I move amendment No. 1:
In page 7, line 19, before "This" to insert "Save as is otherwise provided".
Committee on Finance. - Housing Bill, 1965: Committee Stage.
SECTION 1.
This is consequential on the second part of amendment 30 and of section 33.
The reason this amendment is suggested is that if we take the section as it is, the Act will come into operation on such a date as may be cited therefore by any order of the Minister. We suggested putting in "save as is otherwise provided" because there are a number of amendments later on which suggest a date on which the Act should come into force and I think the Minister should accept the amendment.
There is a problem here in that amendments are consequential on amendments and, to some degree, I have not yet got, nor had time to go into these. We got some of them yesterday evening at a very late hour and, with regard to others, there was not even time to circulate them. I may be misreading what is intended in the amendment now before us.
In so far as certain parts of this Bill are concerned, there are a number of these of some significance already in operation, even if the law has not yet been passed. I gather what is being suggested here is that the coming into force of the section dealing with supplementary grants for new houses should commence at the time the Bill becomes an Act. Certain parts of it are already operative, such as the farmers' grants payable for 1963, and in fact for nearly two years.
Over two years.
Yes, 1st October, 1963. Just to recall another part of it: there are the new income limits in regard to the supplementary grants for the purpose of facilitating local authorities in providing and determining their scheme of supplementary grants and which, in fact, is operated by some councils with effect as from 1st July last. In the light of these two instances, the amendment does not readily make sense to me and possibly the Deputy could elucidate it.
Surely this amendment could not tie the Minister's hand in any way? Surely his case is strong enough to prove that it did not provide in certain instances and then there is no necessity to put in the date. There are certain sections under which, if this is not put in, it could in fact be put into operation on a date hence which might seriously affect the whole Bill. I think the Minister should accept that there is no ulterior motive involved and that the whole lot should go back to 1st November, 1963. I would suggest that the Minister accept the amendment simply for the purpose of ensuring that in respect of certain parts a specific date will be laid down.
Would it not be better, in view of my own doubts and those of other Deputies, that we should leave over the consideration of this until we come to the sections said by the Deputy to be relevant sections when we could more readily see what is intended.
Yes, but the rules of order might not allow us to do so.
I do not think the acceptance of the amendment by the Minister will in any way prejudice what he has already done and been given power to do. On any section where he feels this amendment might prejudice his particular power, that can easily be dealt with in the Bill but it is felt that bringing in this amendment here will enable us to deal with other matters on other sections of the Bill which, if it is not provided, we could not raise.
Do I now understand that the main purpose of this is not really to change, to add to, to subtract from or to make any difference to the Bill but merely to provide a vehicle by which, if it is accepted, sections may be discussed that could otherwise not be discussed? Again, I am sorry, but I cannot see how that arises.
If we do not have this accepted, there are certain sections in respect of which, if they were discussed, the Minister could get on his feet and say: "There is no provision for making this alteration at this stage. Section I says that `the Act shall come into operation on such day or days as may be fixed therefor by any order or orders of the Minister ...' and, therefore, we are completely out of court".
Is it the view of the Deputy and the view of the Labour Party in putting down these amendments—whatever they are—basically, that they are afraid that, having dealt with the Bill, whether they agree or disagree with all or part of it, it ultimately becomes an Act but in fact may not become law soon enough for their book: is that the idea?
Certain sections of it, yes.
They are dealing with a Minister who has already anticipated the legislation by almost two years.
Two years ago, there was no credit squeeze.
Taking it another way, if, in fact, a credit squeeze in regard to any part of the outpayments of public money will have the effect that it is such that it can be found it is not there then does it matter a damn whether or not you have the Act?
There is a second part to this amendment. It gives this House an opportunity, when the discussion of the Bill is completed, of having the date for the Bill to come into operation generally. That also is important. While the Minister has, in the past two or three years, exercised power to introduce matters that are now being dealt with in this Bill, nevertheless a Minister could defer the operation of the Bill as a whole and bring it in only section by section.
I think you are doing yourselves and myself much less than justice. Why are we here with the Bill on the first day we have come back after the summer recess? At your conference, you have said you wished to give it priority. Before your conference, this was the date I proposed to take the Bill. I was not forced to bring in the Bill here today. Neither was the Labour Party forced to make the pronouncement from their conference that they wanted it brought in with the greatest haste. We are both going in the same direction.
Why is the Minister objecting to the amendment?
It is completely unnecessary. Whatever the legal men in this House may think, surely one of the greatest objections of the layman in this House to all enactments is that there are far too many words in them? We are advised that this must go in and that that must go in and yet it is still not right because the courts upset it five years later. Here, I believe it is a completely unnecessary addition to the Bill in the form of words: it makes no sense in the context.
We will probably compensate by asking you to delete words further on.
Leave it as it is and do not shift them at all. It does not follow that by adding words in one place you make sense of it by deleting words elsewhere. Again, without any commitment on my part as to its acceptability or not to me, but if your fear, in forgoing this particular amendment, is that you may be out of court on other amendments would you consider a simple amendment to the effect that, if the House so agrees, changes should be made in the others to conform with your wishes on the amendment—an amendment such as: notwithstanding section 1, the section shall commence on whatever the date may be?
If the Minister is so conservative about the usage of words he should have asked that this Bill be cut because what is stated in this measure could be put in one quarter of the amount of paper.
I agree with the Deputy but the legal people do not.
Consider the position of any person who is interested in obtaining knowledge quickly from this Housing Bill. Take an ordinary person who writes to the Government Publications Sales Office for a copy of the Housing Bill in order to get some information from it. Imagine his surprise when he sees the size of the Bill. In this particular matter, I think we should try, not only in this Bill but in other Bills, to set them down in readable language. The peculiar fact about these Bills is that, despite the volume they take up and the care that is taken, we often find that the legal people do fairly well from them when they are arguing different sections before the courts.
It is nothing to how well they would do if you and I had the legal drafting of it. With respect to my legal advisers, it would be worse then.
Because of the Minister's views on this, we shall agree to withdraw the amendment. We have recollections of the Planning Bill which was supposed to mean certain things and because we did not insert words it is now interpreted outside the House in a way in which we never intended it would be interpreted.
We cannot stop them. We can try it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Amendment No. 2 should not be moved at this particular stage. It is purely consequential on a later amendment, that is, to insert a new Sixth Schedule. It was not possible to circulate the main amendments because of the lateness of the hour at which the Labour Party's amendments were received. The discussion can proceed when the main amendment is reached.
Agreed.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 9, between lines 38 and 39, to insert a new subsection as follows:
"(5) The passing of a resolution by a housing authority shall be a reserved function."
This amendment deals with a matter on which we all have very definite views. A number of us have for some time been trying to prove to the Minister—indeed, to the general public— that one of the reasons, before finance became a big problem, why housing was so slow was because the decision to build houses was an executive function or was claimed to be an executive function of the county managers and not a reserved function for the housing authority. We suggest that this is an opportunity of placing the responsibility back on the shoulders of the elected representatives. That is why we have proposed this amendment—"(5) The passing of a resolution by a housing authority shall be a reserved function." There is no reason at all why the Minister should not accept the amendment.
I have had a look at this one, a very short one, I must say. I am still not saying whether or not I agree with the intention expressed by the Deputy but it immediately appears that the amendment as circulated here just would not mean anything — to make the passing of a resolution a reserved function. That is what seems to be implied. It may be that there is something omitted in the form of words I have got.
Our amendment is very clear in its terms: it is to give to the elected representatives the power of determining the size and extent of any housing scheme proposals that come before the council. We feel that the elected representatives are better able to deal with the housing questions than the county managers. They are in closer touch with the people and know their housing needs. I understood from earlier pronouncements of the Minister that he was in favour of an amendment of the County Management Act and that in any legislation for which he would be responsible in future he would make it a reserved function so far as local authorities are concerned. It is to the councillors that members of the public who have housing problems make their case and come to discuss their problems. The members of local authorities, who have the confidence of the electorate, should determine all questions of housing at local authority level.
There is also the consideration that if people are dissatisfied with their local representatives in relation to housing or other problems they have an opportunity of removing them from office at local elections. Once a local authority is saddled with a manager who does not measure up to the problems of the council, he remains until he is 65 years of age and nothing can be done about him. It is quite an easy matter to get rid of a member of a local authority but it is not so easy to get rid of managers.
The time is at hand when increased powers should be given to elected representatives. Definitely, housing functions should be carried out by the elected representatives. If the Minister is not satisfied with the wording of the amendment, we are prepared to reword it to meet his requirements so long as he accepts the principle of the amendment that such functions shall be reserved and not executive functions.
I can see the Labour Party's point of view on this matter but could they not use section 4 of the Local Government Act?
Section 4 is a washout.
That is the only power you have.
That is why we are looking for this power.
This would not give you any extra power.
It would, of course.
This is a very simple amendment. What we want is that the elected body should determine all questions relating to the housing needs of the area under their charge and that that should be a reserved function and not a managerial function. There is no one in a better position to judge on matters in relation to his own district than the local councillor who has close contact with the people. There should be sufficient confidence in elected representatives to allow of their being given that power and authority. Within the next eight or nine months local elections will take place. What is the use of going to the expense of elections if all the powers are withdrawn from the elected bodies? The housing problem represents one of the biggest national problems, particularly in the more populous areas, and it is a problem that should be dealt with by elected representatives. The purpose of our amendment is quite clear.
The present system is working very well. If Deputy Murphy's suggestion were carried out I do not know that it would have the effect of getting more houses built. It is a very easy matter for council members to pass resolutions at council meetings and cover on paper the whole local authority area with beautiful housing schemes. That is not where the delay occurs. I think we do need the present system whereby resolutions are tabled regarding housing schemes that are required and the proposal is investigated, first of all, by the health authority, to discover the number of houses required in any particular place and then by the engineers in order to find where suitable sites can be obtained, and so on. It is in these stages that delays occur. The fact of getting a resolution passed by the county council does not mean that more houses are built or that houses are built where they should be built.
The Deputy has no faith in the elected representatives?
I have.
Order.
I am in complete agreement with the intention behind the amendment but, like the Minister, I am not sure that the amendment is put down in the correct way. The amendment says:
The passing of a resolution by a housing authority shall be a reserved function.
What is important is the initiation of a scheme or the decision on the building of houses and the number of houses to be built. What is being sought in the amendment is that the members of the local authority should have the power to make that decision, that it should be a reserved function. It is extremely important that the elected representatives should have that authority and that power of decision. I know from ten years' experience on a local authority that we could not get built houses that were badly needed although the members of the council without exception at all times tried extremely hard to push the manager, to push the engineers, to push every member of the staff who had anything to do with the building of houses. We failed because we had not the power to insist that a certain number of houses should be built in an area and that a scheme should be commenced at a certain time. It would be desirable to have an amendment such as that moved by the Labour Party included in the Bill if that is possible.
It is a matter of the interpretation of the Act. We are simply asking that in the interpretation of the Act the passing of a resolution by a housing authority shall be a reserved function. At present the decision taken by a housing authority is an executive function. In fact, the county manager is the housing authority. The Minister knows that. A resolution cannot be passed or, if it is passed, it has no effect. If this Bill is passed, any section or subsection in it, as in the case of any Act of Parliament, taken on its own does not mean anything. It must be taken in relation to that part of the Bill in which it is contained. In this case we are quite sure that the amendment does what we want it to do, that is, restore to the members of a local authority the right to decide the housing needs of the area in which they operate.
I am surprised that the suggestion has been made by a member of the Minister's Party that there is no holdup and that it is only a question of what the engineers or the officials are doing; that it is a normal thing. We all know that that is not correct. The position is that a county manager would decide whether or not he wants houses built in an area.
The suggestion has been made by Deputy Moore that section 4 of the Local Government Act can be invoked. Surely, we should not be in the position that in order to get something done we would have to threaten to sack the manager on every occasion? We have had to do it in some counties often enough.
You do not have to sack the manager.
To invoke section 4 is, in fact, a vote of no confidence in the manager.
You can compel the manager to do a certain thing.
It is a vote of no confidence and has been so described by members of the Government. The Minister did say to me before the Recess that the manager can be got rid of by the local authority invoking section 4. Is that not so?
It is not done often enough.
I know, and have known all along, what the movers of the amendment have in mind. I know now what the movers have in mind but, regardless of their satisfaction with their own handiwork here, I still maintain that does not alter the situation in the slightest degree, even if we were to accept this with acclamation.
Would the Minister agree it would do the job in a better way if we put it in?
Wait a minute. I have no doubt it could not alter it. With regard to the intention, as distinct from the actual wording of the amendment, reserved functions are defined in section 2 of the Bill and, if we want to make a function a reserved function, then we should so state in the relevant section and not by a sort of global attempt at this or any other stage in an endeavour to cover everything in an omnibus way. I do not think that would get us where we want to go and, even if it did, it might bring in more than was intended. Furthermore, in my estimation changes from executive to reserved should be dealt with properly, and not necessarily in a Housing Bill, or any other specific measure, but rather in a management or local government Bill. This is what may be the fundamental drawback. It is this that may require revision and I may tell the House that a management Bill is the next major operation I hope to tackle so soon as we finish with this housing legislation. I do not make any promises. The examination I hope to make has not yet really commenced and no conclusions can, therefore, be drawn by me but it is my firm intention to have an investigation into the matter and to follow that with a revision of the Management Acts.
The Minister is not giving us a guarantee.
I should be less than honest if I did. Members of the House must have a fairly clear idea of what my feelings are and what my outlook is in relation to many of the things about which complaint has been made. I am not dishonest enough to suggest there are things I intend to do when I have not yet got all the facts at my disposal and am not, therefore, in a position to say I have arrived at certain definite decisions. I have views, but I should be dishonest were I to advance these as conclusions.
It is interesting to note the Minister has in mind an amendment of the Management Acts. It would be desirable to make these amendments before the next local elections. Coming back to the matter under discussion, I cannot see any justification why he should refuse to accept what this amendment asks him to do. It may be that the amendment would be more appropriate to some other section. It may be that it should be worded differently to meet the requirements of the Minister's advisers. We are prepared to co-operate with the Minister in that regard.
We are not reflecting on managers. We are reflecting on the system. To give an instance: suppose a local authority decide by resolution to build eight houses for eight tenants the manager has power to say that three houses are sufficient. He has power to say that none is required. We believe the elected representatives should have specific powers in this regard. In the Dublin Corporation area it is Deputy Moore and his colleagues, the aldermen and councillors of the City of Dublin who have the best knowledge of the housing requirements of Dublin. They come from all parts of the city. They know the people intimately. They have a better knowledge of their requirements than the manager or some executive officer.
There is another point the Minister should bear in mind. There has been a good deal of public discussion about this of late. If a person requires a house he does not go to the manager. It is almost impossible for an ordinary individual to meet the manager. It would be impossible for the Dublin City manager to meet all the people who have housing problems. The same is true of Cork and elsewhere. But a person who requires a house can meet his local councillor. What we want to do is to give effective power to the local councillor to deal with this problem. All he can do at present is pass a resolution and, under existing legislation, the manager can throw that resolution in the wastepaper basket. We want effective control in the hands of the elected representatives.
I am sure the Minister is quite clear as to our intentions. I understood from the Minister's own statement that he is in favour of giving powers to the elected representatives. If we are not prepared to give powers to the elected representatives, if we have no confidence in their ability to judge the different problems arising under local administration, then we should go the whole way and abolish local authorities altogether. We should not go to the expense of holding local elections next year unless some powers are given to the elected representatives. Housing is one of the main problems confronting local authorities and it is the local representatives who should decide. I have sufficient confidence in the Irish people to believe that the members they elect will scrutinise all applications closely and carefully and that there will be no wanton waste of public funds as a result of giving power to local representatives.
I appeal to the Minister to reexamine the position now and not wait until 1966 or 1967. I appeal to him to give the elected members of local authorities effective control now.
Generally speaking, it is the councillors who initiate schemes by way of resolution. Ultimately the schemes get under way. At the moment, when a resolution is passed requiring ten houses to be built, who does it for the respective local authority? It is the manager and his staff, the engineers and so on. They must carry out the wishes of the local authority, provided those wishes are capable of implementation. Assuming local authorities get what is sought here, and assuming that they have power to make a resolution dictating absolutely that ten houses are to be built, again who will carry out the work? I will not ask who will do it for them. Is it not the manager and the staff of the council? If he does not do it in the one case, is he going to do it in the other, and I am now asking you what are you going to do about it in either case?
I will answer the Minister. Suppose a local council passes a resolution to build ten houses in a certain town. That resolution goes on to the manager and he can do what he likes with it. Legally, he can say ten houses are not required, that eight will do and that in any case he will leave the matter over until next year. If the members of the council ask questions all he is obliged to do is to give them information as to what is happening. He can tell them the matter is under consideration, and he is legally entitled to take whatever time he considers necessary to consider the proposal. The matter could drag on year in and year out.
However, if eight councillors could say they want ten houses built in this town, the proposal would be handed over to the manager and his staff and in two months' time the council could come back and ask what steps the manager had taken to implement the proposal. He would have to say what he was doing. In this way the council would be the boss and the manager, like any other public servant, would have to do the job entrusted to him. At present, the manager is the boss and he can take his time. If circumstances were changed, he would have to account for his stewardship, because the members' functions would be entirely different. At present they are merely advisory bodies passing pious resolutions that this and that should be done. The manager can accept some proposals and reject others. We want to give effective control to the members so that when they pass a resolution to build houses that proposal must be implemented, subject to Departmental approval.
I would like to support Deputy M.P. Murphy in his plea to make this a reserved function. I certainly was of the same opinion as the Minister at one time.
I am not expressing an opinion. I am asking a question in regard to two ways of approaching the matter. Do not take it that I am making an assertion.
The Minister has an open mind. That being so, I would like to throw whatever weight I have behind Deputy Murphy. In our county we have passed resolutions time and again requesting the manager to build houses in certain towns. The town of Milford comes to mind immediately. Nothing has come of these resolutions. The only reply we can get from the manager is that he is not satisfied yet that so many houses are necessary in this locality. We get that reply day in and day out. We have three members of the council present and I think they will agree that all these resolutions were passed unanimously. Yet nothing is being done.
Local councillors do not advocate the building of houses in their own towns simply to give employment. They know the need for the houses in the particular locality; otherwise they would not have advocated the building of them. No person knows better than a local councillor when houses are required. We find, when a resolution proposing the building of houses in a certain area comes before a council, it is generally the local councillor, irrespective of politics, who sponsors the resolution and makes such a case for it as to convince the entire council as to the necessity for the houses. The only time we find disagreement is when some other town is looking for preference.
We find we are frustrated by the action of the manager. The manager simply says he is not satisfied that a particular number of houses should be built and sets up inquiries. We have proved to him time and again that when a cottage becomes vacant in that town there are ten or 20 applicants for it. Surely, if there is that number of applicants for a house, there is a necessity for more houses there? It is only by experience we find this out. Any Deputy who is a member of a local authority will agree that the decision to build houses in a particular locality should be a reserved function exercised by the members of the council and it should be the manager's job to get on with the work. For that reason I support this amendment.
In Donegal at present several housing schemes have had to be advertised for tender three or four times. That is one cause of delay. The acquisition of the site, the legal process of transferring the site from the owner to the council, the inspection of the site and the determination of the number of people eligible for houses in the area—these are all matters that could hold you up even if you had power to pass such a resolution. We have schemes with building contractors for a long time and they have not yet started. Even passing this resolution and inserting this subsection will not get rid of the delays encountered at the various stages of house building.
(Cavan): Deputy Cunningham said that the passing of this resolution or the implementation of the idea behind it will not get rid of all the delays. That may be so, but it will get rid of the most important one, that is, the decision to start to build houses. I know what the Labour amendment has in mind and I think the Minister knows also. I am inclined to agree with the Minister that the exact wording of the amendment is not wise. After all, nobody can pass a resolution but the housing authority. The county manager cannot pass a resolution.
If the Minister accepts the idea behind the amendment, he can, with the assistance of his officials, bring in an amendment on Report Stage which will put the matter in order. Even if the local authority is to be given the authority to build houses, their decision will be subject to Ministerial approval. If it is an unwise decision, or if it is a stupid decision, the Minister can refuse sanction, but at least the decision will rest with an elected representative in so far as the Minister is answerable to the House and to the country. At the present time we can have the whole thing held up by the county manager saying he is not satisfied that more houses are necessary. As some of the earlier speakers said, we can get rid of an elected representative, we can get rid of the Minister, but we cannot get rid of a county manager until he is 65 years unless he does something very much out of the way. I would strongly urge on the Minister that he should accept the idea behind this amendment, and that on Report Stage he should bring in amendments here and there throughout the Bill, where necessary, to give effect to it.
I was rather surprised to hear what the two Deputies from Donegal said. I cannot see how there can be a housing problem in Donegal because the county manager left Cork and went up there and he was able to take over a county council house.
He was a Corkman.
There was no want of houses there.
It was not a county council house.
(Interruptions.)
This does not deal with the amendment.
In regard to Deputy O'Donnell's statement, we have power in section 4 of the County Management (Amendment) Act to deal with questions of this description, where the manager refuses to do what the county council wish him to do. I am rather surprised that Deputy O'Donnell does not know that since he was Minister for Local Government for a while. The power is there already in the hands of the council. If the manager refuses to do what they want him to do, they can proceed under section 4 of the County Management (Amendment) Act and compel the manager to do it. I cannot see how this amendment would work. The best thing that could happen to housing in this country would be for the local county boards to kindly fade away for a couple of years and let us build houses.
I think we should recognise that in many areas there is this difficulty between the local authorities, the local councillors and the county managers. To a great extent this amendment is put down because of that difficulty. In many parts of the country the situation has been that the county managers were not prepared to carry out the wishes of the local councillors. Section 4 of the County Management (Amendment) Act does not, in fact, give satisfactory power to the local councillors because the very method by which section 4 must be operated itself imposes delay, and that is one of the weaknesses. So far as my local authority are concerned we have had no problem in this matter. We have never had occasion to use section 4 in order to get the manager to deal with the housing problem. We have had decisions on housing by the local authority and the manager jointly. Nevertheless, there is still a weakness because a manager operates on the basis that he may consult with the local councillors and with the corporation, and then take a decision, and that he can make or not make his decision in accordance with the recommendations made to him. In that event the council would require to fall back on section 4 of the County Management (Amendment) Act.
We in this Party feel that the method in this Housing Bill is not fast enough, and that the method of dealing with the question of making decisions as to the number of houses or dwellings that are required is not satisfactory. Consequently, this amendment was put down to a section, which is mainly a determining section, to indicate what our desire is. It may be that from the point of view of the Parliamentary draftsman it is not neat or clear enough. If the Minister would indicate that he is prepared to accept the amendment in principle we would be prepared to agree to a redrafting of the amendment. The Minister has indicated that he has in mind the introduction of amendments to the City and County Management Act at a later stage. That is all very well. We do not expect the Minister to enter into commitments at this stage as to what he will write into that Act, but we are concerned with local representatives in both urban and rural areas being in a position to determine their housing needs, and being in a position by resolution—not just of a subcommittee but of the authority—to determine how many dwellings should be provided when they have ascertained what the need is.
We think the way to do that is to write specifically into this Bill that it is a reserved function of the elected representatives. We are quite well aware that, in matters which are reserved functions at the present time, when decisions are taken there may be delays in their execution. That is another matter. It is not the matter we are arguing here. We are seeking to ensure that for the purposes of this Housing Bill the city manager or the county manager shall become an executive officer of the local authority, exercising executive power. We want to remove from him what might be called the legislative power which we think the authorities should have to deal with the problem of housing in city and county. I would ask the Minister to have another look at this matter. He may think the amendment is not tidy enough or the wording is not suitable to attain our object, but I would ask him to accept the principle of the amendment.
All members of local authorities would like to get extra powers. I do not think this amendment will do what the Labour Party think it will do. After all, who will determine how many houses are to be built in a certain area? I do not know how many councillors there are in the 26 counties but what the Labour Party are suggesting is that each one of those councillors in the 27 local authority areas—more than 27—should be the person to determine the number of houses to be built.
(Interruptions.)
That is the most stupid remark I have heard for some time from an intelligent man.
That was the argument. Deputy O'Donnell mentioned Milford and he said the local councillors should determine the number of houses to be built.
(Interruptions.)
Deputies should allow Deputy Cunningham to make his statement.
Supposing the councillors want ten houses and the manager says: "Instead of having ten, I think you should have eight." Supposing the councillors have the power to determine, then the power is taken out of the manager's hands and the proposal to build ten houses is sent up to the Minister for Local Government. Surely the Minister for Local Government who is providing the money must ask somebody to tell him——
Providing some of the money.
——how many houses are required in a certain town. What is the difference between having local officials going around in an area and pointing out how many houses are needed and having an officer from the Minister's Department going down and doing it?
Deputy Cunningham seems to be putting the whole thing on the basis that each council would write down a number, place in in a hat and somebody would pick out one of the numbers and that is the number of houses allocated for a particular area. That is not true at all and it is not what is suggested by the Labour Party. What we are saying is that there are technical people available to local authorities and they can advise them as to what is feasible, but as to what is needed we are saying the best people to judge are the people who are elected by the people in the area to represent them. When a local councillor or a group of local councillors for an area or a town suggest that ten or fifteen houses should be built, they have to make a case before the whole council or at least a majority of the council have to vote in favour of the case they are making. If that is passed, then we claim that the onus should be on the city manager to proceed with all possible speed to build the number of houses as embodied in the resolution that was passed. It all has to go to the Minister for Local Government and, as Deputy O'Donnell said, rightly so. He can determine whether or not they should be built or whether they will be built. He is answerable to this House and also answerable to his own constituents—he is an elected representative—and all that we ask is that the authority should be given to the elected representatives and not to an individual in a county or in a particular area.
From my experience as a member of a local authority I realise fully what the Labour Party are trying to get at here. At the same time the Minister posed the question here to the Labour Party and Deputy Murphy opted to answer it.
I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary agrees with my answer.
He did not go far enough. He did not go all the way and it is necessary to go all the way in this regard; otherwise there could be a repetition of the City and County Management Act of 1956, when we were promised a whole lot of things but when we looked for them we found we had not the powers at all. I will go this far with Deputy Murphy. The local authority has the power to pass a resolution and ask the manager to build ten houses in a particular area. In two months' time Deputy Murphy asks what progress has been made and the manager can say: "We are looking into the matter." In another two months Deputy Murphy asks: "What about that housing scheme about which we passed the resolution?" And the answer may be: "We are looking into the question of a site." Then in another six months the manager says: "We think eight houses will be sufficient to cover that area." The councillors said ten and he says eight. What are they going to do about it? They must either sack the manager or refer the matter to the Department of Local Government for the Minister to decide whether eight or ten houses should be built. Looking at this from the point of view of councillors, they like to think that by passing a resolution they are getting something done. I do not think you are getting anything done. If you pass a resolution and the manager does not agree with it he need not implement it.
He is answerable.
No.
He is answerable if this is passed.
The members of a local authority can at the moment move a suspension order on the manager if he fails to carry out the wishes of the local authority.
It entirely depends on where the responsibility is placed. If the responsibility is taken off the manager's shoulders he does not mind whether you build 100 or 150 houses but as long as he is held responsible for deciding the number of houses to be built he will decide always on the cautious side. It has been my experience that when a scheme of houses is ready to be allocated we have always had twice as many people as we had houses. That is a reflection on the county manager's estimate and on the estimate of the officials who are involved. They will always err on the cautious side. If the public representatives have this power they have two sets of people to meet: they have to meet the people who need the houses and to answer to them if insufficient houses are provided; and they have to meet the ratepayers who contribute quite a considerable amount towards the provision of these houses; if they build houses in excess of those required and houses are lying idle, the public representatives have to answer to the ratepayers.
It is relevant in discussing this amendment to draw attention to the fact that last May the Minister sent out a circular letter to each member of every local authority drawing the attention of each member to the personal responsibility which he had in expediting the building of houses, in wiping out arrears and in ensuring there will be no backlog in future. How does the Minister say that it is proper to place this responsibility on the shoulders of the elected representatives if at the same time he does not give them the authority to say: "We want 250 houses in Swords. We want so many houses in certain other places." County managers' estimates have been wrong. I have seen the Department of Local Government cutting our estimate in two and being proved deplorably wrong. They may have had a different reason for doing it. They may have had the reason that money was not available but they gave us another reason at the time, that they could not justify this number of houses being built. The Minister is pleading with councillors to accept this responsibility, to ensure that arrears in housing are wiped out and at the same time he says they should not have the responsibility of deciding the number of houses to be built in any particular area.
This amendment by the Labour Party has achieved one very good and significant thing. Apart from the inference that the wording was inadequate and that it would not meet the requirements of the Department, it has drawn from the Minister a very positive statement that he is at one with the Labour Party in seeking an extension of the powers vested in members of the local authorities and a curtailment of the power vested in county managers. It is heartening to know that he does regard it as one of the major functions of himself and his Department, when this measure has been dealt with, to tackle the problem of the County Management Act and the powers vested in county managers. We differ with the Minister in this regard; we feel that now is the time to determine this vexatious question. I believe that this Housing Bill will not serve the purpose for which it is intended unless more power is given back to the members of local authorities. The sense of this motion is that we cannot make progress in housing unless this is done.
Some managers are very efficient but others are overbearing, tyrannical and dictatorial. Many young men would be happy to serve their communities were it not for the fact that it has gone abroad that all power is vested in the county manager. That is very largely true and when many of us in local authorities stand up and make a positive proposition in regard, say, to housing, we are told curtly that this is an executive function of the county manager and that we as a corporation, a county council or an urban body have no say in the matter. I think the Minister is at one with us that it is fundamentally wrong in a democracy such as ours that such vast power should be reposed in any one man. There might have been some reason for this some years ago at the inception of the new State when perhaps we did carry over some allegedly corrupt practices from another regime and it was necessary to place men in authority in a community and give them these vast powers and responsibilities, powers and responsibilities which very largely negative the influence of local authorities. In my opinion, it is a negation of democracy.
Much has been said here about section 4 of the County Management (Amendment) Act and that it was sufficient to force the county manager to do certain things. The County Management (Amendment) Act is totally inadequate as most members of housing authorities must know because it only empowers the local authority to direct the manager to do a specific thing. Under section 4 you cannot direct the manager to conform to a matter in respect of broad principle or outline, you can only direct him to build a house for Michael Pat Murphy, you cannot ask him to build houses for a number of people. That is not in order under the Act and, therefore, it is totally inadequate for our purposes. I would appeal to the Minister, since he is thinking of curtailing the powers of managers and of amending the Act, to do it now in the context of this measure and make it an effective and fruitful measure. Now is the time to concede to the Labour Party that however inadequate the amendment may seem to the Minister from a legal point of view, that the sense is clear to the whole House that this Party are wholeheartedly for a curtailment of the power vested in county managers. We say that it is high time that these vast powers were conferred, where they rightly belong, on members of local authorities.
Apart altogether from the necessity of accelerating the housing drive there is a matter which is causing alarm throughout the country and in which county managers are directly involved and indeed for which the Minister is directly responsible and that is the question of the proposed increases in the pre-1950 rents.
That would not arise on the amendment.
I will not elaborate on the point but I just want to say, in the context of this amendment, that we have this vexatious issue of the power vested in the county manager to increase rents by a stroke of the pen.
The Deputy may not proceed on those lines. We are discussing a specific amendment in the name of the Labour Party dealing with the provision of houses and nothing else.
That is one of the reasons why the passing of a resolution by a housing authority should be a reserved function and where the autocratic and dictatorial functions of these managers should be whittled down and thereby give a new impetus to public life.
Everybody appreciates the motives of the Labour Party in this matter but Deputy Larkin told us that in the city of Dublin we never had to use section 4,
Section 4 has little force.
Perhaps we have been lucky with city managers. We had Corkmen and Kerrymen and by some chance we had a Dublinman at one time but over the years we built houses. I do feel that in all our minds there is impatience that we do not build enough houses and I feel that if we could change the system of appointing managers then the people who are aggrieved by having bad managers might no longer have them. The point is that the acceptance of this amendment will not mean the building of one extra house in a shorter time.
It would.
The Deputy must know that.
You may have a bad manager who sits on something for six or eight months before he moves.
Then get rid of the manager.
How?
Members of local authorities are not all quiet, timid people and if a manager does something wrong he will hear about it.
But you still have him and he has these powers.
He will not antagonise a council. The Minister in the future hopes to amend the County Management Act——
Now is the time.
You cannot do it in a Housing Bill. This would not affect the——
(Interruptions.)
Has the Deputy not got sufficient confidence in the elected representatives?
He could still throw all the obstacles in your way. The Minister has mentioned that he does intend to look at the County Management (Amendment) Act. Like other Deputies, I am impatient in regard to the number of houses being built but I do not honestly think that this would lead to the building of one extra house.
What amuses me is that we have so many people who in public are prepared to say that an alteration in the County Management Act is required but when an attempt is being made to have an alteration in regard to housing introduced they give 150 different reasons why they do not want it done just now and they are prepared to offer not reasons but excuses which have no bearing at all on what is down here. If Deputy Moore feels there is no necessity for this section in Dublin city he is perfectly entitled to have that view because he is on Dublin Corporation but if members of local authorities throughout the country feel such a power is needed they are entitled to express their view here. If Deputy Moore is satisfied with the Minister's efforts he is entitled to that opinion but it does not entitle him to say that nobody else should get a change in the law which might be a little inconvenient for him.
I am not satisfied this will change it for the better.
It is pretty hard to convince Deputy Moore. He came in here under the impression that the Minister had brought the Bill before us and that unless the Minister suggested amendments, it should not be amended.
I spoke for myself.
If he wishes to take that attitude, he is entitled to do so and I am not going to quarrel with him. Those of us who have spoken to the Minister both inside and outside the House believe—I hope I am not being unfair to him—that he is not entirely satisfied with the present system whereby either the county or the city manager is entitled to say X houses are required even though every member of the local authority believes he is only giving one-fifth of the number really required.
Apart altogether from justification, we have all come up against the obstacle that the county manager blandly states that a certain class or category of persons is not entitled to houses. He says so and that is the end of it although every member of the local authority believes the class is entitled to housing. We can work under section 4 anyway we like but by the time the matter is finally dealt with and goes to the Minister some kind of twist is put on it that prevents any harm coming to the official. Those who stand for election to local authorities and accept responsibility in that respect should be men enough not to hide behind the broad shoulders of any county manager who is able to say: "That is an executive function. I shall decide." So far it has been interesting to hear three Donegal representatives—I almost included the fourth, yourself, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle—expressing different points of view, the Minister, Deputy O'Donnell and Deputy Cunningham. They are entitled to do so.
I was not talking about County Donegal.
I am afraid the Minister was drawn into the cross-fire here between the two Benches. I think Deputy O'Donnell made the specific case of a town where the local representatives were prevented from building houses because the county manager decided they were not necessary.
That is a cod. I know more about that case than Deputy O'Donnell and there is a file on it the length of your arm. It is not as simple as that. It is a story that would take half an hour to tell.
We do not want to be drawn into the argument but, to return to the amendment, we believe the amendment we suggest is adequate to do what we want done. The Minister says he does not feel there is anything wrong with it but he thinks we are putting in a wrong type of amendment, that it will not do what we are seeking. We feel it will do what we want but if the House will agree to recommit the section to have an amendment inserted on the Report Stage we are prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Evidently houses were built by the local authority in Donegal and sanctioned by the Minister for Local Government and houses cannot be built unless there is a necessity for them or so we are told. Still we hear that a county manager can go out from Cork and walk into one of those houses——
The provision of housing for county managers does not arise on the amendment.
But the provision of a house for a worker, a house that was occupied by the county manager does. I know that Deputy O'Donnell built too many houses and as soon as a manager went up he had no bother but to walk into it.
In regard to this amendment I am afraid we are tackling the problem at the wrong end. Up to a few years ago the Department of Local Government decided the number of houses to be built. They then transferred that responsibility to the county manager with an overall proviso. What happened was that when the county manager sanctioned an application to have, say, fourteen houses built in an area, these were built and the manager was then informed that nine of those were entitled to the full subsidy as they were slum clearance or overcrowding cases but that the other five were not and that, therefore, he would not get the subsidy for them. That power remains in the Department and not with the manager. The poor manager is shaking in his shoes wondering whether Mary Kate will pass for the full subsidy.
That is the snag and that will remain. Whether or not you arrange that the council shall have the last word, it will then go for the sanction of the Department of Local Government; when you have an overcrowded department like the housing section, something will be found to keep it going. They will certainly find a means of keeping the file going by saying that Mary Kate does not qualify and is only entitled to one-third subsidy. This or no other amendment will change that position. What has to be changed is over in that corner. I am speaking with 42 years' experience as a member of a local authority and I know where the manoeuvres are made. No amendment shifting responsibility from the manager to the local authority, to the elected representatives, will change the position.
I come from an area in which, due to industrial progress, you will always have need for further housing. As a matter of fact, during the past 12 years, just outside the town of Cobh, the county council have built 168 houses to relieve local distress. The same thing has been done in Midleton and Youghal. The trouble is that if 500 houses were built tomorrow, they would be occupied the same day. That is the unfortunate position. Recently I was responsible for a proposal to build 20 houses in Riverstown. When we went through the applications, we found that 15 of the 20 successful applicants will be from the list for the last group of houses built by the local authorities. The position was that you had boys and girls who could not get houses because they were not married.
Is that a complaint?
If the boy were not married, he could not get a house because of Departmental regulations and when he got married, he either had to live under a bush or go to his in-laws.
Progress reported: Committee to sit again.