Many different points of view have been expressed on this Bill. I was very much impressed by the points of view expressed by two supporters of the Bill. Deputy Dillon, in the closing portions of his statement, although supporting the Bill enthusiastically, still thought that an extension at the other end would be helpful. Deputy Cleary, who followed on the same lines, thought an extension and a creation of other boards, so as to divert some of the accumulation of work from boards of health, would be helpful. I was glad to hear their points of view, because my own runs somewhat in the same way. I am opposing this Bill and not supporting it. This Bill is entitled: "An Act to make further and better provision for the local government of counties and certain other areas." I find that under Section 14 all administrative power is transferred to the manager and nothing remains to the elected representatives but the striking of the rate, on an estimate, of course, prepared by the manager, the appointment of a rate collector to collect it, and a few other functions of no very great importance. All other powers, for which the council had got authority from the people, are placed in the hands of the Government's nominated manager. I do not think that that is going any way towards better local government.
There are many points in this Bill that are not understandable to me and can only be made so if, as the Minister has now stated, this Bill is to be followed by subsequent measures. In order, therefore, to get this Bill in its proper perspective, I think these Bills should have been introduced at the same time. Then we would know directly where we were. The Minister says "further and better provision for local government." Possibly there are two conceptions of that. The Minister's may be, further and better official control, making things easier for the Departments. Mine is, further and better control so as to make provision that all the legislation and social services passed on behalf of the people would be made available for them. You can pay too high a price for what I may term official efficiency. The purpose of all local government and all the social services is to serve the people. In my opinion concentration of them in one man will not tend that way.
What is the necessity for the Bill? Is the Minister aware of the hardships imposed by the amalgamation Act of 1925? The whole structure of local government at that time was practically swept away and large areas were left without representation. Is it suggested that by having them still further removed you are going to benefit local government? I hold that after many years of operation the old Local Government Act would lend itself to overhaul. But that is an entirely different matter from its complete elimination. Certainly there was no reason for sweeping away an entire structure and concentrating all the work of the boards of health, boards of assistance, and county councils in the one man. I might point out that in County Cork it means handing over to him ten urban councils, two commissions, and the entire area of Cork county. I think that is a matter entirely beyond the power of any individual to handle. By concentrating all these powers in one man under this Bill you are creating what I would call just an official life in the country and the Minister will not succeed in getting better and more efficient local government. Efficient if you like, but better local government, according to my conception of it, no.
What is this thing called local government? I have been listening to speeches in this House on the question of the higher forms of administration, the question of higher officials and the question of the difficulties of the various councillors. After all local government is the right of the people to administer their affairs in their own areas as they think best, subject, of course, to the overriding power of the Minister who always has the power of veto. It is their right to administer their own local affairs as they think best in the interests of their own locality. They are always, of course, under the supervision of the Minister.
I do not like dealing with this particular point, because I hardly think it is correct. I do not think that the Minister doubts either the honesty or the integrity of the members who are administering the affairs of the counties at present. But the whole implication of the Bill certainly is a complete lack of confidence in their ability. Does the Minister hold the view that they are no longer to be trusted?
If he thinks that he has ample powers, if undesirable things occur or if he holds that a council would be better under the managerial system, to appoint his own commissioner. But that is an entirely different matter from tearing up the whole fabric of local government. These councils at present are responsible for the supervision of the various hospitals, roads, boards of assistance, etc. They are all under their control. Speaking for my own area, I do not think it could be better done.
Is it necessary to remind the House of what local government means? When the Act of 1898 was passed and became operative in 1899, all the best men in the country came in to make a success of it. They gave their best efforts to the administration of it. After the grand jury system which we had before, it was hailed as giving liberty and power to the people for the first time. How well they succeeded is now a matter for history. From 1899 to 1914 they remedied most of the defects of centuries. They brought local government and its administration to a point in which we had contentment and happiness, and, if you like, prosperity that I do not think any of us here will live to see repeated in this country again.
I believe that the success of local government administration at that time aided in the demand for national government and for extended national powers. That period could be looked upon as the second period in the life of the Irish nation. So much do I think of effects of local government at that time. Passing over the intervening years, I believe that the Act of 1925 was the first element of disintegration in the administration of local government. With the accumulation of services, the administration of the various boards is difficult, but I hold strongly that these boards, which should be contributory to the county councils, do fulfil a fundamental national function. Men met at these boards and put forward different points of view. Public men learned restraint, moderation, and respect for one another's point of view. They learned what is really essential in the building up of a nation—how to administer their own affairs. I hold that these powers are necessary, and that many of the extravagances we occasionally hear about here would never have occurred if there were an extension of that principle.
With the amalgamation, there were whole areas and localities which had not representation. There was a demand by the councils for increased representation. There were localities in which the people had nobody to approach. They did not know how to avail of the services provided for them by the State. They knew nobody but an official whom they could approach. This Bill is, unfortunately, making the position worse. The public health and public assistance authorities which succeeded to the contributory boards created difficulties; but you are adding to the difficulties by handing over these services to one manager. I am of opinion, apart altogether from the efficacy of contributory local bodies, that these boards are essential to the life of the nation. I believe that opinion has to be formed at the bottom, and should not be dictated from the top. I hold that these boards help to form a public opinion, that they train men in administration, give them a grip of the national problems and difficulties, and ultimately fit them to take their place in the county or the national assembly.
By doing away with all that, you are taking a retrograde step, and the connection between this Dáil and the people will be merely through the ægis of an official. As time goes on, the quality of the men you will get to act as advisers on these urban and county councils will be questionable. A system of disintegration will follow and the ultimate result—psychological if you like—will be the presence of a few powerless advisers in each locality. The effect will be to turn the whole country into the position of governors and governed with only an official as intermediary. Efficiency between the local authorities and the Department will be secured, but it will be got at the cost of national disintegration.
Leaving subsidiary matters aside, the effect of the Act of 1898 was to teach the people to manage their own affairs. This Bill is bound to bring us back to the position in which we were before that Act was passed. This Government has imposed great limitations on the country. They have increased national and local taxation from £17,000,000 in 1932 to over £100,000,000. They have increased taxation to a point that is almost unbearable. They have raised the cost of living to a point which has brought privation to the homes of many of our people, but they have left us the institutions that can remedy that position. It only requires energy and determination on the part of the people to remedy that state of affairs. By this Bill, the Government is taking away from the people the power to rectify what is wrong in their local affairs.
There is a personal aspect to this question. I have been for a number of years associated with local authorities. I challenge any man to put a pin's point on any undesirable action of theirs. I am aware of one or two members of a county council who can only reach the city for meetings after a two days' journey. They have to spend the same time on the journey home. You may say that that is an argument for this Bill—that no man should be called upon to travel for two days to a meeting. But two members have done so, and done so with enthusiasm, because they believed in the right of the people to administer their own affairs. I am not, after these years of close co-operation and understanding, going, by supporting this Bill, to say to these men: "You are unworthy of the confidence the people reposed in you. You are unworthy to administer the affairs you were appointed to administer." I do not know whether or not I speak for the majority of opinion in this House. I suppose the Minister will get his majority within the House—much of it hesitatingly, much of it reluctantly, and much of it without conviction. He will also get support from this side of the House, but I wonder would the Government be prepared to grant a free vote of the House? At any rate, although I may not be speaking for the majority vote of this House, I do speak, I believe, for the majority of considered opinion outside. They believe and know that there are higher things in the national life and higher ideals than mere efficiency and economy, and that there is a higher spirit in this country that has to be adverted to. There is, and there ought to be, a better association between us and now, if the local bodies are wiped out, some of them, possibly, we may be going to far. I believe that the preservation of these public bodies and their powers is essential in the interests of the country and essential for forming and teaching responsibility, forming properly considered opinion, and teaching moderation and a proper national outlook. If I am not presumptuous in saying so, I look upon them as in somewhat the position of the family life, which is the basis of the spiritual life, and I believe that the opinions formed there are the basis of the national opinion. In my opinion, this House will come ultimately to regret, and regret very sincerely, that it has ever advanced or put forward anything that, in its effects, helps to stifle the formation of the opinion that is so essential in the real interests of the country.
There is one other small matter to which I should like to refer. No matter how you deny it, this Bill is striking at democratic right. It is striking at democratic control. Now, nothing is more insidious than to do a thing and pretend that you are not doing it, and this is undoubtedly striking at democratic right and democratic control. Is it not an extraordinarily inopportune moment to introduce a Bill of this kind? Whether it be true or not, the opinion is held by the overwhelming mass of our people that you are striking at democratic right and wiping out the foundations of democratic control. I know that many members of this House and Ministers have concentrated on trying to prove that that is not so, but when the whole world is in conflict in connection with those ideals, and when the very existence of civilisation is being threatened, is it not a very inopportune moment for our Government to bring in a Bill which has—or against which it is alleged, at any rate—principles of the very same kind?
—I fear that this will cause reactions, and extremely undesirable reactions, in our country, and from the points of view I have raised, I think the Minister should take the real long view of the matter and that he would be well advised, not alone to bow to the Labour amendment, or have a referendum or anything else, but to go into the matter and reform local government in any way he likes, so long as he leaves the power in the hands of the people and gives them opportunities of meeting. Much has been said here about undesirable things. A few undesirable incidents may have happened in certain places occasionally, but I do not regard that as being very much. As I say, there may have been a few such happenings, but even in the very worst localities I think it will still be found that the overwhelming mass of opinion is in favour of doing the business entrusted to them. The Minister should take the long view of this matter and endeavour to see what the effects nationally are going to be. Let the Minister endeavour, if he likes, to see in what way local government can be reformed and in what way expenditure can be curtailed, but let him leave to the people the rights and powers that they had and that they appreciated in former years, from 1898 onwards, when we had stability and prosperity and when we had an enlightened public opinion determined to maintain their rights. If this Bill is passed, it will have repercussions that, I am afraid, this country will regret, and regret very sincerely, in the future.
Before I sit down, Sir, I should like to refer to one small incident. It may not be in order, but there was a certain element of challenge in connection with it. I have some knowledge of the question of the Appointments Commission. I have opposed the Appointments Commission while I have been in public life, because I claim the right of the local authority to make its own appointments. Even at the moment, I am engaged in connection with that matter and have the honour of having a mandamus issued against me, but that was on a question of principle. However, although I am opposed to that method, there is no appointment that has been made in my county, of which I am aware, which does not reflect honour on the Appointments Commission and which was not made on merit. That is all I have to say. I do not intend to say any more about the Bill, but I would ask the Minister to reply to my question.