It is true to say that this Bill is one of many pieces of local government legislation over the past few years. It is surprising to members of this House how many such Bills have had to be introduced from time to time, tightening up, if you like, the whole administrative system in regard to local government. This Bill does not, in any way, increase the powers of the elected representatives of the people. It does not increase the powers of the local councils. If it does anything at all, it extends and tightens up the power of the Department in their control over local administration. It could be truly said at the present time that, so widespread is the control of the Local Government Department throughout the length and breadth of the country, even if a local council were composed entirely of imbeciles it would be almost impossible for them to do wrong. County councils, and borough councils, are shepherded, protected, guided and directed from the first moment they are constituted, until they are finally dissolved at election time.
I think Senator O'Brien raised a very important question when he asked what are the principles that guide us in regard to our system of local government. The point he raised was: is it desirable to continue this process of having what appears to be a system of local government, while in actual fact it is the central authority that directs the operations of local councils? If we look back 40 or 50 years, we shall find that the local councils then had power to decide many important questions which they cannot decide now without the authority of the Department. While there may have been abuses under the old system, in many ways it was possibly more desirable than what we have now, because, while it is, or at least it was up till recently, fashionable to condemn County Management Acts as being responsible for all the controls which are exercised over our local authorities by the central authority, that is not the exact position, because even before the County Management Act was enacted, there was that ever-increasing tightening up and control over local bodies and their officials by the central authority.
The question is how far are we going to continue along these lines? We know that legislation will come before us in regard to the County Management Act and the county managers' powers, but it does not affect the position to any extent, so that we are continuing in this Bill the general tendency to keep our locally elected representatives under complete control by the central authority and that is, in the main, what this Bill sets out to do. There is no doubt that the officials of the Department are highly efficient and there is no doubt that in most cases they are right in their decisons. I have found very few cases in which they have been wrong. If you take a small housing scheme in any remote village, nothing can be done in the matter of the acquisition of the site without the sanction of the Department. The Department inspector must see the exact site. The plans cannot be drawn up for the development of the site without the sanction of the Department and, finally, the houses cannot be built without the sanction of the central authority, so that all along the line the local body and the local officials are being guided, shepherded, controlled and directed. There is no doubt that that situation did not begin with the passage of the County Management Act. It is being continued in this Bill and will be continued in the new County Management (Amendment) Bill.
Senator O'Brien raised a question as to whether all this is or is not desirable and whether it is making our people more responsible, if you like, in the operation of democratic government to have their representatives elected on a local authority and then to see them left practically without any executive or administrative power. The net result of all this control and direction is that the sense of responsibility is, to a great extent, withdrawn from the local council. It is so difficult for a county council to make a mistake that there is a tendency for these bodies to take up a carefree and, to a certain extent, a not-too-responsible attitude. All that local authorities have become now is simply advisory bodies— advisory to the Department—and I think it is time that we paused and considered where we are drifting in regard to this whole trend of legislation.
As Senator O'Brien said, it would be better to take from the local authorities completely any functions which they cannot discharge independently without direction and control from the central authority. He referred to main roads. It is true to say that the central authority must exercise a certain amount of supervision in the planning of the main arteries of transport and therefore he suggested that, since they must exercise that control, it would be far better if the entire administration of main roads were taken over by the central authority; but if it is considered that the local authorities can deal with county roads, they should be left absolutely to deal with the maintenance and construction of these roads, without any interference whatever from the central authority.
Any other functions which local authorities are capable of discharging, they should be left to discharge, without interference, and if they are not capable of discharging a certain function without interference, then I think that function should be transferred to the central authority completely because it is a bad principle in administration, in any form of administration or management, to have dual control, to have two bodies responsible for the one administration. I think it is time to consider this whole question seriously to see if we cannot make more fundamental changes in the whole system of local government.
Senator O'Brien was also right when he said that it is desirable that political Parties should contest local council elections and secure representation thereon. He said it is good for the political Party and good for local administration. It is good for local administration to have members who look upon themselves as standardbearers of a national movement and who, in dealing with local affairs, try to uphold a high standard of administration. In the same way, it is good for a national political Party to have its members taking an active interest in local affairs because the very life of any national movement depends upon the interest which its members take in the lives and affairs of the ordinary people and in local matters generally.
It was said repeatedly in recent years that only the Fianna Fáil Party were responsible for the introduction of political representation on the county councils, but that, of course, is not true. All political Parties sought representation there, and quite rightly, and I know that that will continue. It will be good, as I say, for the local authorities and good to an even greater extent for a national organisation which seeks and secures representation on these local bodies.
This raises another question which is dealt with in Part V of the Bill, that is, the provision to extend aid to local councils. Under existing legislation, local councils—parish councils, if you like—have the right to seek aid from the county council and to be granted assistance in the provision of halls and other amenities. They have the right, in the first place, to be approved as approved local councils and that is apparently being extended in this Bill to local bodies in our cities. The amazing thing is that the decision to extend this system has been taken on the result of the experiment in the county councils. In the rural areas, this provision has been an absolute failure and has never been availed of or put into operation. Apparently guided and encouraged by this complete failure, it is now proposed to extend the provision to the larger towns and cities. I am not against the proposal to make this class of legislation applicable to our cities and county boroughs but I think it is a pity that it did not succeed and it would be desirable to examine the reasons as to why it did not succeed. In the main, the average county council would be rather loth to encourage expenditure in this way by giving grants to a parish council because it would be involving the county council in additional expenditure which is not at the moment a statutory obligation.
In the existing legislation, there is no clear definition as to what constitutes a parish council which would seek approval. The whole position has been so vague and remains so vague that I do not think this particular part of the Bill can ever become operative. I think that, if we are serious about this matter, instead of contenting ourselves with putting vague provisions into this Bill, we should try to explain in it what we mean by parish councils. I think we should assert boldly that we are in favour of parish councils. In the existing legislation the parish council is not mentioned but there is a mention of approved local councils. Why should we not go on and define what would constitute an approved parish council? What do we expect the people of a parish to do in order to become an approved parish council? If those things are defined clearly, then we will have a number of parishes availing themselves of those provisions but as long as the matter is left in the undefined condition that it is in at present, nothing can come of it. It is merely a gesture to the people who think that the parish council is a good thing and that it should be extended to the larger towns and cities.
I believe the parish council is a good thing and if we want to have a real system of local government and not the inefficient system that we have at the present moment, we should encourage, not the elected representatives on the county councils, but the electors themselves and the people in each parish to get together and elect a council. Meeting as a guild or by way of general meeting, the electors of the parish could consider the needs in their district and take measures to solve the problems that affect them directly. I think that one of the reasons why our system of local government has to a great extent failed is that it is neither one thing nor the other. It is not sufficiently centralised to have the efficiency that comes of centralisation and it is not sufficiently local to be fully and truly democratic. In dealing with Part V of the Bill, we ought to seek to broaden it so as not merely to give to a county council or a borough council the requisites for improved local government, but we should also introduce a provision to enable the people of a parish to secure approval whether the local authority desires it or not by merely complying with certain statutory obligations. Then it would be the duty of the county authority or the city authority to assist that parish council in providing itself with the means to carry out the various functions which such a parish council can carry out.
I am not very much in favour of giving substantial grants to those parish councils. If these councils are to be a success in this State, it should be on the basis that they are self-supporting. Somebody has already mentioned that parish halls should be in the main self-supporting and that they should produce sufficient revenue to enable them to be maintained. It would be more important, therefore, for the local authority and the central authority to give a loan to the parish council to enable it to start off and perhaps a small grant-in-aid which would be shared by the central authority. In that way this movement for the provision of parish councils would be given a real send-off. The vague paragraph in the Local Government Act of 1941 and in this Bill regarding the establishment of those local councils is of no value whatever.
There are a few other matters with which I would like to deal. I believe that a major effort should be made to have all our local roads put into better condition. The Department of Local Government are insisting on too high a standard in regard to those roads. I do not think that is entirely desirable. Most road construction at the present time is carried out by means of grants from the Road Fund and a very high standard is being insisted upon by the Local Government Department. I think that could be modified so as to get our local roads and our rural roads into a reasonable condition at the earliest possible moment.
There is a provision in this Bill which I think is objectionable and that is the one that seeks to enable the local authority to erect a bridge across any river regardless of whether, by so doing, they interfere with the navigation or not. I do not think that is desirable. The River Shannon, of course, is exempt, but there are other large rivers which I think should also be exempt. I believe any of these rivers that can be used for navigation should be so used. It is all to the good that such waterways should be utilised as far as possible, not only as an aid to transport, but as an amenity for the benefit of tourism.
I do not know exactly whether I am in order in this particular matter, but there is a very great grievance amongst superannuated local officials who retired some years ago on pensions which are, having regard to the present cost of living, entirely inadequate. I think some provision should be made for those people.
There is another grievance which has arisen—the Parliamentary Secretary may be aware of it—and that is in regard to county council employees. Under the provisions of the present superannuation scheme, it was provided that any employee of the council could opt to come in under that scheme when it came into operation in 1948, I think. Those who failed to opt were given six months' grace, but, as they failed to opt within six months, they have no redress since. They have now no redress whatever. Many of those who were employed by the county councils, years before the passing of this legislation, are still employed by them, but they cannot benefit by the present superannuation scheme.
I assume there is no deduction made from their wages for the scheme. In many places they now realise the benefit of coming in under the scheme but they are denied the right to revoke the decision they took when the scheme first came into operation. That appears to be a little harsh. It is not always possible for an ordinary manual worker to realise the full implications of a particular scheme, especially when it is completely new. Even though it may be explained to them they may still not grasp its significance or know how it will affect them. I think there ought to be provision in this Bill—if it is not in it; I am not sure—which would enable those people who have been left out to be included in the superannuation scheme and thus enable them to derive the benefits which are available under that scheme.
