(Cavan-Monaghan): This Bill was introduced on 14 December 1977 and is therefore entitled the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Bill, 1977. The alleged object of the Bill is to implement part of the manifesto on which the Fianna Fáil Party fought the last general election. That was that part of the manifesto which promised to make it cheaper to keep a house by abolishing rates on private houses, by removing the rate element from houses rented by local authorities and by ensuring there would be no rate content in the rents paid by tenants of privately rented accommodation. The Bill was introduced on 14 December 1977. It was officially circulated to Members on 30 May 1978, nearly six months afterwards. As we know, the Bill and the paraphernalia connected with it escaped or was unofficially distributed about May 1978. I dealt with that episode at some length when I opened my speech on Second Stage and I do not propose to go further into it now beyond inquiring from the Minister what progress, if any, the Garda Síochána have made in tracing the source of the leak or the person who unofficially circulated the Bill with its explanatory memorandum, the confidential Government memorandum. The Minister has had a few months to consider the matter and I would ask him now what steps have been taken to ensure there will be no repetition of this type of unofficial disclosure of Government Bills and memoranda. I would like the Minister to deal with these two questions when he comes to reply.
With regard to the Bill, in my opinion it spells the end of local democracy as we know it and converts local representatives into meaningless rubber stamps with no functions and no authority good, bad or indifferent. Furthermore, it does nothing to implement the promise in the Fianna Fail manifesto to remove the rate content in the rent of privately rented dwellings. The machinery in the Bill is completely ineffective and I believe it will not be possible to amend the Bill to ensure that tenants of privately rented houses will be free from rates. I would like the Minister to deal with that and tell us whether he proposes, now that he has had time to think about it and study and consider representations which must have been made to him, to bring in any amendments on Committee Stage.
In relation to my assertion that this Bill spells the end of local democracy and renders the role of the local representative meaningless and powerless, I would like to refer the House to section 10. Heretofore local authorities acted in a partnership—the partnership existing between the elected representatives and the manager. They were authorised by law to govern the local authority in so far as local government matters were concerned, with a supervisory role by the Department of the Environment in certain respects.
For example, the local county council prepared their estimate for the ensuing year in consultation with the county manager but it was not necessary to consult the manager at that stage because there was provision for an estimates committee. The council could either elect or appoint an estimates committee or the whole council could act as an estimates committee and bring in a rates estimate. If the county manager was satisfied that the estimate was adequate and sufficient to discharge the statutory duties of the council for the ensuing 12 months, he would not object to it. It was only in case a local authority brought in an estimate that was insufficient and inadequate to pay the outgoings of the ensuing year that the Department stepped in. Then the council were required to bring in an adequate estimate. If they failed to do that the Minister held an inquiry. If the inquiry confirmed that they failed in their duty and that the local services would break down as a result of the estimate brought in, they were removed from office.
That was a fairly reasonable approach and left local authorities with discretion as to how much money they would spend and what services they would provide. The record shows they acted in a reasonable manner and the number of occasions on which it was necessary for the Custom House to step in were few and far between. That whole system has now been changed by virtue of this measure.
Section 10 authorises the Minister for the Environment, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to issue a direction to the local authority telling them how much they are to estimate for the coming year. It is very significant, particularly for those who have been in Government, to see that the Minister for the Environment will issue a direction with the consent of the Minister for Finance. That is the Parliamentary Draftsman's jargon used to oblige the Minister for the Environment to consult with the Minister for Finance and gives the Minister for Finance an overriding authority to give directions to his colleague, the Minister for the Environment, as to the amount of the estimate which a local authority is permitted to bring in.
Under section 10 the Minister for the Environment, at the behest of the Minister for Finance, is to have the authority to say to the local council, urban authority or city council, "Your estimate for this year shall be limited to £X". That is an innovation. It is completely unheard of. We all know the Minister for Finance and his advisers are only interested in one thing—keeping down the overall Government budget. They will decide that this must be cut and that must be cut. The advisers of the Minister for Finance do not believe that spending money under the local improvements scheme to improve lanes leading to houses is a worthwhile operation. They think that scheme should be abolished. That is the kind of direction that will be coming to the Department of the Environment from the Department of Finance. It will not stop there because the section goes on to say—I need not spell it out—that the local authority shall be obliged to abide by and obey this direction. If they do not there will not be consultation or an inquiry as to whether they have carried out their duty properly. Their estimate will be thrown in the wastepaper basket and the estimate which coincides with the Minister's limit will replace it. The council will be brushed aside and ignored. There will not be an inquiry. They will not be consulted. They will be treated as imbeciles, fool or nonentities or people who do not matter. There will be no consultation, no public inquiry: ignore that estimate and we will place it with the Minister. Indeed, the task, very well done by some local authorities over the years, of preparing the estimate is virtually taken away from them entirely and is handed over to the county managers.
I want to assert that the role of the county manager in local administration is being changed completely. Up to now he was the official of the local authority, fighting their case, advising them, preparing their schemes and doing his best for the county generally. Under this Bill all that is gone. He becomes now the watchdog—and I am not being offensive when I say the bully boy of the Minister for Finance at the direction of the Minister for the Environment—because section 10 (3) (e) specifies that it shall be the duty of the manager to give a direction to the authorities, to make them aware of the direction from Dublin and to explain its effect to them. In case the direction is not complied with, as soon as maybe the county manager then must certify to the Minister for the Environment the extent by which it is exceeded. Finally he is obliged to correct the erroneous estimate prepared by these local people, who know local circumstances, to revise that estimate and bring it into line with an estimate which will accord with the direction given by the Minister for the Environment at the behest of the Minister for Finance.
I ask the Minister and the House in all sincerity is it any wonder that county managers are quitting the service? Is it any wonder that they are recognising that the role they took on some years ago has been utterly changed? Is it any wonder that county managers are seeing now that they have no worthwhile powers left to them, that there is nothing they can do, no way in which they can bring their expertise, knowledge or ability to bear on the locality they serve? We know that county managers are leaving the service at not much more than half the retirement age and going into private enterprise. I believe that is evidence that the only people now who will continue to serve in the role of county managers are those who will be prepared to obey the dictation emanating from Government Buildings and the Custom House, accepting the straitjacket role.
I cannot see what particular role is left to county councils, to their members or managers. We hear a lot about decentralisation, about the spreading out of authority from Government Buildings and the Custom House to say, Castlebar, Athlone and other places. Here we have a contraction of authority, a complete centralisation of local authority from every local authority in the 26 counties back up to the Custom House. I wonder how Deputies like Deputy Seán Moore—Deputies who started their careers in public life on local authorities, who did a good job, who spoke fearlessly letting their views be known in the interests of their localities—will accept this insult. It is beyond me.
It does not end there because the estimate for the year is to be in accordance with the direction from Dublin. Heretofore, as we know, if something was overlooked or some emergency occurred during the year the manager and his councillors, in their wisdom, brought in a supplementary estimate, did the additional work or provided the additional service that was to be provided whether caused by storm, some other hardship, or in some other way that might not have been anticipated. All that is changed because section 11 says that no supplementary estimate shall be made unless it is sanctioned by the Minister for the Environment. Although not specifically stated in the section he will have to have a chat with his friend, the Minister for Finance.
Already this year we have had an example of how that can affect local services and administration. The estimates passed last year, for the year ending 31 December 1978, were made without any regard to the increase in wages and salaries brought about by the national wage agreement. That was done on the direction of the Minister because it was said that the result of the national wage agreement for 1978 was not known when the Minister gave his direction at the end of last year. Each local authority proceeded to estimate its salaries and wages on the basis of those prevailing on 1 January 1978 without any regard to the increase everybody knew would be coming as a result of the national wage agreement. We know those estimates were cut very fine. The 11 per cent may have been adequate in some places—perhaps marginally too much, I concede—but in other places was not nearly enough. One cannot have a flat 11 per cent all over the country and be certain that everybody has enough.
When the national wage agreement increase was announced the local authorities were told: you must pay it out of savings, out of the estimate introduced on the basis that there was no national wage agreement. I do not know what were the figures involved in that. But in the case of, say, Dublin Corporation, Cork Corporation, or indeed any county council it must have amounted to a very substantial sum of money having regard to the number of people employed by local authorities and their salaries. The local authorities are told they will have to pay it out of savings. That is a polite way of saying they will have to cut back on something. There are two things only on which one can cut back: one is service and the other wages and salaries. If we are to have a repetition of that, we are certainly reaching a stage where local authorities will not be in a position to provide services which are necessary. Up to now, it was always left to the councils to bring in a rate. Provided it was adequate, it was all right.
Section 13 says that the striking of a rate shall no longer be a reserved function but the explanatory memorandum that comes out with it gives an explanation in regard to that particular section which I find very hard to accept. It says it is designed merely to simplify the procedure for making a rate and to do away with the second meeting for signing the book. I do not accept that but it is there in black and white and in my opinion it was necessary to put it in if there was not to be conflict between some other section and section 10 of this Bill. Section 10 effectively ensures that the striking of a rate is no longer a reserved function and section 13 is simply calling a spade a spade. I would be anxious to hear from the Minister for the Environment who has as much knowledge of rural Ireland and local authorities as I have. I would like him to spell out what functions of any reality or any consequence local authorities are to perform from now on. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that this Bill simply spells the end of local democracy.
Section 15 provides for directions which may be given to local authorities telling them how this Bill is to be implemented. This legislation is retrospective legislation at its worst, going back to 1 November 1977 as from the 1 January 1978. On the last occasion I dealt at some length with the machinery for implementing section 15. We had a circular from the Custom House to local authorities monitoring the day-to-day, week-to-week and month-to-month workings of the county concils. They were to report—I do not know how often but very frequently—to the Custom House telling them how they were getting on, whether there was any danger of them going outside their estimates, what bills have been paid and what bills have not been paid. It was a most insulting circular to send out to a responsible local authority. It was treating them like spendthrift children who could not be trusted even to live within the estimates imposed on them by the Minister for the Environment without the overlording and overlooking of the Custom House. Most of us in this House commenced public life in local authorities, whether they were urban authorities or city councils or city corporations. Looking back on it, I believe we thought we were doing something worthwhile, that we were making a worthwhile contribution to the administration of our localities. It was because we gave a reasonable account of ourselves there that we found our way into the national Parliament.
I cannot see how councillors will continue to serve in the straitjacket which this Bill puts them into. There will not be the same competition for the position of county manager as there was before this Bill came into Parliament. Up to now, county managers took pride in their job. county. They took pride in their job. They developed a good relationship and an excellent partnership between themselves and their councillors and, between them, they exercised their collective wisdom in the best interests of the areas they served.
I do not care how long a person's memory is here. It will be found that the number of authorities that had to be removed from office for failing to discharge their statutory duties as they should since the State was founded could be counted on the fingers of one hand. I am not very far wrong in that estimate. That is all I want to say about local democracies. I believe this is a bad day's work. Any measure that is prompted not by the welfare of the area but by the welfare of a political party, as this was, is bound to have the sort of consequences that we are seeing here. This Bill was introduced on 14 December 1977 to implement the promise in the Fianna Fáil manifesto which was inserted to get votes and got plenty of votes. There was no preelection thought given to whether the proposal to abolish rates would have any ill effects or how it would be worked or whether there was any other way of doing it. It is only now, nearly 12 months after, that we are discussing this Bill. It was introduced before the Christmas vacation to give the impression that it was ready and that they had the machinery to implement the manifesto promise but back we come after Christmas and there is not a sound. It is still being hatched up and worked on in the Department of Local Government—the Department of the Environment as it now is—the Department of Finance and the Offices of the Parliamentary Draftsmen, and it did not see the light of day officially until 30 May. We know that the unofficial Government documentation was leaked and we know from that—because we could not be expected not to read it—that there were differences of opinion in the Cabinet and in the Departments as to how it should be implemented.
So here we have it now and we have the results—the end of parliamentary democracy. The second charge I make against this Bill is that it does not implement the Fianna Fáil manifesto under the heading of local government, page 20, which says that there will be no rate content in the rent paid by tenants of privately rented accommodation. Ask the thousands of people living in rented flats and rented private houses throughout the country whether they have had any rates content in their rent since 1 January last, and the answer from 95 or 96 per cent of them will be that they have had no change and are still paying rates. The only difference is that the landlord is enjoying a fatter rent.
The Minister presumably takes the view that when this Bill becomes an Act it will implement the part of the manifesto which said that there would be no rates content in the rent paid by tenants of privately rented accommodation. Presumably the Minister believes that and has been advised to that effect. If that is so, the Minister owes restitution to thousands of tenants of rented private houses who have been paying rates in their rent since 1 January last. Many of these people were students who occupied flats in this city from 1 January until June of this year and who went home when the universities closed. They will never get their money back. Will the Minister make restitution to them? Did the Minister take this manifesto promise seriously? Practically no tenant of a private house has received the benefit of this derating since 1 January. It was a shabby trick to play on the tenants of private accommodation for the purpose of getting a vote.
The document says that rates will be abolished from January 1978. A more accurate way of putting that would have been to say that from 1978 private landlords will enjoy greater net rents, because that is what has happened. If the Minister had written into the manifesto that for the year 1978 there would be no reduction in the rent of private houses or flats but that the landlords would enjoy bigger net rents, would he have got the number of votes he got in Dublin? I challenge the Minister to tell me of any way by which these people will have their rates repaid to them. The only people who can be sure of benefiting from the provisions of this Bill in regard to relief of rates in rented premises are those living in controlled premises where the rent is broken down, where the rent is shown under a number of headings—the basic rent, the addition for repairs, the addition for inflation and the addition for rates. These items are isolated in controlled houses and people living in such houses will get the benefit. Gradually over the years since the Second World War, and drastically in the 1960s, houses became controlled; but the number of controlled houses now is about 4 or 5 per cent of the dwellings and flats let. These are the only people to which this document is worth a damn.
Even when this measure becomes law it will not and cannot ensure that the rate content of these rents will be abolished, because there is nothing to prevent the landlord of an uncontrolled dwelling from negotiating a new rent on the change of tenant. If a tenant decides to stand his ground and stay, there is nothing to prevent the landlord from serving him a notice to quit on the tenant and then either ejecting him or negotiating a new rent with him. This Bill is not worth anything to the tenant who seeks relief of rates. Tenants were promised this relief in the Fianna Fáil manifesto, but they were tricked.
The Flatdwellers Association have thrown up their hands in despair. They know that the Bill is valueless. They know they have been tricked over the last 12 months. They know that even when the Bill is law it will not work and they are looking for some other way of getting the promised relief. I have experience, in my professional capacity over the years, in dealing with Rent Act cases and I invite the Minister to tell me how he can ensure that a tenant of an uncontrolled dwelling will get the benefit of the manifesto in respect of rates. The Minister appreciates the difficulty and I would not be surprised to see him come in with some amendment on Committee Stage. However, an amendment will not do; he will simply have to have a completely different approach, an approach which will have nothing to do with rates.
Those are the major points I wish to make on this measure. It is a Committee Stage measure and on Committee Stage we shall be introducing amendments to give effect to the manifesto although I cannot think of any amendments that can really give effect to that manifesto. I trust that the Minister has at his command full-time advisers to deal with this whole area of landlords, tenants and rents and that these advisers will be framing an amendment to this measure. It is essential that tenants of private houses reap the benefit of this legislation. In the various policy documents issued by the Government there is expressed the desire that as many people as possible would be taken off local authority housing lists by providing houses for themselves. That aspiration is contained both in the White Paper and the Green Paper but not so long ago a circular was issued from the Custom House to every local authority quoting the White Paper in regard to people building houses for themselves in the hope that eventually there would be less demand on local authorities to provide houses. However, local authorities were advised to scrutinise closely the incomes of people who were seeking rented accommodation and to ensure that those people who could be regarded as being in a position to provide their own accommodation be removed from the housing list. Indeed, this circular was a shocking document because it went further and advised that loans being sanctioned by local authorities should be fine-combed and that no longer should the certificate of the employer be accepted as evidence of the income of the applicant but that income should be checked against the PAYE certificate issued by the inspector of taxes. This is the way in which these people are to be squeezed out of the public housing sector and into the private housing sector. This is to be done on the assumption that they will be able to get cheaper houses and that rents will be less. But I have been pointing out that this will not be the case.