Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 Nov 1964

Vol. 213 No. 2

Committee on Finance - Local Government (Repeal of Enactments) Bill, 1964 [Seanad]: Second Stage.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The Bill arises in consequence of the enactment of the Local Government (No. 2) Act, 1960. Part II of that Act rationalised local borrowing powers by giving local authorities a general power to borrow for the purpose of any of their functions or duties, and provided for the control of such borrowing. Prior to 1960, the practice was that every statute enabling or requiring local authorities to perform a function or carry out works included provisions to authorise borrowing specifically for the purpose of performing that function or carrying out such works. The statute usually regulated the manner of borrowing and in some cases the repayment of loans and related matters. All of these matters are now governed by the 1960 Act.

I cannot hear the Minister. I would be obliged if he would speak a little louder.

Perhaps the volume could be turned up.

It would be much easier to hear the Minister without it at all.

The location is not——

Would the Minister think that Tuam is the right place for volume?

I would say that by Friday night.

Friday week.

I will be there on Friday week and on Friday night as well.

You are rushing down there tomorrow and Tuesday when you should be here.

I do not have to rush.

Any bets this year?

The Parliamentary Secretary knows I am not a gambler.

Good subject.

Excellent one.

Order. I think we are getting away from the Local Government (Repeal of Enactments) Bill.

You will not get many votes.

We will count them on the 4th.

Has the Minister any letters to find over the week end?

The Minister will give more information about the letters before the week is out. Some of the Fine Gael faces will be red when their names are mentioned, instead of being cloaked up at the moment.

The Minister cannot get over the fact that he misled the whole country.

You flatter the Minister that he could mislead.

I wonder could we get back to the Local Government (Repeal of Enactments) Bill?

We never misled anyone, but we do get results.

You did not get much results from your bets in Roscommon.

Would the Minister tell us where the thousands of forged circular letters are?

You will get a statement the Minister made, yourself and some of those friends of yours who are in the press business at the moment who use their columns for disseminating muck.

We all know the Minister is a judge of muck—political muck, I mean.

I do not wish to be personal so I shall not indicate where the muck is at the moment. Section 9 of the 1960 Act precluded borrowing by local authorities save pursuant to Part II of that Act. This provision rendered ineffective a wide range of earlier enactments empowering and regulating borrowing by local authorities. When section 9 was under discussion during the passage of the Bill through the Dáil, I intimated that these enactments would fall to be repealed in a separate Bill. The primary purpose of the present Bill, therefore, is to remove from the statute book the provisions which were rendered ineffective by section 9 of the 1960 Act.

These provisions are contained in a multitude of enactments, reaching back in time for more than a century. It will be appreciated that the borrowing powers were associated in a good number of cases with enactments which are now in themselves ineffective or obsolete, having been superseded by modern legislation, or having otherwise become unnecessary through lapse of time. Some of these enactments have been included in the schedule of repeals, where repeal seemed desirable and could be effected without widening unduly the scope of the Bill.

I would emphasise that, with one exception, the provisions proposed for repeal are already inoperative. The one exception to which I refer relates to grants by a local authority to a Vocational Education Committee under the Vocational Education Act, 1930. That Act required the consent of the Minister for Local Government to the making of the grant, and gave power to borrow for the purpose of making a grant.

The function of sanctioning the borrowing has already been transferred to the Minister for Education by the Local Government (No. 2) Act, 1960, and the proposed repeal of the relevant clauses in subsections (1) and (2) of section 51 of the 1930 Act will transfer to that Minister also the function of consent to a grant. This step is a logical sequel to the 1960 Act and, apart from this, the Bill will serve only to remove from the Statute Book provisions which are already spent or obsolete, and will effect no change whatever in current Local Government controls or practice.

I do not know, frankly, whether the Seanad were given the certificate from the Attorney General that this is, in fact, only a consolidation of the law. Therefore, I am not quite clear whether the Bill is intended to be such or not. I am not very happy in relation to the wording used, from time to time, in the explanatory White Paper. The word "obsolete" is used loosely whereas one would gather from the Minister's speech that it is not really so much that the provisions are obsolete but that, in fact, they have been superseded by the 1960 Act. Perhaps the Minister would let us know whether that is correct or not.

If they were being superseded, as it would appear on a first impression of the Minister's speech, why did the 1960 Act not repeal them as such? Why is it left to another Act to do the job one would have imagined could have been dealt with by the previous legislation? It is a very technical Bill and nobody other than the Attorney General would be in a position to give a certificate or an opinion in relation to the repeals.

Therefore, I was surprised such a certificate was not presented to the House. Perhaps it was presented to the other House. Is this the prelude to a consolidation Bill of this sector of Local Government legislation, the one that deals particularly with borrowing powers, or is it not now necessary to have such consolidation in view of the provisions of the 1960 Act? It is a technical matter and I think it should be dealt with as such.

In so far as the certificate which the Deputy seeks troubles us, this is not an appropriate measure in relation to which a certificate would be required or, indeed, in respect of which it would have any meaning. The certificate the Deputy is inquiring about is one where consolidation, in fact, would be taking place. This really is a consequence of a certain amount of consolidation that has already taken place which has made certain provisions obsolete.

I can understand that. However, would it not have been more normal to repeal them when the 1960 Act was going through?

One of the things we had to consider then was that it would take an undue length of time and would have held up the No. 2 Act. We are now coming to get these things repealed because they do not make sense.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill considered in Committee.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

This is the operative section. It operates largely to abolish the obligation of the local authorities to apply, ad hoc, for power to borrow for specific purposes. It substitutes for the general power given in the 1960 Act. It leaves a queer overall power in the Minister for Local Government which, I often wonder, the Oireachtas ever intended should remain. It is not appropriate on the occasion of a Bill of this character, which consolidates generally the powers of local authorities to borrow, to raise this issue.

Since 1898, the local authorities have gradually become more and more under the control of the executive, as represented by the Department of Local Government, as a result of a development of which I do not believe the Oireachtas was ever fully conscious. The original purpose of the 1898 Act was to distribute the functions of Government, to decentralise them and set up a whole lot of local authorities which would act not only as administrative authorities operated through people in close contact with those whom they were charged to serve, but also as a kind of training ground for the public life of the country, such as operated in Britain, the United States and other countries where people graduated to the public life of the country through service in the local authorities.

The design was that these local authorities would be given the widest possible discretion to use funds which they were charged with the responsibility of raising through local rates but as the system of local government developed these funds were supplemented by grants from the executive and the local authorities became largely administrators of schemes entirely financed out of State funds.

Side by side with these developments there grew up a practice in the Department of Local Government of saying that wherever a local authority was borrowing money for the operation of any of its various functions, inasmuch as the Minister's authority was required, every detail of the scheme for which money was being borrowed must have the prior approval of the Minister. We have now reached the stage where practically every activity of a local authority, whether it be the provision of houses, or drainage or roads, is controlled by the Department and is subject to this general regulation by the Custom House. This is tending to make the elected representatives on the local authorities more and more frustrated and convinced that they have very little real function left and that they are no more than rubber stamps of the central executive.

Before we irrevocably consolidate that position, I would like to know the views of the House on this particular matter. The conviction is growing on me that the powers of the local authorities should be substantially restored to them and that this control of their powers by the Minister should be curtailed. It is my growing conviction that the local authorities should be given a general approbation to borrow money, if the purpose of that borrowing is deemed to be good, and then let the local authorities and their elected representatives answer to the electorate for the proper operation of the schemes for which they borrow the money. In the absence of this, the tendency will grow for local representatives to say: "We really have no power in this matter at all. It is the Minister for Local Government who controls the whole matter. If there is any delay it is his fault. If housing is not going forward, it is because the Department of Local Government is interfering with our plans." I think there is a good deal of truth in that alibi when it is put forward by members of local authorities and I think it is time to restore autonomy to these local authorities.

Mistakes may sometimes be made as some sums of the money which have been borrowed under the Minister's general authority may be misspent, but, in the long run, the general work of the local authorities will be better carried out with a greater sense of responsibility if the Minister, while sanctioning loans for the various services, leaves it to the local authorities to carry that work out well or ill. If that kind of autonomy were restored to the local authority, more people would be prepared to offer themselves for election to local authorities, in the belief that membership would create a greater measure of responsibility and potential for good rather than at present living under the constant and ubiquitous control of what is commonly known as the Custom House.

All that has been said by Deputy Dillon sounds very reasonable but the fact remains that the 1955 Act was given to the House and to the country as a measure of emancipation for local authorities and a restoration to them of powers that had been filched from them, so it is strange to me to hear these remarks coming from Deputy Dillon. I will say that in regard to local authorities it is true to say that over recent years the number of them who have had to be suspended for not doing their work or for doing it badly is an indication of the better order of things, despite their greater responsibilities and the greater amount of money they had to spend. Whatever may have been said about this situation in the past and whatever criticism there may be of local authorities, that criticism should be tempered a little by the record, which shows that very few of our local authorities have fallen foul of the central Government in recent years. This is indicative of the fairly good relationship between the local authorities and the central Government in recent years.

However, such have been the developments in regard to grants and subsidies for local authority operations since 1898 that seldom is any worthwhile amount of money borrowed for a service that the Exchequer does not come directly into by way of grant or subsidy, or both. By and large, 50 per cent of the money spent by local authorities derives from the central Exchequer and who will say that the local authority should have the right to borrow money to do this, that or the other things when by so borrowing, they expect to get certain grants and subsidies from the central Government? This would mean that, for whatever the local authority determines to do, the payment of these loans and grants would be on call without regard to what the central Government may think about the matter or what is being done with the money from the Exchequer. This is part of the problem that makes it more difficult than it would appear at first sight.

However, as far as I am concerned any of the responsibilities the Department feels appear to be unnecessary in any way are under examination by the officers of the Department and myself, and if no other complications would arise by our action, we will endeavour to get the authority of the House for any changes necessary for the giving to the local authorities of further and wider responsibilities. But it is not just that easy to give these to them offhand. We are looking into certain aspects of this affair and if we do come up with certain changes, we may have to come to the House to deal with them.

On the other hand, certain regulations may only have to be changed. Where that is so, this is in fact being done. Indeed, it would help my Department greatly if our technical people, who are in short supply, were relieved of some of the detailed work by passing a greater amount of responsibility to the technical staff of the local authorities. We are looking into all those things, and any changes we can make will be brought about by changes in regulations or, if necessary, by coming to the House. But we cannot hand everything over to them and say: "Go ahead; borrow, make your own decisions and take the consequences." We are unlikely to hand over the responsibility of making subsidies and grants to any outside body. I am responsible to this House in most cases of local authority borrowing and spending. The House probably would not agree that I should delegate to local authorities the power to spend on behalf of the House moneys collected by the Government through taxation.

That general view must be weighed against the view that by giving people greater responsibility, you make them more responsible. The two may balance each other out—I do not know. Certain questions have to be answered. Although Deputy Dillon's solution may seem plausible and good, it is not the whole story. We are looking into the whole matter and, if changes are necessary or desirable, we will make them.

I am not suggesting to the Minister at this stage that there should be no central control over the borrowing of money, particularly where up to 50 per cent of the total cost may fall on the Exchequer. What I had in mind is this: If a local authority desires to undertake the building of 24 houses in its area and the Department of Local Government come to the conclusion that 24 houses are needed, then the local authority should have the power to go forward with the construction of the 24 houses at the lowest price they can command, and, if the houses are not satisfactory, let the local authority answer to the people who elected them.

As I understand it, they submit a scheme to the Minister because the Minister sanctions the borrowing and, perhaps, undertakes repayment of part of the loan. He must be satisfied that the development plans and the plans for the houses, even down to very considerable detail, satisfy the technical officers of his Department. I think that is where the mistake was made. What the Minister ought to say is: "We agree 24 houses are required in this area. We approve the proposed expenditure on the houses. You will be eligible for the grant. Now, go and build them." If the houses fail to come up to the proper standard, the ratepayers of the area will rightly blame the county council. But the houses will be built six to 12 months before they would have been built if they were subject to repeated surveys of the Department of Local Government.

One has to bear in mind that the Department feels it incumbent on it to provide against every conceivable contingency, because the local authority is in the position of passing off responsibility for the ultimate end result by saying: "We submitted everything to the Department and everything was approved. If there is any fault, it is due to the Custom House. They sanctioned the ultimate plan. In fact, we altered our plans to meet their wishes." I think that is a mistake. I think the Custom House ought to stop at saying: "Yes, 24 houses are needed, and you are entitled to build them. The contract price for the accommodation envisaged is within the limits of what we consider to be rational. Go and build those houses, and answer to the ratepayers for them."

I suggest if in that particular a start were made, it would become more and more possible for the Department to say in respect of drainage schemes, sewerage schemes and so on: "Yes, we agree the scheme is necessary. We agree the contract price is within the limits of prudence. Go and do it. If the drainage system does not work, do not pretend to the local people that the reason is that the engineers of the Department of Local Government altered the plan. You have your own county engineer and all his assistants. His technical staff are responsible for the scheme. It is for you to answer to the local electors if you and your technical staff fall down on the job."

I suggest to the Minister he might well begin in the matter of housing. If he did that, he would find in the long run much time would have been saved and probably a great deal of expense. Gradually other blocks of work would appear eligible for similar treatment. I believe it would expedite local Government work. It would fix responsibility more clearly on those who ought to have it. It would make the technical staffs of local authorities have a much higher sense of responsibility than they can be expected to have now, when their every decision is subject to review by a superior technical staff. Ultimately, it would result in the quality of local authorities being improved, because persons belonging to them would acquire a growing sense of responsibility when they realised they could no longer have the alibi for any failure on their part by saying they had consulted the Department of Local Government who had approved their plans.

That, again, is an over-simplification of the situation. In the past couple of years, the situation in regard to housing has been eased by me to some extent, in that I no longer have any say in formulating housing schemes in the sense of knowing in advance whether 24 houses are needed. This is entirely a matter for the local authority and their engineers to determine. They do not have to come to the Department and say they have established a need for so many houses. They establish it to their own satisfaction. If it turns out the need is less than the accommodation provided, that is their headache.

Subsidy makes up a large part of the cost of these houses. That subsidy is the responsibility of the central Government and I, as Minister, am responsible to this House for it through my Estimate and in many other ways. Over and above that, the difficulty arises that the balance of the money raised through borrowing is obtained from the Local Loans Fund, which again is under the control of the Government and is funded by them. Therefore, a responsibility devolves on the Government and on me in respect of that Fund. It is all very well to say: "Let them do this job and that job." If the job did not work out, I would be very happy to say that it was never submitted to me, that they had done this job entirely themselves. But whose money is in it? It is not local money. The greater part of the money comes from the Local Loans Fund.

If it comes from the Local Loans Fund, they will have to pay it back.

I would love to see the situation arising, in respect of any scheme proved to be defective, that I, as Minister, refused to pay the subsidy because it was not up to the accepted standard as a result of the fault or the neglect of either the local authority or their agents. If I proposed to do that there would be murder in the House. They would be screaming on all sides of the House that this was a dastardly thing to do, that it was unfair.

I think you ought to pay the subsidies for the houses and let the local authority answer to the people if they are not satisfied.

No—do not let us get around that far. This money from the Local Loans Fund is raised by the Government from the people by national loans and otherwise. The subsidies and the grants are raised by direct taxation, again by the central Government, and the money is voted from the Central Exchequer for these various purposes. We are responsible in this House for that money and as to how it is used we, surely, are responsible. If I had to pay grants or subsidies regardless of whether the money that went into the job was Local Loans Fund money or not, if that job was not up to the normal standard that has been laid down and agreed, either in regulations or on the Statute Book, by this House and I had to O.K. them and say, "You have to pay them all back now. Here is the money," that would not be accepted by this House. I know that if I were a member of this House and such a proposition was put to me I would not accept it. If I were on the other side of the House I would not accept it.

I do agree that in so far as we can compress the duplication, as it were, of operations, whether administrative or technical, as between ourselves and the local authorities, it will be done and, in fact, as I say, there is a number of these things that we have been able to trim off. There may be further things that we can trim off. But to say, "All right, you can spend what you like but you will pay the piper and will take the blame locally" would not excuse us in this House where Central Exchequer moneys are concerned. Where it is out of the Local Loans Fund, a subsidised job or a grant job, to which we have paid capital grants, we would not get away with it that way. It would be all too simple to do that. In fact, if we were to give this freedom it is only on the basis of some effective measure of not paying them the grants for doing a bad job or not paying the subsidy or the whole of it for doing a bad house that we could possibly allow that sort of thing. It is a question of weighing that up.

I have been thinking about it for some considerable time as to whether or not we could give them that further freedom but that, if they did not do the job fairly, if they fell down on the job as a result of being given their freedom, the rest of the community was not going to be allowed to pay as if the job were a good one. Whether we can make that stick or not is really the problem. I do not believe that if a scheme of houses or a water job were done and for some reason was a bad job, the members of the House on any side would be with me as Minister for Local Government if I said, "All right, you have done a bad job; you are not getting the subsidies. You will have to carry the whole burden yourself for a bad job." I do not think I would have the House or a majority of the House with me and I have been thinking along these lines for some time. My own feeling is that while I would like to do it from the point of view of the Minister and the Department of Local Government, I do not really think it is probably the way to do it in the long run.

The other thing, of course, is that on housing examinations, plans and details and all the rest that come up, the average time taken by my Department is just under three weeks. Within that average, undoubtedly, there are extremes of a day in one case or a couple of months in others and, indeed, stretching into much longer. The reason for the extreme in the long term is probably a bad job proposed that takes time to iron out.

The Minister mentioned that the Department accept where, say, a local authority sends up a suggested scheme that X houses should be built. Is that a new decision?

I have known of cases—one case in my constituency— where the Department refused sanction to an original proposal and cut the scheme by, say, half and in a couple of years' time the council had to come back and get sanction for the balance. Of course, there was great delay and the housing situation got worse in the meantime. Is that no longer so?

This is relatively new. I put it within the past two years and back towards the two years although it could be a year and a bit. It is certainly pretty new.

The Department now accepts whatever the local authority propose?

What the local authority propose is sent up by the manager but he must agree, of course, himself, as well. The responsibility rests locally, not with me.

I should like to see what would happen to the manager if he agreed to something the Department of Local Government did not agree to.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If he proposes 30 houses and that is what he is prepared to stand over and agrees with the local council to build and if you can visualise the situation— which I do not for a moment—that having built them only ten people needed them—he carries the baby, and the local council.

A very happy state it would be if we were in a position to say so.

Do they know that is the procedure?

They should. If they do not, it is not my fault. They have been made aware of it. We could talk about this business all night and this is not the appropriate place for it.

This is Parliament.

I know but there are times when things are appropriate and other times when they are not. I think I have said enough about this for the moment.

Question put and agreed to.
Schedule and Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendments.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration".

Does the Minister want it now?

It would convenience me quite a bit if I had it.

We have no objection.

Question put and agreed to.
Question: "That the Bill do now pass", put and agreed to.
Top
Share