Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 May 1955

Vol. 44 No. 16

City and County Management (Amendment) Bill, 1954—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Local Government (Mr. P. O'Donnell)

One of the first tasks I set myself on assuming office as Minister for Local Government was to ascertain at first hand the views of local representatives on the management system. That system has been in operation generally for over 12 years. Its introduction was in the nature of an experiment and there was a general feeling amongst all Parties and the public generally that operation of the system would come up for review in due course; that its merits and demerits would then be examined objectively and that whatever defects could be cured by legislation should be cured. I accordingly arranged a series of meetings throughout the country, at which I met representatives of elected councils and the managers and heard their criticisms of the present system and suggestions for its improvement. The amendments to the present system proposed in this Bill are in accord with the wishes of the great majority of the local representatives with whom I discussed the matter.

The Bill is not a complicated measure and in so far as it was possible I have endeavoured to avoid legislation by reference. I have also had an explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill.

A complaint frequently heard against the operation of the management system is that the general supervisory powers of the elected members are effective only if they have advance knowledge of the manager's proposals. Section 2 meets this complaint. It provides that the members of a local authority may, at any time, by resolution, require the manager to inform them of his proposals before performing any specified function. It will be for the elected members to determine the matters on which they wish to be informed; functions in regard to officers and servants and individual health functions only are excluded from the scope of the section. Generally, representatives did not want the selection of tenants for local authority houses to be made a reserved function. They did, however, consider that the manager should consult the elected members in regard to the allocation of tenancies of houses. Consultations in regard to this or any other matter decided on by a local authority may be arranged under Section 2. I consider it essential, however, that members should, as a matter of course and without a resolution, be informed of works of a capital nature before they are committed to any expenditure on them. Sub-section (7) provides accordingly. Section 3 empowers the local authority, if they so wish, to prohibit the undertaking of any such works provided they are not works which the local authority are required by law to undertake.

Section 4, which is to a certain extent complementary to Section 2, gives the elected members an effective system of control over the acts of the manager. At present they have the power to require the manager to perform a specified function in a specified way. I found, however, from my discussions with local bodies, that this power has rarely been availed of, mainly because of the absence of power to obtain prior information as to the manager's proposals, and also because the procedure involved is so cumbersome. Under existing legislation the notice of intention to propose a resolution requiring the manager to do a particular thing, must be signed by not less than one-third of the members and a date between seven and 14 days of the date of the notice specified for the holding of a special meeting, at which the resolution is to be proposed. The resolution must be passed either by more than half the total membership of the local authority or by more than two-thirds of the members present and voting. Section 4 of the Bill substitutes a simple form of requisition for the existing cumbersome procedure. The notice of intention need only be signed by three members. The resolution may be moved either at an ordinary meeting or at a special meeting. A simple majority of the members present and voting will be sufficient to carry the resolution, provided the number voting for the resolution exceeds one-third of the total membership of the local authority. A requisition under Section 4 may refer to any matter which the manager or the local authority can lawfully do, except that it may not extend to any functions in relation to employees or the performance of an individual health function.

At present, when an appointment is required to be made to the office of county manager, the Minister requests the Local Appointments Commissioners to recommend to him a person for appointment. The person so recommended is appointed by virtue of such recommendation, the Minister fixing the date on which the appointment takes effect. Because of this unusual method of appointment some members of local bodies are under the misapprehension that the manager is an officer of the Minister and that hence his first loyalty is to the Minister rather than to the local authority. In order to emphasise the fact that the manager is an officer of the local authority, Section 5 provides that the manager will be appointed on the recommendation of the Local Appointments Commissioners by resolution of the appropriate local authority.

Some criticism of the management system has related to the increases in the staffs of local authorities in recent years. It is agreed that increases have been necessary because of new or expanded services, but it is felt that the local councils—the employers—should have definite and direct control over increases in staff and general increases in remuneration. Section 6 of the Bill provides, accordingly, that a proposal to increase or decrease the number of permanent officers under a local authority may not be submitted by the manager for sanction without the consent by resolution of the elected members, and that the manager may not fix an increased or reduced rate of remuneration applicable to any class, description or grade of office or employment without similar consent by resolution of the elected members.

Sections 7 and 9 give new powers to all local authorities wishing to avail of them in regard to the preparation of the annual estimate of expenses. Under the law as it stands, the manager prepares the annual estimate of expenses and submits it for consideration at the annual estimates meeting. I have been impressed by representations that members could exercise a more positive financial control if they were to have a hand in the preparation of the estimates, rather than have to try to criticise and amend an estimate prepared by the manager. The Bill accordingly makes provision for a new procedure for the preparation of the estimates, which may be adopted by any local authority wishing to avail of it. Under Section 7 a local authority may elect from amongst its members an estimates committee to consist in the case of a county council of two members from each county electoral area, and in the case of every other local authority of not more than one-third of its membership.

When I had the Bill drafted I included this provision as one that would be mandatory on all local authorities, but during the passage of the Bill through the Dáil I accepted a recommendation that it should be made a permissive provision so that each local authority could decide for itself whether or not it would adopt it. Where an estimates committee has been appointed it will be the duty of such committee to prepare the annual estimate of expenses. This does not mean that the members of the committee will have to perform work which is appropriate to officers of the local authority. The estimates committee will have the full assistance of the officers of the local authority and such assistance will include the preparation and submission of statements of the estimated receipts and expenditure and so on. It is not necessary to provide explicitly for this but to remove doubts and to clarify the intention behind Section 9 it is provided in sub-section (2) that the manager must, so far as is not inconsistent with the due performance of his other duties, attend every meeting of the estimates committee and furnish the members with such information, assistance and advice as they require. Where the manager cannot himself attend, he must under sub-section (5) designate an officer to act in his place.

The estimate of expenses prepared by the estimates committee will be presented to the estimates meeting of the local authority and the local authority will not be committed in any way to adopting it. Where the manager considers that an estimate of expenses as prepared by an estimates committee would seriously prejudice the efficient or economical performance of the functions of the local authority, he must prepare a separate report specifying the provision which in his opinion is necessary. This report will be furnished to members of the local authority with copies of the estimate.

If the estimates committee fail to prepare the estimate, or where an estimates committee has not been appointed, the manager must himself prepare the estimate as heretofore.

Section 8 provides that it shall be the duty of the estimates committee— or where no such committee exists, the manager—to furnish the members of the local authority, at such intervals as the members may decide by resolution, with whatever financial statements they require to keep them informed of the position of the local authority's finances.

Under the existing law, the members of the local authority cannot at an estimates meeting, make an amendment of the estimate to which the manager objects. Consideration of any amendment proposed must be adjourned to a special meeting, and at that special meeting no new amendment can be considered. I am satisfied that these provisions are too restrictive of the members' freedom to examine and decide on the estimate. They are being repealed and new provisions are being included in Section 10. This section will enable local authorities to amend an estimate of expenses at the estimates meeting or at any adjournment thereof, provided that the meeting may not be adjourned to a day outside the period of 21 days from the day on which the estimates meeting began.

Section 12 empowers the Minister to group for management purposes two counties, the councils of which have requested him to do so. It is provided under Section 13 that the Minister may degroup any counties grouped for management purposes, on the receipt of a request from each of two such grouped counties. In Section 14 there are similar provisions to enable the present arrangement, whereby the Dublin City Manager is also Dublin County Manager, to be terminated. Consequential provisions dealing with the Dublin Assistant Managers are contained in Section 22.

Section 28 of the County Management Act, 1940, and corresponding provisions in the City Management Acts, empower the members to make, if they so think fit, regulations prescribing the procedure to be followed in regard to the reception and examination of tenders. I found in the course of my discussions with local representatives that many of them appeared to be unaware of their powers under these provisions. Section 15 of the present Bill places an obligation on each new council to make a formal decision to have regulations or not, and provides that the regulations may extend to the seeking of tenders, as well as to their reception and examination.

Section 61 of the Local Government Act, 1925, placed a responsibility on the chief executive officer of every local authority to advise the members before they voted on any resolution to do any act in consequence of which an illegal payment would be made or a loss or deficiency in the funds of the local authority was likely to arise. The names of the members who voted for the resolution were recorded in the minutes. The purpose of this section was to protect the members of the local authority by requiring the chief executive officer to give warning whenever the council were considering some proposal which, if adopted, might result in a surcharge or charge. If the warning were not given, the council as a body might subsequently be surcharged or charged. When, notwithstanding a warning given under the section, the council adopt the proposal the names of the members voting for the proposal are recorded in the minutes and these members and no other members are liable, in the event of a surcharge.

In Section 61 of the Local Government Act of 1926, the term "responsible officer" is defined as meaning the secretary, clerk, R.M.S., or other chief executive officer of such local authority. This definition must be brought into line with the management code under which the manager is the chief executive officer of the local authority. This is done in Section, 16 of the Bill, which places responsibility for objecting on the manager or in his absence on such other officer as may be designated by him.

It is necessary to stress that the question of warning does not arise where a local authority are proposing lawful expenditure outside the provision made in the estimates, such as the repairing of a road the repair of which was not included in the road works scheme. Once a work requisitioned by the members is a work that can lawfully be carried out and the council provide the money, by authorising the expenditure, the manager must carry out the work.

Section 17 empowers a manager to delegate any of his functions, with the approval of the appropriate Minister, to an approved officer of that local authority. The intention is to enable managers to delegate some of their less important functions, as they may have to attend to important administrative duties elsewhere. The manager will continue to be responsible for the acts of his delegate and he may revoke the delegation at any time. At present, managers are obliged to give a considerable proportion of their time to the making of orders of a routine character, because of the legal requirement that everything in the executive functions of a manager which formerly required to be done by resolution of the local authority should thereafter have to be done by the manager by signed order.

The remaining sections of the Bill contain miscellaneous provisions of a minor nature, designed to clarify or facilitate the administration of the Management Acts.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

I am one of those very agreeably surprised to find that the people who were most opposed to this County Management Act in 1940 have given it their full approval and blessing now. When one remembers all the noise that was made up and down the country since 1940, and even a few years ago, as to the dictatorial powers of managers, how they should be curbed and how they should be abolished, I am very glad indeed to find now that it has been recorded by the Dáil after so many years that the city and county management scheme has come to stay, that it is here to stay, that it has been proved a good scheme and that it will remain. I was always in favour of the scheme. I saw from time to time that it could be improved and was anxious to see improvements made in it but I had lost hope for some time when I found that many public men, members of corporations and county councils, would have none of it—they would have no improvement and would prefer to see it abolished completely.

When I read and heard many speeches through out the country on the occasion of the last local election campaign to the effect that the county and city managers should be abolished and that all authority should go back again to the hands of the elected representatives, I felt then, and I am sure now, that that would have been a retrograde step. I am glad indeed that the Dáil has passed this Bill to improve, if only slightly, the city and county management scheme. For that reason, I welcome the Bill and I congratulate the Minister on adhering to all the definite principles laid down in the 1940 Act.

It was necessary for him, indeed, to bring in certain improvements in that Act. I do not know how it operated in some counties but I can say for County Cork that people do not think there is any amendment necessary because we have had in County Cork, thank God, the very good fortune to have excellent managers, far-seeing, responsible men, who discussed every possible matter that they thought would concern the members of the council with the council. They were slow to take any action that would not be in accordance with the wishes of the council and were strong enough at the same time to take very positive action when it was needed.

In that way we were very lucky, and I cannot remember an occasion on which the county manager did not have the approval of the county council in his work. It was a very happy state of affairs but I am satisfied, all the same, that some members of the county council thought that they themselves should have more powers. From time to time they considered that if they were managing affairs they would get on better. Of course it is difficult to get 46 men, at any one meeting, who would be of the same opinion on any matter, but at the same time, looking back over the years I am satisfied that the County Management Act has been a success in County Cork.

The only point I wish to refer to is that some members were not in entire agreement with the manager on the question of increases of salaries and wages or possibly the appointment of extra staff. It was our experience that, where any of these disagreements occurred, the instructions, in one form or another, were sent down from Dublin, and when any decision was taken locally as to increase in staff or wages we had no trouble. Members generally resented the position where the manager put the proposals before them, received by letter from Dublin, that an assistant engineer or two assistant engineers or two or three medical officers of health should be appointed at certain salaries. The council would have preferred if these proposals had been put before them first. That, I am glad to see, has been provided for in this Bill and we have a guarantee that that state of affairs will not occur in future, that a manager will not be able to do it himself and that it will not come to us from Dublin. That is something we must welcome in this Bill.

I have noticed in other counties that the managers and the council did not get on so well and I suppose it is hard to expect that every new Act passed by the Oireachtas should be perfect without amendment. I have never said that the 1940 Act was perfect. It will probably be found after a few years that this Act can be further improved beyond the amendments suggested here at the moment. The fact remains that I am very happy to find that the principle or system of management is here to stay.

In Cork, which is the biggest county in the State, we had a total expenditure last year of nearly £3,000,000 made up of almost £290,000 in the northern assistance area, of £450,000 in the southern area and of about £180,000 in the western area. I hold that the expenditure in each of these areas is more than the expenditure in the smallest county in the State where you have a manager. In addition to the sums I have given, there is an expenditure on roads of £892,000, on health £178,000 and for mental treatment £218,000. These figures represent a huge expenditure and there is a huge staff. The managers have to accept a responsibility for all that expenditure that I think is more than they should be expected to bear. We have a manager and two assistant managers. We worked one assistant manager to death. The other man will probably stand up for a few years more. We have a temporary man at the moment, but I think they are all overworked, having to supervise such a huge expenditure over a very wide area. The permanent position of a second assistant manager has not yet been filled although it was advertised by the Local Appointments Commissioners. All the applicants, I understand, were interviewed and yet no appointment has been made. I am sure the Minister will tell us why later.

I mentioned in the Dáil, on a previous occasion, that I thought some provision should be made in this Bill for a third assistant county manager for Cork. Even if that appointment had been made we would still have more work for each assistant county manager than there is for a manager in the smaller counties. I think it is not too late yet to ask the Minister to consider that question.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

It may be done administratively without being incorporated in the Bill.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

I know that, but I am asking the Minister to incorporate it in the Bill. There can be no question about it then. If the Minister and his Department are satisfied that it would be a good thing to do then I think he should incorporate it in the Bill. I am certain that when the Minister says a thing may be done, he is satisfied that it would be a good thing to do. Therefore, he should not give us the excuse for not doing it.

On the question of these estimates committees, on which there was so much discussion in the other House, it has been possible at all times, and has happened from time to time, that councils set up committees to consider estimates. Of course, we had definite areas where we had to submit statutory estimates to the manager for North, South and West Cork. In each of these areas you had a committee or a board of assistance. The members of the board or committee always composed the estimates committee. When the total estimate came to be considered by the council, composed of the estimates furnished by these boards or hospital committees with the other estimates for roads, etc., it was considered by the council as a whole. Unless a council, for one reason or another, decides of its own volition to appoint a sub-committee, I do not think it should be mandatory on it to appoint an estimates committee, and I am glad to see that the Bill has been amended to that extent.

I see a reference in the Bill which I do not quite understand. It is in connection with North and South Tipperary. I wonder does that mean that there will be a manager and an assistant manager in North Tipperary?

Mr. P. O'Donnell

No. If I may explain. If they are in agreement they may degroup, but the existing manager will have the option of going to whichever local authority he wishes to go.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

But where it is a question of an assistant manager?

Mr. P. O'Donnell

There will be no assistant manager. There will be a manager for each.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

I think that possibly under Section 12 the Minister could bring in this suggestion of mine with regard to a third assistant manager for Cork County. I would ask him to consider that. I am satisfied that this Bill will be of some assistance in making people who have been opposed to the system of county management understand it and approve of it. There is really very little in the Bill. It is some improvement on the previous Act. We welcome it as such, and I have no doubt that as the years go by we will improve it further. On the whole, I have to congratulate the Minister and the different Parties supporting him, on having been converted 100 per cent. to the management system.

Mr. S.T. Ruane

As one who, for quite a long time, has been associated with local administration, I must say that I feel impressed with the changes which have come over several people who in earlier times resisted any innovation suggested for the improvement of the local bodies. I have a vivid recollection of an incident in my own county where an appointment was made by the Appointments Commission which was resisted vehemently by many. As a matter of fact, I would say that in that county the general election of 1932 was fought on that issue. The promise made by various people of the Opposition at the time, was that if there was a change of Government the system of centralisation, as it was called, would be abolished and powers would be restored to the local bodies to make these appointments. The Government at the time, through the refusal of the local body to appoint the appointee of the Appointments Commission, gave an opportunity to the council to reconsider its decision. The council refused in its wisdom or unwisdom and the Government dissolved it. They sent to County Mayo a commissioner whose administration during the few years he was there certainly won the approval of everyone interested in efficiency and economy.

I would like to compliment the Minister on the introduction of this Bill, for he has gone as far as any Minister could reasonably go to restore power to local bodies, the absence of which was given as a reason why many people, who would be useful in local administration, did not seek election. If there is anything in the contention that the absence of those powers in the past deprived local administration of certain desirable people, that excuse is no longer there. I quite admit that some seasoned administrators would like to see the Minister go further and to restore power to local bodies to make certain appointments by vote. Quite a number disagree with that view and I certainly do not agree with it. I believe that system of appointment in many cases seriously militated against the interests of the people and that these appointments should be made only by people with qualifications to make a selection on the order of merit.

Section 4 of this Bill appeals to me because it gets rid of a rather roundabout way of getting the manager to do certain things, by securing the signatures of one-third of any local body to have a certain motion given effect to, and by securing a two-thirds majority afterwards. That was a rather roundabout way to give local bodies power to bring the manager to pay attention to their views. Now that has been modified and, as the Minister pointed out in his opening remarks, there is no reason why very beneficial results should not accrue. Certainly the power restored to local bodies to analyse certain matters of expenditure is absolutely necessary, for I do know cases where very expensive schemes have been put under way without the local body knowing anything about them and they have not been successful. It is also desirable that in the matter of selection of tenants for cottages the opinions of representatives should be canvassed because, through their local knowledge, they would be able to help the health authority in making selections.

I am not so happy about the section which provides for the setting up of an estimates committee, because my experience of such committees in the past has been that, no matter how efficient their work may be, it would be subject eventually to an inquest by the whole body and very often radically altered and not improved. If such a committee is to be of any value, it should be a committee of the whole council.

When the Local Government Bill was going through this House I made certain suggestions that I thought would improve it, in so far as the delegation of certain duties already carried out by county councils was concerned. These duties would be more appropriately given over to subsidiary bodies. For instance, county councils at present have to administer the Diseases of Animals Acts, Sheep Dipping Order, Seeds and Fertilisers Orders, Control of Dogs Order and Wild Birds Protection Orders. I hold that these duties, which were really legislative Orders passed before agricultural committees were set up, should now be given to agricultural committees, which are functioning in every county.

There is another matter which has to do with education. We do know that after a new council is formed, among the various subsidiary bodies set up is a vocational education body which has complete autonomy during the lifetime of the county council. It comes before the council just once a year for the finances necessary but the council has no more to do with its work. There are other educational bodies such as scholarship committees and I cannot see why scholarship schemes and so forth should not be administered by a vocational education body or a separate committee set up and that their reports would not have to be submitted afterwards to the county council. I do know of many cases of injustice arising where recommendations made by a competent education committee because of the qualifications were set aside by a vote of the local body. That should not be so. If the vocational education machine works as well as it does I do not see why other branches of local education administration should not have a similar chance. I think this measure is a good one. It certainly will make for efficiency and, I hope for, what is equally important, economy.

Mr. Murphy

In so far as this Bill gives back to the elected representatives of the people more control in local matters, the Labour Party welcomes it. I should say at the outset that I am not very well qualified to speak on this particular measure, but, as one who is free from the hurly-burly of local politics, perhaps I might give what I consider is one of the difficulties. Going around we hear references from local bodies to the fact that they have a good manager and from others that they have a terrible manager altogether. It often seems to me that the tendency is to judge the system on the type of manager in a county or a city.

In this measure we are concerned with the principle of managership as such and we are cutting down the emphasis on the managing and giving back more of the responsibility to the elected representatives. That seems to me to be the main purpose of the measure, and I am rather puzzled then to hear references to the fact that various groups represented here have been converted to the idea of the city and county management system. I think, quite frankly, that the greatest fault in the system is the fact that we refer to managers at all. I think it is an unfortunate title which puts both the local authority and the person concerned, the manager, in a difficult position to start with. I would rather see these people, now referred to as managers, given some different title, because they should not be managers. They should be, and I think they would want to be, the servants, the highest servants, of the local authority. Because of that, I feel that the title is unfortunate and I think it a pity that the opportunity was not availed of in this measure to change it altogether.

However, the Bill as such is welcome in that it gives more control to the elected representatives, which, I think, is a very good thing. I hope that the measure of control that has been given will encourage us to go further in the future. I trust that this second experiment will work satisfactorily and that local representatives will accept and faithfully discharge their new responsibilities and that the managers—I hate the word—will accept the fact that they are and should be the servants and the handmaidens of the local authorities.

Mr. Walsh

It is in the interest of our social life that the State should encourage as far as possible the taking of an intelligent interest by people in local government affairs and should encourage them to serve on local government bodies. In this Bill, there are a number of desirable provisions and these should clarify the rights of members of local authorities and encourage them to take a greater interest in the varied functions of local bodies and in the onerous responsibilities of members of local authorities themselves. The work and the activities of local government bodies has increased enormously in recent years and the result is that few people are now anxious to stand as candidates at local elections. One has only to note the enormous increase in the clerical staff of local authorities to realise the tremendous correspondence entailed by membership of these bodies.

The managerial system apparently has now been accepted by all Parties and it is good to know that it is no longer a political or controversial issue in this country. Recent legislation, and particularly the Health Acts and the Housing Acts, has imposed much additional work and has put this work on the shoulders of local bodies and it has resulted in an enormous expenditure for them. It is only right therefore that whatever information is required by members of local authorities should be obtainable from the county manager. Section 4 simplifies the procedure which was formerly set out in Section 29 of the 1940 Act and it is an improvement. The section of this Bill concerning the procedure to be adopted in connection with receipt of tenders is somewhat similar to Section 28 of that 1940 Act which is now being repealed by this Bill.

Estimates committees have been functioning for many years in many counties. In some counties, they are called finance committees and they do not, of course, take responsibility for the preparing of estimates. They simply deal with the estimates when they have been prepared by the heads of the different sections and approved by the county manager. I do not think it is advisable or wise that the estimates committee should now be required to prepare these estimates. I feel that they can deal with them much more objectively, can get their teeth into them much better, with a considerable saving of time, if the estimates are presented, when completed and approved by the manager, who is the person who spends the money provided, to the estimates committee.

As a typical example of how effective an estimates committee can be, the Minister probably knows that this year in my county the county manager's estimate amounted to a rate of 46/7 and, after three long meetings of the estimates committee, lasting all day, that figure was brought down to 41/-. I do not think that state of affairs could have been brought about if the estimates committee were responsible for preparing the estimates, in the first instance. In that case, the estimates committee would become official-minded and obsessed with the importance of the various sections requiring the money, and, later on, when the estimates approved by the estimates committee came before the general body of the council, they would not be able to treat them as objectively as they would if they had not to prepare the estimates in the first instance. I think, therefore, that the Minister should not ask them to prepare these estimates, nor should he ask them to provide a statement of the financial position of the council when they are asked to do so.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

I am not asking them to prepare the estimates.

Mr. Walsh

I agree that it is permissive, but once the estimates committee is formed and the responsibility rests upon them in the first instance, they may not be anxious to disown the responsibility which has been cast upon them. I think, therefore, that the present system is much more effective. It is the one which is in being in so many councils, and has proved successful. I cannot visualise any council where the estimates committee will function as suggested by the Minister in this Bill. I do not think there is any advantage whatsoever in asking the estimates committee to prepare an estimate. To my mind, a much more useful committee would be the general purposes committee, and that type of committee was in the 1950 Bill.

I have a good deal of experience of the general purposes committee in my county. I happen to be chairman of that body, and it meets approximately two weeks before the county council meeting. The meeting lasts all day, and the committee deals with housing, health, water and sewerage schemes and general policy. There is a free discussion on all the heads of the different sections, and the Press is not present. As a result of the exchange of views, the committee makes certain recommendations to the county council. If the Minister would consider permitting such a body to be incorporated in the present Bill I feel that it would be——

Mr. Burke

May I take it that it is a committee of the whole house?

Mr. Walsh

No, that committee is approximately half of the whole house.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

About the same as the estimates committee.

Mr. Walsh

That committee is elected by the county council, and can be re-elected each year. That is one matter on which I do not agree, as far as the proposals to form an estimates committee under this Bill is concerned. I feel it would be desirable that the estimates committee should be re-elected each year. In connection with the method of election of the estimates committee, I do not think that a council will get the best type of estimates committee by confining it to two members from each electoral area. Sometimes that may mean that a particular person who is very suitable for that committee may not be on it, and, furthermore, the number of elected representatives from each electoral area is not always the same. For instance, in my county, there is one area which elects four members, and most of the other areas elect six members. That means, therefore, that the Milford area, for instance, which has four members, has two members on that estimates committee, and all the others have the same number. There is no provision that the chairman or the vice-chairman of the county council should be a member of the estimates committee. The standing orders of most councils provide that the chairman and vice-chairman of each county council shall be automatically members of every sub-committee of that council.

There is no provision either in the Bill to limit the expenditure of a council, over and above the amount provided for in the estimates, where a member brings in a motion to expend certain moneys which the county council is apparently entitled to do at any meeting. For instance, a notice of motion does not set out the amount which shall be required, and it is only when the motion is discussed, and when the county engineer or the other official concerned states the amount at the meeting, that the members of the council discover for the first time what the passing of the motion will entail to the council in expenditure. Sometimes these motions are brought in well on in the evening, when quite a number of members have left; the motion is passed, and most of the members have no knowledge of the supplementary amount passed by the council. That amount has not come before the estimates committee, in the first instance, or before the county council, until the actual motion is discussed.

Mr. Burke

Would not the motion be on the agenda?

Mr. Walsh

The motion would be on the agenda, but the amount which the motion would entail would not be on it.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Would the Senator look at Section 11?

Mr. Walsh

That simply authorises expenditure over and above the amount provided for in the estimates.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

There is no limit.

Mr. Walsh

Exactly, there is no limit, and that is my trouble. Personally, I think there should be a limit. Most people may not agree with me, but I personally think it is unfair that an estimates committee should work so hard preparing the estimates of the county council. These are passed, and during the course of the year, the sky is the limit as far as these motions are concerned. That means that there is a very big deficit at the end of the year. I think there might be a limit of, say, 3d. or 4d., and if it exceeded that amount during the year, it should certainly be with the permission of the Minister. Then the council would not be faced with such very serious deficits as at present come along.

My principal objection to this Bill is Section 16. I feel that the exercise of this privilege by the manager will, at times, deter the members of local authorities from passing a resolution, because they may be surcharged.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Not if it is a lawful resolution.

Mr. Walsh

But the Minister has referred to the fact that it involves sometimes the acceptance of a tender or rather, the lowest one. The manager naturally is prejudiced against the resolution, and it is only for that reason that the resolution has to be brought forward by the local authority, and if the manager alone can get up at any time and object because of the fact that there will be a deficiency in funds——

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Not if it is a lawful proposition.

Mr. Walsh

But there are times when it may not be legal. If one man has the right, and the only right, to get up I think it would be more preferable if there was an adjournment——

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Until after the election?

Mr. Walsh

——of the meeting so that the manager could have the opinion of the legal adviser, or even the secretary. It would be more reasonable. Very often, the members of the council will be deterred from passing the resolution because of the fear most people have of involving themselves in a potential financial loss. In my opinion, it would be desirable to have some method whereby the meeting at which the manager objects would not be the final one, so that it could be adjourned for further consideration.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

They may adjourn.

Mr. Walsh

There is no provision for that in the Bill. It is only the fact that there is such a deterrent, such a fear——

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Members of local authorities are not all cowards.

Mr. Walsh

It is surprising how many might be cowards when it comes to that.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

I am surprised that the Senator should say so.

Mr. Walsh

Under this Bill, while the manager cannot increase the number of permanent officials or increase or reduce their remuneration, that does not apply, in my opinion, in the case of those holding major office under Section 19 of the Local Government Bill, 1954—the manager can still increase their remuneration without reference to the local authority.

In connection with the manager informing the local authority of the proposed expenditure, I would like to know from the Minister whether that applies in the case of 100 per cent. grants from the Department that are not for work of a capital nature?

Mr. P. O'Donnell

It does.

Mr. Walsh

The Minister actually mentioned work of a capital nature. Normally, road grants would not be work of a capital nature, but still the Minister agrees that the local authority must be informed of the proposed expenditure of the whole section.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

It is immaterial who pays for it, so long as it is capital expenditure.

Mr. Walsh

The Minister will agree that you could not regard road grants as capital expenditure.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

The Senator does not say so when he is looking for grants from the National Development Fund.

Mr. Walsh

I would also ask the Minister to consider providing that the accountant should be present at these estimates meetings. It is mandatory that the manager should be present.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Oh, no—or his nominee.

Mr. Walsh

Or his delegate. At the meeting of the estimates committee each year the manager is supposed to be present.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

The estimates committee may requisition any official to be present at each meeting.

Mr. Walsh

Would the Minister not agree that it is very desirable that the accountant, who is responsible for the financial end, should also be present, under the Bill?

Mr. P. O'Donnell

You may requisition him to be present—tell him to be there and he has got to be there.

Mr. Walsh

Furthermore, there is no specified method of election of an estimates committee. Under the 1950 Bill the estimates committee was elected by proportional representation, with a single transferable vote.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

What does the Senator mean by proportional representation? Between whom?

Mr. Walsh

Members of the local authority themselves.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

On a political basis?

Mr. Walsh

No, in the ordinary way, by proportional representation. What method of election is contemplated under the present Bill for the estimates committee?

Mr. P. O'Donnell

The entire council elect two members from each electoral area.

Mr. Walsh

In what way?

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Any way they wish. It is a matter entirely for themselves. I do not care how they elect themselves.

Mr. Walsh

They are permitted?

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Oh yes, any way they wish.

Mr. Walsh

The Minister will see it was provided for under the old Bill.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

I leave it to themselves to elect them whatever way they wish.

Mr. Walsh

At this stage I think those are the only points I wish to make.

Mr. Burke

I wish to express my gratitude to the Minister for introducing this Bill. It has been long overdue. We had amendments to the present County Management Acts foreshadowed in 1948 and again in 1950, but the present Minister is the only one who has been able to bring in an amending Bill. It is a great step forward. I suppose it is only right to say that the manager believes in via media. The protagonists of the County Management Act of the ‘30’s said it was necessary to have it owing to the complexity of the functions that local authorities were expected to perform. Each year those functions are becoming more complex and more comprehensive. Senator O'Sullivan mentioned the expenditure in his county as being in the neighbourhood of £2,000,000. I am a member of South Tipperary County Council—it happens to be only two-thirds of the county—and our estimate this year was in the neighbourhood of £1,300,000, for two-thirds of a county. It is necessary to have a very competent higher executive officer to look after the day to day expenditure of that money and we could not expect any county council or any of its subcommittees to look after it.

What I objected to principally in the last County Management Act was that there were many things which should be considered policy but in regard to which we were not allowed in any way to impose our views. The effect was that the most responsible type of citizen would not let his name go forward as a public representative. Only last week I approached a very competent and able man to ask him to allow his name to stand for a local council and he said: "Why should I waste my time in that sort of affairs?" After long persuasion, telling him about the increase of powers and so on, he consented reluctantly to stand. He is a person who was acquainted with local authorities when they had power.

I believe that in this small State of ours it should be the desire of Government to let the people grow up, to let them develop. I think it was Newman who defined a place of education as a place where people met and talked and where their latent talents were drawn out and exercised. We should be able to get responsible businessmen, farmers, trade union officials and Labour representatives to run our public bodies in a responsible way, as adults having the sense of responsibility which God gave to them. They ought not to have to get permission to do the various things from the officials of the Department or from the Minister, or from anyone else for that matter. If they make mistakes from time to time, and if the area which they represent is not so well governed locally as it should be, the people who elected them will soon wake up to that situation—and five years will not be long coming round again. The common sense of the ordinary man and woman will change many of those representatives. I am not a person who believes that we have not sufficient common sense to elect generally good and efficient public representatives.

There is one matter which I want to ask the Minister about and which I think has been overlooked, possibly because the bodies concerned are not as important as the larger bodies, and that is the question of the borough councils and urban councils. I believe that most of these councils were very efficiently run. They usually had a competent town clerk who took an intense interest in local affairs and these councils were manned by local people who were interested in the rates and in seeing that their services were administered in such a way as to keep the town good and clean and efficient and progressive. The County Management Act has put these urban districts under the control of the manager and the effect has been to bring big business methods into the small towns to the detriment of the towns.

There has been talk in many cases of de-urbanisation and if this comes about you will have to get something like Muintir na Tíre and other voluntary bodies to run these places. Formerly, these councils were run by elected representatives who volunteered to do the work but that has been destroyed by the imposition of State run management on the country towns of Ireland. If the Minister cannot give consideration to the matter in this Bill he might consider it at a later stage. There could be nothing more appalling than if we fail to interest our younger men in the proper running of our towns. Such interest would help to keep them from emigrating to other countries because they would feel that they had a part in the towns and that the towns were worth living in. The more centralisation we have from the top the more baneful and derogatory is the effect.

The tendency under the present system of appointments to the position of town clerk does not help. In many of the urban councils that I know the town clerk is now just an official who comes in and serves in that town for a short period. Then, if he can prove to the Local Appointments Commissioners that he has been used to managing a municipal graveyard or a municipal waterworks in a town of 4,000 or 5,000 people, he is promoted to a town of 10,000 or 12,000 people and so he goes on. Before the present system he was paid a salary which kept him in the town and which was adequate to keep him there but now the councils have to get permission from the Department to pay a salary which is not adequate to keep him. I live in a town of 10,000 or 12,000 population and in the twenties we were in trouble there. We got down from the City of Dublin a very competent young official and we paid him about 50 per cent. more than was the general run at the time, but we got a man who did very good service for many years and who only left us to become a county manager. Local people ought to be encouraged to run their own affairs and to take a greater interest in them.

To return to some of the things that are strictly in conformity with this Bill—according to Section 2 the manager will be required to inform the council of his intentions. That is a very desirable provision because heretofore the chairman of the authority was the only one that need be brought into the full confidence of the manager. Section 3 provides that members of the local authority may require the manager to do any particular thing that can lawfully be done and for which money has been provided. That is a very desirable matter because it makes the manager explain how he proposes to expend the money. Section 4 provides that the manager shall now submit to the council his proposals to increase the number of officials employed or their salaries. That is a matter which the Minister discussed with the county councils when he went on a tour of the country but there is one aspect of it which I would like to discuss.

Would the Minister tell us if we have power to fix the hours at which our officials must attend their offices because I think that while we ought to have contented, well-paid responsible officials co-operating with our local authorities, we ought also to ensure that they are not well-paid for doing very little and that has been the tendency under the County Management Act. In our county, the office hours are from 10 to 5 and the officials get all the bank holidays. Some time ago some of our Church leaders spoke of the desirability of people changing from the bank holidays to the Church holidays. That was with reference to manual workers but our non-manual workers were given the Church holidays as well as the bank holidays as the expense of the ratepayers. I felt that it was a form of cynical hypocrisy to make the ratepayers pay for the Church holidays as well as the bank holidays. None of us object to the office hours of from 10 to 5 and to long holidays which we feel they deserve but to give them the Church holidays and the bank holidays is too much. Their condition ought to be parallel with conditions that are generally applied in the best type of clerical work in the districts—what trade unionists in any particular county town accept as the best conditions such as in solicitors' offices or other business offices of a similar type. These ought to be the conditions that should apply in county council offices.

Mr. Murphy

The best employers.

Mr. Burke

Yes, the best employers but the county council ought not to start out to show that they are the best employers at somebody else's expense. A public authority is a business concern and we ought to encourage people to run these things on business lines. Any body that spends over £1,250,000 in a year, if not run on business lines, is bound to give rise to loss of public funds.

There are certain difficulties with regard to the committees. Senator Walsh referred to some of them. The Minister has suggested, in the case of county councils, that there should be two members from each county council electoral area. That may not be the best provision to make. I would feel inclined to suggest that he should substitute three for two. What may happen is this. You have, for example, a county council electoral area with seven or eight representatives. It may be that only three of them are interested in financial matters. You may have another county council electoral area with four representatives and none of them may be interested in financial matters, and yet you may have to take two from that electoral area.

As regards urban councils, the large ones have 12 members and the smaller ones nine members. If you have four members on a committee from the large urban councils and three from the smaller ones, that will provide a very ineffective committee. I would submit that three is hardly a committee at all. It may happen that one member has to remain away for some reason or another and in that case you are left with a committee of two. I would suggest to the Minister that he might make provision for a maximum of six in the case of these urban bodies. I feel inclined to the view that was expressed by some Senator to-night that in the case of the smaller bodies we might have a committee of the whole house.

I am a member of a corporation, and I remember that about five years ago we had great difficulty with regard to a very heavy demand that was presented to us by the manager. I think that we met on three nights a week over a period of four or five weeks. It was a committee of the whose house, and each member had a great deal to contribute to the question before it. No member felt that he was being left out in the cold. The average attendance at our meetings was about nine. It was not too large, but it was certainly adequate to give expression to the feelings of a cross-section of the people in the large town of which they were public representatives.

I notice that provision has been made allowing us in Tipperary to have a county manager and an assistant county manager, or to have a manager for the county council in North Tipperary and a manager for the county council in South Tipperary, if we should like that.

There is one thing which has struck me with regard to local appointments. I think that only once did I hear of a businessman or a farmer being asked to be a member of the panel which selects people for local appointments. I would hate to think that there is no farmer in Kickham's county good enough to sit on a board with civil servants to pick a person to be a county manager. I once met a businessman in the City of Dublin who was on one of these boards, but I have never met anybody else. After all, farmers and businessmen have to keep their feet on the ground and face the solution of practical problems. If they fail to do that they just go out of business. They are not in the position, if things are not going well with them, of being able to increase rates to balance their domestic budgets.

While I say that, I want to stress the point that I have nothing but praise for our civil servants. I think that in the Civil Service you have one of the finest bodies in the world. A man who came from America in connection with E.C.A. some years ago stayed with me for a few days. One of the things he said to me was that our Civil Service in Ireland was composed of the finest public servants in the world. If we are going to have civil servants forming these boards we ought, I suggest, see to it that people who see things from the other side are also represented on the board. That is important from the point of view of the sort of manager that we are going to get under the Bill. If all businessmen or all farmers or all trade union officials or all civil servants were to be the people who were going to be put on these boards, then I think you would not get the right type of person to fill these positions. My suggestion is that if you mix the boards with different types of people, people of common sense and ability, you will have a better board and will get better officials.

I do not think I have anything more to say on this stage of the Bill. I repeat what I said at the opening that I think it represents a desirable step forward. This Bill is going to give back a great deal of powers, particularly power to form policy which local bodies had formerly. That, in my opinion, should in the long run provide us with a better type of public representative, and consequently with better county councils. These county councils will work better and co-operate better with the officials who will be charged with the duty of putting into effect the policy which the council decides upon.

Mr. Hawkins

I think it was in 1929 that the managerial system was first introduced here. It was introduced as an experiment, first in the appointment of a manager for Cork City. It was later extended to the Dublin Corporation. If we examine the whole gamut of local government in the intervening years, I think we must be satisfied that great progress has been made. Every Act which is passed by the Oireachtas means additional responsibility for the members of local authorities. It was found about 1940 that it was not a practical proposition for elected representatives meeting once a month or once a fortnight to discharge all the duties that were being imposed on them in their capacity as public representatives, duties which derived from legislation passed by the Oireachtas. Therefore, it was found that no longer could those people discharge these functions in a manner that would be in the best interest of the whole country and it was decided that the managerial system should be extended to the whole country. I think it was in 1940 we had a Bill before us here making provision for the extension of that service. We had many members of local authorities standing up in this and the other House and putting before us many reasons why that Bill should get the approval of the Oireachtas. However that might be, the majority in this and the other House agreed that in the best interests of local government the managerial system should be accepted. It was put into operation on the eve of a general election in regard to local authorities. We may have our views as to whether that was the right procedure or not, but the facts were that the members of Dáil Éireann and of this House accepted the view that this system should be put into operation.

In the intervening period we had many criticisms of the system. We had suggestions made by various parties that if they received the confidence of the people they would undo this great injustice and give back to the people—and by the people they meant their local representatives—the responsibilities and the authority that they exercised before. I have been a member of this House for quite a long time. I remember when the first inter-Party Government was elected we had a Bill before us in 1948 introduced by the then Minister for Local Government to postpone the local elections and to make provision that the only local elections held would be those in County Kerry and County Dublin. My memory may not be serving me as well as I would like it to do, but I think those were the provisions of the particular Bill. He sat in the chair which the Minister for Local Government now occupies and asked this House to accept the measure he then proposed on one particular ground—that he was not prepared to allow the local elections to be held and suggested that they should be postponed to 1950 in order to give him and his officials an opportunity of considering a very major and important matter, which was no less than the functions of the county managers. This House gave him permission to postpone those local elections from 1948 so that we should have the provisions of a Bill which his Party might accept. I have before me a copy of that particular Bill. I do not wish at this stage to detain the House by going over all the things that have happened in the intervening years, but it is an extraordinary thing that we were asked in 1948 to deprive the people of an opportunity to which they were entitled of electing their local representatives, and we were asked to do that and by a majority gave consent to that suggestion. We gave consent because a proposal was put before us that there was going to be presented to us in the very near future a Local Government Bill which would hand back to the members of the local bodies many of the functions they formerly exercised. In accordance with that pledge given by the late Deputy Murphy, then Minister for Local Government, we had introduced here the Local Government (County Administration) Bill, 1950.

I would particularly ask the members of the Labour Party who have gone up and down the country and criticised the implementation of the managerial system to explain to us how they can reconcile their attitude now with their attitude then. I will admit, and it is only fair that somebody should admit, that the only difference in the Bill asking us to hold over the local elections of 1948 to 1950 was that we were going to change the title of the manager to county executive officer. I do not think myself that that was worth while, but, however, that was the position at the time. Since then we have had statements made by very responsible people. We have a statement made by no less a person than the person who at one time held and now does hold one of the most responsible positions in this country, a person who was formerly Minister for Finance, that they proposed to decentralise, and by decentralisation he meant handing back to the local authorities powers of which they were deprived by these terrible monsters of Fianna Fáil.

Reference has been made—by, I think, Senator Murphy—to the Appointments Commission. I have said in this House before that, while I was not a member of the Party who introduced this measure, I would say without fear of contradiction that I was one of the very few persons who did so much to maintain that system when it was challenged in no uncertain way, even in my own native town. I did that, because I was convinced that, if we were to give effect to the policy in which we believed, a policy of giving equal opportunities to all our people, which meant that there was going to be no influence, no hereditary claim to any particular position, it was necessary to do so.

Now we come to the managerial system. I think it was 1940 when the then Minister for Local Government introduced the Bill. There were then, naturally, qualms of conscience; there were then suggestions that if there was not going to be influence from the political point of view, there might be influence from some other point of view, in regard to the activities of the persons occupying the positions of county managers. We have gone a long way along the road to overcoming these suggestions. It is possible, because we are a very small country and because the manager is entitled, just as any member of the Seanad is entitled, to enjoy social activities and social contacts, that there may be suggestions that the manager might be influenced by these social contacts-whether they are made in the local golf club or any other club—and that, when it comes to the making of an appointment, these are the things that weigh with him.

It was a big thing to try to get over, as it were, on the people, but again I say without fear of contradiction that if the issue were put before the people to-morrow morning by means of a plebicite or in an election, as to whether they would maintain the present system of having a manager in charge of the direction of county affairs, or whether they would revert to the old system, they would vote overwhelmingly in favour of the present system. That is a personal view, but it is a view that has been sustained and approved of by the introduction of this Bill.

In this Bill, there is no fundamental change; there are no new powers given to local authorities; and there is no giving back of the things Fianna Fáil deprived them of. If we examine the provisions of the Bill what do we find? We find that the only feature in the Bill is Section 4 which provides that the members of a county council may requisition the manager to do certain things. We were informed here, and we accepted it at the time, and I think the whole country accepted it, that when we agreed to the principle of a county manager, we should look upon him and the elected representatives should look upon him as a manager elected by a board of directors. Can the Minister or any other responsible person convince me that, where you have a board of directors and where you have a manager directing their affairs and where they decide that such and such should be their policy, the manager must not immediately act in accordance with their direction? That was the fundamental principle on which the managerial system was passed through the House.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

But it was impossible to implement it.

Mr. Hawkins

The Minister may say that these things have not been observed. I agree, but we must understand the circumstances in which this system was introduced. It was introduced as something that might, if you like, be tested out, by the appointment of the county secretary. I have my own views on whether that was the right approach or not, but the county secretary was appointed as the manager. A lot could be said in favour of the appointment of the county secretary, because he was the man who had very intimate contact with members of the county council and the person on whom the whole direction and procedure devolved over the years. The Oireachtas accepted it that he was the person who should be appointed as county manager, and he was appointed.

I should like to ask the Minister one or two very pertinent questions in relation to the operation of the managerial system. I have made a very close study of the administration of this legislation and I have, as yet, failed to trace any case in which a manager who exercised the shrewdness that should be exercised by a person in his responsible position, who took his board of directors, as it were, into his confidence and said to them: "These are the proposals I wish to put into operation", has not got 100 authority in all cases.

I have attended as many meetings as anybody else in this House and have heard as much criticism of the implementation of this Act. Maybe the manager came up against a question, and he sat back and said: "This is an executive function, and you have no power to interfere in it, because it is put upon me by Parliament." You had a person of that kind asserting his authority and there were very few to challenge it. I would say that, by the experience gained in the administration of this Act, they will be fewer in future.

Let us now come to the Bill before us. I am one of those who have a total disregard for going back over something which people said last year or the year before.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

What have we been listening to for the past half-hour?

Mr. Hawkins

But having that sense of approach in these matters, I cannot understand how the Minister can get up and read from his brief the introductory speech we heard this evening, and try to suggest to us that this Bill will give back to the members of local authorities something for which they yearn and are glad to get.

Let us examine the Bill. Let us see what it gives back, or what the Minister suggests it gives back. I should like, before proceeding to discuss this matter, to say, as a member of a trade union, that I would never like to feel that, in a discussion in this House, I would go too far away from what their views are, or, to my mind, should have been.

In 1948, the first inter-Party Government was formed. I would ask the members of the Labour Party to read over a statement issued by no less a person than Deputy Everett, who is now the Minister for Justice. Deputy Everett, in his excuse to join the then Coalition Government, put forward, as one of his principal reasons, that he had got a guarantee from that Government, and would use his influence in directing their policy, and that one of their first acts would be a reversion to the days in which the local authorities had the powers they had prior to the introduction of the managerial system.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

The Senator should read the 12-point programme of the present inter-Party Government.

Mr. Hawkins

I will get to that if the Minister waits. I am in no hurry whatsoever. I had got to the stage at which the first inter-Party Government was formed in 1948, when we then had, as I said, this proposal for a new Bill. We had the suggestion by the then Minister that he was giving his support to that Government in order that the local authorities should get back the powers they formerly had. It is true, of course, and I am glad that the present Minister has reminded me, that in the new set-up there was no such guarantee, and no such statement made. Why, I do not know, except that possibly a reasonable explanation would be their anxiety for office. Be that as it may, we have before us this Bill. To the Minister's own county, that historic county of Donegal, no less a person than the Attorney-General, who was the former Minister for Finance, went and made a very definite and emphatic statement that it was time that there should be decentralisation. Decentralisation, in his mind, meant that we should give back to the local authorities the powers of which they were deprived by the nasty Fianna Fáil Government.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

They were following the example of the old Cumann na nGaedheal Government when they introduced the city management system.

Mr. Hawkins

If the Minister wants to put it that way, that is all right. I should like to remind him that the county managerial system was introduced in Cork. Why, I do not know. If there is an answer to that question, Senator Hayes may be in a better position to answer it than the Minister. Therefore, I do not wish to press the Minister for an answer, because it was at that time a very political question. I am prepared to go on and on, and examine the whole period from 1922 to 1955.

Acting-Chairman (Mr. Kissane)

I think that would be inadvisable.

Mr. Hawkins

I would say to the Minister: do not induce me to do so. If the Minister wants a very clear and definite statement as to why the county managerial system, or the then city managerial system, was introduced in Cork City, I will leave that to another day. I think that Senator Hayes would agree that this is the better way.

To get back to the Bill, what powers does the present Bill give back to the local authorities? The Minister, in his statement, referred to Section 4. I am prepared to accept that this is a very laudable section. The Minister may say that this gives back certain powers to the local authorities. I may be prepared to agree with him in so far as Section 4 is concerned, but when we come to Section 16 we find that an officer of a local authority may come in before a meeting of a local authority and say to the members: "The proposals which you have put before me now are illegal, and, if they are implemented, will cause a deficiency in the funds. Therefore, I warn you now that if you proceed with this resolution each and every one of you may be surcharged by the auditor." Where is the freedom given to them in this Bill? We have the Minister proposing in one section to give them power to requisition certain things to be done and in another section we find that an officer—the county engineer, the medical officer of health or someone else-can come in to the meeting and say: "If you proceed with this resolution you may be surcharged for the amount of money involved."

There is no giving back of powers in either Section 4 or Section 16. In Section 16 we are transferring the responsibility from the officers to the elected representatives. Prior to this, it was the responsibility of the officer who was charged with making a particular payment and who would be surcharged by the auditor if such was found to be illegal. Now we are removing that responsibility from him. The Minister—and any Senator here who is a member of a local authority— will agree with me that if there is a suggestion to do a particular type of work and if the county engineer or other responsible officer says: "That is all right, boys, you go ahead with the work, but you are liable to be surcharged", the members who were very ardent in supporting the proposal will probably reconsider their approach.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Thank God, they are not all weaklings.

Mr. Hawkins

They are not. I did not suggest they were. I do not like that the Minister would suggest for a moment that I suggested that any member of a local authority is a weakling.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

That is what you did suggest—that they are afraid of a big stick.

Mr. Hawkins

My regard for members of local authorities is of the highest. They have given their time and service to the exercise of their duties and they have done a tremendous amount of work down through the years. There is no body with more appreciation of what they have done than the members of this House. Many of us, whether members of local authorities or not, have attended their meetings from time to time. There is no use in the Minister coming along to say that we do not appreciate what they have done or that we have any doubt about their capabilities. What we want to ensure is that when they assume this responsibility they do so in the knowledge that their functions are clearly defined.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

And if they do something unlawful, that they must pay for it.

Mr. Hawkins

That is not the question. I would be prepared to support the Minister in amending this particular section if it were a question of doing something unlawful. It is not that; it is a case of something in which the majority of the members would agree amongst themselves, no matter what Party they represent, it is important that they should do, and then finding a clause inserted here that some officer can come in and say: "You cannot do that because I have already allocated the money" or "I have already spent the money on other schemes." Whether or not it is a question of allocation or of expenditure, I hold that those representatives—who are elected by the local people and who must in the last analysis go back to those people—should be charged with the responsibility as to whether it was illegal or not, whether it was a right act to perform or not, and whether the expenditure was justified or not.

I object—and whether I am the only person here or not who will object, I will object as long as I possibly can— to the suggestion that any officer— whether he is a county surveyor, a county medical officer, an assistant surveyor or someone else—can come in and intimidate the elected representatives and coerce them into the belief that, because their proposal will involve an expenditure that is not in his mind justified, and will cause a deficiency in the funds——

Mr. P. O'Donnell

That is the law at present under Section 61 of the Local Government Act of 1925.

Mr. Hawkins

I was expecting to get that reply. It is just the reply that I wanted to get. I am told now that this is the law under this terrible, obnoxious Government of Fianna Fáil.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

No.

Mr. Hawkins

This is what we promised the people that we would undo; this is the thing that we promised them, that we would give back more powers to the elected representatives—and now you shield behind something, that because it was done in 1919 or 1918——

Mr. P. O'Donnell

1925.

Mr. Hawkins

——it is justified now. It is not justified now, because of the promises and the declarations made by the many people who stood on various platforms in opposition to the managerial system. I hold that if you are going to justify your present position you must, of necessity, amend this Bill. There is no use in saying what Fianna Fáil did. You have got to give proof to the people that you are going to undo the injustices that you say Fianna Fáil did.

Mr. L'Estrange

That is not an injustice.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Fianna Fáil was not even in the House when that Act was enacted.

Mr. Hawkins

Soon we will learn that it was an Act of Queen Victoria.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

It was passed in 1925. It was an Act of this House and the Deputy's Party was in office for many years and they made no effort to repeal it.

Mr. S.T. Ruane

On a point of order, did the Minister not visit every county in Ireland and did anybody ask for those powers that Senator Hawkins wants?

Acting-Chairman (Mr. Kissane)

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Hawkins

The Senator may rise on the assumption of a point of order but every member elected to this House has rights. He has rights to express his views and rights to demand explanations and, without being obnoxious, I hope that as long as I am a member of this House I will exercise those rights and I will express my own personal views on matters of this kind. I do not know why any member on the opposite side of the House should become so flurried about my approach to these matters. They are questions that the ordinary rank and file of the people down the country must ask and I am quite sure that the members of Fine Gael in Donegal or South Mayo or Westmeath will hardly accept from the Minister or Senator Ruane or Senator L'Estrange the excuse that they are justified in doing such and such a thing because Fianna Fáil did it.

Mr. L'Estrange

Cumann na nGaedheal did it in 1925 and it was never repealed by your Party. We will stand behind what they did.

Mr. Hawkins

I do not want to go back to 1925 because it is a long road to travel. I have held the House much longer than I would have held it except for the unruly interruptions of some members on the other side of the House. The introduction of this Bill by the Minister justifies everything that we on this side of the House have said in relation to the managerial system down over the years. We have held that, no matter what suggestions might be made, there was very little that could be done in relation to giving back authority to public representatives. I have yet to meet a member of a local authority who is consciencious in the discharge of his duties who wants to have any hand, act or part in the appointment of any official of any local authority.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Except the rate collectors.

Mr. Hawkins

I am sorry the Minister interrupted because it will probably take me an hour and a half to reply now. I take up this interruption because the appointment of rate collectors was deliberately left to the local authorities. The Minister has told us that he visited every county council in the country and heard their views and that their views were that the appointment of rate collectors should be left to the members of county councils. These people decided this because they believed that the person appointed locally by the county council was the person who was going to have the co-operation in his particular area to make his collection the best that could be made.

Mr. L'Estrange

They were appointed for their political affiliations.

Mr. Hawkins

I am glad the Senator mentioned that. We have the majority on the Galway County Council. We have that majority since 1916, and it is because the people of Galway were the first, with the people of Wexford and Dublin, to rise in 1916 that that majority is still there in defence of the Republican movement. It is because of that majority that we were able to appoint these rate collectors. We make no apology for it. If there was a question in Westmeath, I am quite sure that Senator L'Estrange would not go into the Lobby to vote with Joe Kennedy. What is wrong in a majority Party on a county council appointing rate collectors? Is there anything wrong in it any more than a Government appointing judges? If we want to remove these things from political patronage I am prepared to support a motion to that effect in this House provided it is going to involve the removal of every political appointment from Government patronage from the rate collector to the High Court judge.

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.

The Seanad adjourned at 10 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 26th May, 1955.