Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 8 Feb 1946

Vol. 99 No. 6

Local Government Bill, 1945—Committee (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following amendment:—
31a. To delete sub-section (1) and substitute the following subsections:—
(1) If, at any time after the rate in the pound of the rate for a local financial year has been determined by a rating authority, it appears to the Minister that such rate at such rate in the pound is likely to be insufficient to meet the part defrayable out of rates of the expenses to be incurred by the rating authority in that financial year in—
(a) maintaining at a reasonable standard the public services for the maintenance of which the rating authority is responsible, and
(b) paying to any other body any sums which the rating authority are bound to supply to that body,
the Minister, after holding a local inquiry into the sufficiency of such rate, may require the rating authority either to revoke such determination and determine a new rate in the pound for such rate or (if by reason of any steps already taken for the making, levying or collecting of such rate, such a course is more convenient) determine a rate in the pound of a supplementary rate for that local financial year.
(2) Within 14 days after the date of the receipt by the secretary or clerk of a rating authority of notification that a requirement has been made under sub-section (1) of this section, the rating authority shall comply with such requirement.
(3) Where a rating authority determine pursuant to a requirement under sub-section (1) of this section a rate in the pound of a supplementary rate, it shall be the duty of the rating authority to make, levy, collect and recover such supplementary rate.
(4) Where a rating authority in relation to whom a requirement is made under sub-section (1) of this section determine and make pursuant to the direction either—
(a) a new rate in the pound of a rate, or
(b) a rate in the pound of a supplementary rate,
which in the opinion of the Minister is insufficient, the Minister may by Order remove from office the members of the rating authority.
(5) For the purposes of Part IV of the Act of 1941, an Order under sub-section (4) of this section shall be deemed to be an order under Section 44 of that Act and the removal from office of the members of the rating authority concerned shall be deemed to be a removal from office under that section.
(6) Where a person or persons has or have been appointed under Part IV of the Act of 1941 to be a commissioner or commissioners for a rating authority whose members have been removed from office, such person or persons may revoke any determination by the rating authority of a rate in the pound of a rate for the current or the next local financial year as had been made before his or their appointment (whether it is the first determination of a rate in the pound, the determination of the rate in the pound of a new rate or the determination of the rate in the pound of a supplementary rate) and may determine the rate in the pound of such rate as if no earlier determination had been made or may determine a rate in the pound of a supplementary rate for such local financial year and make, levy, collect and recover such supplementary rate."—(Aire Rialtais Aitiúil agus Sláinte Poiblí.)

This is an extraordinary amendment introduced in a very extraordinary way, and if I may say so, at a rather extraordinary time. We had the Parliamentary Secretary warning us the other day, when certain small increases were asked for employees of local authorities, that, in view of the fact that there were likely to be very large increases in rates during the coming year, local authorities had to be very careful in regard to what they did. They could not, for instance, dream of raising the wages for road workers, say in South Tipperary, by more than 5/- over the pre-war level. On top of that warning, we have grandiose schemes suggested with regard to road-making in one way or another and we have the expenditure contemplated by the Public Health Bill. These are the things that are foreshadowed just at the moment. When this Bill was ordered to be printed and circulated in October, 1945, Section 23 considered that circumstances might arise in which it might appear to a local authority having struck a rate, that it was really insufficient to meet the expenditure of the coming year and the section, as then drafted, gave powers to the local authority to strike a supplementary rate. Now we find in an amendment handed to us in the last few days a complete change of attitude as a result of which the Minister takes power finally and completely to control local authorities.

We have under amendment 31 a really a proposal completely to wipe out local government because the amendment provides that "if, at any time after the rate in the pound of the rates for a local financial year has been determined by a rating authority, it appears to the Minister that such rate at such rate in the pound is likely to be insufficient to meet the part defrayable out of rates of the expenses to be incurred by the rating authority in that financial year in, (a) maintaining at a reasonable standard the public services for the maintenance of which the rating authority is responsible, and (b) paying to any other body any sums which the rating authority is bound to supply to that body, the Minister, after holding a local inquiry into the sufficiency of such rate," may require the rating authority to make an adequate rate. Then within fourteen days after the date of the receipt by the secretary or clerk of a rating authority of notification that a requirement has been made under sub-section (1), the Minister can wipe out the local body and his commissioner can proceed to mark any particular rate that the Minister dictates.

This comes on top of a situation in which, apart from any further addition to the burdens of the ratepayers, very substantial additions have already been made both between 1932 and 1939 and since the war began. For instance, the total amount collected in rates in the year ended March, 1932, was £4,677,000. By March, 1939, that had risen to £6,270,000 and by 1942, the last year for which figures have been issued in the Department's publications, the total amount of rates collected in the country was £7,500,000, an increase of nearly £3,000,000 over 1932. When we consider the 1932 level and examine how much money has been taken out of the ratepayers' pockets over the 1932 level for the first seven years of the Government's administration up to March, 1939 before the war situation created any difficulties here, we find that £13,317,000 were paid by the ratepayers of this country more than they would have had to pay if the 1932 level had been maintained. The total amount of rates taken from the people had gone up, on an average over six years, by 29 per cent. For the three years from March, 1939 to March, 1942, the last three years for which we have information, there was an additional £6,700,000 taken from the ratepayers, over the 1932 level. I said that the rates collected in 1942 were nearly £3,000,000 more than in the year 1932. Since the Government came into office and up to March of last year about £28,800,000 more were collected in rates alone than if the rates had been maintained at the 1932 level. When we turn to taxation, we find that the same thing has gone on.

Is not that rather wide of the amendment?

This is an amendment which is brought in completely out of the blue.

It is utterly at variance with the section which it proposes to amend.

Will the Deputy show that?

Section 23 gives power to the local authority, when it appears to them that the rates are not sufficient, to take steps to strike a sufficient rate. The Minister now, in his amendment, wipes that out, and arranges that when that appears to the Minister he can wipe out the local authority; he can send down his commissioner, and can make his commissioner strike any rate that the Minister thinks right. That was not introduced on the Second Reading of this Bill, and, if we cannot thoroughly argue it here now, I shall be constrained to make a point of order that this amendment is out of order because it radically and completely changes the proposal that is in the Bill already.

It was discussed for an hour yesterday, and it would be rather late to raise the matter now. What the Chair is concerned with is that the increase in rates over 15 years is not relevant to this amendment, which gives power possibly to strike a second rate.

No; it takes the authority from——

May I say also that this amendment has been introduced to meet certain objections which were raised against the original proposal.

By you. Or are you accepting Section 23 as it stands?

I am declining to give power to the Minister for Local Government completely to take the power of the purse out of the hands of local authorities. I am declining on the ground that—if you will allow me just to put it in round figures—if you take the position of rates alone, and go back to 1932, and ask how many million pounds were taken out of the ratepayers' pockets from March, 1932, to March, 1945, more than would have been taken if the rates had been maintained at the 1932 level, the answer is £28,000,000. You also find that the total amount of rates collected in 1932 was £4,677,000, and that the total amount collected in the year ended March, 1942, was £7,500,000. It is, at any rate, not less now. In taxation, by March, 1939, the Government which had promised to reduce taxation by £2,000,000 had taken £25,000,000 out of the pockets of the taxpayers more than was taken in the year in which they came in.

If rates are relevant, how is taxation relevant?

Because, Sir, the reason why the Minister threw all that additional burden over on the rates was that he had piled taxation so high on the taxpayer that he had to do it. That is why the Parliamentary Secretary the other day said that local authorities will have very heavy financial additions this year, and why the costs of public health and all those other things that are apparently being planned are to go over on the ratepayers. The taxpayer cannot bear any more. I do not want to try your patience too much, or to strain the situation too much, so I will not go into the dilapidated and weakened economy of the country from which, by 1939, all this additional money had been taken, but the facts are there. Here we are getting to the position where we are asked to pass things in a light-hearted, broad and general way. We are presented to us White Papers that are supposed to have on us the effect of the rising sun, to brighten our lives and stir our hearts. Then all the cost goes on to the unfortunate ratepayers.

If this amendment is defeated, we will at least have the local representatives of the country and the responsible local government mind of the people standing between themselves and robbery. If we accept this amendment, there is not a local authority in the country into whose affairs there cannot simply be an inquiry, then a telegram telling them to strike a proper rate, and then inside 14 days another message saying that they are sacked; that a commissioner is going down, and that the commissioner had the Minister's instructions in his pocket as to how much is to be levied off the ratepayers of that local body for the maintenance of the services that he considers should be maintained. Because of what has passed— and so much has passed that the Parliamentary Secretary had to issue a warning the other day—and because of what is coming, and because of the opinion that Ministers have with regard to the economic conditions of this country, we find that in the case of one of our vital services, our roads, about which we have such grandiose schemes and which are such a real necessity, the Minister has told us that this country cannot pay more than 45/- a week to the permanent workers who are doing that work throughout the country, and who, if we had any conscience or outlook on the social situation at all, should be able to keep a wife and family on the moneys they are paid for the maintenance of this vital service. I challenge the Minister that he is completely taking power over local authorities, and taking it in a most suspicious way. I ask him what is meant or what will be meant by that provision in the Second Schedule to the County Management Act, 1940, which says that the making of a rate is a reserved function of a local authority? The Minister is stepping in here and taking complete power over the fundamentally reserved powers that a local authority has. It is wiping out local government.

I regret very much, Sir, that Deputy Allen is not here to-day. When we adjourned last night, Deputy Allen was making a vigorous attack on this amendment. It rained very hard during the night, and I hope that the rain has not damped Deputy Allen's ardour, because I would have been very happy to march behind him into the Lobby to vote against this amendment. We frequently hear complaints that young men are not taking part in public life in this country. Now, the first step, and practically the only step, that a young man can take in order to take part in public life, is to get elected on a local council. What incentive or encouragement is there to a young man, who takes his responsibility in public life seriously, and who becomes a member of a local council, when he finds that a power that is supposed to be vested in him—the power to control the finances of a local area—is wantonly taken from him? He may, while still a young man, have the slur cast upon him of being a member of a local authority that was dissolved for incompetence and inefficiency. As Deputy Sheldon pointed out last night, these local councils are elected on as broad a franchise as that on which this House is elected. They are elected on the basis of universal adult suffrage, and the authority they obtain is as great as the authority which this House is given by the electorate.

Sir, that is a most extraordinary statement, coming from a person who is supposed to be aware of the provisions of our Constitution.

Perhaps the Minister will keep quiet for a moment and give me an opportunity of speaking.

Let him relate his amendment to the Constitution.

I quite agree that the National Assembly should have authority over a local assembly; that is to say, a local council, elected for a local area, should not have the right to defy the National Assembly; but since the local council is elected on as democratic a basis as this House is elected on, the only authority which should have the power to dissolve a local council is this House, by direct vote. The Minister, who is simply an official of this House, should not have the right to say that a local authority should be dissolved.

On a point of order, Sir. Is it correct to describe a Minister as an official of this House?

Deputy Cogan, since he is a member of this House, ought to know the fundamental law of this State.

I think that the Minister should know the fundamental rules of this House, and that he should study the book of Standing Orders.

Or even a book on manners.

The Minister will have an opportunity of replying later. I say that we are bringing democracy into disrepute if we allow a section such as this to become part of our law; a section under which all power to decide what is an adequate rate is taken out of the hands of the local representatives, and under which a Minister here in Dublin, who may conscientiously believe that he is right, takes upon himself to decide what is in the best interests of a local area. Surely, the people who elect representatives in any county ought to be recognised as having a certain amount of intelligence, and surely the freely elected members of the people ought to be credited with a certain amount of knowledge of their own requirements. They ought to be able to decide what is best for their county, and what are the particular finances that are required to run the services of their county. The clash of opinion that might arise between the Minister and a county council is merely a difference of opinion, and either side might be right or wrong. There is one way to settle the question, and that is to bring it before this House by motion—not to leave it to a Minister, at his discretion or indiscretion, to act in a manner which probably would be feasible in Russia or some other totalitarian State.

Deputy Allen, last night, I think, raised the torch of freedom and democracy in this House. He asserted the right of the locally elected representatives to discharge their duty with out having their rights infringed upon and without being treated in a tyrannical manner. A locally elected council is a council of a number of individuals. There are many minds grouped together in considering the problems which face them. The Minister is only one mind. His mind may be a very broad mind, a very high mind, and a very noble mind, but on the other hand his mind may be a very narrow mind, a very low mind, and a very ignoble mind; but still his is only one mind, and one mind should not be allowed to dominate a democratic assembly in a county which has local knowledge—knowledge not only of what is required in the local services, but knowledge of the capacity of the local people to pay. I think that the Minister should withdraw this amendment. Personally, I am not only against this amendment, but against the section as it stands, because the section is also open to very considerable objection.

I submit, Sir, that the change which has been made by the Minister in Section 23 by the amendment he now submits is unquestionably a violent change, and that he is not correct when he suggests that the amendment really gives effect to the suggestions which were made originally on the Second Reading of the Bill. I think that Deputies who were present on that occasion will agree that the burden of the complaints in regard to this section was that, as it stood, it would lead to slipshod estimating and that further, it would lead to confusion; that once the rate was struck it was possible to have a supplementary estimate, and the ratepayers would not know where they stood. I say that this change is a violent one, because Section 23 at least gives power to the local authority to settle its own affairs, whereas the amendment proposed by the Minister takes that authority away completely from the local authority and prescribes certain penalties if certain instructions are not carried out. I suggest that the rights of these people are amply preserved and catered for under the existing law, and particularly by the County Management Act of 1940, Section 25 (1) of which says:

"The council of a county or an elective body may, at any time after they have adopted under this Act an estimate of expenses for any local financial year, consent by resolution to the expenditure of money or the incurring of a liability in excess of the expenditure for any particular purpose specified in such estimate...."

I suggest that in practice that is precisely what has been taking place in the councils. If they found that a mistake had been made in their estimating and that an increased expenditure was necessary they arranged for that by getting an overdraft or some such means, and that was met in the following year.

Yes, in the following year.

In the following year, yes. I suggest that what the Minister is doing, despite what he states on particular occasions, is that he is taking from the borough councils and county councils the one really supreme power that they are supposed to have on the day of striking the rates, that that power is completely taken away from them by the effect of this amendment, because they have a threat hanging over them that, if they do not do particular things on that date, certain things will happen. It is quite possible—instances can be quoted—that on the date of the striking of the rate a communication will be received from the Minister for Local Government asking for the inclusion in the estimate of certain amounts. Very often, the local authority, on consideration, do not see the wisdom of including the amounts, which may be comparatively minor matters. Under the amendment, if they decline to include such an amount when ordered by the Minister on an occasion of that kind, they are liable to be suspended.

I suggest that the amendment implies a feeling of distrust so far as local aúthorities are concerned which is certainly not justified. My experience, and I think it is the experience generally of members of local authorities, is that on an occasion of that kind local authorities approach the question with prudence and certainly with consideration of their responsibility, which, by the way, is conditioned very largely by the fact that they are in close touch with their constituents who will see to it that they will establish the local services that are required. As I say, general experience has proved that the councils as a whole have a sense of responsibility and that they exercise their responsibility in a prudent way. That being so, I say that this feeling of distrust which is exemplified by the amendment is not justified and I join in the request that the amendment be withdrawn.

I think this amendment is Hitlerism in its most blatant form. The Minister wants to sit in state in the Custom House and dictate to the local authorities and to the people as to what they should pay. The people of the country are good enough to elect the Minister, but not good enough to conduct their own affairs. I was amused by the reference to the Constitution made by the Minister. I do not know how he can relate this amendment to the Constitution. The amendment is an outrage on the Constitution and I should like to hear the Minister relating it to the Constitution. If we are to have any respect for the rights of the people and for the authority of the people, this House should not allow any dictators in any Department in this country. We are not going to permit the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to sit in state in the Custom House and tell the people what they are to pay, whether they are able to pay it or not, because he does not give a damn whether they are able to pay it or not. He is not concerned with that. He is going to dictate to them what they should pay. He is going to make the local authority a mere pretence, a sham, and a fraud and he is going to filch, if the House permits him, the one function that is reserved to a local authority, the one control that a local authority can exercise over the manager.

If we are to be honest about it, the sooner we clear out local authorities the better if we are to have local government methods dictated to the people of the country from the Custom House. If the Fianna Fáil Party believe in that sort of government, they should realise where it is taking us. We are travelling the road to totalitarianism pure and simple and are going to have a small group of men in this city dictating to the people as to what they should do and what they should pay. Whether they are able to pay or not, does not matter. The iron heel will be there and the force of the law will be used against them. We should wake up and realise the implications behind the amendment.

The Minister has the temerity to suggest that, because the House complained of Section 23, he brought in this amendment to meet the wishes of the House. It is an insult. Whatever was in Section 23, bad and all as it was, it gave a local authority the right to bring in a supplementary estimate. They cannot even do that under this amendment until the Minister decides that it should be done.

I hope that this amendment will be resisted from every side of the House. Deputy Allen has given the lead to his own Party. He has a great deal of experience of local affairs in his own County of Wexford. He indicated last night that he objected strongly to the amendment. But the dictator Minister, who wants to dictate to the whole country from the Custom House, is going to ignore the advice of members of his own Party, I presume, and is going to force the amendment. If the Minister is wise, he will withdraw the amendment and forget about this type of legislation. We must have democratic government and democratic institutions in this country. We are not going to allow the Minister to steam-roll whatever semblance of democracy is left under the County Management Act. The one thing which the Minister has been stressing in defence of that Act is that local authorities have a reserved function, because they control the local purse, and that by giving them that reserved function and that control they can control the manager, no matter what his executive functions may be. But the Minister is going to sweep aside all that, and from the Custom House he will sit back in dignity and dictate to every local authority what the rate should be. He resented the suggestion about the franchise made by Deputy Cogan, but it is true. The Minister is very charming with the people when an election comes along. The people are then quite fit to exercise their right or their authority to elect him. But the moment he is put into office, he takes power to dictate to them and to treat them with contempt. He tells them that they are not fit to elect a local authority or that the local authority they elect is not capable of looking after local affairs.

If we believe in democracy, and if the Minister at any time thinks that the rates struck by a local authority are not sufficient to run the local services, the period of office of a local body is very short, and the Minister can indicate that the local affairs are not being properly and efficiently run by the particular body, and then leave it to the people to decide whether or not they will kick out that local authority and put in a different body. But we will not have dictatorship in this country. I hope the people will waken up to the realisation of the road we are travelling by the type of legislation we are asked to swallow in this House.

It is consoling to find that Deputy Hughes, who belongs to a Party that some years ago was very closely associated with a dictatorial ideology to the extent that they proclaimed that they wanted to abolish the whole system of election altogether, has now swung round.

Can we discuss the first Minister for Justice in the Fianna Fáil Government?

Undoubtedly, this period of adversity has produced a welcome change of heart in Deputy Hughes and his colleagues, and for that I suppose I may claim some part of the credit.

Reaction. When we saw ourselves as others said they saw us, it was an appalling shock.

I said that this amendment had been introduced to meet certain of the objections raised against Section 23 in its original form. The principal ground of objection has been stated by Deputy Martin O'Sullivan, that if the section went through, it would lead to slipshod estimating, that local authorities would, perhaps, be influenced, by reason of this section, to make provision at the outset of the year which would be inadequate to maintain the county services on a reasonable standard, and that they would come along in the course of the year and try to make good the deficiency by striking an additional rate, or, indeed, a number of additional or supplemental rates. That was the principal ground of objection to the section as it stood.

I realised the force of those objections. If we are to maintain the local authorities here as efficient bodies, we must make certain that their financial conduct will be above criticism, that is to say, that if they have obligations they will take the necessary steps— sometimes unpleasant steps—to raise the revenues required to enable them to fulfil those obligations. That is the principle upon which this State proceeds in relation to its Budgets, and I do not think that I am asking the local authorities to do too much when I am asking them to conform to those financial standards which we have enforced here upon ourselves. It is the invariable practice of every Minister for Finance to try to provide, in the one Budget of the year, for all the expenses of the year. It may happen, by reason of the wide scope of affairs with which this House is concerned, that abnormal circumstances may arise for which the ordinary Budget may be insufficient, so on one or two occasions we have had Supplementary Budgets, introduced naturally by the Government of its own volition, to meet the particular circumstances which had arisen.

Therefore, there is nothing novel in the idea of making supplementary provision, if the original provision, by experience, has been found to be insufficient. I will concede there is a danger that an exceptional practice may become the habitual custom, that the tendency may grow to look upon these supplementary budgets and supplemental rates as a normal expedient and to rely on them to an extent which would not be justified as a normal course of procedure. That was the kernel of the objections to Section 23 as it stood in its original form. In the amendment I put down, I tried to meet those objections, while at the same time ensuring that the purpose we had in view when the original section was included in the Bill would be secured.

I have listened to most extraordinary pronouncements in this House as to the function and status of the local authorities. Some Deputies have said here that because they are elected on the same basis as members of the Dáil they are of comparable status with comparable prerogatives, that, in fact, each of them in its own area is a petty soviet, with all the functions and all the responsibilities attached to a sovereign legislative body. That is the burden of the speeches of Deputies Keyes and Cogan—that the subordinate bodies, set up by the Legislature and the State for a definite and circumscribed purpose, have the same prestige, the same sovereign power and the same control over their own actions and procedure as has the sovereign Assembly of the State. Of course, that is ridiculous: the local authorities are not set up as independent self-governing bodies, but are constituted under the statutes of the Oireachtas for the purpose of providing prescribed public services. Some of those services are essential for the maintenance of the social and economic life of the community and some of them are essential for the preservation of the health of the individual and the community. The maintenance of those services is mandatory upon the local authority. That is the purpose for which those local authorities have been established—to provide those services and to maintain them at a reasonable standard.

If Deputies will turn to the amendment, they will find that the whole procedure outlined in it is operative only when the Minister is satisfied, after having held a local inquiry, that the local authority has not made sufficient provision to maintain at a reasonable standard the public services for which it is responsible, or has failed to make its just contribution to another local authority which, under its institution, is bound to maintain certain other public services. It is only when the Minister has satisfied himself that a prima facie case exists that the local authority is failing to do its duty in regard to these provisions (a) and (b) that he may hold a local inquiry, for the purpose of proving conclusively to his satisfaction that, in fact, the local authority is not fulfilling its duty in this regard. The Minister then has power to require them to strike a supplemental rate or make a supplementary provision which will be sufficient to enable them to make good the deficiency which the inquiry had shown to exist.

Let me remind the House again that these local authorities have not been brought into existence as subordinate legislatures. With regard to these essential services, it is mandatory upon the local authorities to maintain them. It is the sole reason why these bodies have been brought into being, and it is an obligation which has been imposed upon these local authorities by the statutes of the Oireachtas, by the law of the land.

Deputy Cogan had something to say about the Minister for Local Government and the qualities of his mind and of his character; but the fact remains that the Minister for Local Government happens to be the instrument chosen by the Oireachtas for the purpose of seeing that the law of the land is enforced, and that it is given effect to by these local authorities.

He did not know it in October, 1945; he knows more about it now.

Whatever his defects may be, he is the person upon whom that responsibility has been placed by this House, by the Assembly which passed this law, and I suggest the House would be stultifying itself if, having imposed that responsibility on the Minister of seeing that these services, which are essential for the maintenance of the social and economic activities of the State, and for the preservation of the health of individuals in the community, it were to leave the Minister powerless to ensure that these local authorities, for whom he carries responsibility to this House, are fulfilling their functions.

Now, no local authority can maintain these public services unless it provides revenue which will be sufficient for the purpose, and the refusal of a public authority to provide such revenue is a clear and unmistakable indication that it has decided that it will not discharge the functions for which it has been brought into existence. You cannot maintain hospitals, you cannot maintain mental hospitals, you cannot maintain roads, you cannot maintain public assistance and other essential services unless the local authority concerned takes the ordinary steps which are open to it by striking a rate, a sufficient rate, to ensure that that portion of the cost which falls upon it will be met and, therefore, when a local authority refuses to raise these moneys in the way appointed by law, that is a clear indication that it has made up its mind that it will not maintain these services, that it will defy the law and the authority of this House which has imposed that obligation upon it and which has brought it into existence for the purpose of maintaining these services.

We are not discussing this purely upon a hypothetical basis because, within the past five or six years, some local authorities have refused, for reasons of their own, mainly political ones, mainly to secure a little political capital for groups throughout the country, to provide the necessary services.

That is an old game.

Why was the Clare County Council suppressed?

The Clare County Council was suppressed for quite a different reason.

It was too good.

Who controlled it?

There have been, let me remind you, local authorities which have, as I have said, for political reasons, refused to discharge their public responsibilities by striking a rate which would be adequate to maintain those services for which they were responsible.

The same as the Galway Board of Health in 1931?

When that happened, these authorities were dissolved. They were dissolved because it was necessary, if they were not going to do the work for which they were elected, that someone would be found who would. When they were dissolved, that did not end the matter, because, having struck a rate which was insufficient, the power of the local authority under the ordinary law to strike a further rate to raise money had been exhausted, unless they were to have recourse to borrowing—temporary borrowing. Now, what did that mean? It meant that in order to repair the damage which this recalcitrant body had done to the local services and to the local finances, the finances of that local authority in the future had to be very seriously disorganised, because the deficiency in the county fund had to be raised, as I have said, by borrowing, and had to be made good either in the following year or in the following two or three years, thereby imposing upon future ratepayers expenditures which ought to have been met in the year in which they fell due. Not only that, but the mere fact that the county council had to borrow—or the commissioner administering the affairs of the county council had to borrow—resulted in an increased charge, a quite unnecessary charge, upon the ratepayers because not merely had the original sum to be provided, but the interest charges had to be met as well, interest charges which, in these circumstances, were likely to be onerous.

It is to ensure that that condition of affairs will not exist in the future that this amendment it put down. It is designed, first of all, to see that every local authority discharges the obligations which have been placed upon it by this House. If this House wants these local services, if it wants mental hospitals, if it wants good roads, and if it wants local authorities to provide employment, then it must insist that the local authorities will raise the moneys necessary to give effect to the policy of the House in this matter.

All I am asking the House to do is this, that if it appears to the Minister that the local authority is not making sufficient provision to maintain these local services upon a reasonable standard, or is not making the provision which it is bound to make for another body responsible for maintaining certain services, he will have power to order an inquiry to satisfy himself as to whether, in fact, the provision made is sufficient to maintain these services, or to make these obligatory contributions. If the inquiry shows that, in fact, the moneys proposed to be raised are insufficient for the purpose, he has power to require the local authority to mend its hand—it is given a chance; it is not abolished—and to provide the moneys necessary. If, however, the local authority fails to do that, the Minister has power to dissolve it and to replace it by a commissioner. When that commissioner goes in, instead of finding himself in the position in which the commissioner administering the affairs of the Kerry County Council found himself at the outset, he will have power immediately to strike the full amount of the rate necessary. That rate will be collected in that year and no burdens will be transferred to future years, either to make good deficiencies or for interest charges.

That is the purpose. The purpose of the amendment is to see that local authorities will maintain their services at a reasonable standard and will make the proper provision in each year to enable them to do that. If a local authority refuses to maintain these services at a reasonable standard, by refusing to provide the necessary moneys, then I say, and I put it to the House which has established these local authorities, that the justification for the existence of that elected body has disappeared, because it is not fulfilling the functions for which it was established, and that the Minister, acting on behalf of the House for the enforcement of the law, is quite entitled to dissolve them.

I am rather disappointed by the Minister's statement. I think we should have got a little information as to the necessity for the insertion in the Bill of this authority. We had a case in County Roscommon of a body refusing to make adequate provision for the maintenance of the main roads, but, at the next local election, the people refused to give those responsible a majority. Although I am a member of the Government Party, and presume that, if I have to vote, I will vote for it, I think we should be very careful about the way we move in these matters.

There is a feeling in the local bodies —and those composing them are not irresponsible men — that these things can be carried too far. I am a member of a local body and have been chairman for a very long time, and I do not agree with the Minister that we have a lot of authority. We have very little authority as a matter of fact. I do not complain of that—I did complain at one time—because it is a great relief to me personally; but we really have not got much authority at all. There might be unreasonable demands by a Government — not necessarily the Fianna Fáil Government, but any Government—and I think that local authorities should have some little say in these matters. I thought the Minister would have cited many examples. Our own case is one example, and it was not terribly serious, but I suggest it would be well to step carefully in a matter of this sort.

The Minister's statement has been generally reasonable, I admit, but we in local bodies do feel that authority has largely been filched from us, and I do not think it is good for the State. I have had, as I say, long experience, and I find that the vast majority of those on local bodies are very sensible men, anxious to live up to their obligations. There is not the least doubt about that, but there may be certain matters in respect of which a local body may think that it is right and it possibly may be just as correct as the Minister. I presume that the Minister will have his way in this matter, but I would give this warning, that these powers should be used very sparingly.

This power to strike a supplementary rate is very wrong and is going to cause terrible confusion. We will have a second rate and a different set of documents. We had something like it in County Roscommon recently and it created untold confusion. I believe there should not be any supplementary rate, except in extraordinary circumstances. There is provision for overdrafts, and, in the case of most local bodies, not a very large overdraft is required to tide them over the period to the end of the financial year. I am entirely opposed on principle to the idea of supplementary rates. I hope that when the Act is being administered there will be reasonable and responsible thinking on the part of the Department. The matter is becoming serious, as I know from my own experience, and members not merely of the Opposition Parties but of Fianna Fáil think that this control by the Custom House is going rather far. Personally, I think it is.

I am glad that Deputy O'Rourke has had the courage to speak his mind, but is it not an unfortunate state of affairs that, when the whip is cracked over the heads of the Party, they will be regimented and will walk into the Division Lobby in support of this proposal against their better judgment?

No whip at all will be cracked in this case.

It is a shocking state of affairs that men who are sent here to represent the people should be interfered with to the extent that they cannot exercise their own judgment. I am glad that Deputy O'Rourke and Deputy Allen have had the courage to speak their minds, but I wonder if the Minister intends to persist, notwithstanding the advice he has got from his own Party, in compelling these men to vote against their better judgment and to give him dictatorial power. The Minister talks of his having been chosen by this House as the instrument to look after local affairs, whatever his mental capacity, but did this House ever intend to give or did it give power to the Minister to dictate? I suggest that his own Party never intended, when he was chosen as the instrument and placed in his exalted position in the Custom House, that he or any Minister should have power to dictate, or should have the power he is now seeking in this amendment. Now is the time for members of the Fianna Fáil Party to see the danger, to see the writing on the wall and to realise that the road we are travelling is the road to absolutism and totalitarianism, to realise that a few men have become ambitious and are seeking to travel the road which other countries have travelled. We know the result of ambition in Germany and Italy. Will that be a warning to the people of this country? Do we intend to allow any small group of men to wield absolute and complete power over the lives of the people?

The Deputy must have burned his blue shirt.

The Minister ought to take his medicine and face up to the situation. I want to say to every Deputy who is to decide this matter one way or another that he should pause before giving power to any individual to dictate in this fashion.

There was exception taken, and properly taken, to the section. As Deputy O'Rourke has pointed out, we have said that we expect the manager to make a proper estimate, and that when he puts it before the local authority it ought to be properly drawn. What is going to be the attitude of any manager under the section as it was drafted? He can say to the county secretary: "It does not matter very much whether the estimate is accurate or not because we have the power to go back and ask for a supplementary estimate." It was suggested that that would lead to slip-shod work and a slip-shod estimate. We do not stand for that. We expect that if the manager is doing his job properly and efficiently he will give the local authority a close estimate. It was argued, and properly argued, that that was the objection. But the Minister comes in now and asks for the power to dictate. He will not even permit the local authority to mend their hand. Whatever is done must be dictated by him.

The Minister talked about local inquiries, but what are they worth? We know what happened in the case of the Cork Street Hospital. The Minister was not prepared to justify to the people the action that he took in that particular case. We know what will happen. He wants to exercise the power of a dictator under this amendment. He will have a sham local inquiry to do whatever he likes afterwards. The inquiry will be a mere pretence, because he will have made up his mind long before he sends down an inspector to hold the inquiry. This is designed to see that the local authority will provide services. The Minister feels that he is capable of deciding what the rate should be and what the services ought to be that the local people can afford: that he is capable of deciding what the people are able to pay. Is the position to be that a man sitting in the Custom House, ambitious of wielding the power of a dictator, can force and compel the local people to pay, whether they are able to pay or not? There is no use in giving lip service to democracy in this House. If we believe in democracy, or if we are going to be a democracy, then let us cut out this sort of stuff, and let this House deny and refuse, emphatically refuse, the ambitions of a man who wants to be all-powerful now.

I must say I am very glad that there are some Deputies in the Fianna Fáil Party who are waking up to a realisation of the dangers on the road that we are travelling. This whole thing is a marked characteristic of recent legislation, culminating in this, the worst of all. The Minister in this wants to dictate from the Custom House to the local bodies. I suggest that if, during their short period of office, the members of local bodies are not fulfilling their functions properly, the people are the proper court to decide it. They can decide it at the end of their short period of office and can kick out a county council and put in a new one. Deputy O'Rourke told us that they did that in Roscommon. That is the proper procedure where you have a democracy. We do not want a dictatorship.

I hope that the Minister will listen to the prudent advice given to him by Deputy O'Rourke, a Deputy with long experience of local administration, and one who is in touch with democracy in action so far as local affairs are concerned. Now, democracy is like peace. It is indivisible. You cannot kick democracy in the pants down in Roscommon, Clare or Kerry and expect that it is going to flourish in Leinster House. If you humiliate democracy, if you humiliate the people and the people's representatives in one part of Ireland, you are going to humiliate democracy throughout the length and breadth of this country. I do not suggest that a county council elected for an area is equal to this Parliament, which is elected for the entire State. I, as a matter of fact, stated that this Parliament is supreme, but that, having regard to the importance of preserving the dignity of democracy and the authority of democracy throughout the State, if it becomes necessary, in a very extreme case in the Minister's opinion, to dissolve a county council, he should not have the power to do it without obtaining authority from this House by direct resolution passed here.

That is the type of legislation which I would advocate, if it was considered necessary in an extreme case to dissolve a county council. But I think, as Deputy O'Rourke has pointed out, that there should be very little need to dissolve a county council, having regard to the short period for which it is elected, and having regard to the fact that the people of this State are intelligent and educated electors and can decide, and will decide, whether a county council is acting efficiently and effectively or not. The people have the power to remove them at the end of three years. In view of the advice which has been given to him by the members of his own Party who have spoken, I think the Minister should hesitate before asking for the extreme powers which are set out in his amendment. The issue raised here is democracy versus totalitarianism, Deputy Allen versus Stalin.

As far as I can see this amendment is designed to deal with a situation likely to arise in the case of a county council that is not performing the functions for which a county council is elected. If a county council strikes an insufficient rate to provide, within the local authority area, the social services that the people demand from the local authority and from the central authority, the Minister is taking the necessary power in this amendment, with the approval and authority of this democratically elected legislative assembly, to enable him to make sure that the local rate is adequate to provide the social services that are necessary for the maintenance of our people. I see nothing wrong in that. It means a strengthening so far as our democratic institutions are concerned. I believe that Deputies who sit on these benches are as much interested in the maintenance of our democratic institutions as Deputy Hughes is or any other Deputy. The majority of the men on these benches, and the women too, gave earnest of their desire to see that the democratic institutions of this country should be maintained for all time. The members of the Government Party are not totalitarian, but the members of the Party opposite are the very people who tried to shove the totalitarian idea down the throats of the people of this country.

I am opposing this amendment, principally on the grounds which Deputy Hughes has stated. I am glad that certain members of the Fianna Fáil Party have realised the significance of the powers contained in it. Deputy Hilliard has said that he is in favour of the amendment because it means a strengthening of the power of the Minister. On the other hand, Deputy O'Rourke, who, I am sure, has longer experience in local affairs, has said that the Local Government Act as at present in operation and the County Management Act have considerably diminished the existing powers and that he considers that any further diminution will have serious consequences. I take the same view. As I understand the arguments in favour of the County Management Act, the one strong argument the Minister has always adduced is the fact that it has always left power of the purse and control over financial matters in the hands of the local representatives. Once this amendment is accepted, no matter what the arguments in its favour are, no matter what duties local representatives carry out or fail to carry out, the power of the purse will no longer rest absolutely in their hands. I sympathise with Deputy O'Rourke when he says that not alone are their powers being limited but that, if this amendment goes through as it is framed, serious consequences may follow.

While he says that in all sincerity, I am sure he has some misgivings about his ultimate decision on this matter. I think possibly Deputy Hughes did not exaggerate when he said the Party Whip was cracking over their heads. Deputy O'Rourke says it has not cracked yet. I am afraid it never ceases to crack and that while Deputies opposite feel they should vote a particular way the Whip is always giving them a little tip on the ear, saying, "You must join the pack". It is like a recalcitrant hound who may go after a hare instead of keeping with the pack after the fox.

In this case, whatever merits the County Management Act may have in so far as it allows the elected local representatives full control of the purse, this section takes that control entirely out of their hands. The Minister says in favour of it that local representatives may fail to do their duty, may fail to make adequate provision for roads or other essential services. Surely, ultimately, subject to the proper working of the County Management Act, the responsibility of establishing, maintaining and continuing these services in whatever form the local representatives believe to be in the best interests of their area, devolves on the local representatives. Surely the local representatives have the responsibility. It may be that they exercise it in a different way in various parts of the country. As Deputy O'Rourke says, if, after a particular local election, a group are elected that do not maintain these services in an adequate way, then the responsibility is on the electorate to make a change.

What is the position here? The Minister has ample power, under the County Management Act as it stands, to abolish a local authority after an inquiry. In addition to that, he now seeks to take power, not where he in his absolute discretion thinks fit, but "where it appears to the Minister," et cetera. As this section is framed it appears to me that the Minister, if he is of the opinion even to the slightest degree that a local authority is failing, or is not taking sufficient steps, to collect a rate sufficient to defray the expenses of that local authority, can hold a local inquiry and, of course, as Deputy Hughes has said, once you hold a local inquiry it is a foregone conclusion what will happen. I think it was Dooley and Hennessy who said, in discussing elections, "You can vote for whom you like if you leave the counting to me." It is the same here. You can make whatever representations you like before that local inquiry but the Minister has the last word.

Deputies and the public generally should consider seriously and carefully the trend of legislation in this country which is giving absolute power to the Custom House, which deposits power entirely in the hands of the Minister and his advisers. I have no doubt that these advisers act according to their best judgment, but they are a long way removed from the realities of the situation in a local area. They are immersed in their own work and they have, possibly, little experience of the needs of an area down the country. If local representatives are not imbued with a sense of the responsibility of their office, if they are not sufficiently devoted to that office, if they are not prepared carefully to consider the needs of the area which they represent, then I believe the responsibility of changing the representatives rests with the electorate. There is every indication of a decreasing interest in national and local affairs and, as long as public representatives are going to have their powers whittled down, so long will that trend continue. I suggest to Deputies of all Parties to consider carefully and seriously the ultimate effect of an extension of the powers which give absolute and entire discretion to the Minister in this matter before they accept this amendment.

I am reminded by this section of the warning given by the Minister down the country, a few years ago, against dictators, when he used that famous expression, "Herr von So-and-So". If I were to say to the Minister, "Herr von MacEntee", I should regret it. Certainly, if ever there was dictation, it appears in this section. As a member of a local authority, elected by Sinn Féin in 1917, I was delighted to hear one of the old school, Deputy O'Rourke, say that we should be careful and try not to take power completely out of the hands of these local authorities, so that they would count for nothing at all. The Minister has stated that local authorities are elected for the purpose of carrying out certain functions. Now their powers are completely gone. In my opinion, in the near future, you will not get a decent citizen to allow his name to go forward for election to a local authority in this country.

How is it that the Minister would know better than the local authorities. what should be done? The Minister has suggested in his statement on this Bill, that the power given in respect of the striking of the rate would give an opportunity to local authorities to clear up the mess so that the burden would not be carried forward from year to year. Does not the Minister agree that it may be a hardship that such a thing should be done? Who knows better than the local authorities? I would ask the Minister to take the advice of Deputy O'Rourke. There was another Minister here last night who said that people were speaking with two voices but I listened to two members of the Fianna Fáil Party speaking to-day and such direct opposites I never heard in all my life. I am glad that a member of the old school stood out for a little control by local authorities elected by the people. Of course if the Minister could get over the matter by a certain amount of abuse, and if he thought that talking about Blue Shirtism or anything like that is going to let him get away with this type of section, he is making a great mistake. The sooner we try to forget these things the better. As one who, of course, never had any association with them — I need not tell the Minister that —it would be much better if we discussed the Bill before the House.

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again on Wednesday.
Barr
Roinn