Before Question Time I was replying to two important questions put by Deputy Quinn. One was whether the powers of local authority members were being taken away completely by this Bill.
Local Government (Financial Provisions) Bill, 1977: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That section 10, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
That is not exactly what I asked.
I advise the Deputy to read the booklet issued by the Department in April 1975. It spells out clearly the powers vested in elected local authority members.
Would the Minister like to read out the second sentence on page 2 in regard to reserved functions and tell us what is specified therein?
The position is that 99.9 per cent of the reserved functions outlined in the booklet still remain.
That is not true and the Minister knows it.
It is true and the Deputy knows it.
It is a most misleading statement.
Is it not true that the elected local authority members can initiate any schemes——
Deputy Treacy will withdraw the statement that the Minister said something which is untrue.
I qualified it by saying the Minister is misleading the House and the country.
That is not so and the Deputy is aware of it.
That is a qualified withdrawal. The Deputy is aware that it is not acceptable as a parliamentary statement.
I have indicated that I have withdrawn it and I qualified that by saying it is a misleading statement, and I will elaborate on that when I get the opportunity.
Though I should like to read through this document in relation to the reserved functions of local authority members I will not do so in case I would be accused of filibustering. Among other things, elected members of local authorities can initiate any scheme and direct the county manager to carry out investigations with a view to implementing schemes. They can fix the priority lists of improvement works on roads. They can also fix schemes for the letting of local authority houses. They are only a few of about 100 important powers still enjoyed by local authority members. They can direct the country or city manager to perform any function which he is legally entitled to do. They have full control over the borrowing of money for and on behalf of the local authority. They still have powers regarding the making, revoking and amendment of by-laws. It is therefore not correct to say that their powers are being eroded by this section.
The second important question raised by Deputy Quinn was in regard to the functions of county managers in the context of this section. Paragraph (e) of subsection (2) states:
it shall be the duty of the manager——
(i) before the adoption by the authority of an estimate of expenses relating to the local financial year specified in the direction, to prepare for the authority a statement indicating the effect of the direction in relation to such estimate.
The form of statement to be made by the manager under this section will have to meet the requirement that it should show the effect on the estimates of the directive mentioned in paragraphs (c) and (d). How exactly he would frame that statement would be, and of course is, left to the manager's own judgment and professional expertise.
For the purpose of clarification of that point and so that we may both remember the words we used, the point I was trying to make was whether the manager will order priorities in estimating the effect of adhering to the Government's set limit or whether the local authority will do this. I am concerned about the words used by the Minister to the effect that the manager would prepare for the Minister an estimate of how the new limited rate will operate and will affect services. The Minister has confirmed my worst suspicions because in effect he has told us that the estimates will be prepared, not for members of local authorities but for the Minister.
It is entirely a matter for members of local authorities to decide on priorities within the limit laid down.
But the Minister did not mention them in that context.
There were many other matters raised, too, to which I have not referred yet. I would remind Deputy Quinn that the County Management Act, 1940, placed a duty on managers to advise and assist their councils in regard to the performance of their statutory functions. This has always been part and parcel of the role of managers. Therefore, there is nothing new about managers having this function.
Deputies Quinn and Fitzpatrick said there are numerous reasons for section 10 not being operated. If we are to ensure that there will not be imbalances as between one service and another within the local authority services, it is very important that section 10 be operated in full. For example, it would not be correct for any council to spend 60 per cent of the finance available to them on the maintenance and improvement of roads at the expense of repairs to houses, nor would it be correct for them to spend a percentage of that level on house repairs as against the maintenance of other services such as water and sewerage schemes.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Are we to take the Minister as saying that even the limited amounts of money which the local authorities will get may not be spent at their discretion but that they will have to spend it as directed by the Minister?
I am not saying that.
How does the Minister reconcile what he is saying with regard to discretion if a local authority would not be allowed spend 60 per cent of their expenditure on roads if they considered that proportion of their money to be necessary for that purpose?
I am sure both Deputies opposite will agree that it would be totally unreasonable and unfair to the public in any local authority area that 60 per cent of the total expenditure of that authority be spent on one small service as against all the other services and demands on the authority.
The Minister is not giving the local authorities much credit for common sense. This is an insult to them.
The Deputies may intervene after the Minister has concluded.
What is being offered is a qualified discretion.
There have been allegations that because of this legislation there will not be preliminary meetings leading up to the striking of rates. This is not correct. So far as I am aware meetings have been taking place for some months past in this regard.
(Cavan-Monaghan): But they have been adjourned at the direction of the Minister.
County managers and engineers are meeting elected representatives on a regional basis in relation to roads, houses, water and sewerage schemes and many other services and are working out for themselves satisfactory programmes for the coming year. Therefore, it is totally inaccurate to allege that there will be only one meeting this year in respect of the striking of rates for 1979.
Deputy Quinn raised a very important matter when he related this section to the situation of county committees of agriculture. These committees must work within guidelines and limits laid down by law. They cannot expend in any year more than what was expended in the previous year.
I should like, too, to repudiate the numerous suggestions that were offered concerning the making of decisions in respect of the limit to be imposed. It was alleged that a principal officer in the Department of Finance is responsible for such decisions. All these decisions are taken by both the Minister for Finance and the Minister for the Environment on foot of their mature consideration of all aspects of the situation.
Having derated domestic dwellings we must also protect other people and ensure that no undue burden is placed on other ratepayers such as farmers, business people, hoteliers and industrialists who provide employment for a large sector of our community. Of course, we must protect the taxpayer including those within the PAYE system, but the only way in which they can be protected is by the operation of section 10 of this Bill. Therefore, the arguments put forward by the Deputy would not stand up under scrutiny.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I am strongly opposed to section 10 because I am satisfied that by imposing a limit on local authorities as to the amount of rates they should levy or as to the amount of finance they can provide, the Government are taking away any useful function which local authorities generally can perform and are restricting the exercise by these bodies of a discretion to provide reasonable budgets to enable them to carry out necessary schemes within their area. For that reason the whole structure of local government will suffer and in effect there will be an end to local government and a centralisation of what we know now as local government.
The Minister when he last intervened stated that section 10 is necessary in order to protect the ratepayer, the taxpayer and the Exchequer. From whom is the Minister protecting the ratepayer, the taxpayer and the exchequer? He is protecting them from elected local representatives, people who have been elected to serve on local authorities by their neighbours, the people in their own locality who know and trust them. I suggest to the Minister for the Environment that there is no necessity to protect the Exchequer, the ratepayer or the taxpayer from local representatives because local representatives have in the past behaved in a responsible manner with a commitment to the raising of money from the rates and to the spending of that money.
That is conceded by the Minister.
(Cavan-Monaghan): As conceded by the Minister, I pointed out earlier that on a few occasions in the history of this State the Minister for Local Government moved against local authorities and dissolved them because he said they did not discharge their statutory functions. On each of those occasions, without exception they were removed from office, not for striking too high a rate, but for not striking a sufficient rate, for economising and sparing the ratepayers, for not spending as much money as the Minister for Local Government thought they should spend. That is the record of local councils throughout the years and I defy contradiction on it. We have a more recent example of councils behaving in a reasonable manner out of the mouth of the Minister himself here today. The Minister was putting the case that if this section 10 is omitted from the Bill local authorities will run amok and strike rates regardless, that they will raise money and spend money regardless, but that has not been the experience since the Minister started to assume powers which he has not got over those authorities. In fact the Minister has been operating section 10 of this Bill since 1 November 1977. He issued a directive to local authorities at that time before last year's estimates were agreed upon, before last year's rates were struck. The directive to local authorities was that none of them was to exceed an increase of 11 per cent on the previous year. What do we find? We find out of the Minister's own mouth that local authorities acted in such a reasonable manner and went into the Estimates in such a careful and businesslike fashion that 16 of them, including two in my constituency, came to the conclusion that because of savings and credit balances or for one reason or another they did not want 11 per cent and they struck a rate at an increase of less than 11 per cent on the previous year. Is not that evidence? I put it to the Minister, through the Chair, that local authorities will continue to behave in a reasonable way. One would think, to listen to the Minister and to hear his argument against opposition to section 10, that rates were utterly removed and there was no such thing as rates any longer. One would also think that local representatives would never again have to submit themselves for election and secure the votes of people in their area. Of course there will still be the best check possible on local representatives to encourage them to behave in a reasonable manner. They will have to submit themselves to the local electorate and secure the confidence of that electorate if they want to remain in public life.
A very substantial amount of local revenue still comes from rates—rates that will be raised on and paid by the business people of the areas in which these county councillors live. The farming community must still pay rates if their holdings are over £20 valuation, and the larger farmers have been brought more effectively into the rating system. Local representatives will be responsible to these people. Every huckster's shop in the country and every small businessman will be liable for rates. Maybe the millionaires or people approaching that category living in private houses will not be liable for rates but the small man who is making his livelihood out of a business will be liable for rates and the local representative will see to it that he does not displease that man and that he does not act in a manner that will seem irresponsible to the ratepayers by whom he will have to be elected in the next local election and the one after, if he is alive then and still wishes to remain in public life. This is the reality, and not the make-believe climate in which the Minister and his Minister of State are living and arguing. Local representatives have never been irresponsible in regard to the striking of rates and the spending of money. They have never been extravagant. The opposite is the case and the records of this House and in the Minister's Department will show that. Even since the Minister started to impose an 11 per cent increase it was not availed of when it was not necessary.
I was alarmed to hear the Minister of State spelling out this section 10 even more clearly than I understood it. I merely regard it as an objectionable section that imposes an unreasonable restriction on local representatives, but I did understand the Minister for the Environment to say that he was leaving with local authorities the right and the discretion to spend the money which they raised as they thought fit themselves, presumably after they had taken care of certain statutory matters which they would have to provide for. However, if I understand correctly the remarks of the Minister of State, not alone is this upper limit going to be imposed over the whole country in a blanket way but each council can be told by the Minister how much to spend on repairs, on county roads and on environmental matters.
No, no.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Did I misunderstand the Minister of State?
Yes.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I am glad if I did. Is there any restriction in that regard?
The members can establish their own priorities.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I understood the Minister of State to say that it would be quite unreasonable if 60 per cent were to be spent on roads and nothing on repairs to houses.
I said it would be quite unreasonable if that should happen and somebody should be able to step in and rectify it.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Who is in the position to do so? Does this Bill give the Minister power to step in to ensure that that would not happen?
I would not expect any council to do such a thing.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Confusion becomes more confusing. I thought that the Minister would impose an upper limit and with that upper limit the local authorities would exercise their discretion. I thought that was the position until I heard the Minister for State speaking, and he certainly gave me the impression that there was power in this section some place to tell the local authority how much they would spend on roads and how much they would spend on public toilets and how much they would spend on housing repairs.
It is obvious that that is in subsection (8).
(Cavan-Monaghan): Am I right or wrong in that?
The members of councils can establish their own priorities.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Without restriction or interference from the Minister?
That is right, yes.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I am glad to have that on the record because the Minister of State certainly gave the opposite impression. We will probably have to tease that out a bit more before we are finished.
I rose on this occasion to defend the public representatives of this country from the attack that is being made on them by the Minister for the Environment. The Minister, when he last spoke, alleged quite unreasonably that what this side of the House want is the unlimited raising of money and spending of money by public representatives. We want no such thing. I want public representatives to be treated and respected as they always were. If they behave in an unreasonable manner the best people to deal with them are the electors, just as the best people to deal with the Members of this House if they do not behave as they want them to behave are the electors. That is the way democracy works. If we are going to have local democracy that is the way it should continue to work. If we do not want local democracy we should scrap these councils and tell the local representatives that their services are not required and operate the whole thing from the Custom House or Government Buildings, but as long as we have local democracy it should operate on the basis that local representatives will in the future, as in the past, behave in a reasonable manner and if they are to be brought to task by anybody they will be brought to task by their masters, the people who elected them. That is as I see it.
The Minister should avail of his presence in the House this evening to tell us when he proposes to notify the local authorities what rate they may strike in respect of next year. He should tell this House why estimates meetings are being adjourned all over the country. He should tell the House, if he knows, why the estimates meeting of Cavan County Council which was fixed for Tuesday, 19 of this month, has now been adjourned until next year. How in the name of patience are local authorities going to run their business, how are they going to run the affairs of the county, if they do not know until perhaps one-twelfth of the year in which they are operating has elapsed? If they do not know what amount of money they may have, what amount of money they may raise, how will they know what schemes they may embark upon? Is all this not a waste of valuable time? Is it not a waste of the valuable time of professional people such as engineers and other people who are employed by local authorities but cannot give the service that they should be giving because the Minister cannot make up his mind or the Government will not let him make up his mind to tell them what money they may spend next year?
I want to conclude on this note on this occasion that my objection to this section is, in a nutshell, that by limiting the amount of revenue it is limiting and restricting the services and the jurisdiction of local councils. I want to again put on the record that these people have behaved reasonably in the past under the old system and they have shown, the whole 16 of them, that they are prepared to act reasonably in the future. This section is quite unnecessary and should be deleted from the Bill.
We all must be convinced that section 10 is by far and away the most far-reaching section in so far as it applies to local government here. If enacted it will undermine in a most serious far-reaching way the existing powers vested in local authorities. It will, moreover, deal a death blow to local democracy here as we have known it to exist. This section, together with section 11, contains in it the power to destroy local government in this country, and for the Minister of State to stand up here a short time ago and to state that there was no such limitation of powers of the members of local authorities involved in this section, that they still retain, in his words, 99.5 per cent of the powers vested in them is not, to say the least, in accordance with the facts. The powers vested in members of local authorities have for some years past been limited. The main powers have been reposed in our county managers. The executive functions were performed by them, but the primary and fundamental power vested in a member of a local authority and his colleagues was power in respect of money, power to provide the essential finances, to implement the essential services for their people. In the striking of the rate, the provision of money for essential services lay the power vested in members of local authorities. That power is being removed in this section. I defy contradiction on that statement. The Minister for Local Government Deputy Sylvester Barrett, and his colleague the Minister of State, Deputy J. O'Leary, are staring me in the face as I make that statement.
The Deputy should look in the yellow book.
I will come to the yellow book. All the limited powers which apply to members of local authorities revolve around the fundamental of money. Take that away and nothing is left. Absolutely nothing of any consequence to the people or their public representatives is left. Members of local authorities are now subject to control not merely by the Minister for Local Government but also by the Minister for Finance. It is a pity the Minister allowed himself to become subservient in such a direct, formal way to the Minister for Finance. That is the position. The exercise is complete control over the amount of money which shall be provided. If members of local authorities have the temerity to increase the estimates by any amount for an essential purpose the county manager and the Minister are brought into it and the rate is sent back to the Minister. The increase sought is nullified by him. This places members of local authorities in shackles. It must undermine their confidence in the future.
This makes a mockery of estimate meetings because when councillors sit down to work out the various things required in respect of roads, housing, sanitary services and so forth they are confined to an overall limit. The freedom councillors had in the past is gone under this section. They are now confined to controls and limitations. Despite this the Minister of State has the audacity to imply that the powers still lie with the managers. What happens if, due to some type of emergency, such as severe weather, flood, fire or storm, a supplementary estimate is required? Up to now members could, by a majority, decide to provide for such contingency by a supplementary estimate. That power is gone and they must seek sanction from the Minister for any extra money required. It is obvious to all of us that since the Minister will have control in such a rigid form at the outset of the amount of money to be provided in any given year that he is not likely to condone increases in estimates for any purpose.
Another very important power which local authorities had was the invocation of what is known as section 4 to direct managers to do certain things. What are the powers now vested in members under section 4 to direct their managers to carry out essential works and services? Is that power gone? Is it subject to the sanction of the Minister also? That seems to be the situation, but we have this audacious statement that the members still possess 95.5 per cent of the powers already vested in them under the yellow book, to which the Minister of State referred.
We are told that all the restrictions by the Custom House are necessary to ensure that there will not be an imbalance in respect of estimates and the provision of services. That is a serious reflection on members of local authorities. Those of us who have been members or are still members are responsible people. We have always provided as much money as we felt was necessary to provide for the services the people needed. If we acted irresponsibly we knew that we faced the electorate at the next local election and could, and often did, suffer the consequences. Those restraints were on us to be responsible in relation to expenditure. We had the courage to increase the rates in the estimates as public demands were made on us. When people make demands on public representatives, for houses, roads, lights, sewerage, water and all the modern amenities of life they must be prepared to pay for them. I believe that people are prepared to pay for what they want when they know that they will have a better life by the provision of those particular things.
Public representatives have always been conscious of this. They invoked section 4 and brought in supplementary estimates to provide those services. It is very wrong for the Custom House, the Minister and his officials to usurp the powers of local authorities and take unto themselves the power to say what is good for the people at local level. The officials in the Custom House cannot know the needs of people down the country in any rural or urban area. If the power to provide the money to meet the demands of those people is taken from local authorities it is a very bad day for democracy. That is the reason we oppose this section so strongly.
The Minister of State made a lot of play about the few functions still left to members of local authorities. He said they could initiate schemes for houses, roads and so forth, but when one comes back to the brass tacks one realises it is futile to initiate anything unless one is providing the money. The money is being controlled by the Minister for the Environment, and those members of local authorities have no initiative in those matters. Money is an ingredient for this, for initiating. Members of local authorities no longer have the power to provide money over and above a figure set by the Minister in any given year. If members overspend in any year how will that over-expenditure be dealt with? Will it be deducted from the estimates for the following year?
It is impossible to confine oneself to an estimate. The amount needed can be over-estimated or under-estimated. Up to now local authorities had the power to utilise for other essential purposes any moneys left over due to underspending. What penalties will be imposed upon local authorities who inadvertently overspend? In the matter of wage increases, the Government's recommendation last year was 5 per cent but the actual increase was approximately 11 per cent. Local authorities had to incur this over-expenditure and the same thing can apply in many other areas.
The real concern is the attack upon local democracy inherent in this and the following sections. Power is being taken away from members of local authorities to determine the standard of life of people at local level. If people want to spend money on essential services and are prepared to raise the revenue locally and face the consequences of that during democratic elections, they are entitled to that power. This is a far-reaching issue; it is too serious to be fobbed off with a pretence that it is necessary to ensure there are no imbalances and that it does not affect to any appreciable degree powers vested in local authorities. It is an attack on the democratic life we have known. It makes a mockery of the local elections being talked about for next June.
Existing members of local authorities from all parties are utterly demoralised by this Bill. They see no future in continuing to serve the public as mere puppets of the Minister. Many high-ranking public officials have gone on record as saying they are gravely perturbed at what is happening in this Bill. The Minister should bear that in mind. I ask him to look carefully at this section and consider the damage he is doing to local authorities. We all value highly local democracy and the work and self-sacrifice of members of these authorities. We try to inculcate into people a sense of civic pride, duty and responsibility. All that is being destroyed in this section and the following one. The Minister is seeking to take over and usurp all these powers. In doing that, he must realise he is destroying local democracy.
Anyone concerned with public life does not want this section. It is a movement towards dictatorship which makes a mockery of the term "local government". I have a document before me which outlines the functions of members of local authorities. They comprise decisions on major matters such as making rates, borrowing money, making or varying a development plan and so on. Fundamentally it all comes back to striking the rate, the provision of money. When the Minister takes that function from local authority members, he is rendering them effete, sterile, worthless, as nothing. Members of local authorities from henceforth are mere puppets of the Minister for the Environment.
The reply of the Minister of State to the question I raised on section 10——
The Deputy may raise any new and genuine matters on this section.
As far as I am concerned, these are new and genuine matters. In reply to my questions the Minister of State quoted from a little yellow book and attempted to suggest that 99.5 per cent of the functions and powers of local authorities would remain. In Part I of the appendix to this book there is a list of the functions of local authority members. The first function is the making of a rate and the second is the borrowing of money. These are to be interfered with. Now let us consider the other powers to which the Minister of State so grandiosely referred. Among the powers to be left with local authorities are the appointment of a committee; the appointment or election of a person to membership of another body; the nomination of a person as candidate for the office of President of Ireland; the admission of persons to the freedom of a borough; the requisition of the county manager to prepare and submit plans and specifications for the execution of any particular works which can lawfully be executed, together with an estimate of the probable cost of the works; and the obtaining from the county manager of all information in his possession or procurement in regard to any business or transaction of the local authority.
I was not being completely facetious in referring to the first of those functions, such as the appointment of a committee or the nomination of a candidate for the office of President of Ireland. They fall within the specified functions of members of local authorities. The requisition of the county manager to prepare and submit plans for works assumes that money will be available. That money will now effectively be determined by the Minister's direction and limit. I suggest the Minister of State has not been forthright with the House in regard to section 10.
We have every reason to believe that this legislation should proceed without undue delay. We hold the view that section 10 raises matters of principle in its operation about the residual functions that will devolve on local authority members when this section becomes law. It is reasonable on Committee Stage to ask questions to clarify the intent, meaning and effect of proposed legislation and we will continue to tease out those questions until we get an answer. The answer may not please us but an answer we want and not an evasion. To date we have had evasions, perhaps because the Minister of State and the Minister do not know the answers and their advisers have not had the chance to find out what the realities are.
Subsection (e) is very important because as Deputy Fitzpatrick said the question of the ordering of priorities of the local authority within the context of the amount of money they are going to get is a critical one. On the powers and functions of elected members in the little yellow book at paragraph 12 it states under the heading "General Control by Elected Members":
The elected members have financial control over the business of the local authority and the manager, therefore, must act in conformity with the general policy laid down by them.
That is a paraphrase of the law relating to the functions and authority of elected members and is published by the Department of the Environment. Will the Department have to change that paragraph as a result of subsection (e)? What is the interpretation of the word "duty" in the context of that subsection? To what extent will the elected members continue to retain control as specified in paragraph 12 of the yellow book? Is the Minister of State in a position to answer those question? It may require reflection, and if so perhaps at a later date when we have had time to reflect, we can get a legal opinion on this.
As spokesman for the environment I would be failing in my obligation if I did not get explicit clarification of what this means. A manager in a particular authority may choose to interpret this in such a way as to evade the powers specified in paragraph 12, which deals with the powers of elected members. If that is the case, it completely nullifies the statement made earlier by the Minister of State which was to the effect that local authority members had discretionary powers for the allocation of funds within a specified limit. I think he got confused because he went on to suggest that it would be totally unreasonable if a local authority opted to spend 60 per cent of their revenue on roads. While he was correctly taken up on that point by Deputy Fitzpatrick, I know he was referring to a hypothetical case because to my knowledge that situation has never arisen. Even if it did arise, reason would support his case that that would be an unreasonable allocation of funds. The curious philosophical position he adopts underpins Fianna Fáil's attitude to local government.
If a local authority opted to make such a decision, irrational and unacceptable as it may be, he immediately assumed that the big hand of central Government should have the power to correct such a distorted allocation of resources, not the elected members in the area. In the implicit value behind that statement he has reinforced Fianna Fáil's attitude to local democracy which is clearly indicated in this section and highlights why this side of the House are against it.
We argue that in such a hypothetical situation the elected members of such a local authority are and would become directly accountable to the electorate at the next local elections. The Minister of State appeared to imply that this was not acceptable but that the Department should have that sanction. If so, why bother to have local representatives? What is their function? Is he seriously confining them to electing people to the freedom of the borough, to nominating people for the post of president or to nominating people to be members of another authority? What is the Government's serious attitude in this regard. I will move to a new point soon and I am sure the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will be glad to hear that——
I surely will. If we do not move on to something new and if Deputies do not avoid repetition I will put the section.
I appreciate that but as a former member of a local authority I am sure the Chair can understand the concern of this side of the House——
Do not ask the Chair to comment on that. We have listened to this section being discussed since 10.30 this morning and the Deputy knows what that means.
A lot happened in the meantime.
In the absence of an explanation from the Minister for State on the interpretation of the word "duty", I want to ask him what will be the role of the manager vis-à-vis the Department of the Environment? Is it fair to infer from this that he will be the agent of the Department and not the servant of the local council? Is it fair to take from a literal reading of this section that he will be specifically under the guidance and direction of the Minister for the Environment, with the consent of the Minister for Finance? If so, I find it very difficult to reconcile this with what happened in the past.
In the past the Fianna Fáil Party introduced the managerial Acts which strengthened the hand of the manager—the town clerk as he used to be—vis-à-vis that of elected members and there were historical reasons for it. It was opposed by the Labour Party in the thirties but was put through by a majority in the Fianna Fáil Government. The second Inter-Party Government redressed the balance somewhat with the 1955 Local Government Act. We now have a situation where a new range of potential powers is being thrust upon managers by this section. Instead of giving them autonomy and executive freedom as was the case in the past, this provision, if one takes a particular interpretation of it, will tie them more tightly into the apparatus of central government than any previous measure. That is not only my reading of that provision but it is also the confidential comment of a number of city and county managers given to me in the course of consultations with them. That is coupled with their general dissatisfaction on the question of their status on higher salaries and so on. I should like to know if the Minister has received, informally or otherwise, any representations from the managers' association on this section. Is the Minister happy, in the absence of such representations and on the basis of the regular contact his officials have with managers, that they are reasonably satisfied with this legislation?
I should like to know if the Minister is happy that he will get their co-operation in the overseeing of funds and accounts and the whole process of book-keeping that will become implicit in the operation of this section? Does the Minister feel that the managers would willingly and actively make their time and staff available to make this section work? There are implications here in terms of staff time, in terms of available time for the staff in the administrative sections of the Department and throughout the country. The information I have received leads me to suggest that there is a great feeling of unease among managers in this regard but, because they are public servants, that unease cannot be voiced publicly or voiced in such a way as to be of use politically to any side of this House. I should like to draw attention to this area because the more one takes executive and reserved functions from local authority members the more one depends upon the managerial system to efficiently and effectively operate a system no longer of local government but more effectively of local administration.
Many managers are now more in the position of being branch managers of a central organisation than being county or city managers of an autonomous body in some kind of confederation relationship to Dublin. If that is the case I should like to know if the Department are happy with the prospects of the continued high level of service of management and administration that has benefited rural and urban Ireland in the past from the managerial system? Much as I, and my party, may have objections about the operation of the managerial system in principle my experience has been that local democracy and local government have been blessed with the high calibre and dedication of many such managers. We are fortunate in that we are free of the kind of difficulties and shame that local administrations in Britain and other countries had with regard to the responsible and honest administration of local affairs here. Long may that remain so. However, there is a quid pro quo in everything. People who by definition must keep silent in public and who built up a workload, a reputation and a track record in the area of administration are now possibly being made subject to a degree of interference and direction so far unexperienced and unforeseen. If that is the case we will have the worst of every possible world. We will have a local government system that is no longer under the control of democratically elected members and we will have a managerial system which will be subject to the interventions of central government.
That is not an argument of the baddies being central government and the goodies being local government. I do not wish it to appear in those simplistic terms, but it is an argument in support of the point of view put forward by Deputy Treacy which states that no official in central government, no matter how well motivated or informed, is in the same position of understanding and recognising the needs, priorities and nuances that must order priorities within any local authority as a county manager. If he or she is in such a position in central government then by definition, as far as I am concerned, they are not looking after their main job in central government. Managers are well informed about matters in their area and they understand the reasons why certain projects are proposed and why certain projects must get priority even though in an objective assessment of the case the same principal officer in the Department may not fully understand the situation. There may be a history to a particular project or a tradition associated with the local history that would be too complex, in some cases, to be written down but which would have the support of the local community.
It is for the reasons I have given that managers must retain some degree of autonomy. As an unforeseen by-product a future Minister for the Environment may take this legislation and, reading out the last clause in this section—"it shall be the duty of the manager"—request a manager to provide something. There are various ways of suggesting what a manager might do. My request about the interpretation of the word "duty" is the primary one, but there is also the potential impact on the managerial performance and the calibre of people who will remain within local government at such a high level. We have already had a specific instance of a person who is regarded as progressive and go ahead leaving the local government service for an appointment elsewhere. Press reports stated that one of the reasons was the level of remuneration. I would add, the potential degree of interference implicit in section 10. For that reason I do not think he will be the last manager to bow out of local government service.
Over many years of involvement in local government managers acquire an understanding of the complex and difficult field involved. It is not possible to transfer a marketing manager from the private sector into such a position, or a civil servant from some aspect of central government. It is significant that the flow of personnel from central government to local government is very limited.
There are people who are now managers and who served in Local Government.
I am sure the Minister will concede that move is very limited. The movement in my experience tends to be more in the technical fields rather than in the strict managerial fields. I will be happy to hear the Minister's interpretation of the word "duty".
In case of any ambiguity in respect of the stance we are taking on this side of the House in relation to section 10 I feel it necessary to reiterate a number of points. When this Bill is enacted, the Minister for the Environment will not only dictate the limits of local authority expenditure but may also lay down limits of expenditure for individual items within the overall estimates. This is because the Minister is now taking on himself powers to interfere with the powers vested in members of local authorities.
My colleague, Deputy Quinn, referred to the functions of county managers. What is contained in this section is to be deplored. It is retrogressive in regard to the involvement of county managers in doing what I must assert is the dirty work for the Minister and his Department. We know what good has been achieved in public life has been achieved as a direct result of the co-operation, trust, goodwill and respect between managers and members of local authorities. If the managers are put in the position as provided for in the section, it will be their duty to prepare a statement for the local authorities indicating the effect of the direction in relation to the estimate of expenses. If the direction is not complied with, it will be their duty to notify the Minister in writing of the extent by which the limit is exceeded. This is the dirty work I have referred to. To be a spy, to be the Minister's agent, is now to be the role of our esteemed county managers. This is bound to alienate the managers from the members. It is bound to destroy the goodwill, confidence and co-operation that has been built up during the years. This rings the death-knell for progress in the future. The moment the managers find out—as they must do very soon—that the limit has been exceeded to any extent for however good a reason or for the provision of an essential or an emergency service, it will be reported and the Minister will clamp down. That money will not be given.
In a situation where there must be over-expenditure, where money must be provided for an essential or an emergency service, will the Minister sanction such a proposal? To what extent will he be charitable enough or generous enough to approve excess expenditure under section 4? Will there be rigidity, a strict limitation of working within the moneys allocated for a given year? If that is the position, God help us in this country. If that kind of autocratic approach is to be adopted it will be ruinous to local government.
I concur fully with the sentiments expressed by Deputy Quinn when he raised this pertinent question. The Minister cannot make messenger boys out of men of the calibre of county managers. There is grave concern about this section. Up to now county managers were men of great independence, power, influence and were men of integrity. They led their members along the road to progress. They won for their counties the reputation of being progressive in regard to essential services such as water supplies; in the field of hospitalisation when they had a function in respect of the health services, in respect of essential housing needs, sanitary services and in the building of roads and bridges they contributed immensely to the infrastructure of our towns and cities. All of this is being called into question in this section by the Minister insisting—shame on him—that he will be subservient to the Minister for Finance, that the county managers will be subservient to him and by ensuring that local authorities will be mere talking shops with no powers whatever in respect of the provision of money. When you take away money you take away power, pride, everything. We should not fool ourselves.
The Bill is a disaster. It will have disastrous consequences for the people. It destroys the independence of our managerial system and relegates the members of local authorities to mere puppets. It will prove to be a blight on the life of our people. Now they can scream as often as they like for improvement of a specific service but it will not be provided.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.