I could, under certain circumstances, be sympathetic with the Minister's viewpoint in relation to this amendment because I suppose, in company with other members of the House, I have been anxious at all times to see the provision for social services and various benefits for the masses of the people on a much higher level than we now provide. But I can foresee, in the course of time, that in certain localities the local authorities may have objections to the imposition of a particular burden on the ratepayers. I can, although it is somewhat doubtful at the moment, picture a situation when the Minister, and indeed the whole Fianna Fáil Administration, might be more progressive in their social outlook than a local authority. It might be felt that the local authority was not discharging its duties in relation to providing certain essential services and that power should be taken to see that the local authority would meet its obligations. The line of development that we see opening out under this amendment is, in my opinion, one that will not be helpful to the Government or to the Oireachtas in trying to bring into existence not only improved social services, but a new and more businesslike code of local government and a higher sense of responsibility on the part of those constituting the local authorities.
What the Minister said during his contribution to the debate on the previous day is quite true—that this House is the supreme authority and that we, in our wisdom or lack of wisdom, at times impose by law certain obligations on local authorities in regard to services which we have decided are essential. At the same time, we should realise that we have within our community two interlocking machines, if you like—one based on national representation and having its embodiment in this House, and the other on local representation, having its embodiment in the local authority. Unless we find ways and means of getting these two machines to work harmoniously together, it seems to me that the whole future which we are trying to envisage for the people will be somewhat difficult to realise.
We have during recent months passed a number of important measures which will affect the whole sphere of local government. We have brought into law the Mental Treatment Act, which many members said was a credit to the Ministry responsible for its introduction, and have opened up a new field and a new approach to this problem, but that Act will, of necessity, impose certain financial burdens on the ratepayers which will have to be considered and embodied in the form of rates by the local authorities. We are about to approach the debate on the Public Health Bill, a Bill which, in its general tendency, is to be welcomed, but which again will possibly impose additional financial burdens on local ratepayers. Is it not clear that one of the most essential factors in respect of both these pieces of legislation, and factors which are even more essential if we are to develop the whole field of social services, is that we should find a basis on which we can secure the co-operation and willing help of the local authorities? Surely the approach shown in this amendment will not be helpful in producing that co-operative spirit.
We have always taken the view that those who are taxed, either by way of State taxation or local rates, are entitled to representation and to control of the moneys they contribute, and it seems to me to be illogical to argue that, merely because we are the national Legislature and because we impose the State taxes, what we say should, in all spheres of social and communal activity, be overriding and should deny to local people any effective control or limitation of the moneys they have raised and their expenditure. That is what we are setting down in this amendment. Behind all the legal phrases, the position is as referred to by Deputy Morrissey, that the only safeguard which the local ratepayers and their representatives had under the managerial system, the power to hold the purse strings and to determine the rates is being taken away. While we are apparently leaving them that power, in substance and in fact, we are taking it away from them.
It may be argued by the Minister, as it has repeatedly been argued on questions of this kind which came before the House, that it is wrong of us always to impute evil intentions to the Minister, that we should take it for granted that when powers of this character are taken by the Government, the intention is to use them for good and not in any arbitrary fashion; but there is a situation developing already in which, whether the Minister or the Government likes it or not, there is a growing volume of opinion, especially in the sphere of local government, that those who wish to enter that sphere and to take up membership of local authorities will be entering a field which is very largely circumscribed and limited by the powers which now lie to the hand of the Minister, or of the county or city manager, and, in the final resort, the powers in the hands of the commissioners who may be appointed by the Minister. Because of that, I think it is not incorrect to say that many men and women with a deep interest in public affairs feel that it is to a large extent a waste of effort on their part to devote their time and attention to the welfare of the local community.
Whether that is correct or not is not the important thing. The important thing is whether that opinion does exist, and the very fact that various forms of friction have developed between local authorities and the Department is indicative of the fact that it does exist, and it seems to me that, at a time like this, when I consider it the main duty of the Ministry to secure the widest and most extended form of co-operation from local authorities, any effort the Minister might make towards codifying or improving the system of local government should be in the direction of getting rid of that state of mind which is prevalent in the country to-day, and of inducing in the minds of local authorities an understanding and an appreciation that not only is their co-operation desired but the exercise of their initiative and their responsibility for local affairs will be developed and strengthened as far as possible. I cannot see that happening on the basis of this amendment.
It is quite clear that we have reached a point where, in so far as control of local rates is concerned, the final power is taken from local representatives. It may be argued by the Minister that his action is subject to the findings of a local inquiry. It is scarcely necessary to go into the circumstances surrounding recent local inquiries. The very fact that the local inquiry is conducted by an inspector of his own Department seems to me clearly to limit its effectiveness. Secondly, the whole force of the Department is available to the Minister, acting through that inquiry, to secure and maintain his point of view, if he has already decided on a point of view, in relation to the particular local rate which is in question. Against that, there is merely the ability of a group of local ratepayers constituting the local authority to express and maintain their case not only against the Minister and the inspector but against the whole machinery of the Department, which can be very effective.
In certain circumstances, I would not only extend to the Minister certain of the powers he seeks to take but would be even eager to give them to him, if it were a question of the Minister's taking power to maintain certain defined essential services and if limitations were imposed on the powers to be given. I entirely agree with the Minister that if a local authority adopts an obstructionist attitude and will not provide a rate sufficient to give suitable sanitation, water supplies and house services, there should be power somewhere in the machinery of the State to protect the local inhabitants and to maintain such essential services; but there is a whole field of local expenditure in which there is room for differences of opinion between the Minister and the local authorities, between the national Legislature and the local authority, which is given expression to in many of the Acts we have passed here, in which certain powers are left to a local authority to decide whether or not they will provide a certain service.
Even where mandatory powers are given to the Minister and obligations placed on the local authority to provide new or extended services, there is still the possibility of a difference of opinion as to the quality and quantity of these services. They may be asked to provide, in relation to the Mental Treatment Act, certain local clinics, certain improved laboratory facilities for the treatment of mental disease, and there can be very definite and sincere differences of viewpoint. But, regardless of how sincere or how justifiable the action of a local authority may be with regard to the sums they decide to allocate, we in this amendment are still asked to give an overriding authority to the Minister to enforce his interpretation on this issue.
That seems to me to go beyond the bounds of reason. It may be argued that it is necessary in order to ensure the continuity of essential services. I believe that if the Minister were to reconsider the amendment in the light of trying to keep alive and foster ordinary democratic opinion in this country, on the basis of democratic government, as well as the interest of local ratepayers in their system of local government, while, possibly, at the same time, retaining to himself certain final powers to be used in an emergency, so as to guarantee the continuance of certain defined essential services, subject, of course, to very definite limitations, there would be the possibility of getting an appreciation of his point of view. Instead, we have the wide stretch of the Minister's hand which we find embodied in the amendment. That is a matter of very grave concern to those of us who are concerned, not merely in the efficient discharge of their duties by the members of local authorities, so far as the striking of the rate is concerned, the carrying out of their definite obligations, and the continuance of the general services provided for the community, but with the much bigger problem of trying to foster ordinary, democratic beliefs and opinions amongst the ratepayers, amongst local men and women of public standing who are interested in the community, and in the particular machine that we are operating in the various areas at the present time.
In the criticism that Deputy O'Sullivan made in regard to the original draft of the Bill, so far as this section is concerned, he pointed to the possibility of a supplementary rate being struck, and indicated that the loose form of drafting employed in the section was open to very grave objection. We find that practically the same thing is being retained in the Minister's amendment. There is still the possibility of having a supplementary rate struck. I am a local ratepayer. Possibly I have not the same difficulty as is experienced by other ratepayers in meeting the demand for rates made on them, although I must say the present rate demand is a fairly high one. In many cases, however, especially in the case of farmers, small business people and small tradesmen, the possibility of having a second demand for rates made on them in the one year is going to create very great difficulty, especially if it comes unexpectedly on them.
It is quite true, as the Minister has said, that the striking of an insufficient rate and the consequent meeting of financial obligations in the current year by means of overdrafts is objectionable in many ways. It very often imposes not only an additional burden on the ratepayers in the way of interest charges for that particular year, but burdens that have to be carried over a period of years. Even so, we should have some regard for men in a small way of business or with a limited income. Under the present system, when the rate demand is served on them they know the provision they will have to make during the current year to meet their rates. If, under this amendment, there is the possibility that a second demand for rates may be made on them in the same year, well, that simply will add the straw to the camel's back, and may place them in very great difficulties indeed. In the case of farmers, I can see that it might place them in a very difficult situation. In order to meet the second demand a small farmer may have to sell some of his stock or to dispose of certain of his produce at a time that does not suit him. That would be due to the fact that this second demand was made on him at the wrong time of the year. While the position in regard to overdrafts is objectionable, it seems to me that it is the lesser of two evils. The argument made by the Minister and his reference to the case of the Kerry County Council were not, in my opinion, of sufficient gravity to justify the possibility of the striking of a supplementary rate.
There is one point in the Minister's amendment which struck me as being peculiar. The amendment provides that, in a case where the Minister is not satisfied that a proper rate has been struck, he can order the holding of a local inquiry, and that on receiving the inspector's report, he can make an order requiring a new rate to be struck. Under sub-section (4) of the amendment, if the new rate struck by the local authority is not, in the Minister's opinion, sufficient, he can then remove the members of the rating authority from office. In the early part of his argument, the Minister pointed out that he could not take action until he held a local inquiry. He now holds it, and, acting on the inspector's report, makes an order requiring the local authority to strike a supplementary rate. He then decides that the new rate is still insufficient, and so deciding he can remove the members of the rating authority from office without further inquiry. It seems to me that that is opening the door too wide altogether. If there is going to be the possibility of a local authority refusing to strike a proper rate, some provision should be inserted in the amendment, if it is going to be passed by the Dáil, to ensure that the new rate to be struck will be indicated in the report of the inquiry, so that the Minister will be confined to that rate, and not be in a position to put forward a fictitious figure on which he may remove the members of the local authority from office. Otherwise, he can create an entirely different situation from that envisaged under sub-section (1) where he is required to hold a local inquiry before taking action.
I opened my contribution to the debate in an attitude in which I was fairly sympathetic to the Minister's viewpoint as a whole. In concluding, I want to urge this point on him: that if we are to try to bring about improvements in our social and local services it is essential that we should try to find means of retaining, not merely the co-operation and sympathy of the members of local authorities, but their willing acceptance of any new burdens that we impose upon them. There are, of course, certain essential services that cannot be allowed to go by default, but there is still, as between the Minister and the local authorities and between this Assembly and the local authorities as representing the ratepayers, a wide financial field of local government within which we should provide for the possibility of members of local authorities being able to exercise their rights, of ensuring the continuance and maintenance of essential services, and of seeing that they are not allowed to go by default. Unless we leave some power in the hands of local authorities and realise, as the Minister himself pointed out on a previous occasion in the course of debate, in a public statement outside the House, and by means of special circular, that the final financial control is in the hands of the local representatives of the ratepayers, then I am afraid that the structure of our new local government in this country as well as the future of our social services, are going to be very shaky and very inefficient.
