Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 17 Jul 1946

Vol. 32 No. 8

Local Government Bill, 1945—Fifth Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Before this Bill is returned to the Dáil, I should like to refer to certain of the provisions that we have now passed and which I would ask the House to regard as most unsatisfactory. This Bill leaves the House with the existing provisions with regard to the appointment of deputies—I do not mean Deputies of the Dáil but deputies acting for local government officials—practically unchanged. I admit that an amendment has been accepted by the Government under which Orders authorising the appointment of deputies are reviewed every six months, but such Orders are not, under the amendment, laid on the Table of either House and the public have no knowledge of what actually is happening in any individual case. In fact we come to this, that the practice in a recent case which has created great disquietude amongst the public generally is still perfectly legal under our law and presumably that practice still has the approval of the Minister. I am glad, however, to see that the Taoiseach has suggested that the present practice does not appear to be altogether satisfactory and might be reconsidered, so I hope, in view of that pronouncement in high places, that the Minister will consider some alteration and simplification of the present practice.

I have also to ask at this stage—I asked it before and I am entitled to ask it again—when we are to receive from the Government an outline of the reforms in local government which, I think, the Minister himself has said are in contemplation. We know it is proposed to appoint two new Ministers to do the work at present being done by one—in fact, when the reforms about which we have been told are brought about three Ministers will be sharing the work now done by one. The Taoiseach did me the honour on a motion I proposed in this House to come and say that we would be given shortly an indication of the new reforms. That was—I am speaking entirely from recollection—six weeks ago and we have heard nothing yet. I hope now that the Minister may, in his closing remarks, give some indication of when we shall receive a memorandum—I do not like the term "White Paper" because it is so very loose—giving us some indication of the contemplated reforms, a memorandum which can be published, considered and be the subject of correspondence in the Press well in advance of any operative legislation.

I also asked the Minister—as I felt I was entitled to do—in connection with any future reforms, whether he could not get back to a position where local authorities had some real responsibility and did not have to go under some rigid regulation or go hat in hand to the central authority in all the details of their business. I made a suggestion, which has not been dealt with yet, that the finances should be separated and that local authorities should be given certain spheres in which they alone were unfettered in finance, where the whole of the money for such services would be found from the rates and where there was no necessity for interference, in fact every reason why they should be left alone, in the discharge of their separate functions. The other functions which were outside the financial resources of the local authorities could be financed by the taxpayer and there the central authority could impose what conditions they like and the local authority would be used only in an agency capacity.

That appears to be the only way we will ever get back to real initiative and restore to the elected representatives the independence which is their due and which is necessary if we are ever going to use local authorities as a training school in administration for the rising generation. If we want to see the apotheosis of regulation, we have only to study that long clause which has been necessary to allow to local representatives a few paltry shillings for their travelling expenses.

The Minister has his Bill practically in the form in which he introduced it and I presume he is feeling very satisfied with the fruits of his labour in both Houses. There are certain sections to which exception has been taken in both Houses, but the Minister has had his way. I wish he could realise that the objections which have been raised in regard to those sections were serious objections, founded on the belief and the conviction that the form in which they were drafted was obnoxious to the principles of local government as many of us would like to understand them and have them interpreted.

Now that the Minister has his Bill, I hope that this instrument, which will be part of the machinery of local government, will be used wisely. Nothing could be more unsatisfactory or more unfortunate than a conflict between local authorities and the central executive. I would like to have some indication from the Minister at this stage as to his view of the responsibility of local authorities. Apparently, he has one view and many of us coming from the country have another. We feel that men on local authorities are fully matured persons. We want to see inculcated in our people, in their small communities—either in their urban district councils or in their county councils—such a spirit of citizenship and such a sense of responsibility as will urge them, in every decision they take, to act wisely and courageously, in no narrow sense but in the best interests of the community as a whole. If the central authority takes the line that local bodies are, in certain respects, not competent to take a decision after that fashion, there is a great error of judgment on the part of the executive. If the Minister uses the powers given in this Bill in a particular way, he will bring local government into disrepute and it may very well be that he will not succeed in raising the status of his own Department in the eyes of the country.

We all want to see real progress, and even those of us who differed with the Minister in regard to the Bill or certain principles in it, are just as keen to see real progress as is the Minister or anybody who has subscribed to his point of view. Yet there can be no strength in our society here unless society is strong at its roots and unless our local communities have a sense of responsibility and a desire for progress. There is no use in trying to argue that the top, the central authority, can be all the time the sponsors of everything that is great and constructive and truthful. Unless our local councils and local councillors are trained in the first place with the belief and understanding that they are really responsible in their own areas for the good conduct of local affairs, you will not get them to interest themselves in the conduct of local affairs in that intelligent fashion which is necessary to take wise and progressive decisions.

The Minister can give our local affairs that slant—or he can do the other thing. If he wants to arrogate to himself and his Department the right to place local authorities, in every responsible decision which they have to take, in a subordinate position, he will get the sort of people on local councils who will be little better than slaves and for whom none of the intelligent people in the ratepaying community will have much respect. That is very undesirable from every point of view.

I hope that this measure, for which the Minister is now obtaining sanction from the Oireachtas, will be administered wisely and sympathetically. Let the Minister try to get it into his head that, even if he may have lived all his life in towns and cities, there are grown-up people in the rural communities in the country. Let him realise that, after the destruction on the Continent, where the whole social order had gone to pieces, the first aim of the people, in trying to provide some semblance of responsibility, was to establish responsible local councils. If anything should happen here, that would have to be the basis also. It would be very disastrous and very unfortunate, therefore, if in the administration of local affairs, as far as the central executive were concerned, they created a situation where the local people had only contempt for the powers vested in local authorities or for the respect that the central authority had for the local authority. The Minister has all the things he needs now and I hope his powers will be used wisely. If not, he will breed another spirit in the country, a spirit and an atmosphere perhaps little more friendly to the Custom House than that which animated our people more than 25 years ago.

In a few brief words I wish to join with Senator Baxter and Senator Sir John Keane. I think it was said four or five years ago, in a discussion in this House or outside it, that the present generations are taking very little interest, if any, in Governmental administration. No young men to-day are bothering about our National Parliament or Government or taking an interest in the general administration of the country.

What is the reason of that? It is admitted anyway through the country that the tendency over a number of years has been for too much centralisation. There is unquestionable evidence that there is less confidence in the people generally, especially when one remembers the continued, consistent and determined efforts of generations of our people through the Parliamentary machine that operated then to try to extract from an alien authority the right of national or local government. At that time we were called Hottentots because of some supposed racial defects or of our incapacity to govern. I believe that we were even traduced as dishonest. We were denied the rights of local government, but an experiment was introduced in 1898 and local government was established. The first county councils were then set up, and on them we had a fine body of men who gave unremunerated service. Speaking for my own county, I know of two Ministers in two different Governments, who eulogised and paid compliments to the honesty, efficiency and progressive work that was done by the councils in my own county. I am sure that good work of the same kind was done in the other counties. That continued on down the years. We had men of a fine standard elected to the local councils. They attended the meetings week after week and discharged their duties with great efficiency. At a later period the boards of health were established. The members who served on those boards and attended the fortnightly meetings likewise received no remuneration for the great work they did, not even a cup of tea. All that work, as I say, was characterised by Ministers in two of our national Governments as great progressive work.

What position do we find ourselves in to-day? The local councils have no power whatever. Will the Minister tell me what powers they have? In my county, under the public health services, we disburse about £350,000 a year. We formerly had control of all the county institutions, of the public health services, of the building of houses and cottages and the appointment of tenants to cottages. All that has been changed. There is this disbursement of £350,000 in my county, but we have nothing to say to it except when the estimate is submitted to us once a year. I would like to know from the Minister what power has been left to the public bodies. I would ask him to realise the fact that at the last county council elections it was very hard to get responsible, intelligent men to go forward for election. The result is that the personnel of county councils has not improved in recent years. How can public men be expected to take an interest in the work of local government when they have practically no power? In my county they have no control over the disbursement of that sum of £350,000. That is the position in a county where you have 500,000 of a population. They have not even power to appoint a tenant to a labourer's cottage. The result is that some very undesirable selections have been made. The local councillors have no control whatever over those selections.

I would appeal to the Minister to see that, if local government is to be maintained in this country, some of the powers which have been taken from the local bodies — and practically all power has been taken from them— ought to be restored. There ought to be a readjustment of the position. All parties are represented on those local boards, and I can tell the Minister that if the present position continues we will not get responsible men to come forward and offer themselves for election. That is the feeling amongst the members of all parties in the country. Why should they, when they have no power in the administration of the affairs of their areas? The whole thing, as I say, is centralisation and the present position is drifting practically towards a dictatorship. At the present time it takes months and months to get letters or other business attended to. The energies of the members of local bodies are almost exhausted in making appeals to get business attended to. That is a condition of affairs to which I hope the Minister will give his attention.

The local county councils should be regarded as a sort of preparatory school in which men would get experience in administration so that they might fit themselves for the discharge of their duties if elected to this House or to the Dáil. I believe that service on a local body would give that training. I am afraid that in future, however, that will not be the case because you will not get men of standing, who would take an interest in public administration, to come forward and serve on the county councils. The whole thing is directing itself towards centralisation and bureaucracy in Dublin. I saw a letter in the newspapers the other day from Professor O'Rahilly in which he made the point that if you want anything you must go to Dublin, so that the whole thing is tending towards centralisation which is the very antithesis of democracy. All that will undoubtedly have very serious reactions upon the interest which the people, both as individuals and as a collective body, should take in the administration of the affairs of the country.

We had a good deal of discussion on this Bill both on the Committee and Report Stages. I do not propose to traverse that ground again. On this, the Fifth Stage of the Bill, I want to stress this point: that no matter what Government may be in power, and no matter what Minister for Local Government may be in authority in the Custom House, it will matter little if the services provided in the local areas cost more than the people can afford to pay. It is the people who have to pay the piper, and in the years that lie ahead what we must consider is how much the people can afford to pay for the services provided. We must always remember that the vast majority of the ratepayers make and earn their living out of the land. There is not much use in the year 1946 preparing large-scale and grandiose plans if, in the years that lie ahead, the people cannot afford to pay for them. It should be our duty to ensure that the financial arrangements for the execution of those plans will not place an undue burden on the people who will have to carry it—the farmers and the members of the agricultural industry.

During recent months, in order that I might be able to ascertain the views that had been expressed on local government throughout the years, and in order that I might be able to get, so to speak, a background for many of our discussions here, I have been reading some of the old Dáil debates.

I was particularly interested to read the debates that took place in the Dáil on the local government estimates in 1928. I was particularly interested to see that the whole theme adopted by the Minister and his colleagues—I do not mean the Minister, personally, but the colleagues of the Minister—at the time was that it was quite useless to plan social services which the country could not afford. Of course, we were being told at that time that the country was being run on an imperial scale, but that has now evaporated completely so far as the present Government is concerned. I found the particular sentence in that debate which very much appealed to me. It was a sentence used by a speaker on the 23rd of May, 1928, in column 1841 of the Official Debates and in which he said:

"While I thoroughly sympathise with those who wish to improve the social services, we must always take into account that we have to keep the social services so that the people will be able to meet the cost of them."

That happens to be a quotation from a particular Deputy who, I think, came from Waterford and whose name was Deputy Seán Goulding. Therefore I think it is very appropriate that I should quote it at this stage.

It is always important that that point of view should be kept before us and much of the objection that was taken in this House to Section 30 of the Bill was based on the foundation of fact that it is the people in the particular areas themselves who are best able to judge what the people of these counties can afford to pay; that it is the local people who know the circumstances and who know and understand what services are required very much better than what Senator Hayes referred to as the streamlined efficiency of the Custom House.

This Bill is going from us now and will become law in a few days. I want merely to stress that if in its administration that local angle and local responsibility are lost sight of then local finances will get into an impossible mess and the people will find that the services for which they are asked to pay are more than they can possibly afford. You are then going to find exactly what Senator Baxter and Senator Madden stated here that you will not get responsible people to take their part in public local administration, unless you treat them as men and not like children, and unless you put upon them responsibility and having given them responsibility permit them to carry it out, to shoulder their burdens in a proper way to meet that task. I agree that public representatives should be taken to task if they do not do their job properly, but we should not be trying to keep them in apron-strings from Dublin all the time. If you do that the quality of local representation will decrease and decrease and there will soon be the situation in which you will have no one on local authorities able to make a co-operative and constructive effort in the planning of the particular counties concerned.

That cannot be stressed often enough and I think the Minister has come a considerable way from where he was two or three years ago in respect of the position of elected representatives, vis-á-vis the managers. If we are not going to have a managerial system as a dictatorship of the managers it is not going to be of much assistance if we transfer the dictation of the manager to the dictation of the Minister. In that way you are not going to get any progress or solve the problems for the people in the various counties in the State. Unless full, adequate and mature consideration is left to the elected representatives to work with the officials of their county then there will never be that co-ordination between local and central government which all of us agree is absolutely desirable and essential.

I feel that this Bill is a milestone on the way to the consolidation of local government law. Local government law has been described by an eminent judge as a jungle and the Minister in this Bill has penetrated the jungle to a certain distance and has come out without losing his bearings. The jungle is very thick, however, and the undergrowth has to be cleared away before local government law in this country can be placed upon what might be described as a readable basis. I think the Minister deserves to be congratulated on making this preliminary effort, especially in connection with the law relating to bridges and to rating, and I trust that in the near future he will deal with other aspects of local government law.

We have heard a great deal in this House about the rights of local authorities. These rights are set out in the form of statute law and he who runs may read. Therefore, when a member of this House asked the Minister to state the powers of the elected members of local authorities he was simply asking the Minister to state what is the law, because the law is there and the Minister cannot change it. While he may explain it, the Acts speak for themselves. Senator Sweetman, when speaking on the Report Stage of this Bill on the 10th July, 1946, said in column 572 of the Official Report:—

"Senator Ryan's point of view appears to be that the manager should be all-powerful in local government, whereas my point of view is the reverse."

I would like to correct Senator Sweetman and I desire to say that the views which he attributed to me are not my views.

I am delighted to hear it.

I have never said nor have I ever expressed the view that the manager should be all-powerful in local government. My standpoint is the standpoint of the law because the law provides that the powers, functions and duties of local authorities shall be performed by the elected members of the local authority and by the manager as the case may be. As between the elected members of local authorities and the managers I am perfectly neutral. I have no axe to grind as between the elected representatives of the local authorities and the manager.

Therefore, when I have heard claims made on behalf of the elected members of local authorities which are not given to them by law my legal sense revolts and I must say what I believe to be the actual legal position. While I hold no brief for any manager, whether he is a city manager or a county manager, I do feel that there is a great tendency to make the managers scapegoats and I think that that attitude of mind should be changed. The members of local authorities who feel that their powers have been cut down by statute and who realise that the elected members of local authorities have not got the powers they had before the introduction of the managerial system ought not to throw the blame upon the managers. If any blame is to be attached, it is to the legislature which enacted those laws. Therefore, I say that the elected members of local authorities—and there are elected members of such authorities on both sides of this House—should make an effort to make the best of the law as it stands, an effort to co-operate with the managers in the administration of the Local Government Act. It is now rather late in the day to be decrying the deprivation of the powers of the elected members of local authorities, because the managerial system was initiated as far back as the year 1929— 17 years ago—and it has gone on apace since then. It was first extended to the cities and later to the counties. While I do not attribute any improper motives to any member of any elected body, I do feel that a number of the members of elected bodies are humbugging themselves into believing that they have greater powers than the law gives them. I read a considerable number of local papers every week and I am rather interested in the proceedings of local authorities. I am tired reading debates which show that members of local authorities have interfered in matters with which, in law, they have no concern. They take advantage of their position as what I might call independent members, free from official control of any sort, to upbraid and browbeat the managers. The managers are not responsible for the managerial system.

The sooner that is realised the better. By law, the managers are officials of the local authority. They are officers of the local authority but they are not officers of the elected members of the local authority who are only in the position of the manager himself—performing certain functions of the local authorities. Therefore, I suggest that elected members of the local authorities should read the Local Government Acts and ascertain what are their powers and functions. I suggest that they should confine themselves to these functions and should not intrude upon functions which are given, by law, to the managers. The elected representatives of the people, no doubt, feel that there has been a slur upon them in being deprived of the powers formerly wielded by members of local authorities but, in my opinion, there should be no such feeling, because every member of an elected assembly knows what are the powers and functions of that assembly. Therefore, I suggest, in reply to Senator Sweetman, that the members of local authorities who have the power to make the rates and to impose burdens on the county should have regard to their responsibilities in the making of those rates. I hope that this Bill, which we are now passing, will be the forerunner of a number of Bills to clear up the confusion which, undoubtedly, exists at present in local government law.

Nuair a diúltíodh dhúinn an cuigiú céim den Bhille seo an tseachtain seo thart, bhí mé ag smaoineamh go mbféidir go raibh réasún maith ag na Seanadóirí a bhí in a naghaidh agus go gcloisfimís rud éigin nua nuair a thiocfadh an Bille ós ár gcómhair inniú. O thosaigh an chainnt inniú go dtí anois, níor chualamar ach na rudai ceanna go mion agus go minic a chualamar nuair a bhí an Bille ós ár gcómhair cheana. Bhí mé ag suil go ndéanfaí tagairt don athrú mór atá tagtha ar chúrsaí rialtas aitiúil ó 1898. Na daoine atá ag caint ar rialtas áitiúil agus atá ag lochtú na hathruithe a rinneadh sa dlí le déanaí, is cosúil nár thug siad fá deara agus nach dtugann siad fá deara chómh mór agus atá an saol athruithe agus chó mór agus atá rialtas áitiúil athruithe —chómh mór agus atá rialtas áitiúil tar éis dul i méid agus a chasta agus atá sé eirighthe. Ní thuigeann siad chó simplí agus a bhí gnaithe rialtais áitiúil fadó agus nách ionann gnó an ama san agus an gnó atá le déanamh anois. Ní thuigeann siad nach bhfeileadh an tseirbhís a thug na comhairlí contae sna blianta atá thart don obair an lae indiu. B'eigean dóibh dhá lá nó trí laethe san seachtmhain a thabhairt don obair anois chun é a dhéanamh go sasúil. Dúradh, mar locht ar an Acht um Bainistí Chontae nach mbeadh daoine oiriúnacha cliste sásta dul ar na comhairlí contae. Na daoine adeir sin, an gcreideann siad é? Cuid de na daoine a labhair inniú rinneadar a ndicheall dul ar na comhairlí contae agus, do réir m'eoluis, déirigh leo.

Tá eolas agam ar mo chontae féin— Contae na Gaillimhe. Is fíor go bhfuil lucht an Grand Jury imthithe as an gComhairle Chontae i gContae na Gaillimhe ach ní hionann sin agus a rá nach bhfuil na fir óga—feirmeóirí, siopadóirí, múinteóirí agus daoine eile —gach orlach chomh cliste agus chomh tuigsionach leis na daoine a bhí ann rompu, agus dar liom, tá níos mó spéise ag na fir óga san obair. Is dícéillí an rud a rá nach bhfuil aon spéis ag an phobal sa rialtas áitiúil ó tháinig an tAcht um Bainistí Chontae i bhfeidhm. Ní dóigh liom go ndeachaidh an oiread iarrthóirí isteach fán toghadh ariamh sna contaethe agus a chuaidh isteach fán toghadh deireannach. Nach léir ón ní sin go bhfuil spéis ag na daoine san rialtas aitiúil? Is aisteach an dóigh in a n-abrann daoine rudaí nach mbionn bun no barr leo—rudaí ar a mbeadh fios acu dá mba rud é nach raibh a súile dúnta agus gan a cluas le h-éisteacht orthú.

Deirtear go bhfuil na daoine mi shásta leis an dlí rialtais aitiúil. Nach fíor é go ndearna Fine Gael, Clann na Talmhan agus an lucht oibre a ndícheall ag an toghadh deireannach an tAcht um Bainistí Chontae do thabhairt isteach már ábhar conspóide i ngach ceárd den tír—i gContae Cill Dara, i gCondae Muineacháin, i gContae an Chabháin agus i nGaillimh? Nach fíor é gur phléidh siad an cheist ós cómhair na ndaoine agus gur dhiúltigh na daoine glacadh leis na tuairimi? Níl aon údarás leis an gcainnt seo go bhfuil an pobal míshásta leis an Acht um Bainistí Chontae. Tá daoine míshásta anseo agus ansiúd ach nuair a deirtear go bhfuil an pobal míshásta, ní ceart é, go h-áirithe má's amhlaidh go bhfuiltear ag iarraidh a rá go bhfuil an tromlacht mi shásta. Rinneadh tagairt d'Alt 30 agus fuarathas locht air. Faoi Alt 30 beidh de dhualgas ar an gcomhairle chontae "to maintain at a reasonable standard the public service for the maintenance of which the rating authority is responsible." Ar dhiúltaigh aon Chomhairle chontae sin a dhéanamh roimhe seo? Tá a fhios againn gur fhág comhairli contae áirithe seirbhísí poiblí gan airgead agus nár choinnigh siad cuid de na seirbhísí poiblí ar caighdeán réasúnta. Dá mba rud é nár thárla a leithéid seo b'fhéidir go mbéadh údarás ag na daoine atá ag fáil lochta ar an alt so acht is fíor gur thárla a leithéid de rud. Os rud é go bhfuil an scéal mar tá sé, nach ceart údarás a bheith ag an Aire iallach a chur ar na ndaoine seo a ndualgas do chomhlionadh is cuma an dtaithníonn sé leo, nó nach dtaithníonn.

Cuireadh Comhairle Contae fá chois tamaillín ó shoin toisc nár choinnigheadh na seirbhísí poiblí ar caighdeán réasúnta. Dúradh gurb tíoranacht é sin agus nach raibh na daoine sásta léi ach ní fíor é san. Chó luath agus a fuair na daoine faill, caitheadh amach an dream a dhiúltaigh na seirbhísí poiblí a choimeád ar caighdeán réasúnta agus cuireadh isteach dream a rinne beart do réir brí an ailt seo.

Is iontach nach ndearn na daoine a bhí ag cainnt ar thíoránacht, tagairt don fhiosrachán áitiúil poiblí a cuirfeas an tAire ar bun má tá sé míshásta le comhairle. Bheidh cead ag na daoine agus ag lucht nuachtáin a bheith i láthair ag an bhfiosruchán sin agus má léir nar thuig an comhairle contae a ndualgas, tabharfar deis dóibh an fhaillighe a leigheas. Ma's rud é nár thuig an tAire an scéal i gceart, tá cumhacht faoi fho-alt (2) aige an dearmad a leigheas. Is iontach gur dhún na cainteoirí a súile ar an alt so. Dá léadh siad an talt so bheadh orthu a bheith in a dtost agus sin rud nach bhfeileann dóibh.

Rinneadh tagairt don chostas a bheidh ann i gcomhair rialtas áitiúil san am atá le teacht. Táim ar aon intinn leis na daoine a dúirt go gcaithfimid súil a choimeád ar chaitheamh airgid ach tá súil agam go bhfeicimíd go gcaithfear airgead ar na seirbhísí poiblí do réir mar bheas gá leis agus do réir mar bheas na daoine in ann é d'íoc. Nuair a bhí an cogadh ar siúl, bhí daoine ag éirí suas lá i ndiaidh lae agus ag fógairt: "Is féidir leis an Rialtas airgead a fháil i gcomhair cuspóirí míleata, cuspóirí cogaidh agus cuspóirí airm ach ní féidir leo airgead a fháil i gcomhair cúrsaí síochánta, síbhialtachta, cúrsaí a rachadh chun leasa an phobail. Tá súil agam go mbéimíd in ann airgead dá chaitheamh ar leas an phobail anois agus go n-aontochaidh na daoine a labhair in aghaidh airgid a chaitheamh, go bhfuil sé chomh riachtanach airgead a chaitheamh in am síochána ar rudaí mar iad seo agus a bhí le linn an ré éigeandála airgead a chaitheamh ar cuspóirí míleata. Tá áthas orm gur tháinig an Bille chun chinn. Comhartha is ea é go bhfuilimid fásta agus a dul chun cinn suas agus tá mé cinnte go mbeidh rath ar an obair a déanfar faoi.

As one who is a member of public bodies, in the position which I occupy I should like to state that apart altogether from the fact that I have not been legally trained, the only true guide and outlook that one may effectively bring to bear on the discharge of his public duties is the old knowledge that a juryman must have when he comes to give his decision in a case of law, and that is to be guided by commonsense. Sometimes, I think, we are not guided by commonsense. I think Senator Ryan, when he expects members of public bodies to study every Act and bring to bear upon them the knowledge which solicitors, barristers, or the distinguished men who reached the glorious position of a judgeship possess, is setting up a standard which cannot be expected from one like myself who has to earn his living by the plough. Nevertheless, it is by the plough we all must live. The most efficient animal to deal with the plough is the horse, so I should like to bring to bear upon the discharge of my task some horse sense. If the horse fails me, I shall have to fall back on the donkey and bring to bear upon the question some ass sense. When I hear Senators speak in the clouds I should like to suggest to them that that is the best way to approach the consideration of the laws which we pass here. When we are invited to approve of everything the Minister does, to study Acts of Parliament and to disregard the dictates of our consciences, I think we have only to look to the rural parts of Ireland and to see the flight from the land to realise that all is not going as well as some Senators would have us believe.

What is the great cause of the flight from the land? One of the causes is the ever-increasing rates. What has the abolition of public bodies done to relieve rates? We brought down, to the various counties it is true, a number of managers at £1,200 a year. Sometimes they did very well. I am always anxious, when speaking on this subject, lest my remarks might be interpreted as finding fault with the managers, to say that I have no fault to find with the managers that have come into my district. The only fault I have to find with managers in general is that they are not always guided by commonsense. The manager we have at the present time is a most conscientious official. He does nothing but what the council tell him to do. He is a most efficient manager. He was our secretary, but they took him away to another county where, apparently, the council could not get on with him and he came back to us. Personally I think he is happy and I am perfectly happy with him.

Repeat that for the benefit of Senator Ryan.

Senator Ryan told us that the Managerial Acts were originated in 1929, but the Government have introduced so many changes into the local government system that the people do not know where they are at present. When they read the papers they are mesmerised. Talk about studying Acts of Parliament! When you try to tell people something of what is happening, their comment generally is: "Of course we can well believe it but we think we have heard only half of it. There is far worse than that." What a change from the time when the people gathered around the forge fires to read the local paper and to discuss local administration! They discussed local administration around the firesides in the cabins in which some of us were born and to which some of us might like to go back.

A few years ago we heard a lot about parish councils. The Taoiseach went down to Clonmel and addressed a meeting in conjunction with Fr. Hayes and one would think from his remarks that we were to have parish councils the next day. We were told they were to replace the boards of guardians. In the days of the old rural councils whenever a parish wanted, say, a pump the matter was given the fullest consideration and the people of the parish would know what it would cost. What right had the Government ever to abolish these councils? What was the meaning of it except to give contracts, which were formerly given to local people, to Dublin firms and foreign contractors? The most a man would get out of a local contract would be £5, but how many "fivers" are spent nowadays on foreign contractors? I think I would be doing an injustice to the Minister, that I would be acting the part of a hypocrite, if I did not dissociate myself from the policy which is now being pursued. I would be doing an injustice to the Taoiseach if I did not say that I welcomed his announcement as to the setting up of parish councils. If such councils were in existence, people would know what was happening on the councils when they read the local paper, and they would read local news with far more interest than they read it now. If a man went wrong on a council in the old days there was a quite way of dealing with him—he quickly lost his influence with the local electors. "He is looking for a job for himself" they would tell you. How many such men lost the chairmanship of councils because they were looking for jobs?

In the old days there was a local paper in Dundalk known as the Dundalk Examiner, and there was a family of the name of McGahon living in the town at the same time, the members of which were constantly winning scholarships. When some members of that family were elected to the local council, the Examiner said that the council was educating the members of the family, simply because one of the members of the family happened to be the editor of the other Dundalk paper. If the ratepayers see that some men are anxious to get on local councils in order to get jobs for themselves, they will quickly turn against these people and send them into retirement.

By bringing to bear on the problems of local government the horse-sense that was to be found generally amongst the members of these bodies in the old days, a far greater degree of efficiency was attained than could have been produced by the trained men of whom Senator Ryan speaks. The great need at the moment is to bring about a reduction in local taxation by derating or otherwise so as to make rural Ireland the ideal place that we all wish to live in. We are not going to achieve that result by the methods which are being pursued at present. The Taoiseach was on right lines when he declared that he wanted to give the powers formerly exercised by boards of guardians to parish councils and when he said that parish councils should have the initiative in local matters, with the county councils as supervising authority. The initiative should rest at all times with the local council and not with the Department in Dublin. These are my views. They may be unpopular with the Minister. He may think that I am half "balmy" but I think I would be false to the people I represent if I did not express them. They may not find any approval in the Custom House but I feel that they have a stronger place in the hearts of the people to-day than the Custom House and I think they should be expressed.

Senator McGee has objected to this Bill because it does not derate land. The question of derating has been considered in this country for a very long time. First of all, a commission was set up by the last Government when they were in office.

They came to the conclusion that derating was not and never would be a feasible proposition in Ireland. Derating in England is an entirely different matter as there are miles and miles of road covered with houses and it is practically all a town, with very little land. The vast valuation of the towns is so many thousands of times greater than the value of the land that one could easily derate the land in England as the increase on the buildings would be very small. The factories, shops and dwellinghouses with which the country is studded over, would make it easy to clear the land of all derating. It is entirely different in this country, where the people would not be able to live in the towns if we had derating, as they would be rated out of existence.

While this Bill was going through, I complained that in one section the Minister was making certain rates county-at-large charges and I felt that that would be putting an extra burden on the towns. My argument was considered, but not accepted; but if Senator McGee had his way there would be no towns, as they would be impoverished in a very short time if they had to pay for the derating of all the land in the country. The Government has gone a very long way to release the farmer from his burdens. They gave the double agricultural grant and in the present Budget— which Senator McGee seems to have forgotten—£1,000,000 is provided for the relief of the rates of the farmers.

Senator McGee says that people are leaving the country and seems to complain that this Bill or local government generally is accountable for that. I cannot see the connection at all. This extra money is intended to enable the farmers to give an increased wage to the agricultural labourer and keep him on the land, so there seems no point at all in the Senator's argument that people are leaving the land because of local government, either under this Bill or under any Act previously passed.

Some people have objected to the County Management Act and it has been used here as a political argument against the present Government. It must be remembered that the idea was conceived by the previous Government and was brought into force in 1929 in regard to certain areas. It was intended to be applied to the whole of the country and would have been applied if there had not been a change of Government. The present Government has been slow enough in bringing it into force. The Act was passed only in 1940 and did not come into force until August, 1942. Whether it is good or bad, both Governments are accountable for it.

It is gratifying to me to know that, after the prolonged discussion which we have had on this Bill here, the intelligence and good sense of the Assembly should have triumphed and that this Bill is going back to the Dáil —as Senator Sir John Keane said and Senator Baxter also indicated— practically unchanged in its significant provisions. I think it is a great tribute to the House that notwithstanding the highly coloured misrepresentation of which the provisions of this Bill were made the object, truth should have prevailed and commonsense should be triumphant. When first it came here, this Bill was represented, by that small group in the Seanad which chose to oppose it, as an attempt to curtail further the rights and powers of the local authorities. In replying to that criticism, I dealt in extenso with all the various provisions of the Bill and I showed that, so far from curtailing the powers of the local authorities, it, on the contrary—except, perhaps, in one instance—endeavoured to enlarge them and did confer on the local authorities certain powers which they had not possessed previously.

It is rather a matter for regret, however, that persons of experience both as legislators and as members of the local authority should endeavour to create an impression in the public mind that there is any conflict of jurisdiction as between the local authority and the central executive. Senator Baxter said that nothing would be more unfortunate than that a conflict should arise between the central executive and the local authority. I do not think that such a conflict will or can arise, because the local authorities do not exercise their functions in the discharge of any natural right. They are subordinate bodies and—except in a minor way, in regard to bylaws and such regulations as they themselves may make—they cannot be held to be legislative authorities. They are bodies which were brought into existence in the very early days by the central authority to fulfil certain local obligations. They were bodies which were brought into existence almost ad hoc in order that they might discharge certain specific responsibilities which were laid by the central authority upon their local area. As far as my knowledge of their origin goes, they may be said to have been brought into existence, in the first instance, in order to ensure that the king's highways, his roads and his bridges, should be properly maintained: in order that he might make his customary progresses with due dignity and with full security. It was because this involved a certain expenditure in money, materials and labour on the part of the inhabitants of the local area concerned, that we had convened the first grand session of jurymen or burgesses or knights or property owners in the particular shire which was to be made the subject of the royal visit. We cannot, in dealing with these arguments, allow even Senator Baxter to erect these local authorities, with which he is so much concerned, into little satrapies or republics or statelets. They are, in fact, as I said at the outset, administrative and executive bodies called into being by the local authority in order to ensure that the local services shall be properly maintained and looked after. It would be a most unfortunate thing, from the point of view of the development of local administration, if this false theory as to the powers and origin of the local authorities were to gain any sort of currency or any sort of acceptance among our people.

We have had also running through this debate an attempt to set up a false antithesis as between the local authority and the Central Government. We had it to-day, not only in the statements which have been made in the speech of Senator Baxter but also in the speech of Senator Sweetman. Senator Sweetman said that it matters little what local services are to be provided if the cost of them is more than the people in the local areas are able to pay.

What he said was "can afford to pay".

That simply means this in the last resort: any State service beyond the taxable capacity of the people, but the logical position which members of local authorities and which some members of the Seanad have taken up is that these services are to be provided, and that while people living in specified local areas are entitled to the full benefit of them, nevertheless, they are not to be called upon to pay for those services in their capacity as ratepayers. That, as I say, is based upon the view that an antithesis, a false antithesis, can be set up as between the local authorities and the Central Government, between the local areas and the State. The local areas form part of the State—the State is composed of them—and there is no use in saying that what the local authority cannot afford to bear that the State can afford to bear. There is no logic or sense in that. If the position were to be taken up that ratepayers, as property owners, cannot bear it, and that, therefore, the people who have no property must bear it, the speciousness of the argument would at once betray itself. Surely, if we were to claim that the services are beyond the capacity of people who have property to bear them, and that, therefore, the main burden must be put upon those who have no property, or who occupy property of such insignificant value that they might as well be said to have no property at all, then, of course, as I have said, the speciousness of the argument would at once betray itself, and those who have been trying to set up here that false opposition as between the local authorities and the central executive would at once be disowned.

Senator Sir John Keane was a particular exponent of this theory: that the owners and occupiers of property, as such, should only be called upon to bear a definite limited cost of the public services, and that all other costs should be borne by the central authority. I will go so far as to accept Senator Sir John Keane's proposal to this extent, that where the benefit of a local service is restricted to that particular area, then a particular charge for that particular service should be imposed upon that particular area, but where, as in the case of many county services and many national services, the benefits are enjoyed by the people of the county as a whole, where they all benefit directly or indirectly from them, as they do, for instance, so far as the operation of the public health services is concerned then, I think, that a very good case can be made for asking the people in the local areas to contribute definitely upon some specified basis to those services which, even though nation-wide, benefit them locally in the major degree.

Now, we all know that the occupation of property is a reasonable index— I am not saying that it is an infallible one—but, it is a reasonable index of a person's ability to bear taxation and to contribute to the public services. On the other hand, the mere fact that a person must spend a definite amount on food and clothing to sustain himself in health makes the imposition of indirect taxation in the form of taxes on food, clothes and transport, fall with undue severity on the general mass of the people. A very large proportion of our State income is derived in that way, and, therefore, one has to be very careful to ensure that the burdens which should be properly borne by the local authorities should not be passed on to the State, because the consequence of transferring them in this way would mean that a very large proportion of the taxpayers of the country would be bearing an undue share of the burden, and would, perhaps, be taxed beyond their reasonable capacity. But that is precisely what Senator Sir John Keane is demanding. He is demanding, in fact, that the burden of maintaining local public services by the local authorities should be reduced in order that the ratepayers may be relieved of those burdens, and in order that they may be transferred to the general mass of the taxpayers.

I do not want to interrupt the Minister, but he misunderstands me. It would, however, take far too long to point out the differences between us.

He is misrepresenting you, why do you not say?

I am not consciously misrepresenting the Senator.

I know that.

And if I misunderstand Senator Sir John Keane I am afraid that my misunderstanding is probably shared by a great majority of those who have been listening to him for the past two or three weeks.

I do not want to labour this aspect of the matter unduly but it is an aspect that we have to keep in mind when we are endeavouring to determine what would be a fair ratio to set up as between the portion of the cost of the public services which should be borne by the local authorities, that is to say the ratepayers, and the portion to be borne by the central authority, that is to say the taxpayers of the country. It is quite true that all of us have a dual personality in this matter. We are at once ratepayers and taxpayers at the same time; and when we are big ratepayers we naturally tend to exaggerate perhaps our share of the burden as ratepayers and to say that it would be very much better if the little ratepayer—that is the indirect taxpayer in general-accepted as a taxpayer a very much larger share of the cost. The position is, however, that the Government has to have regard, not only to the ratepayers but to the taxpayers, and to the capacity of both classes to pay, and, therefore, has to try to maintain, by rough and ready means if you like, a fairly equitable balance as between them.

I am sorry that Senator Sweetman is absent because he had apparently indulged in a great deal of research in the past four or five weeks to inform himself as to the background and surrounding circumstances under which this Bill has been produced, and I had intended to correct the misapprehension which he seems to labour under. In the course of several of the speeches which he made here Senator Sweetman has taken credit to himself for bringing about a change of mind and of attitude on the part of the Minister in relation to the position of the managers and the elected bodies under the County Management Act, 1940.

I have here the Report of the Department of Local Government and Public Health for 1942-43 and in it appears a circular letter dated 20th August, 1942, in which is set out the views of the then Minister for Local Government, and who has not been changed since, on the relations which should exist between the county managers on the one hand and the elected representatives on the other and as to their respective powers and functions. I find that on the 20th August, 1942, I set out my views in the following form:—

"The functions of county councils and elective bodies as defined in Section 1 (3) of the Act are divided into reserved functions and executive functions. The reserved functions are those exercised by county councils and elective bodies. These are set out in detail in the Second Schedule of the Act. Every function which is not a reserved function of a county council or elective body is exercisable by the manager who will discharge on behalf of the local body all executive functions.

The reserved functions of county councils and the elective bodies include the making of the rate and the borrowing of money. The determination of policy and the ultimate control of finance, therefore, rests with the elected members of public bodies. The county manager's duty will be the execution of policy and the spending of funds that are made available. He will be entrusted with and be responsible for the successful conduct of the public business of the county."

Following the issue of that circular the Estimate for the Department of Local Government was discussed in Dáil Eireann on the 3rd and 4th November, 1943. In the course of my reply to the debate on the Estimate I said:—

"That leads me naturally to this other aspect of the matter. I do not regard county managers as being in any way superior to the elected bodies. On the contrary, in my view, the elected bodies are the paramount element in local administration. I am determined—I mean in no arbitrary way, but so far as my views can influence the operation of this Act—to make it quite clear to everybody that those who constitute the elected representatives of the ratepayers are of paramount influence in local affairs, in just the same way as this Assembly here is the paramount influence in the government of the nation. But this Assembly does not want to concern itself with what is happening to this particular civil servant or that particular State employee. Deputies can put down questions and, if they are not satisfied with the Minister's explanation, they can express their views and opinions in that regard but they do not ‘butt' in on his day-to-day management of his Department."

I went on to say, speaking on the fact that there were certain functions reserved to the manager:—

"The reservation is no wider in the case of a county manager than it is, say, in the case of a Minister. I mean, it mainly relates to the control of the staff. The Minister has control of his staff. That control is hedged round by certain precedents and traditions. The county manager is charged with the control of his staff. The control of the staff of the local authorities is vested in the county manager and, of course, it is hedged round, too, with certain precedents and certain conditions.

That is just the position of the county manager. I think it is on all fours with that of the Minister, except that a county manager is, perhaps, much more rigidly subject to the control of the members of the elected authority than sometimes Ministers or Governments are subject to that of the elected representatives of the people, because, if the local authority want to give directions to the county manager, they can do so without the danger of creating any serious political crises."

That was in November, 1943. On the 27th January, 1944, this circular was issued to each local authority and, of course, to all the members of the local authorities. It was issued before Senator Sweetman became either chairman or vice-chairman of the Kildare County Council. This circular said:—

"The elected representatives are given by the Act of 1940 wide powers in connection with the exercise by the county manager of executive functions. The manager is bound by the decisions of the elected body on the provision made by them in the annual estimates, and save with their consent he cannot exceed the total amount provided by them for any particular purpose. He must whenever requested by the local authority furnish all information in his possession or procurement concerning any business of the authority. Subject to some exceptions set out in sub-section (5) of Section 29 of the Act any council or elective body at a meeting specially summoned for the purpose can by resolution passed in accordance with that section require the manager to do any particular thing which he can lawfully do as part of his executive functions."

Later on in this circular I went on to say this:—

"The representatives of the electorate are the controlling element in local affairs. It is for them to formulate policy and in association with the manager to consider the solutions for local problems. A loyal acceptance by the manager of the predominant position of the elected body will do much to elicit from them the support to which he is entitled in the discharge of his duties. The law gives the manager the right to take part in the discussions of local bodies. When he does intervene he should do so with tact and discretion. The manager must be prepared to give advice readily to members who are unacquainted with official routine and be obliging and courteous in his dealings with members of the local body and the public."

Following this in 1944-45 this circular was issued in which I stated:—

"A county manager is not an authority exercising powers independently of the local body. He is by law an officer of the county council and the responsibility of the county council in relation to him is quite clear. The county council are the general supervisory authority in county affairs and the manager comes within their jurisdiction. If, for instance, the county council have reason to believe that the manager has failed to perform the duties of his office satisfactorily or has become unfit to hold his office, they can by a majority of not less than two-thirds, suspend him whilst the question of his fitness is being investigated, and if after investigation it is found that he should not remain in office, they can, by the same majority and with the Minister's consent, remove him. There can be no doubt that the council are the controlling power."

Then I went on to deal with reserved functions. I said:—

"Under the system of management in operation here, the various functions to be discharged fall into three classes. The first class comprises functions which are performed directly by the elected members, second comprises executive functions which are performed through and by the manager and the third supervisory powers performed directly by the elected members. The supervisory powers of the elected body include a general power to supervise the performance by the manager of the executive functions, power to examine and revise the estimates, power to obtain information and plans, and power to direct the manager to do specified things... The elected members have the power of the purse. They exercise this in much the same way as the Dáil exercises similar power. The county manager cannot spend until the local authority have authorised him to do so. He is bound by their decisions on the provisions made by them in the annual estimates, and save with their consent, he cannot exceed the total amount provided by them for any particular purpose. The council alone have the power to make the rate and borrow money. They must, of course, maintain the services they are bound by law to maintain but there is considerable discretion allowed them as to the manner in which they shall discharge these obligations. The annual estimates are drawn up by the manager and presented to the members with an explanatory memorandum. It is part of the functions of the members to examine these estimates in detail and if necessary revise them before adoption. Subject to their carrying out their legal obligations, it rests with them to decide how much shall be provided for each service."

I think I have given to the House enough documentary evidence to show that there is no foundation whatever for the sort of statement we have been listening to from some members of the Seanad in the course of this debate. I hope that having read these statements that Senator Madden who was so anxious to know precisely what are the functions of the local authority will have no difficulty now in informing himself fully on the matter, by reading in full the documents from which I have quoted. I was rather surprised to hear Senator Madden saying here that it was impossible now to get responsible and intelligent men to come forward and participate in local affairs. I presume that Senator Madden is speaking for his own Party in this regard because I have not heard this sort of statement from any other quarter in this House during this debate.

You could.

I have not heard it, and I must assume that the real difficulty which Senator Madden and his friends are experiencing in this regard is due to the fact that the people have found them out, so that responsible and intelligent men are not prepared to go forward on their behalf. That is, if these statements are literally true, but knowing Senator Madden and Senator Baxter I refuse to accept them as being precise statements of fact. On the contrary, I think that irresponsibility and lack of intelligence which on occasions have characterised some utterances here are assumed and are not by any means real.

Senator McGee unfortunately is out of the House because I would like to have informed him upon one matter which appeared greatly to disturb him. He asked where had the abomination come from into Ireland of abolishing rural councils. I should have thought that Senator McGee should have been able to answer that question himself, and I am perfectly certain that if he forgets the answer Senator Baxter will be able to make good the deficiency. The rural district councils were abolished by the first Minister for Local Government and Public Health and the first President of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State, a gentleman no longer actively participating in politics but of whom Senator McGee and Senator Baxter were warmhearted admirers and staunch supporters. When I say this I do not wish to decry their affection in this regard in any way. I am merely reminding them of the fact and emphasising what Senator Ryan told them; that we are witnessing here the expansion and development of local government. It is the fact that we have from time to time to bring in measures of this sort and put them before the Seanad that proves that government and local administration are not static things but that they are dynamic, living and growing and that any deficiencies in them have to be dealt with here in the Oireachtas, and that we have the machinery and organisation for ensuring that when established procedures and practices have been out-dated by the progress of affairs and by the increasing complexity of our problems, they can be amended and made workable. I am glad to be able to say to Senator Baxter and I hope he regards it as a matter of congratulation as I do, that the Bill is going back to the Dáil substantially in the form as it came to the Seanad. That is a tribute to the good sense and independence of this Assembly.

Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, ordered to be returned to the Dáil.
Barr
Roinn