides of the chamber we have had four or five hangers-on who have the gift of the gab at the crossroads and in the public houses and who have had the sleight-of-hand. These people have always got elected though they were by no means the right type of people. I do hope that when the public now see that the local representatives will have more powers they will try to elect the right type of people and not put in the mollycods and the sidheoga that we have elected over the past 40 years. These type of representatives were no credit to the people who elected them. Now with more power in the hands of the local representatives I want to see more manly, progressive councillors and better work being done on behalf of our people and I want to see the scratch-me system cut out. I want to see no such thing as wire pulling. I do not want to see men putting their hands out behind their backs for money for doing certain things. Those things happened and I hope we shall now see the last of them. These are the things that nobody but the public can remedy and I am now appealing to the public to do their duty in the coming elections. I want to see the public refusing to elect a bad man whether he be on the Fine Gael or the Fianna Fáil side. I want to see these bad men rooted out. I want to see that we get public representatives in office who will do their duty and who will use cautiously and well the extra powers that now are being given to them.

With the changes in the managerial system now brought in by the Minister I am satisfied that things can be run in a much better way and much more smoothly. As far as the preparation of the estimates is concerned I always found full co-operation from the county manager and from the county engineer and his staff. The council were always given an opportunity of giving their views sitting from morning till night examining the estimates. Of course it will be realised that the manager and the engineer always bring in high estimates because they know quite well that the council will cut them down. The manager is always certain that his estimates will be cut down and I have always found the manager quite happy after the council's tightening up of his figures. No matter how much we cut his estimates I think he always had the feeling that he still got more than he expected.

On every occasion high estimates are put before the council because the manager and the staff know that the council will cut them. Therefore the estimates require very close scrutiny and they should always be cut.

There has been reasonably good harmony in local administration and were it not for the fact that the managers were there there were occasions on which we would not have been able to get on as well as we did. The manager always tries to remove the difficulties and to give a guide and a lead. That applies also to the county engineer. In future we will be able to have a better type of council and, I hope, a better type of representative, and the county manager will not be a boss but a leader and a guide to the people. I hope that his services will be at all times available to the public representatives so that we can have clean, healthy, good administration, and that any money spent will be spent wisely on behalf of the people who have to pay it.

Mr. Briscoe

I am very sorry that certain Deputies and Ministers are not in the House because when the County Management (Amendment) Bill was being discussed in February, 1954, most of its opponents and critics who now form the Coalition Government regarded it as a joke and called for what might be called the complete abolition of county management. I have here some quotations. In Volume 144 of the Official Report, column 1049, the present Tánaiste referred to the County Management (Amendment) Bill, 1953, in these terms:—

"...whether or not this Bill is passed does not matter twopence so far as the powers of local authorities are concerned."

He had been dilating on the lack of democratic control through the managerial system. The Bill, which was almost similar to the Bill we are now discussing, was then criticised as not being worth twopence.

I am sorry the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government, Mr. Davin, is not in the House.

Mr. O'Donnell

You may be sorry to hear that he is laid up.

Mr. Briscoe

I am sorry. It is worth while putting on record his attitude. He is a member of one of the Government Parties and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government who is putting the Bill through the House. At column 1062 of Volume 144, Deputy Davin, as he then was, said:—

"I and my colleagues who are members of this group"

—that is, the Labour Group—

"at different periods violently opposed the managerial system. I thought it a ridiculous thing that, in 1929, five or six years after we had received the authority of the people to form a Government to manage our own affairs—and the electors who are responsible for election of Deputies to this House were equally responsible for the selection and election of members of local authorities...."

He was violently opposed to it but I take it that, while he might be opposed to it still, he is not so violent.

Now we come to the gem. The present Minister for Lands, the leader of the Clann na Talmhan Party, at column 1118 of Volume 144, was responsible for this emphatic sentence:

"I think it is generally admitted by everybody, except Fianna Fáil Deputies, that the county managerial system established some years ago was a first-class administrative blunder."

The Deputy who has just spoken, Deputy Giles, says it was a good thing to bring in the managerial system in order to take away from Fianna Fáil councillors the power and the practice of allocating houses and giving jobs to Fianna Fáil supporters. It seems strange that on the one hand we should have the present Minister for Lands, then Deputy Blowick, accusing Fianna Fáil of a first-class administrative blunder in bringing in the managerial system and, on the other hand, Deputy Giles saying it was a good thing that it was brought in.

Captain Giles

Perhaps Deputy Blowick had a majority in his council at the time. We had not.

Mr. Briscoe

I know, but it cannot be both. Fianna Fáil cannot be blamed on the one hand, by a person who is to-day a responsible Minister, for making a serious administrative blunder while, at the same time, Deputy Giles, a member of the Fine Gael Party, puts it on record that it was a good thing that Fine Gael brought in this legislation in order to remove from Fianna Fáil the power they were exercising corruptly in giving houses and jobs only to supporters of the Fianna Fáil Party.

Captain Giles

I did not say it was brought in for that purpose. I said it was very good that it was there to remedy that.

Major de Valera

Deputy Blowick does not agree with you.

Captain Giles

He need not. That is a different matter.

Mr. Briscoe

The Deputy can read his speech. He will agree that what I said is what he said. Many of us thought and I, in particular, thought that there would be a radical change in the present situation and that very substantial control would be restored to public representatives on local authorities and that the Minister in going around the country ascertaining the views of the various councils he visited was seeking advice on that. If anybody reads my speech in the debate on this matter when it was last before the House under the former Administration, he will find that then, as now, I was in favour of the managerial system, but with a certain release from the stranglehold on both elected representatives and managers by the Custom House. When I speak of restoring powers to the elected representatives I mean that they should be restored to the local authority, which consists of the elected representatives and the manager, and that between them they should be allowed to manage their affairs with as little interference and as little dictatorial control as possible.

Mr. O'Donnell

And carry all their finances as well?

Mr. Briscoe

The Minister will find that I will be reasonable and fair in my criticism of this Bill. I hope he will seriously consider the suggestions which I shall make. I make those suggestions, not for the purpose of scoring but, as I think the House will agree, with a view to creating better local administration and a happier set of circumstances between the representatives, the managers and the Department of Local Government. We do not want to be always fighting, bickering and exchanging letters. We want to be able to manage our affairs and we submit willingly to that control which the Department is entitled to assert and exert over us.

Section 2, sub-section (1) says:—

"Subject to the provisions of this section, a local authority may by resolution direct that, before the manager performs any specified executive function of the local authority, he shall inform the members of the local authority of the manner in which he proposes to perform that function, and the manager shall comply with the resolution."

That would be all right if you did not have sub-section (3), which removes from the control of the local representatives any matter relating to staff. Sub-section (3) says:—

"A resolution under sub-section (1) of this section shall not apply or extend to the performance of any function of the manager in relation to the officers or servants of a local authority or the control, supervision, service, remuneration, privileges or superannuation of such officers or servants or any of them, and any resolution purporting to be passed under sub-section (1) of this section which contravenes this sub-section shall be void."

What have the local authority representatives control of, if you remove absolutely and entirely any control, say, or criticism in connection with all the staffs, all the servants you employ in that local authority? If that were to be applied to this House and if it were to be suggested that the Civil Service was to be put on a basis where that sub-section should apply, you would have a very strange state of affairs. I think the Minister wants to be as reasonable as he can and wants to make whatever improvements he is making to meet the point of view expressed by public representatives generally all over the country. But I ask him to consider that surely sub-section (2) has little or no meaning when you take sub-section (3) into account.

We come now to Section 3 which says:—

"Where the members of a local authority are informed pursuant to Section 2 of this Act of any works (not being works which the local authority are required by or under statute or by order of a court to undertake), the local authority may by resolution direct that the works shall not be proceeded with, and the manager shall comply with the resolution."

Of course staffs are not involved here but you have that in any event. If the manager comes to us and says—and I can speak only as a result of my experience of the City of Dublin administration and cannot tell how things operate elsewhere—that he wants to spend £50,000 on erecting a building for a certain purpose, we have power at the moment to say "no" because we are the people, the direct representatives, who strike the rate, on the final analysis of the expected expenditure for the ensuring year. We can say we are not going on with that job. I agree that it is no harm to have it clarified, in case there is any doubt in existing legislation; but so far as Dublin is concerned that has been the manner in which it has been operated. We have no objection to that section except in so far as it again excludes any reference whatever to staff. I do not know whether new staff taken on would be brought into it.

Section 4 deals with the things a local authority may require the manager to do—any act which could lawfully be done or for which money has been provided. The resolution must be signed by three members. There is no objection to that section except other than that we cannot deal with——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Might I suggest that a good deal of this would be more proper on the Committee Stage? We are dealing now with the general principles of the Bill.

Mr. Briscoe

Yes, but I must refer to it section by section in order to come to the general viewpoint on it. The Minister in introducing it dealt with certain sections to explain the policy behind them and those sections are all related to what might be regarded as a change of policy. I want to emphasise that right through this Bill the safeguard is there, from the Department of Local Government point of view, copper fastening in section after section the removal of the right of the elected representatives to have any say whatsoever in connection with officials who are in the service or who may be appointed. That is one of the things that I certainly object to. I am wondering whether the Minister will accept the suggestion, when the Committee Stage comes, which may be put to him in the form of amendments or whether he himself would be prepared to introduce amendments.

I do not want to see a long harangue on this. It is not worth it really, for the changes being made. I do not want to see the Dáil held for 30 or 40 hours discussing this particular Managerial Bill. It is not worth it. The amount of changes being effected does not warrant that, but nevertheless there has to be a strong stand taken on certain issues.

Major de Valera

It is the hidden changes like this that we have to watch.

Mr. Briscoe

Section 4 tells you you can do certain things. A certain number of individuals, three of them, can call by their signatures for a special meeting for the purpose of putting before a special meeting, if not an ordinary meeting, a special resolution; but Section 4 again says that can be done only so long as it does not concern staff matters. Why this emphasis, right through the Bill, in every section, for fear there may be any doubt that even under that section something might slip in which would give you a right to approach your own employees, your own servants, even in the case of what you might call humane things? The Bill says "no" and it is cut out, for fear it may be concluded that it is involved there.

Every one of us on public authorities knows that we must be concerned with the doings of our officials. We must be satisfied that their welfare is such that they are working under happy conditions. The master of the local authority is the public, through the representatives who are sent there by the public for the administration of local authorities. The sooner those in the Custom House get that into their heads the better it will be for local administration. As Deputy de Valera said, these things are brought in by ways in which you cannot possibly detect them. I am only able to put my finger on them because I have read this Bill many times since it was circulated. I did not think it was going to be taken in such a hurry. I have read it ever since I got it. I have taken it to bed with me and the first thing in the morning I have taken another look at it.

Section 5 deals with the appointment of a manager and again I cannot understand the peculiar manner in which we go to amend existing legislation and what the amendments of previous legislation are. This brings about a situation which makes it difficult to know how you are supposed to act when you are discussing something. Section 5 deals with the appointment of a manager. Section 53 sub-section (3) of the Local Government (Dublin) Act, 1930, provided that "the appointment of a person to be a manager shall be made by the council." That was the original situation—that the manager was appointed by the council in a certain way. This sub-section was repealed by Section 13 of the Local Government (Dublin) Act, 1940, and this provided that the appointment would be made by the Minister.

Now we come to this Section 13 of the Act of 1940 which is being repealed by the present Bill, and Section 5 thereof provides for all applications being made to the Local Appointments Commission by the council before the commencement of the Order in Section 14 of the Bill—the application must be a joint one from the city council and Dublin council. The power of the council to appoint a temporary manager pending the appointment of a permanent manager is not being restored and the temporary appointment will now be made by the Minister. This is a most confusing situation. Under this Bill, which has now, after a very stormy and rough passage, reached its present stage, a position arises where the city manager of a particular local authority, having reached a certain age, will be permitted to retire on pension. He has the right to exercise his retirement, say, next June, and next June there is to be an election so that the City of Dublin is faced with the possibility of a new city manager, or a temporary one, and immediately after that, a new city council. Deputy Larkin will quite appreciate the difficulty that could arise then. You may have a complete change in the composition of the council.

Mr. D. Larkin

It might depend on the council.

Mr. Briscoe

Exactly. Nobody would know where they were. It is unfortunate that those two situations are about to clash. Nevertheless, assuming the present city manager were to exercise his right and retire as he will have a statutory right to do, we have the position where the Minister would step in and appoint our temporary manager whereas previously we appointed or nominated a temporary manager to carry on until such time as the proper care and precautions would be taken to secure a successor of the calibre required for the management of a city like Dublin.

I am wondering whether, first of all, the Minister will recognise the seriousness of the sequence of events and whether he would be prepared to consider this—that no matter who the manager is who is appointed or selected, no matter how he is selected, at least there should be a period of trial before he becomes permanently married to the local authority, because there can be no divorce except under very peculiar and special circumstances. We may get a manager and everything may look grand. He may appear to have all the qualifications necessary and all the capabilities but it may turn out that the job is too big for him, that he is not able to do the job properly and everybody—the Minister and the local authority and the city— is saddled with this man who might become a misfit. I want the Minister to understand there is only one position of manager in the City of Dublin. We have had some experience now of the managerial system and the managerial system has not worked out, generally speaking, badly, notwithstanding the fact that managers were appointed into a new system and there were practically none who could have been said to have had experience. But to-day we have men of considerable experience who are acting as managers and the representatives and the Department of Local Government all have a considerable amount of experience and some of us have more knowledge than others and others have a good deal of knowledge. I want to appeal to the Minister to consider seriously between this and the Committee Stage whether there is not something in what I say—that there is a certain danger, particularly where you may take a person who is not a local authority official and who is not a civil servant, but who may have what appear to be outstanding abilities and who, even in the opinion of a great number of people, even in the opinion of a selection board, might appear to be the answer to the prayer for the most suitable and desirable person to be the manager of the City of Dublin. But then he may not turn out to be such, and then where do we go from there? I certainly am going to give that particular matter a certain amount of thought and I think it is something of considerable importance to us. I would like to refer again to the position that will arise in Dublin after June. We will have the local authority election. We will have a temporary manager for a limited period. We do not know who will be appointed by the Minister under this Bill but we know whom we would appoint as temporary manager until the council gets going, and is able to go through the performance of looking for a new man. We would obviously appoint one of the present assistant managers. Then we know we are not making a violent change from policy or procedure, and at least the man knows the job, and he would soon get to know whatever was required.

Section 6 again requires some reexamination by the Minister and I hope the Minister will bear with me. Section 6 says:—

"The manager shall not submit any proposal to vary the number of permanent offices under a local authority for the sanction of such Minister as may be empowered to sanction the proposal save with the consent by resolution of the local authority."

That sounds all right, but Deputy Murphy from the Labour Benches was talking about temporary employees. Would the Minister agree that temporary and permanent employees, all employees, should come under the same umbrella?

Mr. O'Donnell

We are trying to do that by way of regulation, where you may only employ them for nine months.

Mr. Briscoe

Take it from me, unless that is put in the same way as in the case of permanent appointments we are going to have trouble. What happens is that as the Minister says you cannot employ temporary staff for a period longer than nine months, but they can be re-employed for another nine months——

Mr. O'Donnell

No.

Mr. Briscoe

——or other temporary employees can be taken on.

Mr. O'Donnell

What about nurses? Do you want power to appoint temporary nurses?

Mr. Briscoe

No, we want power to prevent the position arising which could arise and which sometimes does arise where temporary staff grow up and some of them have been reappointed and reappointed and the position then is that the manager comes along and says: "I am going to make these permanent" and the local authority says: "You are not going to take in another 50 permanent staff?": he says: "You do not expect me to pitch that many out of work because I must either make them permanent or let them go." We want to avoid that position. We want to know where we are.

It is no secret that members of the Dublin Corporation are at this moment faced with the situation of a certain section of our undertaking suddenly having added to it numbers of new officials about whom none of us knew anything, but for the payment of whose remuneration we must make provision in the coming year's estimate. The Minister can do no harm if he puts such of the corporation servants or officials as are temporary in this section and lets the manager say: "I need another 15 typists or 15 engineers temporarily", and then let us decide whether he should make the necessary request to the Minister for sanction. Is there anything unreasonable in that? Why is this particular door to be left open? I can tell the Minister that I do not like it and I will fight very hard against it, although I do not think a fight should be necessary.

Mr. O'Donnell

To include temporaries?

Mr. Briscoe

Yes, all staff.

Mr. O'Donnell

A county manager may want to employ a slater to put a slate on the courthouse roof. Would it be necessary to call a meeting of the council to get their sanction? He would be a temporary employee.

Mr. Briscoe

In the case of the City of Dublin, I do not think that, if a slate goes off a roof, we have to look for men to put it back. We have a maintenance staff.

Mr. O'Donnell

But what about the other councils?

Mr. Briscoe

It would be a peculiar council that would not have some maintenance staff.

Mr. O'Donnell

They have not got them in every village.

Mr. Briscoe

Let me put it this way: I am prepared to agree to the Minister having a right to bring anybody in whose total employment will not be longer than one month.

Mr. O'Donnell

That matter could be considered.

Mr. Briscoe

The Minister sees what I have in mind, I think. Sections 7 to 10 deal with the estimates committee meetings and I have only one suggestion to make in that regard. I am not opposing anything in these sections, but I want to make a suggestion for a better understanding of them. Perhaps the Minister intends that what I have in mind is to be the case. It would be preferable if, on the passing of the Act, the Minister would prescribe the period and the form of the estimates once only, subject to his being authorised to prescribe in future years, on request by a council, any new form. The present position is that there is a prescribed form, but we have to apply formally every year, to go through the performance, and I should like the Minister to say: "While I will prescribe the period and the form, you can carry on from year to year unless it is altered either at your request or by me for any particular reason." The Minister will find that it is fair for me to conclude that under these sections we must apply every year.

Mr. O'Donnell

I think we can remedy that for you.

Mr. Briscoe

The Minister sees the point?

Mr. O'Donnell

I do, and it can be remedied.

Mr. Briscoe

May I congratulate myself on making such wonderful progress with the Minister?

Mr. O'Donnell

You always do.

Mr. Briscoe

We come now to Section 11 and again I should like the Minister to understand a difficulty, because he is trying to close a door, but it is not being closed. The section deals with limitation on expenditure and it reads:—

"(1) At any time after they have adopted an estimate of expenses, a local authority may, as respects the local financial year to which the estimate relates, authorise by resolution the expenditure of money or the incurring of a liability in excess of the expenditure for any particular purpose specified in the estimate.

(2) Save with an authorisation given by resolution under sub-section (1) of this section, the total amount of money expended and liability incurred by a local authority as respects any local financial year for any particular purpose specified in the estimate of expenses for that year shall not exceed the total amount specified in that estimate in respect of that purpose."

What I want to avoid is the manager coming to the finance committee or to the estimates committee and saying: "I am sorry, boys. I had to spend this extra £20,000 and I want you to sanction it now." I want that section to include some protection in the form of some wording to ensure that he will not come post facto.

Mr. O'Donnell

He cannot under the section.

Mr. Briscoe

Under the section as I read it, he can. I want the wording to be such that, if he finds he has to do something not included in the estimates, he must come to the committee first and say: "This is essential, but it was overlooked. Have I got your sanction to do it?"

Mr. O'Donnell

Perhaps the Deputy would go back to Section 3.

Mr. Briscoe

I have already dealt with Section 3.

Mr. O'Donnell

With reference to the point you have made.

Mr. Briscoe

The Minister's suggestion that I should go back to Section 3 —I am not saying this in any facetious sense—reminds me that I yesterday met a gentleman who came from the East. He had been inspecting a barracks and he saw on the door "for 12 persons", but when he went in, he found there were 21 persons in it. When he expressed surprise, the gentleman showing him around said: "No, you are reading it wrong; we read here from right to left". Apparently we have to read this Bill from the rear sections back to the front sections.

Mr. O'Donnell

No. If you understand each section as you go along, there will be no necessity to go back.

Mr. Briscoe

Section 3 sets out:—

"Where the members of a local authority are informed pursuant to Section 2 of this Act of any works (not being works which the local authority are required by or under statute or by order of a court to undertake), the local authority may by resolution direct that the works shall not be proceeded with, and the manager shall comply with the resolution."

Section 11 does not relate to that but to a new situation. Section 11 says that at any time after they have adopted an estimate of expenses a local authority may, as respects the local financial year to which the estimate relates, authorise by resolution the expenditure of money or the incurring of a liability in excess of the expenditure for any particular purpose specified in the estimate——

Mr. O'Donnell

When the Deputy is reading that, he might bear in mind the provisions of Section 2 sub-section (7).

Mr. Briscoe

Is the Minister quite satisfied that what I am afraid of cannot happen?

Mr. O'Donnell

I am quite satisfied.

Mr. Briscoe

I accept that. I was not quite sure about it and I did not want that situation to arise. Perhaps the Minister will have it examined in view of my fears. If there is any doubt, it can very easily be clarified. What I want to avoid is being faced with having to regularise a position post facto.

Mr. O'Donnell

Section 2 (7) provides for that.

Mr. Briscoe

If the Minister is satisfied, I am satisfied.

Sections 14 and 22 are the next sections that concern us. We are concerned about the City of Dublin. We want our city manager of Dublin to be our manager. If the new council says they do not want their manager to be manager for Dún Laoghaire and County Borough as well we want the right to say that. But the Bill says that will only be so if Dublin City and the County Borough make the demand. The position remains as it is. I say that is most unfair to us in Dublin. We want a city manager of our own. We do not want to have the farce that operates continued. The position is that the city manager, when there is a conflict between ourselves and the county, tells us: "I will have to write to the county manager." He then goes out and sits in a seat elsewhere and he is then the county manager. He writes back to the city manager and says that the county manager cannot do so and so.

Mr. O'Donnell

He is doing it a long time.

Mr. Briscoe

He is doing it a long time but it is causing a lot of trouble.

Mr. O'Donnell

I am trying to remedy it.

Mr. Briscoe

The only way it can be remedied is by having each man in charge of his own place.

Mr. D. Larkin

Let Dublin take in the whole lot.

Major de Valera

Then you will have to split up Dublin.

Mr. Briscoe

The present situation is a farce. Let me point out what happens. Dún Laoghaire Borough was growing rapidly and they found that they would have to have additional water. They come to the City of Dublin and ask for additional water. We say that we have to carefully consider the requirements of our citizens. Our city is also growing. We say we are prepared to facilitate them for a certain period. They say they are contemplating building a reservoir of their own. We then say: "All right. We will supply you with water for a certain number of years but after a certain date if you have not built your reservoir we will charge you so much per 1,000 gallons for excess water used." What happens? They do not build the reservoir. We send out our bill and I, as chairman of the finance committee, with the full agreement of the other 44 members, say to our city manager: "Collect this £20,000 off the Dún Laoghaire Borough Council." The city manager is pressed by their committee to know how the payment of this £20,000, which would mean 3/- or 4/- in the rates, can be avoided. He is asked to get the boys in Dublin to wait or wipe it out as it would only mean 2d. in the £ on the rates in Dublin. The point is that I will not be a party to inflicting on the ratepayers of Dublin a charge to provide water for the ratepayers of another area. When this matter arose my advice was and still is that the Dún Laoghaire Borough Council should pay us whatever they owe and ask the Minister to permit them to borrow the money for this purpose and pay it off over 35 years.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

Why do you not get a certificate in regard to what the water costs?

Mr. Briscoe

We will not have that position at all. We have our own autonomy in our own area. We do certain things for the county and we live on good relations with them.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

We have no water except what you give us.

Mr. Briscoe

Why do you not build your own reservoir and pay for the manager, who is Dún Laoghaire Borough manager, is trying to please both but in the process he pleases nobody.

Mr. D. Larkin

Deputy Briscoe is making a great case for unification.

Mr. O'Donnell

Settle your own differences.

Mr. Briscoe

It is a ridiculous situation. I say it is quite wrong to have a manager of three bordering bodies with continual conflicting interests. Take what happened when we wanted to extend the area. We had to have an inquiry between us and the County Dublin in connection with taking in the additional area. The city manager was no use to either of us. He had to keep out of it because he had to serve two places honestly and he could not do it.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

And you did not keep to the agreement on that either.

Mr. Briscoe

What was the agreement that was made on that and which was not kept?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This does not seem to arise.

Mr. Briscoe

Deputy Dockrell will not get away with an interjection that the corporation made an undertaking and did not keep it. They have honoured every aspect of it. What is holding up the payment is that the officials must get together and establish the amount of the loss of rates in the portion of the county now taken over by us. They will get their figure on the agreed basis laid down by the Minister for Local Government. There is no use bringing that in.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

The Deputy dragged it in. I did not.

Mr. Briscoe

I say it is a farcical situation to have three competing interests with the one managing director in respect of each of them. That is what I am saying is farcical. The Minister says: "All right, boys, if both agree to make this demand I may meet you." It does not say "I shall" or "I will". This is one section of the Bill in respect of which I am going to try and get all the support I can in this House to have remedied if the Minister will not meet it. I think it is ridiculous. Every day in the week you have some conflicting interests between the two or three bodies and you have the poor man who is responsible for all three of them trying to make a decision which will satisfy every one of the authorities. That is impossible. There is no person on this earth and there never has been so far as I know in the past 1,000 years who could sort out a situation like that to the satisfaction of the individuals concerned.

Section 17 deals with the delegation of powers by the manager to others. I want to know if the Minister is prepared to take the view that instead of having what are called assistant city managers we have deputy managers and that the manager can then delegate to these deputy managers whatever powers are necessary? The Bill says that if the city manager happens to be absent through illness or otherwise he can delegate power to a deputy and specify who the deputy can be and what rank he should hold.

Dublin City controls an area and a population of some magnitude. I think it might be considered—I do not know whether the House will agree with me or not—that for a city like Dublin it might be necessary to have a manager and three deputy managers. We have an assistant city manager who is completely in charge of housing and who, by virtue of his appointment, is, in fact, more a deputy of the manager and who can make orders and directions on his own. I do not know whether the manager is responsible in full or not, but the position is not a proper one. I should like the Minister to consider the manager having either two or three deputies. To these only should powers, held by the manager, be delegated. The Bill is very funny, of course, on that particular point. If the manager, for any reason whatsoever, wants to appoint a deputy, what has he got to do? He consults the Lord Mayor. He is not obliged to accept the advice of the Lord Mayor.

What is the purpose of putting this into the Bill? It is what one would call window dressing. If the city manager has to go away and is going to appoint a deputy, he can consult with the Lord Mayor, and he may agree or not. "No, no," you say, "he has power to appoint a deputy" for the Bill suggests he can by agreement with the Lord Mayor whoever he may be. After all the deputy knows that in his absence he is going to be city manager.

Mr. O'Donnell

You could have the two of them disagreeing.

Mr. Briscoe

What I am suggesting is the way out. With assistant city managers or deputy city managers, any one of whom he can appoint, there may be no problem, no quarrel and no misunderstanding. That is the proper way of dealing with the matter. To my mind these theoretical ways are extraordinarily childish, and to put into the Bill something which means nothing is an absolute waste of print. It says how he will do it, but if the other fellow does not agree he will do it his own way anyhow. Why put it in at all? A reasonably sensible city manager, if it was not in the Bill, would say: "I am going off on leave of absence", or he may say: "If it is agreeable to you So-and-so could act in my absence". His deputy will have full responsibility, and what the deputy does will be the city manager's responsibility. What I am suggesting is, in fact, the best method of dealing with it. Abolish this idea of assistant city managers with certain rights and powers. The city manager has his deputies, and let him delegate to them or tell them whatever he wants to do, if he has to go away. Nothing in Section 18 points out that at present the appointment of a deputy manager is not subject to the confirmation of the Minister, but under the section the appointment will be subject to the Minister's approval. The manager goes through the formality of having a consultation with the Lord Mayor, and whether they agree or not the Minister comes in and says: "I think the manager should say yes."

Mr. O'Donnell

What did you say to Deputy Smith when he brought in his Bill?

Mr. Briscoe

Will you please read my speech when Deputy Smith brought in his Bill when he was Minister?

Mr. O'Donnell

He paid no attention to you, did he not?

Mr. Briscoe

He could have if he had survived as Minister for Local Government. If you will read the report of the debate on the Bill you will see that my amendment was no different then.

I am not approaching this bit of legislation from a Party standpoint. I am approaching it with a view to securing, with the little experience or knowledge I have, the best way from the point of view of good local government administration. I want to get rid of a lot of schoolboy ideas about efficient management that probably came from some debating society, with no real relation to practice whatsoever. That is why I say that is a very poor situation. The Lord Mayor does or does not agree, and so if "X" is the deputy manager appointed the Minister can say: "No, I do not agree. I would not have him. I am appointing So-and-so". But "So-and-so" is not known to us. He might be any kind of person, but certainly we know nothing about him; he is being dumped in on us, and may be good in his way. The Minister has full powers.

I hope the Minister will not press this section because it is bringing the city management back again to the farce from which we want to get away, from the position in which the Custom House will run the City of Dublin.

Deputy Giles talked of the hope of a good type of candidate putting forward for the next local elections. I can assure the Minister that unless he gives these people a full and complete feeling that they are going to manage, with their own manager, the affairs of the city, that their views will be taken note of, and that they will not be this "cupboard at the back" from which every now and then a curtain is pulled back and a hammer comes down on the head of everything, we are going back again to a position of unhappiness in this matter of local management. I object to that. There will be two deputy managers in the City of Dublin in future, and it is quite possible under this section and I would say it is almost possible or it is almost probable, that even if the manager were to appoint one of his own deputy managers the Minister could say: "No. I will not accept him as deputy manager when you are away". What confidence can we have in our managerial system if this is to be inherent in the whole set-up? I do not know what is going to happen. Is the Minister prepared to indicate now that he will accept the proposition that if the City of Dublin declares itself in favour of having its own city manager the city manager shall not be a manager of several of the adjacent bodies now helping the borough manager? Is he prepared to meet the City of Dublin on that? If he is not I can assure him that the troubles which are created will continue to develop and goodness knows what way they will end. Our city manager has also to be town clerk, and under this Bill is the manager going to remove the anomaly of the city manager being something which he is not, and will he allow the City of Dublin to appoint our town clerk the same as every other local authority? Is he going to allow us to let the city manager be city manager and restore the position of town clerk which existed after the introduction of the City Management Act and afterwards repealed? I will not take up very much more of the time of the House. I wanted to say to the Minister that if we are really sincere in trying to improve city and county management let us do it.

This Bill does not do very much. It does something, but unless it deals with these matters which are of vital importance to us in the City of Dublin, it will not be possible to have affairs run properly. I mention a few things which the Minister said he would look into for Committee Stage. I have mentioned other things on which I have no indication from the Minister as to what his attitude will be. I would urge him to consider seriously these matters. I do not think there is any local authority which can compare with ours in work and population. If there is a small county or in fact a county with not a very large population or possessing much housing and so forth, which likes to share the county manager with some other administrative area, that is their business.

It should not be made mandatory on us to have this position obtain. There is no use putting into a Bill that if Dublin City applies to be separated and if it is done simultaneously by the county, the Minister may agree. If, on the one hand, the Bill said that if both "did" the Minister "shall", then I would not be so violently opposed to this particular section because I think we would have the wit to bring about such a row between the two bodies that the manager would have to take one side or the other and bring the issue to the proper light.

We cannot go on nursing a situation such as we have had. There are bordering areas; we have conflicting interests. From time to time we have to help each other, and so on, and the only occasion where the City of Dublin and the county or the City of Dublin and Dún Laoghaire can get together, iron out problems and come to agreement is when the public representatives of these authorities meet with each other. We did that the other day. The County Dublin representatives met representatives of the City of Dublin. Officials were there, but the strange thing was that the county manager or the city manager was not there. Nevertheless we were able to iron out the difficulties. There was give and take. There was an explanation of what was wanted, what was to be done—roads bordering one another, where one side was county and one side was city, who was to do it, the people who were to be employed, and so on. We got understanding and agreement in principle.

That is why I say if there are certain matters which are managerial functions and have to be discussed between the city and the county, they should be discussed between the two managers and not left in the position in which they have to be left now. I beg the Minister to accept my approach to the Second Reading of this Bill, not as one of a carping nature but as one really meaning to try to help him and help the House to make the necessary alterations in existing legislation in regard to the main steps that need to be taken from time to time, to restore to local authorities control of their affairs and secure proper control over them by the local authority, to remove a certain number of controls previously exercised which we consider were not necessary and which were the cause of problems and dissatisfaction. Deputy Byrne, the Lord Mayor, if he were here, would be the first to say that, from time to time, with the number of delays and problems which you might say brought about frustration, some of the members were almost inclined to throw their hats at it.

I do not know whether it would be permissible for me at this stage to explain what I mean in this connection. I have here a typical letter which we receive—I will not read the signature under the particular matter —and which I would like to put on the record of the House. Perhaps somebody could tell us what it means.

Mr. O'Donnell

Does it concern the County Management Bill?

Mr. Briscoe

It is addressed to the city manager and town clerk of the Dublin Corporation and it comes from the Department of Local Government. It reads:—

"I am directed by the Minister for Local Government to refer to your letter of the 28th September last on the above subject and to state that the general lay-out of the road works appears to be satisfactory.

The estimate of £7,850 for the work includes the laying of an 18 inch O.G. pipe."

Mr. O'Donnell

On a point of order. I would like to know how this arises on the Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I cannot see that what the Deputy is quoting has anything to do with the City and County Management Bill.

Major de Valera

Let us see what it is.

Mr. O'Donnell

There is no use making a point of order then.

Major de Valera

The point of order is premature. Surely the Deputy should get a chance of pointing out what he wants to say?

Mr. Briscoe

I would say this, as a pointer to the Minister and perhaps to the senior officials of the local authority that too much interference with the local authorities from the Custom House puts them in a position where they are up a gum tree and they just become the laughing stock of local authorities because they get themselves so involved in trying to pull strings——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

As the Deputy is aware the Minister is responsible for the Bill and the Deputy's reference to the Custom House is not in order.

Mr. Briscoe

The Minister is responsible for the Custom House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Then the remark should be addressed to the Minister and not the Custom House. That is a rule of long standing in this House.

Mr. Briscoe

To continue the quotation:—

"The provision of this pipe appears to be part of the normal works arising out of the development of the area for housing, and the only part of the cost of providing it which could be charged to the road works would be the extra amount, if any, which would be involved if, to take the drainage of this section of road, a larger pipe than would otherwise be required had to be provided.

water you get from us? Our city

It seems that this pipe has to be provided before the road reconstruction is carried out, and it has not been made clear whether the size of the pipe has been calculated in the light of the fact that, as stated, it would form part of the comprehensive surface water drainage of East Finglas."

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

How is this related to the Bill?

Mr. O'Donnell

That letter was issued on my instructions as a result of a deputation which I received from Dublin Corporation and which was led by Councillor Mullen.

Mr. Briscoe

And the letter means nothing?

Mr. O'Donnell

If the Deputy would read into it, it means quite a lot, but I do not think it is the least bit relevant to this discussion.

Mr. Briscoe

It is relevant to this extent——

Mr. O'Donnell

I am asking the Chair for a ruling as to whether it is or not.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It has no relevancy to the Bill. The Deputy would be entitled to raise it on the Minister's Estimate, but I cannot see how it has any connection with this Bill.

Major de Valera

On a point of order. This is a Bill which is dealing with management. The Deputy is quoting in connection with management and surely the Deputy is entitled to put an example before the House and discuss it. It is relevant as an example——

Mr. O'Donnell

An example of what?

Mr. Briscoe

Of frustration.

Major de Valera

I submit strongly the Deputy is making a case and it is very relevant.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The matter would be relevant on the Minister's Estimate for his Department, but it certainly has no connection with the City and County Management Bill.

Major de Valera

The advice the Chair is getting in this matter is bad.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Depuy will withdraw that remark. The Chair is accepting advice from no quarter. The Chair is ruling on a matter before the House and the Deputy will withdraw the remark or leave the House.

Deputy Major de Valera withdrew from the House.

Mr. Briscoe

There is no alternative but to accept the ruling of the Chair. What I was trying to point out is this. In city and county management there is control asserted by the Minister and the Department of Local Government. You sometimes find that control reduced to a level of unimportance with consequent files being developed from writing about something that should not cost you five minutes' talk to find out this and that.

In the same way, when we get to discussing this section which deals with the appointment of deputies by the city manager, if he going on leave, what is going to happen? This is a vital matter. The Bill has a picture of the city manager saying suddenly that he is going away for a month or, alternatively, he is ill and he says: "Somebody has to manage. According to the Bill, the first thing I must do is send for the Lord Mayor and consult him and he and I will either agree or disagree. If we agree, all the better, and if we disagree it does not matter. But whether we agree or disagree the Minister now has to agree and if the Minister does not agree he appoints." Let us take the first stage. Supposing the Lord Mayor at the time happens to be a member of the Party to which the particular Minister belongs, and the manager disagrees with the Lord Mayor. Is it not quite clear that the Lord Mayor will say to the Minister: "The manager is going to appoint ‘X'. I think ‘Y' should be appointed"? The Minister might agree not to appoint either "X" or "Y" and he might say: "We will bring in ‘Z'"— and then we would have a nice kettle of fish. Surely the Bill should be specific. There is the city manager. He has at least two deputy managers.

In the event of his going away or becoming ill then one of these deputy managers can have the powers of manager delegated to him in the manager's absence. Is anything wrong with that? Why is this other thing brought in? Are we to take it that, with all the care you take in the selection and appointment of a city or county manager, there is a fear that you are then going to have duds as deputy managers and that, therefore, the Minister has a right to question their authority as acting managers in the absence of a manager? To me that seems childish. I do not know who thought that out. I do not know where that emanated from but to me it seems so unnecessary and ridiculous that I hope the Minister will accept the suggestion I am making to bring this thing to a proper understanding and a proper practice.

I do not know when the Minister will indicate his views on the suggestions made here and, arising out of that, I do not know when we shall have the Committee Stage of this Bill. I just want to say that I shall pursue the points I have raised for the purpose of correcting in this Bill what I believe are mistakes.

Mr. Dunne

I have noticed in this debate that every speaker on the Second Reading has made, in effect, a speech which, as indicated on more than one occasion by the Chair, would be more appropriate on the Committee Stage. There is a reason for that. The reason is that this Bill does not effect any material change, as far as I can see, in the present situation and represents no fundamental departure from the managerial code as we know it. Therefore, it is impossible for Deputies to make a properly grounded Second Reading speech because there are no general principles at issue in this Bill.

I must confess I am very disappointed with the Bill. At all times I have been an advocate of the restoration of the maximum power to local authorities and I have been an opponent of the managerial system for quite a long time. My Party has indicated its stand in that regard on more than one occasion. I regret to say that there are certain aspects of this Bill which reinforce some of the most objectionable sides of the managerial system, a great deal of which are entirely unnecessary.

Let us take, for instance, this proposal regarding the estimates committees. As far as I am aware, in practically every county where you have any kind of a reasonable person acting as manager, we already have estimates committees prior to the actual estimates meeting of the council of the local authority. It is quite customary for Dublin County Council, for instance, and indeed for Grangegorman Joint Board, acting in committee, to examine the estimates put forward each year by the manager, to state their views on what they think should be deleted and on what additions, if any, should be made. The general practice has been that the manager has tried to meet the views of the local authority. It may be that there is, perhaps, in some obscure part of the country a manager operating a different system from that. If that be so, that manager must be a very foolish man to be making trouble for himself with his own elected councillors. Therefore, I say there is no need to have written into a statute a provision to provide the council with a right to set up an estimates committee. What makes this proposal ridiculous, in my view, is the suggestion that you can get a number of councillors—with the time, the experience and the knowledge—to come together to formulate the estimates themselves, because that is what is in Section 7 of the Bill. Section 7 states, in effect: It will be the duty of the estimates committee to prepare the annual estimate of expenses and to furnish the members of the local authority with financial statements in such manner and at such intervals as the local authority may direct. Does that not mean that you would need a committee of men who could devote all their time for weeks, if not for months, before the actual date of the estimates meeting to the preparation of a complicated piece of business?

Mr. O'Donnell

The Deputy is not serious?

Mr. Dunne

That is in the Bill.

Mr. O'Donnell

Does the manager do it now? Does he spend three months?

Mr. Dunne

He has a staff.

Mr. O'Donnell

The committee will have the same staff.

Mr. Dunne

The manager of each local authority must give several weeks of constant consideration to his estimate. In County Dublin, it must surely take the manager from six to eight weeks to familiarise himself with all the different proposals and with all the various details connected with the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of pounds. Here, it is suggested that persons who are working voluntarily and in the public interest on local authorities should have sufficient time to do that job. To my mind, that is completely unreal. I cannot see in the suggestion of an estimates committee, as it is set out here, anything more than a gesture towards a lot of the ill-informed and uninformed criticism of local authorities which we read from time to time in the correspondence columns of the daily and Sunday newspapers and which, sometimes, is part and parcel of the pronunciamentos of the gentlemen sitting behind editorial desks who seem to have nothing very much else to do except criticise the voluntary work of members of a local authority. As I say, this proposal of an estimates committee does not represent to us, at any rate in Dublin, any material change except that it could impose an impossible obligation on members of the council. It suggests the imposition of an obligation upon members of county councils everywhere, an obligation which, I submit in common sense, they cannot discharge or be expected to discharge.

I had thought that there would be some progress in regard to staff matters. Like others I am decidedly opposed to the idea that all matters relating to staff—employment, remuneration and superannuation matters in respect to workers—should be left to be dealt with by the manager and that the elected representatives, who are the real employers of those workers, should have no say whatever in the manner in which the workers will be treated. There is nothing democratic in that, quite the reverse. It is a centralisation of authority which, I think, the Minister should seriously reconsider. Arguments have been put forward that this procedure under which staffs will be dealt with by the manager, makes things easier for county councillors. I think experience has proved the opposite.

In areas where staffs have felt aggrieved—I refer particularly to servants of the council such as manual workers—as a result of the county manager not dealing fairly with them, the blame for that situation has not fallen on the shoulders of the officials. It has invariably fallen on the shoulders of those who have to go before the people and ask them for their votes. Mind you, if you talk to any average person, in rural Ireland particularly, and try to get him to understand that, despite the fact that people are called upon to go to the polls every three or five years to vote for local councillors, these local councillors when they go into the council chamber have little or no power, it is almost impossible to get the average person to appreciate that situation— naturally enough, because that situation is ridiculous.

I had hoped for a far more radical approach in principle to the managerial system from the Minister and I am, as I say, like many others disappointed. I should like to join with other Deputies in what has been said in regard to the separation of the city and county. I do not anticipate that there will be any disagreement between Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council on the need for separation of the two authorities, so far as management is concerned. The fact that we have had one man trying to carry the dual responsibility of manager for city and county—an impossible task—has created grave problems for the authorities concerned. Again, why all this caution when it comes to a question of making a change? What are all these safeguards for? What is the danger?

Mr. O'Donnell

Some counties do not want to de-group.

Mr. Dunne

We do.

Mr. O'Donnell

If you want to de-group, you may.

Mr. Dunne

There again we come up against something which I think has been a grave difficulty, so far as Dublin City and County is concerned, over a long period of years. That is the seemingly impossible job of getting the Minister and his staffs in the Custom House, for whom he is responsible, to appreciate that when they are dealing with the City and County of Dublin they have an entirely different problem from that of any other local authority in the country, in every sense of the word. While it may be, as the Minister says in this instance, that some counties do not want to de-group, everybody knows that everyone in the City and County of Dublin wants to de-group and that we want separate managers. Everybody knows that the present system has led over the years to administration of a kind which makes difficulty for everybody. Yet, we have written into this Bill restrictive clauses whereby we have got to go through a certain ritual before we can achieve a very simple thing. Common sense would dictate that these clauses should not be there, that there should be more simplification. I hope that when the present Minister is examining legislation of this kind or examining generally any problems that arise in relation to the City or County of Dublin, he will try to bear in mind—it seems to be difficult to get non-Dublin people to appreciate this fact—that there is an entirely different set of circumstances here.

There was a suggestion from somebody, by way of interruption, in regard to this de-grouping of Dublin County and City that the solution might be to combine both. Of course, that is the other extreme of illogicality because there is nothing whatsoever in common between the small farmer or the agricultural labourer, so far as his way of life or his particular economic interests are concerned, and the dock worker on the quays or the person living, say, in the heart of the Liberties. You cannot get adequate or proper local representation if you have one central authority trying to cater for the opposite and diverse classes that exist in between these types. Therefore, the suggestion that there should be one authority for a population almost approaching 750,000 is ludicrous.

Mr. O'Donnell

That did not come from me.

Mr. Dunne

I know it did not. I am not making any reference to the Minister but that suggestion is contrary to every concept of democratic local government. The real thing to be aimed at in any legislation connected with local administration is to secure, as far as possible, that intimate relationship which formerly existed between councillors and electors. It may not have been perfect but there was that intimate relationship between the elected councillor and the people of his electoral area. He was not alone their councillor; he was their counsellor as well, one to whom they spoke familiarly and to whom they could turn in any difficulty. The idea that one big combine could cater for 750,000 people or that such a large number of people could be ruled over by a relatively small group, even if there were 50 members in the corporation, is in direct contradiction to all concepts of democratic local government.

I can never understand why in successive Bills of this kind no change has been made in the status of rate collectors. On how many occasions have rows originated, been carried on for years, time wasted and enemies made in county councils throughout the country because of the fact that county councils still have the right themselves to appoint rate collectors? I do not know for what reason that power was left to county councils.

Mr. O'Donnell

They can abolish rate collectors if they want to and collect the rates through the office.

Mr. Dunne

I am not suggesting that rate collectors as a class should be abolished. Possibly a lot of people think they should be. I am not suggesting they should be abolished; I am suggesting there should be laid down in law a direction from this Parliament providing for a change in the future. That would make for more economical administration. It would do away with many of the undesirable aspects related to the appointment of rate collectors, aspects well known to those of us who are members of county councils. It would do away with a good deal of the persecution we suffer when a vacancy comes up.

Mr. O'Donnell

Not one solitary county council wishes to denude itself of that power.

Mr. Briscoe

We have not that problem in Dublin at any rate.

Mr. Dunne

We have in the county. I do not know why the councillors did not advert to that difficulty when discussing the matter with the Minister.

Mr. O'Donnell

I brought it up specially with each and every one of them.

Mr. Dunne

I can think of a reason why, but it would not be a complimentary reason to the councillors. I am sure the Minister can think of the same reason. The time has come when we, as a Parliament, should have some say in these matters. It is undesirable that this system of rate collection, which must have originated in the time of the Druids——

Mr. McQuillan

The Firbolgs.

Mr. Dunne

Exactly! That system has been handed down over a long period. We still retain it. Why we do so I do not know because it is certainly an uneconomic system.

The system also creates another problem apart from the difficulties I have already mentioned. It is possible for a rate collector, doing very little work, to get a very large salary. Other officials of the council who are called upon to give all their time and do twice as much work may only earn half what the rate collector earns. These officials of the council have to have a certain standard of education, have very often to sit for competitive examinations in order to be appointed to the staff of the council, and have to serve a number of years before they receive promotion; the rate collector comes along and he is regarded, I am sure, with very mixed feelings by the staffs. They are confronted with the spectacle of some individual coming in because he has particular friends who form a majority on the particular council; he gets the job and he is paid twice as much as the staff of the county council. That is wrong in principle and I do not see why we should retain that system. If county councillors told the truth most of them would say that they would prefer the Dáil to take away that right because of the barrage that is put up by these gentlemen when they are applying for the job of rate collector. Every conceivable form of inducement is held out to those who are fortunate, or unfortunate, enough to be county councillors. That is something most county councillors will never forget.

Mr. McQuillan

That is the time when a councillor should go on holiday to France or out of the county altogether.

Mr. Dunne

This Bill seems to be based on the assumption that every county manager up to this was a rigid dictator. It ameliorates in some small degree difficulties which have existed in one or two counties. Now the average county manager is a decent man. He wants to get along with his council. Most of them co-operate with their councils far more liberally than they may be required to do under this Bill.

The Labour Party as a whole is concerned with securing democratic control in every sense of the word for members of county councils. I am particularly interested in securing that county councillors will have some voice in saying how the workers should be treated. That right is not being given to county councillors except in a very limited measure under this Bill. While the Bill does not represent a step backwards, it does not represent a step forward either. I would ask the Minister to consider the points which have been made, particularly in relation to Dublin City and County and to see what he can do between this and the Committee Stage to meet the points put forward. I would particularly like him to separate in his mind—and when I speak of his mind I am speaking of the mind of his Department, too— the problems of Dublin County Council vis-à-vis other county councils. I would like him to get away from the old idea that one must deal with Dublin County Council on the same basis as a county council in the Midlands, in the South or in the West. The problems are entirely different and it is high time we had a different approach.

Mr. Bartley

Deputy Dunne says that he and the Labour Party would wish to have full democratic rights in the fullest sense of the term restored to county councillors. That being so, it is not easy to understand his references to the system of rate collecting. Where county councils appoint rate collectors they have full control over selection and the system of collection which he seems to advocate would in fact take away from them that already existing democratic right.

Anybody can pontificate as to what is the best method of collecting rates. I understand that collection has been carried out by various methods in various administrative areas and that those who have experience of these various methods will not say that any one of them is perfect. There is one rural administrative area in which rate collecting is done by some method other than personal collection and I understand that the results would not be accepted as any criteria upon which to go in deciding upon reasonably efficient standards of collection. As the Minister has explained, these alternative methods are open to local authorities. They can choose between them. Perhaps it is best to leave the method—to leave that discretion—to the wise decisions of these various councils to make for themselves. And if one particular system appears to break down through the inability of the people, having been put to the test, there is no reason why they cannot adopt an alternative. But it does seem to me that it is not a matter which the House should exercise itself about particularly, and I notice that the Minister in this regard has ignored it completely.

I was listening to Deputy Murphy of the Labour Party defending public councils, and I must say I should like to endorse his remarks. I was a member of a county council in premanagerial days, during the time when corruption was supposed to be rampant in the local authorities. I must say from my experience of about 40 members of that county council that I do not think anybody could point the finger to any member during that period as having acted in a corrupt fashion in relation to appointments or in relation to any other matter. It may have happened that a member of the council either before or after a meeting might have been seen in the company of somebody who had business at the council meeting in one way or another; they might have been seen together in a hotel or public place of refreshment, but the most that I could see on which anybody might hang a charge against the member was that he was indulging in this sociability or good-fellowship. But who will say that that is evidence of corruption or in fact in any way evidence of influence in the actions of a member of the council? It would be very interesting to compare the ability to administer public moneys in other spheres of activity which are not subject to the same light of publicity as are the elected public bodies. I have no doubt in the world that if the conduct of these public bodies was compared in an equally microscopic examination with that of other bodies, the comparison would not be against the elected representatives. After all, they are men with no public administrative qualifications. They come in because the people choose to send them in and after all that is the people's prerogative and the people have an opportunity every few years of correcting any mistakes they may decide they have made in previous elections. Any attempt to restrict in any way that right of the public in local government would, in my opinion, be a mistake. This Party has been responsible for bringing in the managerial system.

Mr. Smith

Extending is the better word.

Mr. Bartley

Extending it. I stand corrected by the former Minister for Local Government, but he will permit me to say that while a commission sat to take evidence of the advisability of bringing in managerial administration by the Cumann na nGaedheal Government, they did not seem to have the courage to apply it except in one or two experimental areas—and these were not rural areas. I was very interested—amused I should say—by the remarks of Deputy Giles that the managerial system had put an end to all the Fianna Fáil corruption and wire-pulling that had gone on in the councils before the adoption of this system. It is strange, indeed, that he should attribute to the Fianna Fáil Party, whom he denounces on occasion, the job of removing corruption—in other words, that we brought in an Act to remove a bad state of affairs which was our own creation and in which, in fact, we revelled and which produced us good electoral results not alone in local affairs, but in the Dáil elections. That argument does not hold water and it would be far better if, in discussing a non-political topic like local administration, these charges were not made, especially charges which are not true. If there was any weakness in this particular field of human endeavour as well as in others, I feel sure that Deputy Giles will admit that human nature on his side of the Chamber would be just as weak as what would be found on ours, and that if he were to cite all the cases—the total of them would not be large—he would find they were pretty fairly divided.

However, I do not hold there were any such weaknesses. They were not there during my experience of a large council. As a matter of fact I do feel that I should take this special opportunity of saying some words of commendation when speaking to a debate on a local authority measure. The Minister made a grand tour of the Twenty-Six Counties when the Dáil went into recess last year and he raised very high hopes of sweeping and fundamental changes in the managerial system. In fact, he created the impression, whether he intended to or not, that the managerial functions would be clipped very considerably and he held out hopes that what has been referred to as the democratic rights of the public authorities would be restored to them. Anybody who has read through this Bill section by section will have to admit—and the Labour Party speakers have so admitted—that the Bill, to say the least of it, falls very far short of that hope and it is interesting if one goes through the sections. Take, for instance, Section 2, which deals with prior information to members of local authority of manager's proposals. Sub-section (1) says:—

"Subject to the provisions of this section, a local authority may by resolution direct that, before the manager performs any specified executive function of the local authority, he shall inform the members of the local authority of the manner in which he proposes to perform that function, and the manager shall comply with the resolution."

One of the complaints I have heard expressed by members of the local authorities is that they do not know what he is going to do and if they do not know what he is going to do in respect of certain executive functions how can they presume to guess what he intends doing or that he intends doing something? How can they guess what that something is? I think that sub-section will be ineffective in practice. Then this resolution may not affect in any way the manager's control and supervision of the officers concerned or their superannuation, etc. I do not suppose anybody will cavil at that. It is best that staff and staff matters should be controlled by the manager, but it does remove a large field of functions which were formerly performed by the county councils and which, judging by some of the Labour speeches we have heard, Labour members would like to have restored to them. They are not being restored to them. Sub-section (3) provides for that.

Under sub-section (5), such a resolution may not deal with a health function. We know how interested public representatives are at the present time and have been for some time past in the administration of the various health schemes that come within the scope of these authorities.

It is provided in sub-section (7) that the manager shall inform the members of a local authority before any works of the local authority are undertaken and also before committing the local authority to any expenditure in connection with the proposed works. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-section (7) exclude works of reconstruction, maintenance and repair. That is a very large part of the expenditure of a local authority in respect of public works.

Sub-section (9) provides:—

"Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this section shall prevent the manager from dealing forthwith with any situation which he considers is an emergency situation calling for immediate action without regard to those provisions."

It is very easy for the manager to say in respect of any non-accepted work or undertaking that it is in fact an emergency proposal on his part. It is not set out here who is to decide whether it is so or not.

When one has regard to all these exceptions it is obvious that Section 2 is only a jumble of words that mean nothing and do not give a tittle of extra power or authority to local authorities.

The purpose of Section 4 is, apparently, to provide for the doing of what might be classified as new works. From our practical experience of local administration we know that these would amount to what would be requested by a county councillor on a notice of motion—the making of a bridge, the taking over of a new road, and things of that sort. Section 4 provides that the local authority may provide for the carrying out of such new work but in Section 9, sub-section (3) we read:—

"Where the manager considers that an estimate of expenses prepared by the estimates committee of a local authority (whether by reference to the whole of the estimate or to any part or parts thereof) would, if adopted, seriously prejudice the efficient or economical performance of the functions of the local authority, the manager shall prepare a separate report specifying the provision which in his opinion is necessary."

That could be interpreted as nullifying the powers that are apparently given in Section 4.

From an examination of this Bill it is quite obvious that its provisions are ambiguous and that definite meanings are not to be taken from any section in it. I take it that where a doubt exists what will happen is that the manager will decide the matter, that is, where the resolution of doubts is not provided for and the occasions on which the resolution of such doubts is provided for in this Bill number only two or three.

A good deal has been made about the power to set up an estimates committee. Again I think that will prove to be a very illusory power indeed. I was chairman of a finance committee of a county council and I know how difficult it is for the ordinary members to have detailed intimate knowledge of the various documents of account and the volumes of figures that are submitted to such a committee. The delegation of this work to a committee nominated by the local authority will double the work rather than simplify it. I have no doubt that, when the estimates committee reports, there will be a full dress session on the report and a detailed examination of the estimates all over again, in so far as that is possible, by the county council as a whole. It would be just as well to let the county council act as the estimates committee, if the council is competent to give a detailed and intelligent examination of the estimates. I think they would be as well able to do it as an estimates committee which would meet, I gather, as a private committee.

Section 11 provides for limitation on expenditure. It is provided that a local authority may increase the estimate in respect of any particular measure which they want to have carried out only by a resolution of the council and, otherwise, they may not exceed the estimate which they themselves have produced. That is fair enough.

Sub-sections (3) and (4) do not seem to me to be decisive. Sub-section (3) provides:—

"Where, as respects any local financial year the manager is of opinion that the proper performance of the functions of a local authority requires the expenditure of money or the incurring of a liability in respect of any particular purpose in excess of the expenditure for that purpose specified in the estimate of expenses for that year, he may prepare and submit to the estimates committee of the local authority an application for the authorisation by the local authority of the excess expenditure."

There again a power is being given to the manager and not to the council, but in sub-section (4) we read:—

"Where an application is submitted to an estimates committee under sub-section (3) of this section, the committee shall consider the application and shall then submit it, with their recommendation thereon, to the members of the local authority."

But it does not say what the local authority is to do about it.

Mr. Blowick

They can do anything they like about it. Is it not quite obvious?

Mr. Bartley

They can do anything at all about it?

Mr. Blowick

They can accept it or reject it. Is not that wide power?

Mr. Smith

They always could.

Mr. Blowick

I do not think so.

Mr. Smith

I am sure of it.

Mr. Blowick

What about the dissolution of the Roscommon County Council?

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Bartley is in possession.

Mr. Bartley

The remark of the Minister for Lands is very illuminating. The whole basis of this Managerial Act—and at best it was an experiment when it was brought in— was to enable local administration to be more efficiently and expeditiously carried out, and that the shortcomings of councils were not in fact based on any crookedness—or corruption, as one member of the Fine Gael Party said— but on the inability of a council to deal in a businesslike way with the growing volume of local business. Here is a sub-section put in which carries out that principle and enables the manager in pursuance of it to do certain things. The Minister for Lands tells me that in accordance with Section 4 the county council is given power to nullify the good work which the manager is supposed to be capable or competent to do and to counteract the default of the council. I think that leaving things in that indeterminate way without any final decision, without anyone to decide as to what is to be the fate of the proposal, is not a satisfactory way of dealing with the functions either of the manager or of the council, because both sides of functionaries are involved in this sub-section.

There is nothing really in this Bill at all. It is not worth the time that has been wasted on it. It is quite obvious from the Labour Party speeches that that is what they think. Perhaps now, after this period of experience of managerial administration, it would be a good thing if Dáil Éireann set about an examination of our experience in relation to this matter. We on this side of the House, who were largely responsible for having managerial administration accepted in the country, would welcome an examination of the whole system, with a view to giving back as far as possible the democratic rights which several speakers have mentioned.

There is one example of managerial administration of which the Minister should take cognisance. It was expected and intended that what was called "patronage by local bodies" would be ended. We have not had any definite proof that patronage was exercised by those bodies that was not, in fact, exercised by the substitute authorities which do the same things for the council. Is there anybody here who can say definitely that the authorities who now provide the personnel for all these services are definitely and completely immune from influences which were supposed to have a banal effect on the elected councils? I have no proof that there is any such banal influence operating on them. All I can offer by way of opinion is that the results have not been entirely satisfactory. We know that a great many appointments made by the Local Appointments Commission have not been a success.

I do not want to go into that in detail, but there is one particular function of a manager which I would request the Minister for Local Government to examine before he puts this Bill in final legislative form. It is the exercise of patronage by the county managers in respect of temporary appointments. All the important offices are filled by the Local Appointments Commission. The exception is that of the collection of rates and apparently there are divided views about that. If an executive officer is to be appointed to fill a temporary vacancy, would the Minister not consider allowing that temporary vacancy to be filled by the council, seeing that there has been a good deal of emphasis on democratic rights? It may be an engineer, a doctor, an accountant or some other of these executive posts. What objection can there be to allowing a county council to make an appointment of that sort, if it is a temporary one, when we bear in mind that the medical post must be filled by a qualified doctor, that the engineering post must be filled by a man who has already qualified as an engineer, that the accountancy post must be filled by a man who has passed accountancy examinations, and so on? If the post is to be only a temporary one, can the council go very far astray in making the appointment, even if it may be regarded by some people as an exercise of patronage—and if there is to be an exercise of patronage and if the choice is to be between the manager and the council in the exercise of that patronage, who is to say that the manager would be a better person to exercise that patronage than the council?

Mr. O'Donnell

Of course, we wish to keep away the political tag. I am not referring to any political Party. We want to get the political tag away.

Mr. Bartley

The Minister was not in when I made an observation about the results of the selection of public officials by the substitute method we had for some years. I admit it did not come in with the managerial system; it was there before.

Mr. O'Donnell

I presume it would not be discussed if it did not.

Mr. Bartley

In any event, I think it was relevant, because I was discussing it in relation to managerial administration and I did not go into it in any great detail. I think this change ought to be brought about for one very obvious reason which I will ask the Minister to consider. Very long delays often take place—I do not say always—before these posts are filled permanently. I take it that the manager is very largely the power who will decide the length of time which elapses between the temporary appointment and the making of the permanent appointment. If the appointment were made by the local authority I feel that the manager— who, I expect, would look upon a change of this sort as being somewhat critical of himself, and I do not think it would do any harm to the managerial system to have a little bit of criticism injected into it—and if he did look upon it as criticism of his particular exercise of this function in the past he would see to it, if the council made the temporary appointment, that the permanent one was made as quickly as possible, and that is one good result which would accrue.

Mr. O'Donnell

I hope to see to it that they will be made as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. Bartley

Will the Minister consider what I suggest?

Mr. O'Donnell

Yes, certainly.

Mr. Bartley

It would be the best guarantee he would have that the appointment would be made quickly, because even with the ministerial powers he will find very often there are obstacles and difficulties in particular cases and that these powers are not sufficient to enable him to proceed quickly.

I do not think there is any other observation I want to make on this Bill. I think that the Minister has exercised himself quite unnecessarily in relation to this matter. As I pointed out, he made a very big tour of the country and saw a great many people. I do not think the selection of the people in all cases was well done for him and, in fact, if he had met the councillors and had a discussion with them, a good many of these discussions might not have been completely informative but they would have given the Minister a much closer insight into public reaction towards the managerial system.

Mr. O'Donnell

I am afraid the Bill would not be here yet if I met all the councillors.

Mr. Bartley

I think if the Minister had taken a little more time, and had seen them all, and had delayed bringing in a measure of this sort, we would have had a measure which would be far more worthwhile for the Dáil to discuss than this one. The Minister has, I take it, done the best he could to meet a number of points of view and a great many of these points of view, I know, have nullified one another and the result is that we have a measure—and I say it without offence to the Minister or to his intentions—on which it is not really worth wasting the time of the Dáil.

Mr. H.P. Dockrell

I would like to welcome this Bill and congratulate the Minister on it. I welcome it so far as it increases the powers of the elected representatives. A number of Deputies have spoken to-day about the position as regards the City and County of Dublin, but I would like to ask the Minister to appoint a separate manager for the Borough of Dún Laoghaire. This is a matter of which I am sure the Minister is aware. We in Dún Laoghaire have asked for a separate manager over a number of years. I am sure there are very many proposals from the Dún Laoghaire Corporation in the Custom House on this subject and I am glad that we had Deputy Briscoe and Deputy Dunne, a county councillor, who are prepared to support this proposal.

I would like to welcome also in this Bill the appointment of Mr. O'Keeffe as county manager. That is a step in the right direction.

Regarding Section 14, I would like the Minister, under that section, to give to Dún Laoghaire Corporation the power of de-grouping that is given to Dublin City and the county council. I also notice that both Sections 13 and 14 are subject to the consent of the Minister for Health and the Minister for Social Welfare. I would like to know what will be the position supposing the Minister for Health and/or the Minister for Social Welfare refuse to give their consent. Say that the Minister for Health refuses—does that mean that in the section as it stands at present, the City of Dublin and the County of Dublin are denied the chance of de-grouping?

I would like again, in conclusion, to ask the Minister either to amend Section 14 as I have said to give power to Dún Laoghaire Corporation to de-group, or if I bring that amendment in myself, to accept it?

Mr. J. Lynch

I presume it was purely by accident that the introduction of this Bill coincided with what could be termed the silver jubilee of the management system. The first Management Act was passed in 1929. I think that was the Cork City Management Act and 25 years later we have the City and County Management (Amendment) Bill, of 1954. Going back over those 25 years, great though the opposition to the management system has been, I think in general it has worked well and has enhanced the reputation and the name of local administration in this country. Nobody will deny that conditions existed in the years prior to 1929 when many aspects of local administration throughout the whole country were not becoming in any administration, and in some unfortunate instances they were definitely showing signs of decadence in the body politic. I think the most important aspect of administration that has been improved is that of making public appointments by the manager. Nobody will deny that for many years there existed a very unsatisfactory system of appointment of local authority personnel whereby members of different authorities were approached by applicants for posts no matter how lucrative, no matter how menial, and were induced by one means or another to vote for certain candidates.

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. O'Donnell

I understand that the Minister for Industry and Commerce has indicated that he would be prepared to permit the Second Reading of this Bill to proceed to a conclusion.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is a matter for the House. The House has ordered a certain procedure. If the House alters that procedure, it is all right, but the House must alter the procedure unanimously.

Mr. Briscoe

Much as we would like to meet the Minister, I am afraid that some of our members who are not here at the moment want to speak on this Bill. They assumed that the debate would be adjourned at 7 p.m.

Mr. O'Donnell

I understand that the former Minister, when consulted in the matter, said he would have no objection.

Mr. Briscoe

I agree, but unfortunately, since then, I have asked one Deputy who was on his way out of the House to come in again.

An Ceann Comhairle

Unless there is unanimity, the order must hold.

Mr. O'Donnell

If the debate on the Supplies and Services Bill concluded before 10.30 p.m., I take it the House would resume the discussion on this Bill?

Mr. Briscoe

That is a pious hope. We will agree to that, but I do not think it will happen.

Debate adjourned.