Extending it. I stand corrected by the former Minister for Local Government, but he will permit me to say that while a commission sat to take evidence of the advisability of bringing in managerial administration by the Cumann na nGaedheal Government, they did not seem to have the courage to apply it except in one or two experimental areas—and these were not rural areas. I was very interested—amused I should say—by the remarks of Deputy Giles that the managerial system had put an end to all the Fianna Fáil corruption and wire-pulling that had gone on in the councils before the adoption of this system. It is strange, indeed, that he should attribute to the Fianna Fáil Party, whom he denounces on occasion, the job of removing corruption—in other words, that we brought in an Act to remove a bad state of affairs which was our own creation and in which, in fact, we revelled and which produced us good electoral results not alone in local affairs, but in the Dáil elections. That argument does not hold water and it would be far better if, in discussing a non-political topic like local administration, these charges were not made, especially charges which are not true. If there was any weakness in this particular field of human endeavour as well as in others, I feel sure that Deputy Giles will admit that human nature on his side of the Chamber would be just as weak as what would be found on ours, and that if he were to cite all the cases—the total of them would not be large—he would find they were pretty fairly divided.
However, I do not hold there were any such weaknesses. They were not there during my experience of a large council. As a matter of fact I do feel that I should take this special opportunity of saying some words of commendation when speaking to a debate on a local authority measure. The Minister made a grand tour of the Twenty-Six Counties when the Dáil went into recess last year and he raised very high hopes of sweeping and fundamental changes in the managerial system. In fact, he created the impression, whether he intended to or not, that the managerial functions would be clipped very considerably and he held out hopes that what has been referred to as the democratic rights of the public authorities would be restored to them. Anybody who has read through this Bill section by section will have to admit—and the Labour Party speakers have so admitted—that the Bill, to say the least of it, falls very far short of that hope and it is interesting if one goes through the sections. Take, for instance, Section 2, which deals with prior information to members of local authority of manager's proposals. Sub-section (1) says:—
"Subject to the provisions of this section, a local authority may by resolution direct that, before the manager performs any specified executive function of the local authority, he shall inform the members of the local authority of the manner in which he proposes to perform that function, and the manager shall comply with the resolution."
One of the complaints I have heard expressed by members of the local authorities is that they do not know what he is going to do and if they do not know what he is going to do in respect of certain executive functions how can they presume to guess what he intends doing or that he intends doing something? How can they guess what that something is? I think that sub-section will be ineffective in practice. Then this resolution may not affect in any way the manager's control and supervision of the officers concerned or their superannuation, etc. I do not suppose anybody will cavil at that. It is best that staff and staff matters should be controlled by the manager, but it does remove a large field of functions which were formerly performed by the county councils and which, judging by some of the Labour speeches we have heard, Labour members would like to have restored to them. They are not being restored to them. Sub-section (3) provides for that.
Under sub-section (5), such a resolution may not deal with a health function. We know how interested public representatives are at the present time and have been for some time past in the administration of the various health schemes that come within the scope of these authorities.
It is provided in sub-section (7) that the manager shall inform the members of a local authority before any works of the local authority are undertaken and also before committing the local authority to any expenditure in connection with the proposed works. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-section (7) exclude works of reconstruction, maintenance and repair. That is a very large part of the expenditure of a local authority in respect of public works.
Sub-section (9) provides:—
"Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this section shall prevent the manager from dealing forthwith with any situation which he considers is an emergency situation calling for immediate action without regard to those provisions."
It is very easy for the manager to say in respect of any non-accepted work or undertaking that it is in fact an emergency proposal on his part. It is not set out here who is to decide whether it is so or not.
When one has regard to all these exceptions it is obvious that Section 2 is only a jumble of words that mean nothing and do not give a tittle of extra power or authority to local authorities.
The purpose of Section 4 is, apparently, to provide for the doing of what might be classified as new works. From our practical experience of local administration we know that these would amount to what would be requested by a county councillor on a notice of motion—the making of a bridge, the taking over of a new road, and things of that sort. Section 4 provides that the local authority may provide for the carrying out of such new work but in Section 9, sub-section (3) we read:—
"Where the manager considers that an estimate of expenses prepared by the estimates committee of a local authority (whether by reference to the whole of the estimate or to any part or parts thereof) would, if adopted, seriously prejudice the efficient or economical performance of the functions of the local authority, the manager shall prepare a separate report specifying the provision which in his opinion is necessary."
That could be interpreted as nullifying the powers that are apparently given in Section 4.
From an examination of this Bill it is quite obvious that its provisions are ambiguous and that definite meanings are not to be taken from any section in it. I take it that where a doubt exists what will happen is that the manager will decide the matter, that is, where the resolution of doubts is not provided for and the occasions on which the resolution of such doubts is provided for in this Bill number only two or three.
A good deal has been made about the power to set up an estimates committee. Again I think that will prove to be a very illusory power indeed. I was chairman of a finance committee of a county council and I know how difficult it is for the ordinary members to have detailed intimate knowledge of the various documents of account and the volumes of figures that are submitted to such a committee. The delegation of this work to a committee nominated by the local authority will double the work rather than simplify it. I have no doubt that, when the estimates committee reports, there will be a full dress session on the report and a detailed examination of the estimates all over again, in so far as that is possible, by the county council as a whole. It would be just as well to let the county council act as the estimates committee, if the council is competent to give a detailed and intelligent examination of the estimates. I think they would be as well able to do it as an estimates committee which would meet, I gather, as a private committee.
Section 11 provides for limitation on expenditure. It is provided that a local authority may increase the estimate in respect of any particular measure which they want to have carried out only by a resolution of the council and, otherwise, they may not exceed the estimate which they themselves have produced. That is fair enough.
Sub-sections (3) and (4) do not seem to me to be decisive. Sub-section (3) provides:—
"Where, as respects any local financial year the manager is of opinion that the proper performance of the functions of a local authority requires the expenditure of money or the incurring of a liability in respect of any particular purpose in excess of the expenditure for that purpose specified in the estimate of expenses for that year, he may prepare and submit to the estimates committee of the local authority an application for the authorisation by the local authority of the excess expenditure."
There again a power is being given to the manager and not to the council, but in sub-section (4) we read:—
"Where an application is submitted to an estimates committee under sub-section (3) of this section, the committee shall consider the application and shall then submit it, with their recommendation thereon, to the members of the local authority."
But it does not say what the local authority is to do about it.