Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 26 May 1955

Vol. 44 No. 17

City and County Management (Amendment) Bill, 1954—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Hawkins

When I moved the adjournment last night, we had reached the question of the appointment of rate collectors by the various county councils and a taunt was passed across the House to me as to what happened in Galway in that regard. What happened there was quite justified by the votes of the people and I should like to say, if necessary, in their defence, that the members of the Galway County Council in general are people who presented themselves to the electorate in the various electoral areas for quite a number of years and had had expressed in the ballot boxes the confidence of the voters in them.

I should like particularly to direct a word of advice, if it would be accepted, to young Senators like Senator L'Estrange, who was one of the persons who intervened in this discussion last night, and to put a very pertinent question to him: Where a body has the responsibility of making appointments, has that body not got the same rights as other bodies? It would take a long time to catch up with the victimisations which were carried out in the period from 1922 to 1931, when we had in operation in this country——

An Cathaoirleach

I hope the Senator will find it possible to discuss this Bill without going back to the days of the Treaty, because we do not want a review of history since then.

Mr. Hawkins

I am prepared to accept your ruling, Sir, but we have before us a Bill which proposes to make better provision for the management of our county and local affairs. I consider—I am in your hands, of course—that I am within my rights in drawing the attention of the House to the progress made in the intervening years. In the period I refer to, we had in operation in this State a system by which, unless you were a member, and a paid-up member, of a certain political Party, and unless you were prepared to take an oath of allegiance to a particular constitution imposed on this country, you were not and could not be appointed to any position under any local authority. As a matter of fact, a man would not and could not be employed cleaning the streets of the local town.

We have advanced very far since then, but it is no harm, particularly on a Bill of this kind, to bring our minds back and to realise the advances that have been made. If members on the opposite side of the House wish to make accusations of political appointments, I would retaliate—and I think I am quite entitled to do so—by saying that we would want to make many more appointments before we would catch up on the victimisations of that period. It is a period to which none of us wishes to go back at any great length, but I felt compelled to refer to it because of the interjections of Senators on the other side of the House in regard to certain appointments made by some county councils.

I think it is time we seriously considered this measure. If we do that, I think we shall find that the most important section of the Bill is Section 2. This section provides that, where a resolution is passed, the manager must inform the members of the council as to what he proposes to do. I am sorry that the Minister responsible for the implementation of this measure is not in the House.

An Cathaoirleach

I understand that the Minister is answering questions in the other House, and will be here in a very short time.

Mr. Hawkins

I have no fault to find with that procedure, but I hope that the remarks made in the meantime will be carefully considered by the Minister. Section 2 provides that:—

"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."

I should like to have more detailed information as to how this section is going to operate. Would it be necessary for the local authority to pass a resolution before they assume that the manager is going to do a particular thing, or will the general resolution passed, say, at the first meeting of a local authority or, at the annual meeting of the local authority, in general terms, suggest that the members of this particular local authority, shall request the manager to inform them of any proposals that he may in a particular period, say 12 months, be prepared to carry out? There is no use in passing pious resolutions in this House, because these resolutions are going to be incorporated in an Act of Parliament. It is really what is in the Act that is going to count, not what are the Minister's intentions, nor what the intentions of the Parties supporting the Government are. I think this is a very serious matter for members of local authorities, as to whether it should be necessary to pass a general resolution requesting the manager to give the necessary information to the local authority.

It might be better if I were to go back at this stage over what I have already said. I was directing the attention of the Minister in particular to Section 2, which provides that:—

"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."

I am anxious that the Minister should be in a position to give information as to whether a general resolution passed at an annual meeting, or passed at the first meeting of the council after it has been re-elected, will suffice to ensure that the manager, at all times, will give to the local authority the information for which this section provides. If that is not the case, what do we find? We find that the members of the local authority are not aware of what the manager proposes to do, and it is only after he has performed a particular act that the members can take any action. There is no provision in this Bill for any action which they might take, once the manager has made his decision, and once the proposals which he proposes to put into operation are given effect. To my mind, if this section is not amended to a very great extent to enable the local authority, by a general resolution, to demand from the manager that he shall place before them all his proposals, then this section is only, one might say, a pious resolution, and will have no effect.

The next section to which I would draw the attention of members of the House is Section 6, which provides:—

"(1) The manager shall not submit any proposal to vary the number of permanent offices under a local authority for the sanction of such Minister as may be empowered to sanction the proposal save with the consent by resolution of the local authority."

With that section, I am in entire agreement, but I would like that the section should go still further. The section, as it is, provides that the county manager shall not employ more persons, shall not vary their appointment, shall not do all the things mentioned in the section, except by resolution of the local authority.

We have growing up in this country a system from which there is no way out, that of recruiting temporary staffs. I think, in this regard, that we will have to take very serious recognition of the fact that we are a very small country, and that the local authority area is very compressed. It is one out of which the manager, no matter how much he might like to do it, cannot live entirely. I think it would be advisable that he should have the quality of sociability in order to have contact with the various organisations of which he might become a member. I do not want to criticise the activities of any manager, but I think when we are legislating, we should take into consideration all human elements, and in doing that, we should consider, in particular, that the manager is human. To guard against the criticism that flows from these associations of the managers in the matter of temporary appointments, I would suggest to the Minister seriously to consider taking out of the hands of the manager the making of temporary appointments. If we want to have this system accepted, not alone is it necessary that justice should be done, but that every person interested in this particular matter should be convinced that justice is being done. In a case where there may be certain contacts that a particular manager might have on the golf links or the tennis courts or in some place of sociability, we should remove as far as possible any doubt that any appointment is being made because of these contacts. What does it lead up to? I have experience of going up and down the country—not in one county but in many—and I have heard the same complaint, that because of this transferring to the county manager of temporary appointments, persons can be appointed in a temporary capacity——

Mr. P. O'Donnell

The Senator will understand that this is the law for the past 15 years.

Mr. Hawkins

I said this last night and do not wish to repeat it—that it is no excuse for the Minister to say that because it has been done over 15 years——

Mr. P. O'Donnell

The Senator said we were now transferring this function to the Minister. I am pointing out that we are not, that that has been the position all down through the years.

Mr. Hawkins

Oh no——

Mr. P. O'Donnell

That is what the Senator said, or what I understood him to say.

Mr. Hawkins

Would the Minister say what he is attributing to me?

Mr. P. O'Donnell

That we are now transferring this function of appointing temporary personnel to the manager, that we are now transferring this function to him. That is what I understood the Senator to say.

Mr. Hawkins

This function was transferred to the manager by the Act of 1950.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

That is quite all right.

Mr. Hawkins

We have no apology to make for these things. We are prepared to admit what has been done. I think I made it very clear last night that the 1940 Act was introduced as an experiment.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Agreed.

Mr. Hawkins

It was nothing that we were tied to. It was much easier to give to the persons appointed as county managers certain authority and then, over a period of years, examine carefully how this worked out. We have done that and we have seen—as I am sure members of the Minister's own Party who are also members of local authorities have seen—the deficiencies and the points that should be remedied in the national interests.

What I am interested in particularly in this section is that we should give a fair deal to all applicants, that we should not leave it to the discretion of one individual to choose as to who should be appointed to a temporary post. That may seem a very small matter to the Minister or to some Senators, but it is a very important matter to many of the applicants because of the result of mere appointment to that temporary post over a long period. Mind you, many of these temporary appointments continue over quite a long period.

I do not wish to refer to any particular appointment, as it would not be fair to do so. It would not be fair for a member of this House or any other House to point out any particular case, but if the Minister doubts what I put before him I am prepared to go that far and to say that in my own knowledge I have known of persons appointed by a county manager to a particular post and that temporary appointment has continued over a long period and that period has enabled that particular person to qualify or become qualified to be an applicant for the permanent post. Some Senators may say there is nothing wrong with that.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

May I ask the Senator a question? Is the Senator referring to the filling of permanent posts by temporary men or merely to the creation of temporary posts?

Mr. Hawkins

The Minister is the head of a very important Department and he has also a very wise and learned practice as a barrister-at-law.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

No, unfortunately.

Mr. Hawkins

He is not going to succeed in getting me tangled up in this matter. Whether it is a matter of law or not, it is very important for quite a number of our young people that if they or their parents go to the expense of a long course of training to become qualified—whether in medicine, in engineering or in some other faculty—and then find that because we have given, by an Act of the Oireachtas, to a particular individual— who is charged with the responsibility of administering the affairs of a county—power to appoint some person in a temporary capacity who has not these qualifications but who, because he has been appointed by the county manager is given an opportunity that is not given to the other applicants under the same conditions, of becoming qualified for that particular post, it is something that we should take serious notice of and it is a case where serious steps should be taken in the interest of those young people who might be aspirants to positions of that kind. We should also take it, having regard to the position of the county manager himself or the person who may be so appointed.

Mr. L'Estrange

It is a pity you did not whisper that into some people's ears 20 years ago.

Mr. Hawkins

We have the young lad back again.

An Cathaoirleach

We are not discussing affairs of 20 years ago.

Mr. Hawkins

I do not mind going back 20, 30, 40 or 50 years or more, but this is neither the time nor the place for it. I would seriously advise my young political aspirant to take time off to study seriously what has happened in the last 20 or 30 years. Then he will probably be better informed and will be of much more advantage to the Party he purports to represent.

I would seriously request the Minister to amend this section and make it extend to temporary appointments. I would also avail myself of the opportunity to ask the Minister to recommend to local authorities that we should have more of this system of promotion for various offices that might occur. Last night, as well as on other occasions, we discussed the question of appointments made by the Local Appointments Commission. I have every respect for those appointments and I think the commissioners do their very best in the interest of the country. At the same time, all the appointments have not been of the best. That does not mean that the members of the commission were at fault: it is just one of those things and I suppose that human frailty is as it is and you cannot always choose the persons as they appear before you. These things have happened.

Let us look back over the period before the introduction of the appointments commission system and examine the type of person then in charge of the various institutions of local government. One must admit that you had people holding appointments then who did a good job, whether they were appointed under a corrupt system or because of the influence they might command in a particular district. Whether it was the local dispensary doctor or the secretary to the local board of health, I think we must all admit that they were people who did a good job of work in their own way. It does not matter how they secured the appointment, but they did that good job of work because they had satisfied themselves that they were there to remain in that local district, had very little hope of going outside of it and so they settled down there. They became part and parcel of the local community and they gave the best services that they possibly could because of that fact.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Last night the Senator lauded the setting up of the Local Appointments Commission.

Mr. Hawkins

I say this without any qualm of conscience that there is no person in this or in the other House who suffered so much as I did, but having regard to the fact that the Act setting up the Appointments Commissioners was introduced by the Government of which I was a supporter, I believed at the time that it was something which should be done. I supported the Act in no uncertain manner and have no regrets for doing so. I am still convinced that it is the best system. At the same time I am of opinion that we must be always on our guard to provide safeguards that the system is not going to fall into the hands of any class, creed or organisation in this country.

Mr. Hickey

What is the Senator suggesting about temporary appointments?

Mr. Hawkins

That they should not be left in the hands of the county manager. I say that where there is a question of a temporary appointment the period of it should be defined, whether it is to be for three or six months.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Steps have already been taken to do that.

Mr. Hawkins

In the case of temporary appointments, I think they should be made by the people who have to provide the money, that is, by the local authority and not by the manager. I do not want to say anything that would reflect on the ability of the manager in making an appointment, but if the appointments were made by the local authority any question of levelling criticism against him would be removed from any group in the country. If Senator Hickey has any doubts as to what my approach is to this question of appointments, I want to say that I am with him 100 per cent. in giving full authority and discretion to the local authority in the making of such appointments.

Section 7 provides that the local authority may, by resolution, appoint a committee which is referred to as the estimates committee and that this committee is to fulfil certain functions. When the Minister was moving the Second Reading of the Bill last night he held this section up to the House as the one that gives back to the local authorities some of the extraordinary powers that were extracted from them by the Act of 1940. What really is he giving back? When this Bill was first introduced it was mandatory on the local authority to appoint an estimates committee which was to be composed of a number of persons from each electoral area. This estimates committee is to prepare the estimates relating to the various activities of the local authority. How are the members of that committee to do work of that kind? In what position would the members of this and the other House find themselves if they were asked to prepare an estimate for the working of central government?

Mr. P. O'Donnell

The Ministers do that.

Mr. Hawkins

That is the answer which I expected to my question. In regard to this estimates committee, we must assume that the manager is the man who will be charged with the responsibility of preparing and putting before it an estimate for the coming year. There is no county council and no local authority to-day that does not do what exactly is being provided for in this Bill.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

But they have no statutory power and here we are now giving them the statutory power if they want it.

Mr. Hawkins

Statutory power to do what?

Mr. P. O'Donnell

To form an estimates committee and prepare the estimate.

Mr. Hickey

That is the estimate only?

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Yes.

Mr. Hawkins

If the Minister wants me to argue on that point I can do so, and for quite a long time, but I do not propose to do so. Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that the estimates committee meets and decides that £xy should be provided for health, road and other services. They present that document after having gone into the question at meetings over a number of weeks. At the end they say that in their opinion that should be the estimate for the making and maintenance of roads, etc. They say that the sum of £zy should be provided for hospitalisation and that the sum of £abc should be provided for mental hospitals. Having done their work they present the document to the manager. He then comes along and says to the committee: "My staff have gone into this and they find that you have underestimated to a considerable degree the sums that would be required for the maintenance of the local institutions, the upkeep of the roads, et cetera." What is going to happen then? The manager is the person who has the facts and figures at his disposal. He has at his disposal the services of the county engineer and of those who are in charge of the various institutions in the country. Is it not quite clear to all of us that the sum which the manager puts before the committee will be the sum to which serious consideration will be given? It should not be on the assumption of a sum that will be thought out by a number of people who meet together and think that such-and-such a service could be run much cheaper or much dearer, as the case may be. There is no local authority in this country at the moment that has not gone, at its annual estimates meeting, into every phase of its work.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

At a cost of £60 a meeting and travelling expenses.

Mr. Hawkins

I am sorry the Minister introduced this matter because it is now going to take much longer to deal with it. We now have an excuse advanced by the Minister——

Mr. P. O'Donnell

It is not an excuse. It is a simple statement of facts. Mayo County Council held five meetings at a cost of £300 and travelling expenses before they struck the rate.

Mr. Hawkins

I would like to ask another question arising out of that. I do not hold any brief for the Mayo County Council, but I know many members of it for quite a long time and they have been people who have given national service to this country.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

I am not faulting them on that account.

Mr. Hawkins

I am sure they are people who would give of their best as local representatives and while the Minister has pointed out that it cost £300 to hold the three or four meetings before the rates were struck, he did not point out how much they saved the ratepayers.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

They granted an increase in road workers' wages without making provision for it in the estimate.

An Cathaoirleach

We are not dealing with the affairs of the Mayo County Council and I would ask the Senator to come to the measure before the House.

Mr. Hawkins

That is a strange statement for the Cathaoirleach to make.

An Cathaoirleach

I have observed the course pursued by the Senator to-day and yesterday and I would now suggest that he come closer to a discourse of the measure under discussion by the House.

Mr. Hawkins

Am I not right in saying, Sir, that I have not introduced the question of Mayo County Council at all? It was introduced by the Minister. I think that when a submission is made on the very important question which we are considering here under Section 7, as to whether we should have an estimates committee or whether the matter should be left to the discretion of the local authorities, I am quite within my rights in making reference to the system as it now exists. We have had in every local authority these estimates committee meetings. The Minister has drawn attention to the situation that has arisen in a particular county, that the county council met on at least five occasions to consider this very important matter. It was a very important matter for the members of that particular local authority. It was also an important matter for the persons who were called upon to provide the money.

What do we propose to do here? We are not going to have five meetings now but we propose to make provision for the setting up of this committee. The number of meetings these committees will have is not specified and how long their deliberations will extend is not specified either. Therefore, I suggest that this procedure of setting up an estimates committee will, in the long run, be more costly to the county than the present system because of the fact that you have provided for a committee of two representatives from each electoral area. They can only make recommendations which will go before the local authority. The members of the county council will be more anxious to do things better than the members of the estimates committee and you will have the whole thing gone over again at the general meeting of the county council, even though it has already been discussed by the estimates committee, not four or five times but perhaps 14 or 15 times.

After all that—the question of the appointment of the committee and the question of the services that the officials must give to the committee— they will make a suggestion as to the amount they think should be provided for the period of the next 12 months and the local authority members may not accept that recommendation made by this committee on which some of themselves sat. The Minister himself, because of the discussion in the Dáil and because of the representations made to him by the various Parties which composed the Government, has now gone still further and nullified the whole purpose of Section 7. He now makes provision that the local council may or may not appoint this committee. If they do not, it is all right, and if they do he will suggest that it is an advance. The Minister is so anxious about the £300 which it cost to hold the five meetings of the Mayo County Council that he has lost sight of the fact that every meeting of the committee set up under this Bill is going to cost the ratepayers, over the 12 months, a sum not less than the £300 to which he objects and which the ratepayers of County Mayo were called on to pay.

The next and most important section is Section 16. I referred last night to the provisions of Section 4 and I am sure that other members of the House, with me, who were very interested in the giving back of powers to members of local authorities, were very anxious that Section 4 should be fully implemented, but I would particularly direct the attention of Labour members to what Section 16 means. There is no use, as I said before, in passing pious resolutions. The fact is that Section 16 provides that any officer of a local authority—county engineer or any other person appointed by him or the county manager—can come into a meeting of the local authority and say to the members when they propose to do a particular job—to erect a new bridge, to take over a new road, to provide a water supply or any other job—"This is going to cause a deficiency in the funds that were provided for at the annual meeting and accordingly I inform you that, if you vote for this proposal, you are liable to surcharge."

Where in this section is the giving back to members of local authorities the powers that we assumed would be given back to them? We are taking from the county manager or the executive officer the responsibility that has been his up to this—the responsibility that, if any moneys are paid out illegally, he and he alone would be the person responsible to the auditor. We are transferring that responsibility from the shoulders of the paid official, the person who signs the cheques and the person who should have a knowledge of the various Acts under which the local authority operates, and placing it on the members of the local authority as a kind of blackmail. Any county surveyor or assistant county surveyor, any county medical officer of health or assistant county medical officer of health, or any other person in the employment of a local authority can come to a meeting of that body and say: "Your proposal is all right, but remember, boys, that if you vote for that proposal, no matter how well you might think of it, no matter how worthy a project it is, no matter how urgent or deserving it is and no matter how many ratepayers it might serve, you are liable to be surcharged by the auditor."

Mr. McCrea

That only refers to reserved functions. Is that not so?

Mr. Hawkins

There is no member of a local authority who is prepared—it would not be right that he should be so prepared—to place himself in that position. Labour members may, as an excuse to justify their support of this Bill, say that there is no such thing in the Bill.

Mr. Hickey

Do not make so many excuses.

Mr. Hawkins

I say that it does not matter what they think about it. These are the facts, and, when this Bill becomes an Act, these are the facts that will operate. When the auditor goes down to the local authority in County Wicklow or in County Cork, or to the corporation in Cork City, these are the facts he will examine and it is on these facts that he will decide what action he will take.

In general, we believed that the County Management Act would bring about some expedition, that there would be less of a hold up in the giving of sanction to many matters sent up to the Department, but we have had this experience—and it does not matter what side of the House we sit on—that down through the years local government has grown. The number of persons in the employment of every local authority has increased—I think I am safe in saying—threefold over the period the Act has been in operation. That might be explained by reason of the fact that every Act we pass here places more obligations on local authorities.

I should like to say also that, since the inauguration of the management system, there has grown up in our local services a complete disregard for the views or recommendations of members of local authorities. As a matter of fact, in many parts of the country I have travelled, I have been told that it would be much easier for an ordinary citizen to make an appointment with and to meet any Minister of State than it would be for an elected representative of the people to meet and to discuss any matters he might be interested in with the county manager. That is not as it should be.

We should strive to create in the mind of the persons appointed as county managers that they are in the rôle of persons responsible to a board of directors and should strive to create in their minds—whether they be county medical officers of health, county engineers or the most humble dispensary doctor—that they are also servants of the persons who provide the money and that they should have regard to any recommendation and advice that may be put forward by members of a local authority.

It is not so easy to get elected to a local authority. The local authority is local and a man is elected by his neighbours because they have confidence in him and his ability to do the things they wish to have done. When that man goes into the council chamber and makes his decisions, he goes back and has to face the criticism of his neighbours. That is the best safeguard we could have and I should like to see more appreciation of the services given over a long number of years by the members of local authorities.

It is wrong to suggest that the management system was introduced because it was felt the time had arrived when steps should be taken to eradicate corruption. It was not for that reason that the system was introduced, but because the whole ambit of local government had so extended that no number of people could give to it the attention which it should get.

I think it regrettable that this Bill should be introduced at this stage, on the eve of the local elections. If we are to apply ourselves seriously in this House to such a measure, it should be in the normal atmosphere of a time removed from the turmoil of local elections. That was one of the reasons advanced by the late Deputy Murphy when he was Minister, for asking this House and the other House to adjourn the local elections in 1948. I think it would be very advisable that this Bill, and the other Bill which we discussed last week or the week before, in relation to local government, should be held over for a period until after the local elections, when we could have begun to consider seriously what form of local government would be best for this country.

If I were asked personally I would say that we have gone too far in centralisation. We have gone too far on the road to centralised government. I think we should seriously consider the setting up of parish councils which would create a civic spirit in the minds of our people, and which would promote a civic atmosphere, so that they could play their part in local government. Some people say that it might bring you to the point at which you might have a question of whether politics should be introduced into local government or not. I have stated, on a number of occasions in this House, that the best persons to serve on local authorities are those who have been chosen to be the representatives of their political Parties, because they have the confidence of those Parties, and are put in as their standard bearers. Eventually, they will have to answer to their Party for their conduct on the local council, and they will also, eventually, have to answer to the electorate. Until we can reconsider this problem of local government, I think that the present system is about the best.

I am sorry that many of the interjections made in this discussion, particularly while I was speaking, should have been made. I think that when we are considering a question of this kind, we should consider it in the spirit in which this House was first set up. I have been a member of this House for 17 or 18 years, and it is only recently that we have had introduced this serious political challenge which we have experienced recently. I hope. for the benefit of this House, that this will not continue. I do not mind. I am prepared to meet any of the challenges which have been made, but I think——

An Cathaoirleach

There is nothing about that in the Bill, Senator. You are not dealing with the Bill.

Mr. Hawkins

If the Cathaoirleach has any objection to these remarks. then I have nothing to do but to submit to his ruling. But I will say that when the House was first formed, this was not the spirit which prevailed. I hope that the Party leaders of those people who introduced this political feeling into the House, will reconsider their approach. They should be satisfied that the best results will probably flow from recognising that there are, in this House, members who, while they may have political affiliations, are prepared at all times to work for the common good.

That brings me to a question on which I would like to have an answer from the Minister. I am sure that he will agree with me that many local authorities throughout the country are dominated by the majority, whether it be Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil or Clann na Poblachta. Of course, any of the other Parties do not dominate any council. I do not think that the Minister, or his predecessors, have ever had any fault to find with the co-operation or lack of co-operation from the members of those local authorities, no matter to which Party they belonged. Any measure which was suggested by those Ministers, which the members of local authorities felt was in the best interests of their constituents, they gave effect to. There has been the most loyal co-operation, in order to give effect to all the measures introduced.

I ask the Minister seriously to consider the proposals which we have put to him. They have been put in a spirit which we would all like to see. Our interest is twofold. Throughout the country, the Party for which I speak has a majority on the local authorities. We shall have that majority after the next election.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

I think that is what you are becoming afraid of, that you will lose it.

Mr. Hawkins

It is because of that that we want to strive to make this Bill something worthwhile, because it eventually will be a measure to be operated, in the main, by the elected representatives of the Party I represent.

Mr. Commons

I shall be as brief as an active member of a local authority can be on a measure of this sort. At the outset, I will say to the Minister that I think this is the third time that an attempt has been made to amend the county management system. I should like to congratulate the Minister, if he finds it possible to bring to a conclusion this attempted amendment, because we know that, since the 1940 Act was first introduced, it was as an experiment. At all times, it was watched by Ministers of Local Government to see whether it would be necessary to amend it, and, if so, what amendments could be made. We know that was something which all Ministers had in mind, irrespective of what political Party they belonged to.

The present Minister, having that in mind, set about amending this Act in a way which I thought was very fair and reasonable, because the first thing he wanted to find out was how much power the elected representatives required, or were anxious to get. In order to do so, he went to most counties, and discussed with the local authorities what powers they wished to have back, and whether they were contented or discontented with the management system. He asked them to make recommendations to him as to what they thought would be the best system of amending the 1940 Act. I think it was an excellent idea and that, no matter who was in the Minister's shoes, he could not ascertain better information than by going to all the counties and discussing with the elected representatives there what they wanted or did not want. That tour being over, the Minister set to work, brought this measure into the Dáil—and a strange thing happened in the Dáil. Of the two things in which local authorities could use their powers —the striking of the rate and the appointment of rate collectors—some members of the Dáil actually wanted to get rid of the appointment of rate collectors and hand it over to the county manager. I have a certain amount of sympathy with the Minister when he sets out to give them what they want. We had Deputies in the Dáil, many of whom were responsible members of local authorities, who wished that one of the last of those powers that we have, the appointment of rate collectors, should be taken away and given to the county manager

Irrespective of that, this measure is a reasonable one. It does not make any great changes in the County Management Acts. It makes statutory some things in which managers are already co-operating with county councillors. I was first elected in 1945 to the county council and I came in under a county manager. I immediately thought this official was a monster, that we would all have to go fully armed against him, that we would not be allowed to open our mouths and that the estimates and everything else of importance would be shoved down our throats, whether we liked it or not. I very quickly found out that the manager we had— and we have had two managers since— was a very reasonable and sensible man. He presented his estimates and presented agendas at every meeting of the county council and only on very few occasions did he attempt to do anything over our heads. The same applies to the man we have now. We know he has the authority if he so wishes and that it would take a very strong resolution, passed by two-thirds of the members, to curb him if he wished to go ahead. We know it would be almost impossible to get the agreement of two-thirds. The same thing applies all over the country generally. The managers discuss thoroughly with the elected representatives what they are about to do, before they take definite steps. It depends entirely on the mentality of the manager. The council has no power to force him to do these things.

This Bill makes statutory the power of three members to put in a resolution to the manager demanding certain facts and figures, to make him bring before the council things he might not otherwise bring. In other words, it makes statutory for the county councillors powers which the manager had already been given, but given at his own discretion, if I might so describe it. That will be useful, as it will give more interest to people who are anxious and concerned about local authorities. It would give them more inclination to contest elections and become useful members of local authorities.

The county council legislation is extensive and the amount of money involved, even in the smallest county, is quite considerable. It is always better to have a more level-headed and steadier type of person appointed, than the irresponsible classes who shout and rave for higher wages for workers of every description, for higher expenditure on sewerage schemes, waterworks and roads and at the same time have to go back and make their own fathers and brothers pay for it on the rates. I know the very thought of the publicity which any individual wishes to get because of his demand for extravagant schemes or higher rates of pay is very tempting. I have never practised that. If those things have to be paid for, I and others around me have to pay our share. Because of that, I believe that the more sensible type of councillor will become available. I believe that because of the amendment now taking place in this Bill, we will have better people going forward in the next election and that will give us better councillors than we have had.

This measure will complete something which the Minister wishes to complete and which others before him have tried to complete. The satisfactory implementation of this machinery will depend entirely on the county council. I am a bit scared of Section 16. Perhaps the Minister would tell us what would be regarded as an illegal payment. If I and two other councillors decide that a well must be bored in a certain townland to give a drinking supply of pure water to a certain number of people and if the county engineer or medical officer says no well is needed there and they will not allow it to be put in; and if we who have better knowledge of the locality say we will insist on its being put there and if we get £1,000 expended on the well, is that a legal payment?

Mr. P. O'Donnell

That is perfectly legal. It is a lawful payment and you will not be charged with it.

Mr. Commons

Even though we have not provided money for it?

Mr. P. O'Donnell

It can be done by supplementary estimates, and they are unlimited.

Mr. Commons

That eases my mind. as the same thing could apply to a road or anything else. The Minister has enlightened me very much. The question of estimates committees has taken a lot of time in this debate. I understand it is up to the council itself to set up such a committee or not, as it wishes. In my county I do not believe one could be set up, as we would need three or four meetings of such a committee and also four or five meetings of the council for the purpose of the estimates. I am speaking only for my own county, where I know the mentality of the people I am associated with. I believe that the estimates committee would not be useful or satisfactory there.

I agree that councillors should settle their own affairs with regard to estimates committees. Councillors should be as helpful as possible when estimates are being struck, whether by the committee or the general council. On this I would cross swords with the Minister. He says that we took five meetings of the council in Mayo to strike the rates and that it involved an expenditure of £300. I grant that that is true, but we saved something in the region of £40,000 for the ratepayers in the County Mayo although it took five meetings of the county council to strike the rate. There has been this reference to the travelling expenses paid to councillors, but a year or two ago I recollect that the travelling expenses of one county council official amounted to £1,400. Therefore, I do not think there is anything to be said against the payment of travelling expenses to councillors who find it necessary to put so much work into the preparation of the estimate—no, not even if it took ten meetings of the county council to arrive at what they thought was the sum necessary before striking the rate. I think that, in the end, it would be much cheaper to meet those travelling allowances, especially when we consider that one official's bill for travelling expenses was five times the amount paid in travelling expenses to councillors.

That is all I have to say on this stage of the Bill. It is one which will lend itself to a great deal of discussion on the Committee Stage. Every section of it will need to be examined. I welcome the Bill and I am satisfied with the Minister's explanation. As far as the officials are concerned we do not always take their word. We probe into everything ourselves, and as councillors, we feel that we are running our county as well as it possibly could be run. Every item of expenditure is carefully scrutinised by us, and if at the moment there is not sufficient money to meet some special expenditure on roads, water supply schemes or sewerage schemes, we know that it can be met later by a supplementary estimate. As regards Section 16, the points that arise there can be examined in greater detail on the Committee Stage.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

Níl fhios agam an ceart dom fáilte a chur roimh an mBille seo nó nach ceart mar, i m' thuairimse, níl in a lán de ach cur i gcéill maidir le cómhacht a bhaint den bhainisteoir contae agus é thabhairt thar n-ais don chómhairle áitiúil. B'fhéidir ar a shon san gur féidir sásamh éigin a bhaint as an mBille mar tá cruthúnas ann go bhfuil ciall agus tuiscint tagaithe i nithe den tsórd seo. Na poiliticeoirí a bhí ag fáil lochta ar chóras na bainisteoireachta i Rialtas Áitiúil na tíre seo, agus a bhí á rá ná raibh ann ach deachtoireacht, níor thuigeadar an scéal, nó má thuigeadar, ní rabhadar macánta. Ba mhaith an rud é dá dtagaidís amach anois agus dá n-admhaidís go raibh dul amú orthu.

Pádraig Ó Domhnaill

Ná raibh an córas ann sul tháinig Fianna Fáil isteach?

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

Is don Acht, 1940 atáim ag tagairt. Duine 'seadh mise ná fuil an oiread sin taithí ar chúrsaí rialtais áitiúil agam is atá ag Seanadóirí eile mar nach comhalta d'aon chómhairle áitiúil mé fé láthair, ach déarfainn dá gcuirtí chun guthaíachta é imeasc na gcomhairleoirí contae féin an mbeidís i bhfabhar deire ar fad a chur le córas na bainisteoireachta agus an seana-chóras a thabhairt thar n-ais go nguthóchaidís i bhfabhar an chórais atá ann anois. Do b'é an tuairim a bhí ag a bhfurmhór roimhe seo a déarfainn go rabhadar sásta leis an mbainisteoireacht ach na cómhachtaí a bhí aige do mhaolú. Sin é an tuairim do bhí ag a lán againn freisin. Ach ní mór an maolú atá á dhéanamh sa Bhille seo ar na cómhachtaí atá ag na bainisteoirí.

Ar aon chuma, maidir le bainisteoirí, fé mar a dúirt údar áirithe, bíonn cuid acu binn agus bíonn cuid acu searbh ar nós gach dream daoine eile, agus an bainisteoir a bhfuil tuiscint agus ciall agus réasúntacht aige ní gá aon Bhille mar é seo a rith tríd an Oireachtas chun é a smachtú. Dhéanfadh sé an gnó go ciallmhar agus go stuama i slí ná beadh aon locht le fáil ag na cómhairleoirí air agus bheadh sé sásta gach eolas agus gach cabhair a thabhairt do na comhairleoirí, agus déarfainn go mbeidís sin lán-tsásta cabhrú leis sin. Ach an bainisteoir ná fuil tuisceaneach agus ná fuil ciallmhar ní thiubharfaidh an Bille seo na tréithe sin dó. Ní thiubharfaidh, ná dá rithimís fiche Bille tríd an Oireachtas seo. Agus geofar amach cho cinnte is atáim annso nuair a bheidh an Bille seo rite go mbeidh cúiseanna gearáin fós ag comhairleoirí mar go mbeidh fo-bhainisteoir ann ná beidh sé de chiall aige agus de rath air an gnó a dhéanamh i slí a bheidh sásúil do na comhairleoirí. Brathann a lán de seo mar sin ar thréithe na ndaoine atá i gceist. Mar fhocal scoir tá ciall cheannaí tagaithe do na politiceoirí atá sa Rialtas anois. Tar éis a tuigtear gach beart—is dócha go dtuigeann an tAire an sean-fhocal san.

Pádraig Ó Domhnaill

Tuigim go deimhin.

Éamon Ó Ciosáin

Mar a dúirt mé i dtosach, níl mórán sa Bhille seo a bhféadfadh duine athrú a thabhairt air. Tá súil agam go n-oibreoidh sé nuair a bheidh sé ina dhlí.

Having spoken in my native tongue, I suppose I now have to go back to the language of the Sasanach for a short period. First of all, I would say that this Bill has to be considered against the background of political propaganda that was indulged in over the years by the Parties now forming the Coalition. When we think of their fulminations against the Fianna Fáil Government for having adopted the managerial system, we find it difficult to realise that these very same people have now introduced the present measure we are discussing to-day. The Bill we are discussing is a Bill indicating that all Parties in this House are in favour of the system and we here now are more concerned to ascertain in what way, and to what extent, we can improve the measure as it comes to us from the other House. We cannot, however, shut out from our recollection all the things that were said by the people now forming the Coalition Government, and those supporting them, about the managerial system They described it as dictatorship in local government and pledged themselves to abolish it and put an end to it as soon as they would get the opportunity.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

We never said abolish; we said amend.

Eamon Ó Ciosáin

The Minister was not in the House in my time when this business was going on. This is one of the terrible things that they attributed to Fianna Fáil and they said they would put an end to it as soon as they got an opportunity. That statement, in substance, was made from many platforms in this country.

It cannot be pretended that the powers of the county managers are being drastically curtailed by this measure. I will say that I consider the sections of this Bill dealing with the powers of the county managers as aimless and ineffective and there is no attempt made to do what was described as restoring their former powers to members of local authorities. The only change of any importance that is being carried out here is that which enables the elected local representatives to get some more information from the county manager as to certain functions which he will carry out from time to time. When the Bill becomes law, there will be very few positive functions that the members of local authorities can perform on their own initiative that they have not been able to do already.

I notice, however, that as regards his dealings with the members of his staff an exception is being made. Certain things could be done by the county manager in relation to members of his staff about which the members of a local authority would want to have some information, but now they cannot get that information. For instance, a rate collector, as far as I can understand, could be dismissed by the county manager and he need not give any information about that dismissal to the members of the local authority.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

The rate collector has the right of appeal.

Eamon Ó Ciosáin

Or a ganger working in charge of certain operations on the roads could be dismissed for personal reasons and the local representatives would have no information about it or no satisfaction to get. I do not know whether the section can be amended so as to meet the contingency which I have in mind.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

We are amending the Industrial Relations Act so as to give people such as a ganger the right of appeal to the Labour Court.

Eamon Ó Ciosáin

I do not know whether that would be enough. I do not know whether the bringing of the matter before the Labour Court would cover the contingency that I have in mind. However, that is a matter for the Committee Stage. We will have to give this measure careful consideration between this and the Committee Stage to find out if we can deal with certain points of that description.

I will say this to-day, that whatever system of local government we have in operation here, what the people of the country are most concerned about is the growing expenditure in connection with local authorities. If we could adopt some measures by which the mounting local rates could be kept down, the people would be more concerned about such measures than about the provisions of this Bill.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

We cannot do so under this Bill.

Eamon Ó Ciosáin

I realise that. Senator Hawkins and a few other Senators referred to the appointment of temporary managers.

Mr. Hickey

Temporary staff.

Eamon Ó Ciosáin

Section 18 states:—

"Where a manager will for any reason, other than suspension from performance of his duties, be temporarily unable to act as such, he may, after consultation with the appropriate person, appoint a person to be deputy manager for the duration of such inability."

I do not know if that is the best way of dealing with such a situation. This is, in fact, an appointment of a temporary manager and not of temporary staff and the appointment of the temporary manager is going to be made by the manager himself in conjunction with the appropriate person who, I take it, will be the chairman of the county council. I think it would be better if the appointment of the deputy manager were left to the council itself. What would be wrong with leaving it to the council itself?

Mr. P. O'Donnell

It would cost another £50 to bring them together and then they probably would not agree.

Eamon Ó Ciosáin

It would probably be only one week from the time the situation arose until the next meeting was held. It would not be any more than a fortnight at the most and there would be nothing to prevent the secretary, on the instructions of the county manager, convening a special meeting.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

It is too many of these we have. That is how the rates are mounting up.

Eamon Ó Ciosáin

Senators must remember that a county committee of agriculture has that power and privilege. They can appoint temporary instructors—what we call C.A.O.s. The county council must be regarded as a more important body than the county committee of agriculture.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

The crops will not fail in a day for the want of a county instructor but the business of the county council could fall down for the want of a county manager.

Eamon Ó Ciosáin

This is a point we would like to have considered also between this and the Committee Stage. The approach of Senator Commons to this matter was a very sensible approach. He is not in favour of the setting up of this estimates committee for which provision is made in this Bill and I must say that neither am I. I have not got as much experience of local authority work as some other members of the House, but I am well aware that the striking of the rate and the examination of the bill they have to present to the people are the most important functions the members of a local authority have to discharge. I submit that it would be the wish, and not merely the wish but the duty, of every member of a council to be present when these matters are under consideration. As Senator Commons has said, the fact of this matter of expenditure being referred to a special committee will not prevent the council as a whole from having discussions on it afterwards, no matter how many meetings the estimates committee may have held. My colleague, Senator Hawkins, has said he thought that the setting up of an estimates committee was already the practice. I doubt that very much.

Mr. Hickey

Yes, it is.

Eamon Ó Ciosáin

It may be in some places, but I think that, in the majority of cases, all the elected representatives would prefer to be present to find out what items of expenditure could be dispensed with and perhaps in some cases what items could be added on, if the latter would ever be the case. I think it would arise only in isolated cases.

Coming back to the county management system, I will conclude by saying that I am in favour of its continuance. As many speakers have said, the principle of the county management system has been more or less an experiment, but I think it has been found to have worked tolerably well. As I said in my opening remarks, a lot depends on the qualities of the manager. If he is a shrewd, sensible man, he will make sure that he will always have the support and the advice of the members, which no doubt they will be only too willing to give, but if he is not such a sensible man, if he is the type of person who is described as a dictator, he will do things entirely on his own, without having regard to the members of the local authority at all.

As regards the carrying out of the functions of the local authority, every one of us knows from experience that, even before the county management system, the managerial system, as it is called, was brought in here, it was the practice to leave a good many things to the secretary because the elected representatives would not have the time to devote to these things that they would like to have and in many cases would not have the knowledge or information at their disposal which an officer dealing with the matter would have.

Mr. Hickey

I am not entirely in agreement with the wording of Section 2. Sub-section (3) says:—

"A resolution under sub-section (1) of this section shall not apply or extend to the performance of any function of the manager in relation to the officers or servants of a local authority...."

That is a very wide power for any individual manager to have over the staff of a municipal authority. I do not mind what the qualifications of any man are—there is always a danger, and there is evidence of it from time to time, that certain things are done about which the members of a corporation or a county council are not very happy. In Cork County Council, there is an examination every 18 months for boys or girls who are qualified to take up positions in the county council. A number are put on a waiting list and they are on the list for at least two years.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

There is no change being made.

Mr. Hickey

I am talking now of a body I know. There is an examination for scholarships and so on, but I have no knowledge of a waiting list, although I know that appointments are made outside of the knowledge of the local authority altogether and that can continue if Section 2 remains as it is. There are certain opportunities for a local authority to do certain things by resolution, but, as a member of a local authority for a number of years, I can say that when we went to the meeting, everything on the agenda had already been done by the manager, and when it came to the point of doing something positive about some of the things with which we disagreed, we were told: " That is my reserved function and that is all about it." I do not see any change so far as staff are concerned.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Do you mean the permanent staff or the temporary staff?

Mr. Hickey

I am talking about temporary and permanent. When we talk of temporary staff, I do not object to the manager having complete executive authority over the staff as such, but to suggest that he can do anything he likes, without any say by the local authority, is wrong. We have an authority in Cork, the Cork Harbour Commissioners, of which I have been a member for some years. The manager there had complete control over the staff and over the matter of sacking and suspending. If an official was suspended, however, he would report to the members of the board and recommend certain punishment, and I should like to say that if any manager at any time puts up a sound proposition in relation to individuals or problems, I am satisfied that he will always get sufficient members to support his proposition, once it is a sound practical proposition. There may be some individuals who will never be satisfied or who, because of certain lobbying, will try to exercise influence, but there will always be sufficient members to back the manager in any decent proposition he puts forward.

I suggest that in sub-section (3) provision should be made for the holding of an examination every 18 months or two years for boys and girls who qualify for positions with these bodies. There will be no need, then, to take in anybody through favouritism, because a waiting list will be in existence as a result of competitive examination.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

I quite agree.

Mr. Hickey

I suggest that that be put in the sub-section.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Not in this Bill —the Local Government Bill. It is in it, and the regulations also. That is the Bill you passed here last week.

Mr. Hickey

Does it include all the bodies?

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Yes.

Mr. Hickey

With regard to Section 7, I have no fault to find with it because the practice set out there is already being followed. When the estimates are put forward, a committee is appointed to investigate the estimates, so that I am not at all worried about that. What I am concerned about is that the elected representatives should have the final say in anything appertaining to the affairs of their council or corporation, because all these people have certain qualifications and we should not have any fears about the local authorities. Going back over a number of years, one realises that there is no corruption that can be proved against any of these bodies.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

I agree.

Mr. Hickey

I remember when the City Management Act was applied to Cork, an inquiry was set up. After weeks of investigation not one solitary case of corruption or malpractice could be proved against any one of the elected representatives. However, the City Management Act is there and we have to accept it. We do not object to it. What we object to is to have such an executive power over the affairs of the members, as well as the affairs of the city. I should like to tell the Minister what I have in mind.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Perhaps the Senator would rather do that on Committee Stage?

Mr. Hickey

I should like to tell the Minister what I have in mind, for example, with regard to the rents of houses. No member of the corporation or county council wants to worry about fixing rents for houses.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Section 2 and Section 4 would govern it. The Senator has got the information under Section 2. The council may command the manager under Section 4.

Mr. Hickey

Having got the resolution can he still say: "It is one of my reserved functions and I still say you are ill-advised in demanding that I should carry out this decision"?

Mr. P. O'Donnell

You can compel him to do it under Section 4.

Mr. Hickey

With your sanction subsequently?

Mr. P. O'Donnell

I do not think it affects the issue in this case at all.

Mr. Hickey

In my time we decided, by a very big majority, to do certain things about rents. We decided that the rents of houses should be such, and we were told quite politely——

Mr. P. O'Donnell

If you had invoked that section of the Act, called a special meeting, served notice to have a resolution considered after seven days and within 14 days, and obtained more than a two-thirds majority, you could have compelled the county manager. You will find that in Section 4.

Mr. Hickey

That goes back to you as Minister.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

No, it does not.

Mr. Hickey

That is the answer to the point which Senator Hawkins raised. I was doubtful about that. As far as Section 16 is concerned, that is in connection with a surcharge. I am not alarmed at that, because the only point is that the reserved function comes in. If the manager says: "That is my reserved function."

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Executive function.

Mr. Hickey

No matter what the majority of the council may decide to do, is he then flouting its powers? If you do anything contrary to that, you can be surcharged for any expense incurred.

Professor Stanford

On a point of order. These conversations are evidently going to cause chaos.

Mr. Hickey

I have had experience of some of these things happening before and, as far as Section 9 is concerned, that has also aroused my suspicion. The Minister mentioned reserved functions. As long as we can challenge the authority of the manager, and can get an opportunity of deciding what should be done in the interest of the citizens, I am satisfied. I have had experience of both systems. For instance, in Cork Harbour Board the manager has an executive authority over the staff, etc., but he has to report to that body so that they may know what he has done. I am satisfied that, no matter who the manager is, he will always get sufficient backing from any corporation or county council to carry out his decisions, if his proposals are constructive.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I should like to say that this Bill seems to me to be a sincere and, on the whole, successful attempt to give back a not inconsiderable measure of power, in a practical way, to the elected representatives of the people. Therefore, it is very much a Bill to be welcomed, as I think it has been by all Parties in the House, even if a certain hesitancy or reluctance has been shown by some Senators in regard to certain details.

Previously I think we have had in this country attempts—perhaps attempts is not the best word—we have had steps taken, the effect of which was to whittle down the power of local representatives. I think this was to be regretted. I think that the Minister in putting forward a Bill of this kind recognises that the greater measure of local autonomy you can have the better. I think we all feel that if you give confidence to the local representatives on the local bodies they will show themselves entirely worthy of that confidence.

I was glad that Senator Hickey mentioned the fact that in days gone by there had been accusations of corruption against local bodies, and that he made it clear that, in 99 cases out of 100, these accusations were not substantiated, and might in fact very frequently have been taken as mere excuses upon which to abolish a particular council which was being "awkward" from one point of view or another. We have now all reached the point in this country when we realise that the way to deal with accusations or suggestions of corruption on local bodies is not to abolish the whole body but to expose the corruption if it is there.

I myself have no personal experience of local administration, but I may be forgiven perhaps for recalling that my mother for many years served on the Dublin Corporation, and was, in fact, a member of it when it was abolished and replaced by three "efficient" commissioners. We were told they were highly "efficient", that the reason for their replacing the corporation was that the corporation was inefficient, that there was jobbery, and so on. I was old enough to be able to look critically at the people who were then on the corporation. And when I discovered that it was composed of people like the late Alderman Tom Kelly and many others of similar character, it made me realise that any accusation of that kind was entirely unfounded.

In fact, of course, the Dublin Corporation was abolished simply because it had a Republican majority, which was "awkward" for the Government of the day. Those days are past and there is no point in going into that again. One should underline the fact, however, that all sections of this House have by this time reached the conclusion that, so far from wanting to abolish corporations and replace them by "high-powered executives", it would be a good thing for the general political health of the country if more and more power could be given to the local representatives. Since the time of these early abolitions, and since the earliest and later whittling down of the power of the people's representatives, I am afraid it is true that, on the average, the quality of those representatives has dropped. If you have a city council or county council which has virtually no power, it is obvious that it has not very great interest for people who are concerned about public welfare, and that they will be disinclined to go on such a council to serve their locality and their country in that extremely limited way.

There has been talk about the fact that the County Management Act was brought in by the Fianna Fáil Government and various accusations were levelled against them about that time-some of which were justifiable. However, it is only fair to say that the notion of a city manager was not a Fianna Fáil notion, but one brought in by Cumann na nGaedheal with the idea of the commissioner who would run the city—whether it be one man or a triumvirate as we had in the past. I say that for the sake of objectivity, as I feel that the blame for any such concept cannot be given exclusively to either of the big Parties.

I think we all welcome the fact that the present Government has decided— with the support of the major Opposition also, I think—to give back power-gradually to the local bodies. Experience has shown, I admit, that there is something to be said in favour of certain aspects of the managerial system. That is due to the personality, the ability and the understanding attitude of many of these men over the past years. The city managers and county managers themselves have shown they can serve the public usefully. Many Senators with more experience than I, have mentioned the co-operation received by local bodies from managers. It is that spirit that has taught us all that you can put up a case for retaining something of the notion of the managerial function, without depriving the elected representatives of all their real power. So we find the present Bill proposing, for instance, to give local bodies advance knowledge of proposals by the county manager, to make the members freer to amend estimates, and to give them power to require certain actions from the manager. I regard all that as very progressive, and highly desirable.

Deputy Burke last night spoke of those who worship the god, efficiency, those who believe that efficiency should be the only test. He said—and I think rightly—that local pride and initiative must not be sacrificed on the altar of dry-as-dust efficiency. What we want in a local authority is a combination of the spirit of efficiency with local pride, local initiative and local work for the community. He mentioned that it is odd that now many of the functions that used to be attributed to county councils had passed away into the hands of more voluntarily selected bodies. He felt that that was to be regretted and that the most representative bodies in any community were the local authorities, and that anything that would encourage them to function on behalf of the community was deserving of praise.

Something, then, has been gained by the managerial idea. As Deputy Hickey pointed out, the best kind of manager is one who manages for the council and not one who manages the council. That brings me to the point that any section in the Bill which will make for smoother working and understanding between the local body, the manager and the servants under him will be welcome. I am led to refer to point ten in the explanatory memorandum circulated by the Minister, which says:

"Section 17 provides that the manager may with the approval of the Minister appropriate to the function in question, delegate any of his functions to an approved officer of the local authority."

That is a very good thing, but nevertheless I advert to Section 17, sub-section (10) where "an approved officer" is defined in a rather restrictive way. It can be (a) the county secretary, (b) the town clerk or (c) an officer approved of by the Minister as an approved officer for the purposes of this section. Paragraph (c) would appear to cover any conceivable case, yet it has been found necessary to mention specifically the county secretary and the town clerk. It ought to be possible similarly to mention one of the technical officers—the chief engineering officer, for instance. Allowance is made later on for the medical officer of health; he is dealt with, though not specifically by name. There is no mention by name of the other important technical officer, the county engineer. The Minister may say he can work him in under (c), but though he has thought it necessary to mention the two clerical officers he has not thought it necessary to mention this important technical officer.

Mr. Hickey

Who is the only man qualified for the job.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Exactly. That is the point I would like to make. The engineer is an exceedingly important officer in the spending of the ratepayers' money, as the work done under his authority accounts for an enormous proportion of it. It is, therefore, essential that his work be clearly understood by the council and its sub-committees. It is extremely important that he should have direct access to these committees, so that he can speak for himself and his Department and not be obliged administratively to speak through the county secretary or the county manager. The direct contact between the county council and its experts would make for more smooth administration and would be a desirable amendment to incorporate in this section of the Bill. This is a matter, of course, that can be dealt with on the Committee Stage, but I mention it now in the hope that the Minister may accept that point of view and put down amendments himself to that effect.

I shall conclude by saying that the aim, purpose, and, I think, the result of this Bill are all praiseworthy. The aim is to restore a larger measure of democracy to the local authorities. In that respect I think there was one point made by Senator Hawkins, among a number of others which I did not follow quite so clearly, which merits special attention. That is the ordinary simple fact that it would be a good thing if our county and city managers were fairly accessible people. I do not think they should be regarded, no matter what size or colour of hat they may wear, as godlike creatures whom it is very difficult to reach. I think that the accessibility of an officer of that kind, although it may be a nuisance to himself, is a valuable asset. I think that it would increase the ordinary daily democratic working of all these activities arising from this Bill, and would, in my opinion, make the city and county managers, not simply efficient rulers of the elected representatives of the people, but their efficient servants.

Mr. L'Estrange

I welcome the Bill because it restores some, at least, of the democratic rights of the people and of their representatives, and curbs, to a certain extent, the powers of the manager. It gives extra powers to the county council. I think that the Minister is to be congratulated on his approach to this Bill. We know that he visited every county in the State and heard the views of the members of the various county councils. This Bill is a result of all that. If it does not go far enough for some people, we should remember that, at least, it is the first step and that, if necessary, it can be amended by subsequent legislation.

I, for one, am in favour of the proposal to have an estimates committee. We have had one in the County Westmeath, over the last five years. I remember that between 1945 and 1950 we often met perhaps three, four and even five times before we struck the rate. In 1950, after the county council election, we set up an estimates committee comprised, I think, of nine men, the leaders of the various Parties. We come together and we discuss the estimate.

There is one thing we should remember, and it is that public representatives will very often say and do one thing in private and another in public. We have found that out. At a private meeting a man may come along and try to get a road or some other work through at a cost of perhaps £5,000 or £10,000. He will try to make a case for that but do things at the estimate committee which he would not do or say at a public meeting at which the Press were present to report what he said. The people in his area would then know about it. We find that the work can be got through much more quickly and efficiently when you have an estimates committee.

I am not in favour of the title of manager. I think that title should have been changed. He is not the county manager because he has no control over the county committee of agriculture. I think the Minister should change the title of the Bill.

Mr. Hickey

I agree with you.

Mr. L'Estrange

I understand that the county managers have an association of their own and that the Department communicates with it. If that is so, I think it is not right. I would like the Minister to tell us what standing this association has, if there is such an association. As I have said, I have been told that there is such an association.

As regards the appointment of rate collectors, I think ours was one of the councils which was unanimous in asking that the Minister should take away that power from local authorities. I think we were the only county in Ireland that did that.

I am now 12 years in public life and, no matter what anyone here may say, I believe there is jobbery, bribery and corruption in county councils and in public life. I know what I am talking about. I know that, very often, the candidate with the most money gets the position. I claim that should not be so. In my opinion there should be competitive examinations, and let the best man get the position. I am of opinion that the appointment of rate collectors should be made through means of competitive examinations. I do not know why that one appointment is still left with county councils.

There was a discussion here about temporary staff. These appointments, too, I believe should be made through competitive examinations. I think the Minister has said that in future there will be competitive examinations.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

That can be done by regulation between the appropriate Department and the local authority.

Mr. L'Estrange

When the Management Act was first introduced we were told that it would lead to economy and to greater efficiency. There is one thing I object to and it is that there has been the appointment of far too many highly paid officials. They have been put in positions in every county in the country. I remember the time when the work in our county was done very efficiently by the ordinary road workers, the engineers, the county secretary and some other officials. Now we have the ordinary road workers, we have gangers over them, we have a travelling ganger appointed in every county and we have various staff officers, etc. I doubt if we are getting value for the money that is being spent.

I am of the opinion that the Department of Local Government wields and holds too much power. If a county council discusses some proposal and the county manager agrees with it, why is it that we cannot get on with the work? There is great delay and schemes are held up for a very long time. Someone, speaking yesterday, mentioned the late Mr. Murphy who was Minister for Local Government in 1948. I think that the people of this country owe a great debt of gratitude to Mr. Murphy for the services he rendered as Minister for Local Government. He was Minister in September, 1948, at a time when there was not a single cottage being built in the County Westmeath. Our plans were held up in the Department of Local Government and we could not get them back. Mr. Murphy came down and said that he would scrap all the red tape and would see that the plans were sanctioned. He did, and so we were able to get ahead with the work. I think that at the present time our record is second to none as regards the building of cottages.

I think that the success or failure of this Bill will depend on the councils that are elected after the coming county council elections. One might argue also that it will depend on the people who elect them. We all must admit that it is a disgrace to see that at the local elections only 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. of the people bother to go out to vote. I think that is altogether wrong. Some Senator mentioned that in the recent past the people did not bother going out to vote because the councils had not any power. But now that the councils are getting extra power, I hope that in the coming county council elections a greater number of people will turn out, and that, as a result, the councils will be fully representative of the people.

Mr. Hawkins

Before we proceed further I would like, Sir, through you to ask that the last speaker be called upon to withdraw the accusation which he made or to substantiate it. He has accused members of local authorities of corruption without presenting to the House any substantial evidence that such has been the case.

Mr. Hickey

And that money was divided.

Mr. Hawkins

That was a very serious statement for a member of this House to make—to make such an accusation against members of local authorities. Either he puts before the House evidence in support of his statement or he should be requested to withdraw that remark before we proceed with any further business. I think this is a very important matter.

Mr. Tunney

I would like to say the same. I suppose I would be one of the oldest members of this House, and I happen to be a member of a local authority for over a quarter of a century, and irrespective of Party I think it is most unjust to suggest that anybody would do the like. There are about ten Fianna Fáil members, ten Fine Gael members and a couple of Clann na Poblachta and Labour members, and I can tell you that the man or woman who would offer one of those people anything in the line of money would find himself in prison very quickly. I do resent in the strongest possible manner that anybody would get up and make such a statement. He stated before, that only 40 per cent. of the people go to the polls for the local elections——

Acting-Chairman (Mr. Kissane)

I am afraid that we cannot have speeches on this point. I do not know what jurisdiction the Chair has. Is the Senator prepared to withdraw?

Mr. L'Estrange

Definitely not. I know what I am speaking about and I have no intention whatever of withdrawing this statement.

Acting-Chairman

The Senator did not indicate any individual against whom such an accusation could be made. That being so, I think that the Chair has not any function in the matter.

Mr. Hawkins

With all due respect to the Chair, I hold that we should not allow accusations of this kind to pass. It is a very serious accusation against the members of local authorities and, if we look back over the activities of this House, we have many precedents to guide us on this question, where accusations were made against persons who were not in a position to defend themselves here. This is certainly one of those cases. An accusation has been made against the elected representatives of local authorities.

Professor Stanford

On a point of fact, it was not against any individual. It was a general accusation.

Mr. Hawkins

I do not intend to give way to the Senator. The position is that if the Senator is not prepared to withdraw his accusation, then he must substantiate it.

Dr. McHugh

The Senator has no right whatever to say what must be done.

Acting-Chairman

It is a matter entirely for the Chair.

Mr. Crosbie

It was a very general statement.

Mr. Hawkins

Where accusations have been made against persons who are not in a position to defend themselves, whether those persons are elected representatives or officials of any particular Department, then those statements must be substantiated or otherwise withdrawn. If we are going to depart from that now, that is a new procedure which should not recommend itself to this House. It is a most serious accusation and, to my mind, nothing more serious could be made.

Mr. Crosbie

On a point of order, this is a speech.

Mr. Hawkins

Nothing more serious could be put forward in this House than the accusation made by the Senator and it is a matter for the House, through you, Mr. Chairman, to decide what decision we should come to. I suggest that the person who made those remarks should withdraw them. If not, he should be requested to substantiate them. If not, then, well——

Acting-Chairman

As regards the procedure in the past I have not been here and I do not know what it has been, but in any case there is a very clear distinction between making an allegation against an identifiable person and making a general statement. That is, in any case, as it appears to the Chair. That being so, I think we shall proceed with the business.

Mr. Crosbie

At this stage, I wonder if we could get agreement to fix a time to let the Minister in? I do not think there appear to be very many speakers and perhaps we could have some indication of how many.

Acting-Chairman

I think that is a very good idea. There has been a long discussion on the Bill.

Mr. Crosbie

It might be possible to arrange to sit on without an adjournment——

Professor Stanford

Though it has been a long discussion, there have not been many speakers.

Mr. Crosbie

I quite agree.

Acting-Chairman

Unfortunately, we have no means of imposing a limitation on speakers. If we had, no doubt we would apply that remedy.

Professor Stanford

Then we should not limit the number of speakers.

Acting-Chairman

It is a matter entirely for the Senators themselves.

Mr. Crosbie

I was hoping that, perhaps, we might let the Minister in if there were not many speakers at, say, 6.30 or 6.45 without an adjournment. It is not proposed, then, to continue with the debate on the traffic motion.

Mr. Hawkins

While we are prepared to facilitate the Minister in every respect with regard to this Bill, the members on the other side must have regard to the importance of the Bill, particularly in relation to those people who are members of local authorities, and I would suggest that we would have a general agreement on sitting to the usual hour of six o'clock and adjourning then, and that when we came back we could see what the position would be. I do not think it would be right to deprive any member of an opportunity of speaking, particularly persons who are not members of any Party in this House, who are Independent.

Mr. Crosbie

Senator Hawkins has quite misunderstood me. We are completely at the disposal of the House. It is entirely a matter for the House and there is no desire whatever to interfere with anybody's rights.

Acting-Chairman

That is understood.

Mr. Hawkins

I do not suggest that.

Mr. Crosbie

A deliberate misunderstanding.

Acting-Chairman

It is a matter, of course, for all sides of the House to decide. The Chair cannot decide, for the Chair cannot take away the privileges of members.

Mr. Murphy

I think it is quite clear that there is no general agreement that we should sit until 6.30.

Acting-Chairman

We shall continue and see what the position is after the adjournment. That is the best arrangement.

Mr. Cogan

This is certainly an important Bill and one which ought to be discussed fully, particularly by people who have knowledge and experience of local affairs. I was certainly shocked, like Senator Hawkins, at the slur that was cast by Senator L'Estrange on public representatives generally on the local councils. These people give their time and services to the public freely and spend very considerable time trying to find ways and means of serving their fellow citizens to the best of their ability. I would say, without fear of contradiction, that the percentage of members of local authorities who yield to the temptation to accept a bribe is extremely low having regard to the number and variety of people who are elected to local councils. There are men elected to local councils who have large families and no property whatever and no means of living except their daily work, and every day they attend a meeting of the council, particularly if they do not have to travel a distance and do not qualify for any substantial travelling expenses, involves very considerable loss to them and to their families. I have known cases of such men being tempted and having very sternly resisted. At least I have been so informed. I have evidence that any attempt in that respect has been very strongly spurned even by the poorest members of local authorities.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

They should have gone further and had them prosecuted.

Mr. Cogan

Yes, but in this country it is not customary to go any further in matters of this kind. They should certainly, if they wanted to have such a thing brought to an end but it is not customary. As far as my knowledge goes, I have known of only one case many years ago where one person did reveal the fact that he was offered a bribe. I have had only one experience of that and I think it is a very grave slur to cast upon these men to suggest that there is widespread corruption, bribery or—I think this was the word used—jobbery. It does not exist so far as local authorities are concerned and I do not think it was ever the real justification for the introduction of the county managerial system.

That system has a very long history. It was not introduced by Fianna Fáil and it does not serve any useful purpose to try to make any Party capital out of the matter. It was introduced originally, and probably with the best intentions by the Cumann na nGaedheal Government; it was continued by Fianna Fáil; and it is now being confirmed and continued by the present Minister. The county manager does not cease to exist when this Bill becomes law—he is re-established in his position probably for all time. At a meeting of a local authority where there are two counties under the one manager, someone asked was it the intention to abolish the county manager in this new legislation, and I answered: "No, it is the intention to multiply him by two because, instead of one county manager for these two counties, we shall have two county managers under this Bill", and I am in complete agreement.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Not unless the two parties are in agreement.

Mr. Cogan

The two parties would certainly approve, I think, of the degrouping of the counties, because, as some Senator pointed out, the accessibility of a county manager to the ratepayers or the citizens concerned is a very important thing. If one goes into Carlow to see the county manager and finds that he is in Naas, or if one goes to Naas and finds that he is in Carlow, one is likely to be very severely disappointed; but, in addition, it is desirable that the manager should be as frequently as possible at the head office of the county whose affairs he administers. If he is administering two counties, he cannot be at the head office of both every week. So far as that is concerned, it is a step in the right direction and represents a reform.

It is not true to say that there is any substantial curbing of the powers of the county manager under this Bill. Sections 2 and 4 do to a certain extent extend the power of the local authority, but it is a very limited extension because Section 4 is not really a new section. It is merely a substitute for Section 29 of the former Act and as far as it amends the procedure under that section, inasmuch as it makes the operation of the section a little less cumbersome, it is an improvement, but it is rather extraordinary that the county councils did not avail of that Section 29 to the extent to which they might have availed of it and I feel that probably they were to a little extent remiss in not using their powers as extensively as they could have.

I think there has been a great lot of misleading propaganda in regard to the whole system of county management. Many members of political Parties have branded the county manager as a sort of scapegoat who has been singled out as the person responsible, and solely responsible, for every unpopular thing done by local authorities. Cute politicians—and there are perhaps some amongst local representatives—are very quick to claim credit for any popular things done, but it is the bold, bad county manager who does all the unpopular things. There is an old saying that, if you give a dog a bad name, it will hang him, and the county manager has been given a rather bad name and most people expected that under this Bill he would be hanged. The Minister may have seen in one of our numerous monthly journals, if he does ever stoop so low as to look at them, a representation of himself or of his Department making a bonfire of county managers' hats, symbolising the destruction of the managerial system. but the county manager will still be in use and occupying his post when this Bill becomes law. The county manager will still continue to function with perhaps all the prestige and authority he has enjoyed up to the present.

It was not to get away from bribery, corruption or jobbery that the manager was first introduced and it does not reflect to any extent upon the prestige of a county council or any local body that a county manager exists. Some Senators have expressed the view that "manager" is a bad name, but perhaps some of these were the very people who gave the manager a bad name and want to get rid of him. There is nothing wrong with the name "manager". If a small group of citizens in any parish or district form a co-operative society to transact any business like the running of a creamery or a co-operative store, one of the first things they do is to appoint a manager. It is quite natural that, if you are running any business, large or small, you must have an executive officer in charge.

Local government has had a very varied history. Since democratic local government was established in 1898, and particularly since the establishment of the State, very many changes have been introduced into our system of local government. At first, we thought we were doing a wonderful thing when we abolished rural district councils and when we abolished the workhouses and the boards of guardians—in merging all these together under the county council—but then we found that, in addition to a county council, we had to have a board of health, and because the board of health had to perform most of the business connected with local administration, it became an exceedingly busy body. The secretary of the board of health had to perform perhaps 80 per cent. of the work at present being done by the county council.

He had to deal with housing, sewerage, health and all these very important branches of local government which involve a great deal of time and consideration and the net result was that, in effect, the board of health could not cope with the terrifically long agendas they had to deal with and it had to be left to the county secretary to perform most of that work himself. The county secretary managed the affairs of the county. The system seemed to be irregular and in that way it justified the centralising of all the executive work in the hands of one competent person. We were hoping that, with the passing of the Act, we would get some sort of supermen to perform all these functions. I do not think we did, but on the whole we did not get such a bad selection of county managers. Any of them I am acquainted with are very able and very conscientious men. In this Bill, we are seeking now, in the light of 15 years' experience, to improve the position legislatively.

Some congratulations have been addressed to the Minister for having got further with the amendment of the County Management Act than any of his predecessors, but he has not yet got the whole way. The Bill is not yet an Act, but we hope he will succeed in bringing it to completion. Two similar measures, one introduced by the Coalition Government in 1950 and another introduced by the Fianna Fáil Government last year or the year before, got bogged down in the other House and never reached this Assembly and it is to the credit of this Bill that it has got just one step further. I do not know whether it will go the entire course or not——

Mr. Crosbie

It will.

Mr. Cogan

——but I think that, before it does, it is desirable, that it should be carefully considered by this House and possibly some amendments introduced.

Speaking for myself, I do not entirely approve of the setting up of estimates committees. I think that, so far as most county councils are concerned, they can get through their business more effectively by giving every elected representative of the people a chance of dealing with the estimates as they arise. One of the disadvantages of having an estimates committee, if it is to be elected as was originally intended in the Bill introduced in the Dáil, would be that a number of members of the county council would fail to secure election to the estimates committee and therefore would not be able to exercise to the full their power as public representatives. This would very adversely affect the independent representative who might have no person to represent him on the committee. I have a fair amount of sympathy with independents, because I was an Independent member of a county council and of the Dáil for a considerable time, and I think that once a person is elected to any public body, he should be able to exercise his rights in full, without having them curbed in any way through the delegation of the powers of a council to a small committee. I see no useful purpose to be served by such a small committee, particularly when county councils are not unduly large.

I think most county councils consist of 21 members. Some consist of 25 or 27 members but, even so long as the number is less than 30, I think business can be transacted quite efficiently. There is, of course, a certain amount to be said for having a certain routine when the estimates are being discussed in committee. If the Press is not to be present, this should be embodied in this Bill, because the right of the Press to be present at meetings of county councils is a very important one, and should not be taken away. If there are certain special circumstances, where members of the Press may not be present or should not be present, then I think it should be defined by law. Where such special circumstances are not so defined I think the Press should be present at all meetings of local authorities.

While it may be said that certain decisions will be taken in public which would not be taken in private, it is certainly necessary, in the public interest, that full publicity should be given to meetings of public bodies dealing with public money, not money which is voluntarily subscribed, but with money that is, possibly, extracted from the people. In no circumstances should there be any serious attempt to curb the right of the Press to be present at meetings of local authorities. An exception, however, could be made, for instance, in the attendance of the Press at a special meeting designed to go, in detail, into the preparation of estimates. I think that such a special meeting should be a meeting of the entire council, because leaving out members usually causes trouble.

The Minister, by way of interjection on a couple of occasions, commented upon the very large cost of summoning meetings of local authorities, particularly those of county councils. It is true that it costs a very considerable amount to convene a meeting of a county council. I think that most public representatives have a sense of responsibility and will not agree to meetings being held more frequently than are absolutely necessary. Most local representatives have other businesses, and if they had to depend upon their travelling expenses for their entire means of livelihood it would mean a very poor existence. Since they have other business to deal with, I think they are not likely to suggest that meetings should be held too frequently.

I think where there is a good deal of prolonged investigation to be carried out, as at an estimates committee meeting, there should be no question about the duration of the meeting. Officials of the county council should be prepared to facilitate the general administration by remaining for whatever time is necessary to complete the business. There should be no such thing as breaking up the meeting at six o'clock and calling a further meeting for the following week. That is one way in which travelling expenses could be saved. I am glad that the Minister did meet the representations which were made in the other House. that councils should be left free to decide this matter for themselves. Quite a number of councils would prefer that the business be transacted at a meeting of all the members of the county council.

In Section 2, we are giving local authorities power to direct the manager to inform the county council in advance of any proposals he may have to lay before them. I think that is a valuable right. The main consideration for this House is to decide how it will operate. Section 2 (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."

That means the council can pass a resolution directing the manager to come before it with any proposal with regard to some specified executive function. The word "specified" seems to restrict the power of the council very definitely.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Would the Senator read sub-section (2)?

Mr. Cogan

It says:—

"A resolution under sub-section (1) of this section may relate to any particular case or occasion or to every case or occasion of the performance of the specified executive function."

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Is not that the answer?

Mr. Cogan

That means that the manager must not let any house in the county without bringing the matter before the council, if the council passes such a resolution?

Mr. P. O'Donnell

That is right.

Mr. Cogan

The power is very rigidly restricted in regard to staff. The council is precluded under sub-section (3) from having anything to do with staff, as follows:—

"A resolution under sub-section (1) of this section shall not apply or extend to the performance of any function of the manager in relation to the officers or servants of a local authority or the control, supervision, service, remuneration, privileges or superannuation of such officers or servants or any of them, and any resolution purporting to be passed under sub-section (1) of this section which contravenes this sub-section shall be void."

That definitely debars the council from operating this section in regard to staff. There is a contradiction there in the Bill. Section 6 gives the council definite powers.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Over the permanent staff.

Mr. Cogan

Is there not a very sharp conflict between these two sections? Under one, the council is precluded from dealing with all questions of staff remuneration and supervision, while in another the council is given definite power over the manager in regard to increasing or reducing staff. I think there is a contradiction there, though it may not have occurred to the Minister.

I welcome the section itself in so far as it gives the council some power in regard to the reduction or increase of staff, but it does not give them the initiative—whether it is that it was overlooked or whether this is the Minister's intention. The initiative lies with the Minister. The section provides that he may not increase or reduce the staff without the consent and approval of the council. To make that really effective, the council should have the right to raise this matter by resolution, so as to direct the manager to reduce or increase the staff, rather than wait until he has brought the matter before them. It should be open to the council to raise the matter and say: "Our permanent staff is too large and ought to be reduced."

The Minister should consider amending that particular section, to give the council power to take the initiative and to propose that the staff be reduced. Opportunities to do that arise very frequently when a casual vacancy occurs. The Minister may proceed to have the position filled right away, but some member of the council should have the right to bring in a motion to have the post abolished. That power does not exist in the Bill, as I read it. It may have been intended, but it does not appear to be there.

With regard to the appointment of the manager, I understand the position will be similar to that in the making of other important appointments, that is to say, the Appointments Commission will send down the name of the person and the council will make the appointment. It is rather strange that while nominally the council makes the appointment on the recommendation of the commission in the case of a casual vacancy, where a temporary manager is required it is the Minister.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

No, the chairman.

Mr. Cogan

The Minister, in consultation with the chairman. I understood it was the Minister.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

No.

Mr. Cogan

I understand. The manager may nominate a person to fill the position, but where he fails to do so —a man may pass out rapidly and may not have had time to transact that business—I understand it is then the Minister who makes the appointment. I think that is also an oversight. If we are giving a little more power to the local authority, we should do it in regard to the filling of a casual vacancy like that. Here I would join issue with the Minister. He says the power would lie in certain cases with the appropriate person—that is, the chairman of the county council—and I say that that power, in addition to the power to elect a temporary manager, should rest with the entire council. The point may be raised that a few weeks might elapse before there is a meeting. By all means let the chairman make the appointment pending the next meeting, subject to the consent of the Minister. There is no need to call a special meeting.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.

Mr. Cogan

When I moved the Adjournment, the Minister and myself were, I think, in a little bit of a difficulty in regard to the question of the appointment of temporary managers and deputy managers. I take it that a temporary manager would be appointed in the case of a casual vacancy arising. In this particular case, the Minister seeks under sub-section (10) of Section 5, to attach to himself the power of making the appointment directly, pending, I assume, a permanent appointment by the Appointments Commission and the local authority. I think that in this case it would be a good gesture for the Minister to give that power to the local authorities. They could certainly be relied upon to discharge it properly.

With regard to the deputy managership, power is given to the manager to appoint his substitute, in consultation with the chairman of the county council, subject to the sanction of the Minister. In the event of the Minister's sanction not being secured, the power is vested in the Minister himself. That, of course, is probably all right except that I think the local authority should not be by-passed. I see no reason why, in the making of an appointment of this kind, the local authority should not have the right to make the decision. The Minister made the point that it would involve delay, but even that could be got over by availing of the sub-section in the Bill and allowing the manager and the chairman of the county council to make the appointment and letting it stand until the next meeting of the county council. I think that no difficulty would arise in that connection.

I do not agree at all with Senator L'Estrange that county councils are incompetent to appoint rate collectors. I think that most of us who are members of a county council would like to be relieved of the obligation of appointing those officers because it is a rather irksome duty. At the same time, we must face up to our responsibility, and it is difficult to see or to discover a feasible alternative. A rate collector is a person who, as far as the rural areas are concerned, must reside in the area where he is operating. He must be known to the people generally, and it is through the elected representatives of a county council that he can be best selected.

Generally speaking, the standard of honesty and efficiency amongst our rate collectors has been high. Nobody, I think, can say that the number who have fallen down on their allotted tasks has been greater in proportion than it has been in the case of any other type of official, even those appointed by competitive examination or through the usual Civil Service procedure. No real case has been made for taking away those powers from the local councils. but I will say again that most local councillors would like if it were possible to be relieved of the power, because if you appoint one rate collector you must disappoint, perhaps, ten would-be rate collectors, and that is something which is not very pleasant.

There has been a good deal of condemnation, partly justifiable, of the fact that since the establishment of county managers the cost of local government has increased very steeply. Whether that can be attributed entirely to the managerial system or to the expansion of local government administration and the change in the value of money is a doubtful question. It is not entirely due to the establishment of the county managerial system, but in this matter it is always a popular thing to say that there are too many highly-paid officials in counties. There are people who will also say that there are too many highly-paid officials in the Civil Service, and there are even some people who will go as far as to say that Senators are too highly paid and, in fact, that they should be abolished altogether. Such things are sometimes said in a loose and half-thinking kind of way, but if the matter is examined and carried to its logical conclusion, it will be found that there is very little alternative. There is little alternative to paying such persons as county surgeons, dispensary doctors or engineers a fairly substantial remuneration, because, in the world in which we live, we have the competition of other countries claiming the services of highly trained and qualified people.

The whole system of local government, as I said, has been under constant review over the years, and it still leaves very much to be desired. In conclusion, I would like to appeal to those who are directing governmental policy to direct their attention to the desirability of establishing something in the nature of parish councils which would give the citizens some direct function in local administration. There is a growing feeling that public representatives, whether in the Dáil or on county councils, are a sort of professional politicians, and there is quite a number of people who think that only people who are professional politicians can get elected to any public body. Therefore there are many people who feel that they should have a more direct voice in local affairs, and it is to give such people that association with local administration that I suggest consideration should be given, after this Bill is enacted, to the establishment of properly constituted parish councils and the delegation to them of some special functions in regard to administration, which may be mainly in regard to very local matters and very human matters relating to the relief of destitution, the provision of some useful employment in their own immediate districts, the improvement and development of the particular area, and matters of that kind.

Something must be done, and done quickly, to bring the ordinary people of this country more closely into local government and, through local government, into association with the whole administration of government of the country. This is particularly true in areas where a substantial section of the people are, shall I say, members of, or descendants of, the class of people who were never associated with the national life of this country but were formerly the Unionist minority. Through their local councils, such people could be enabled to take their part in local affairs whereas in most counties their chance of being elected to a county council or to the national Parliament would be very slight. The Minister should consider this whole question in addition to making this Bill as effective as possible.

I am sure that the Seanad will cooperate with the Minister in the further stages of the Bill and in seeking to amend it in whatever directions it appears to be lacking. The Dáil has done some useful work in the matter of amendments.

Mr. Tunney

I assure Senators that I will not delay the House more than five minutes. I doubt if I would have spoken at all at this hour were it not for the statement that was made by Senator L'Estrange. I am sorry that he is not here at the present time. As an Irishman and as one of those who have been associated with the public life of this country for over a quarter of a century, I resent very much that any member of this House would make such a statement. I am satisfied that the only thing which might make me forgive him in any way is the fact that he is a young man and did not realise the serious statement he made. If he was in earnest about what he said, he should have spoken in a different manner altogether about this Bill and called for the abolition of councils, so that we would have no county councils and no travelling expenses but managers all around. Did he realise that more than half the members of both this House and Dáil Eireann are members of local authorities? I can say this much, that they are all honest men and the majority of them are here by accident because they risked their lives for the freedom of this country. They did not come into politics with any ulterior motive but for the reason that they were mixed up in the struggle for Irish freedom. I resent any young man casting that slur on those people, and I do not care to what Party he belongs. It is most unfair, and I feel disappointed that the statement was not withdrawn. After all, if it is the position that in Westmeath somebody can go around and buy votes for a fiver or a tenner, thank God that is not the position in all Ireland, and if that applies in a particular area that slur should not be cast on other counties.

As I said when I rose before, my experience of the majority, practically 99 per cent. of the people in public life in this country to-day, is that they are all honest men. I can assure you that I give the credit to the public that they are not going to elect people time and again if they get to know that they are dishonest. I want to put the point very clearly that I am sure that Senator L'Estrange did not realise the seriousness of the statement he made and the reflection he was casting, not alone on the members of local authorities but on many members of this House and the other House. If what he said was true and there were many people who believe that, we should abolish county councils altogether and have managers.

The foreign Press is always inclined to make little of Ireland and to seize on any chance it can get of casting reflections on this country. I hope that the foreign Press will not take note of this and give publication to an Irish Senator making such a statement.

In my view we should have no managers. The manager should be the servant of the councillors, not the manager of the council. When I make that statement I make it with a full sense of responsibility. The position for the past 15 years has been the nearest thing to a joke one could imagine. Take, for instance, Dublin City and County. The manager of Dublin City happens also to be the manager of Dublin County. If a big case is put up at the county council offices and a big decision has to be come to, the county manager writes to the city manager, that is, he writes to himself. That is stupid and should not be allowed.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

We are amending that under this Bill.

Mr. Tunney

I am glad to hear it. Under that system the ratepayers of County Dublin have been greatly wronged, though I do not say that the manager was directly responsible for it. The Dublin Corporation encroached on County Dublin and took away 17 per cent. of the assets. They took over and built up areas around the city without giving sufficient compensation. If the county council were independent and could have fought their own battle the position might have been different. How could anybody expect that the county manager would fight the city manager? The people in Lucan, Garristown and other parts of County Dublin contributed through the rates to the development of the suburbs and, after all that expense, the Dublin Corporation come in and get those areas without a just financial settlement. The city manager and the county manager were one and the same person and what could he do? At the same time, I want to make it clear that I am not in any way detracting from the man's honour or ability.

With regard to county councils, I do not believe that there should be committees such as estimates committees, and so forth. Every councillor should have the same right and the same say. Because I live near the county council offices, I have never drawn as much as 1/- by way of travelling expenses in my 25 years as a member of the county council. The decisions of these committees have all to come before the county council and sometimes there may be great disagreement in regard to them. I hold that the setting-up of these committees is the nearest thing to waste that we could possibly have. If the people of this country are capable of electing a Government to rule them, then surely they are capable of electing men to govern them locally. The same people do the electing in both instances. As a matter of fact, they are better equipped to vote for the men to govern them locally, because they live near the candidates and know their worth and ability.

Managers are well paid and they should be good servants of the council. I believe that the county council should have full powers and that the manager should be the servant of the council. That is the type of local government we should have. This Bill will effect an improvement but not to the extent that I would like to see. As Senator Cogan remarked, when the rates are increased, the councillors can blame the manager and the manager can blame the councillors. I want the responsibility for the increase in rates put on the elected representatives of the people.

There are individuals who say that it is a great economy to have managers. I do not hold with that view. Since we have had managers, the rates in every county have practically doubled. That does not seem to indicate any great work on the part of the managers nor is it a justification for the present system. While I welcome the Bill as a step in the right direction, I feel it is not going far enough. Either we are or we are not; we should be or we should not be. If there is justification for a manager to manage a county council, then I submit we should have a national manager for the State; we should have 12 managers for the State.

Mr. Kissane

We have those managers for the State.

Mr. O'Donnell

Yes. The Ministers absorb the functions of managers.

Mr. Tunney

But there is this one hell of a great difference: the manager of a county council cannot be removed unless some misconduct or dishonesty is proved but the other poor fellows have to face the public and may, indeed, be put out of public life altogether as a result of slanderous statements. There is all the difference in the world between the two things.

With regard to the allocation of houses, I very much approve of the present system. I am absolutely in favour of the county medical officer of health making representations but I hope it will be ensured beyond doubt in this Bill that no final allocation of a cottage or a house will take place until the names of the prospective tenants are first submitted to the councillors of the area.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

That can be done. Section 2 gives that power.

Mr. Tunney

I would ask for that, in particular. People may say that the county medical officer of health is the most competent person and I agree that he is so far as the health service is concerned. But there is another aspect of the matter altogether. If a county medical officer of health goes into a rural village, the woman of the house may make a great case and have three of the neighbour's children in the house along with her own two children so that he will think that she has five children and that, in such circumstances, she is a most deserving case for a house. The trouble is that the county medical officer of health has no local knowledge and that people, in their anxiety to get a house, will sometimes go to great lengths to get one. I am glad that that provision is in the Bill as otherwise I would move an amendment to have it inserted in the Bill.

I have already said that I believe the managers should be the servants of their county councils. I hope the day will come when complete power will be given to the county councillors. It is too bad that a man should have to travel long distances over a period of years to attend county council meetings—I say this with all due respect— and that we have the Minister to say that in my native county, within one fortnight, they spent £300——

Mr. O'Donnell

In Mayo.

Mr. Tunney

Mayo is my native county.

Mr. O'Donnell

The Senator has lost his accent.

Mr. Tunney

They spent £300. I say that every penny spent since the County Management Act has been wasted because the entire body of councillors, together with their chairman, had not sufficient power to appoint a charwoman. Is that not correct? Is it not a terrible injustice to spend and waste ratepayers' money on travelling expenses when all the power that councillors have had for the last 15 years was the power of appointing a rate collector—a power that Senator L'Estrange wants to take from them— and the power of striking a rate on the demand of the county manager. The whole thing is humbug.

I am glad and thankful that there will now be a change although I am sorry the Bill does not go far enough. I hope that, in the near future, the position will be that the people of this country will have the right to elect their own councils, just the same as they have a right to elect a Government, and that the councillors will have full responsibility.

Mr. Hartney

So much has been said on this Bill that there is very little left for me to say in regard to it. However, I have had a certain amount of experience of public life: I was a member of a local authority before the managerial system was introduced and I have been there a few years since, even if not the whole time, so I should be able to offer a fair opinion on this Bill. Looking at the Bill in its present form one gets the immediate impression that it does not go any distance towards achieving the aims which it was promised to achieve. I think this Bill could rightly be called the City and County Management (Confirmation) Bill instead of the City and County Management (Amendment) Bill. That is my view of it, because I think it confirms everything that was contained in previous legislation. I grant that it clarifies certain points, but it confirms the others.

We are all agreed that since the system came into existence there has been a continuous rise in local taxation. That may be due to the trend of the times and, accordingly, it would be a very unfair period over which to judge any system. I think, however, a fair question to ask is whether rates would be higher or lower to-day had county managers not been appointed in 1942. Nobody, even the Minister, would care to answer that; it would be very hard to know whether rates would be higher or lower. The initial decision to appoint county managers was not one that was taken lightly before 1940. The two first Ministers who dealt with the problem of the county managerial system had actual experience of public life themselves. The President of Ireland was the first man who dealt with it as Minister for Local Government. As a boy he was elected to the Dublin Corporation and accordingly he had wide experience of what public administration was and what it should be.

At a later stage, before the system became an accomplished fact, you had another illustrious man, now dead, who came from Senator Tunney's county, associated with the introduction of the system. He was the late Mr. Paddy Ruttledge who had spent years on the Mayo County Council. He was chairman of the Sinn Fein council in Mayo and had wide experience of every aspect of local administration. These two men were conversant with the demand for new services all over the country and probably thought that the representatives of the people were not able to devote sufficient time to have the work of implementing these schemes properly carried out. The question then arose as to whether, if you had a very competent man like a manager and if you were prepared to give him a good salary, he would do the work better. That in turn brought about the question of the powers he should be given. If he were not given fairly reasonable powers, he would not take the position. That had to be taken into consideration when the managerial system was being introduced. The powers given, not very sweeping, looked justified at the time. There was very strong opposition to the first Bill both in the Oireachtas and in the local authorities and the contention seemed to be that it was necessary, if a manager was being appointed, that he must have certain powers so that he would not have to go to the Minister every day to get out of some dilemma or another.

In many counties there has been cooperation between the council and the manager and, in these areas, things have gone on well and the system has become popular for that reason alone. When it became possible for us in this country to elect our own representatives on the old district councils and boards of health we had won our first step towards freedom. From the time when Irish nationalists were first elected on these councils, the councils were a fighting force up to 1920 when we had the honour of electing republican councils throughout the country. There seems to be a fear nowadays that the wrong type of person would become elected to local authorities but I should like to point out that such an eventuality would be very rare because a man must be up to a certain standard before he can pull sufficient votes; his credentials must be reasonably good if he is selected again and again by the people of his area to represent them. It is very hard to fool people because, when they go behind the screen in the polling booth, they are very wise as to where they will allow their pencil to drop first.

I think that the right line of approach to the problem of local administration would be that the local representatives would set out the policy of the council and that the manager would come along then and implement that policy. I think really that is the system we want. The council could devote a sufficient time to planning their policy and the manager would be their key-man to put that policy into operation. I think everybody would like that the system would be based on those lines if it could be so worked.

There definitely is a difference of status as between the public representatives and the managers and I think it is that difference that leads to the amount of friction that exists. Allowing that managers in general are good and just men—I am not going to say a word against any of them—the man elected by the popular vote has always to look before he leaps, unlike the manager. The elected representative must think of the day of reckoning, be it five years, as it is now, or three years hence. When the period between local elections was three years, the councillor hardly had time but now he has plenty of time to make repentance between elections. It should be the duty of the local representatives to provide the services and it should be their duty only, because they are the people who have to pay for the services themselves, and who are able to measure up the value of the services by the impost they put on themselves and their neighbours.

Naturally the manager is in a different position; he is like the manager of a big firm because his mentality is that any moneys spent on improvements are well spent. The manager can always feel that he can put down the cost of the work to the credit of the rate-paying community. That difference between the local representative and the manager will never be reconciled. From the point of view of Government Departments— the Local Government Department in this case—it was always much easier to have a manager at hand to carry out the decrees of the Department from time to time. Possibly the local authority would be inclined to adjourn decisions on such decrees from meeting to meeting. Possibly they would put them on the long finger or in abeyance for a considerable time, but while the manager was there the decrees of the Government would be carried out more speedily.

I referred already to the upward trend of local taxation. Side by side with that, the people from all counties say that the personnel of county council staffs has been trebled. That seems to be the position. I am afraid we have travelled too fast in that direction. I would like if the Minister could see his way on Committee Stage to insert a provision in the Bill whereby all vacancies arising in a council staff would, in the first instance, be reported to the next meeting of the council and that the manager could take no action until they took a decision on it. There might be no necessity to appoint a person directly to fill the office. It might be possible to have amalgamation or to transfer somebody to the vacancy, to exchange clerical officers, to promote people from the foot of the ladder. It is only fair to the representatives of the people that such vacancies should be reported to them in the first instance and, if they consider that the post can be filled from existing staffs, there is no reason why it should not be done. The matter must come before the Minister eventually and if the council are wrong and the manager is right, the manager can be very sure of a fair decision when it reaches the Minister. If the council are wrong, their decision is not final because sanction must be sought from the Minister.

I do not think there is any provision in the Bill in connection with that matter. I would be very pleased if all vacancies were, in the first instance, brought before the local authority and that the manager would take no action until he would get the decision of the local body. That is essential. In plain language, the people who pay the piper should call the tune. It can be boiled down to that. The Minister has gone a certain distance but, if he would introduce a sub-section that would cover that matter, it would be very useful.

The question of setting up estimates committees has been referred to by most speakers and I shall deal with it very briefly. My personal opinion is that it is for the county manager and the staff to prepare the bill of costs and for all the members of the council to start from scratch and to examine them and to make the best job they can of them. By all means, if they consider it is too high they should bring it down to a figure they would consider reasonable and which they could recommend to the people who elected them to take charge of affairs for them. An estimates committee might be very useful as a buffer between the manager and the majority of the council who would not be on the estimates committee but it might not necessarily tend to the better examination of the bill of costs when it is presented at the beginning of every financial year. Members of the estimates committee would probably stand over what they decided on the committee and, human nature being what it is, members who were not on the estimates committee, and who would be disgruntled on that account, might wish to find fault with everything the committee suggested. In fairness to everybody, the best way is that the entire council should get the estimates as prepared by the manager and staff and should all start on an equal footing in discussing the costs to the best of their ability.

In respect of new works, these will have to have approval of the council before they are undertaken. The Minister excludes works of repair, maintenance and that sort of thing.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Yes. Supposing a slate came off the courthouse and you had to call a meeting of the council to employ a temporary man to put it on.

Mr. Hartney

That is the unfortunate thing—it is something that is imposed on us. If it were one of our own institutions we would stay up all night to put it in order.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

We cannot call a meeting of the council. Take the council chamber.

Mr. Hartney

It is not our chamber at all.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Take the city hall.

Mr. Hartney

That is separate also. The courthouse is away on its own.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

That is all the more reason why somebody should employ a temporary man to put a slate on it.

Mr. Hartney

If, in the opinion of the council, it was better that works of repair and maintenance should be carried out, would it not be right that the council should be in a position to make that case against the manager? Assuming it was our famous courthouse for example, if the manager could say: "There is so much for that," we could not do anything about it. Between this and the Committee Stage it may be possible to extend this somewhat.

I hope that whatever changes are made by the Bill will be for the better and that we have reached the stage where everybody will be satisfied that the members of the council can go in with their heads up in the knowledge that they are the people entitled to declare policy and that the managers are appointed to carry out their decrees.

Mr. Bergin

I want to make it clear that I do not agree with the county management system. It is undemocratic and not necessary in this part of our country any more than it is necessary in the other part, the part that is occupied by the British people still, against our will. In that part we have not the county management system and the people elected there are able to carry on their affairs without any dictatorial officials. I will not be satisfied until we have an end put to county management and a return to the old, purely democratic system of local government. That is my personal view. This is one of the few ways in which we have departed from the British system of government. It is a pity that we became less democratic than they were in doing so.

I support the Bill. I think it can be a very good Bill and gives very important concessions to the local authorities, if I read it correctly.

Section 10 (4) says:

"At an estimates meeting of a local authority or at an adjournment thereof, the local authority—

(a) may by resolution amend, whether by addition, omission or variation, the estimate of expenses,"

As far as my knowledge of local government goes, and I have been a member of a local authority for ten years, at the present time if the manager submits an estimate and the council does not agree, the manager can ultimately force the council to accept.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

That is not true. The council must strike the estimate, no matter what opinion the manager has.

Mr. Bergin

The manager may then, if he is dissatisfied, make an appeal to the Minister.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Not under the County Management Acts.

Mr. Bergin

As it is at the moment. That is what I want to be very clear on because, if that is the case, we appear to have been misled in the county council to which I belong. The information we had was that, if the manager and his officials make up their minds that a certain amount of money was necessary to enable the manager to run the county, he had to get that amount.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

As the law stands, he can compel the council to adjourn for a period of seven days. They can strike and they only strike.

Mr. Bergin

If he still felt that he had not the required amount of money, what is the position?

Mr. P. O'Donnell

There is no provision whatever in the Management Acts for that.

Mr. Bergin

I am a member of the Carlow County Council. I do not know that there was any occasion on which I and the group I represent were not supporting the manager but the rest of the council were discussing matters and the argument became real when we came to the final point and the manager was making up his mind as to whether or not he could accept the amount the council were prepared to give him.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

The manager does not strike the rate. The council strikes the rate.

Mr. Bergin

Yes, but I want to get it clear in this Bill because I was not at all clear on it. Sub-section (4) of Section 10 says that the local authority:—

"may by resolution amend, whether by addition, omission or variation, the estimate of expenses."

In other words, the council has complete power to decide what money is needed to run the county. That is all right. Now let me refer to Section 11 (5) because this is the one I am worried about. I remember, when speaking in the Dáil, the Minister said he would send a memorandum to the local authorities when this Bill was finalised to explain to them what their powers were because he thought that when interviewing the chairman and the vice-chairman, not the members, of the various councils, many of them did not appear to know what their powers were. I do not appear to know what the powers of the council are either. Sub-section (3) of Section 4 says:—

"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——"

I presume if they have one, and if not I suppose it goes straight to the council.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

What copy of the Bill has the Senator got?

Mr. Bergin

Maybe I am wrong.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

I am afraid the Senator is quoting from an old draft Bill.

Mr. Bergin

Sub-section (3) of this other copy says:—

"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 an application for the authorisation by the local authority of the excess expenditure and may submit the application—

(a) in the case of a local authority having an estimates committee, to the committee, and

(b) in any other case, to the members of the local authority."

The sense of what I am saying is not affected. The point I want to get clear is this. Sub-section (4) says:

"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."

The change was merely a drafting one and does not affect the sense of what I am saying. What I want to know is, are the council completely free to decide the recommendation or not?

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Of course.

Mr. Bergin

It is not stated there.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

I do not wish to develop this into a Committee Stage debate, but would the Senator go back to sub-section (1) of Section 11?

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator does not appear to have read the correct Bill.

Mr. Bergin

I did, but I brought the wrong one. I apologise for that. However, as long as we are clear on that I am satisfied. I do not agree with this county management business at all. I think local authorities should be completely free to handle their own affairs. I have ten years' experience on a county council and I always had the feeling that, if we decided we were going to cut a particular estimate for roads or for anything else, eventually the manager could demand that it be changed or modified and that we would be put out of office if we insisted on doing what we considered necessary. If that power is given back to the local authority it will make a great difference.

There are one or two other things to which I have always objected. One is the fact that the manager must be the only person to deal with personnel.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Temporary or permanent?

Mr. Bergin

Permanent.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

That cannot be done now.

Mr. Bergin

As regards their conditions of employment, and so on.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

The Industrial Relations Act will regulate that.

Mr. Bergin

To some extent. There appears to be a difference in procedure as between urban authorities and local authorities. In the local authorities when the council recommends to the manager that the workers should get an increase, they can make the manager recommend that increase to the Minister but in urban councils that is not so. In Ballinasloe and Carlow, for instance, the councils in both cases recommended to the manager that he should recommend to the Minister that the workers should get an increase but the manager consistently refused. To my mind, if the representatives of an urban council unanimously agree that the workers are entitled to more money there should be some way of getting that recommendation to the Minister for his sanction.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

It need not go to the Minister; the manager may do it.

Mr. Bergin

I know, but in these two cases he refused, and there is no way out of it.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

The Minister is trying to keep out of local affairs as much as he can.

Mr. Bergin

In these cases the application was for more pay for these workers to bring them in line with the local authority workers, as their work was comparable and, as I said, the manager refused. I think this is one of the cases in which the local authorities should have power to decide for themselves, that is, in regard to the pay of their workers.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

I should like to thank the House for the very constructive manner in which the Bill has been received on all sides. From what I have heard, I look forward to most constructive amendments being put down. I feel that I will get them from all sides of the House. I invited them in the Dáil and I was disappointed with the number of amendments that were put down. However, I look forward to something else in this House from the very interesting contributions I have heard.

The first speaker from the opposite benches, my friend Senator O'Sullivan, tried to introduce a political note into the discussion when he said that he was glad to see Senators supporting the Government now in favour of the county management system. It is but right to remind him that the Opposition are the converts. I do not wish to go into a political argument, but it is just as well to have the facts. Away back in 1929 the old Cumann na nGaedheal Government decided to introduce a City Management Act for Cork City. If my recollection of reading the debates serves me right, it was bitterly opposed by the present Opposition. Again, a year or so later a further Bill was introduced, a Bill to appoint a city manager for the City of Dublin and, again, that Bill was opposed by the present Opposition. But as Senator Kissane, I think, pointed out, after eight years Fianna Fáil saw the wisdom of the action of the old Cumann na nGaedheal Government and they introduced the County Management Act in or about the year 1939 at the outbreak of the war; when they saw executive functions of local authorities mounting up; when they saw that local authorities could no longer deal with these executive functions which were then mounting up and would continue to mount as a result of the outbreak of war.

That Act was not perfect and, when the inter-Party Government took office in 1948, the first thing they did was to instruct their then Minister for Local Government, the late lamented Tim Murphy, to prepare an amending Bill. It was never suggested that that amending Bill should repeal the County Management Act, merely that it should amend it. Unfortunately, before the then Minister had time to put the Bill through, he died; his successor, Deputy Keyes, proceeded with the Bill but, before it reached this House, he went out of office. The present Opposition came into power and the first thing Deputy Smith did as Minister for Local Government was to introduce an amending Bill.

Now I have been very fortunate. I have had an opportunity of studying the working of the County Management Act since 1940 in my capacity as a lawyer, and more particularly still in my capacity as a lawyer to a local authority. I have also had the privilege of reading the Bill introduced by the inter-Party Minister for Local Government, Deputy Keyes. I have had an opportunity of reading the debates on that Bill. I have had an opportunity of reading the Bill introduced by the present Deputy Smith; and I have had the opportunity of reading the debates on that. But I was not satisfied and I set out to consult local authorities, the people who were actually working the County Management Act, all over the country to find out what they wanted.

I visited every local authority in the country and one of the first things that struck me was that the improvement in the management system was not so much a question of adding to reserved functions; what they wanted was more reserved functions and less executive functions. They never sought the abolition of county management, with one solitary exception which I shall not mention. I thereupon incorporated the request of the majority of the local authorities in the present Bill and when I came before the Dáil I invited, on the Committee Stage, amendments from both sides of the House. I accepted a number of amendments. The only amendments I refused to accept were amendments from the present Opposition, which I found Deputy Smith incorporated in his Bill, but which they now wished to propose for the purpose of obstruction. Those were the only amendments I refused and I will welcome any suggestions Senators may wish to make on this Bill.

A considerable amount of play has been made on Section 16 of the Bill. It has been said that Section 16 will nullify the powers given under Section 4. I think it is but right that I should now reiterate what I said when introducing the Second Reading of the Bill here. First of all, let me point out that the law governing surcharge is laid down in Section 61 of the Local Government Act, 1925. This is the law at the moment governing surcharge. The Section sets out that certain officers of local authorities must warn local authorities of the result of their actions provided their actions are unlawful actions. Unfortunately it goes further than that; it says who the person is who must warn the local authority and it describes him as the "responsible officer of a local authority" and the responsible officer is defined in the Act as meaning "the secretary, clerk. resident medical superintendent or other chief executive officer of such local authority".

That was a first-class definition and an excellent definition in the days of the old local government system; but when the county management system was introduced that section should have been amended to include county managers. That is what I am doing under Section 16—that and nothing else. I am merely bringing the law up to date and in line with the county management system. I have added Section 16 which sets out:—

"(1) Where a proposal is made at a meeting of a local authority to do or effect any act, matter or thing—

(a) which constitutes a reserved function or is mentioned in a resolution under Section 4 of this Act——"

——a reserved function, not an executive function——

"(b) in consequence of which an illegal payment is to be made out of the funds of the local authority, or a deficiency or loss is likely to result in or to such funds."

Let me give the House an example. Suppose a local authority decides that they will accept a tender for houses which is not the lowest tender; suppose they accept a tender which is £100 per house higher than the lowest tender—that is quite a lawful act. They are entitled to accept if they have made provision. But sub-section (b) says: "in consequence of which an illegal payment is to be made out of the funds of the local authority, or a deficiency or loss is likely to result in or to the funds." There is an onus there cast upon the prescribed or responsible officer as defined under the Local Government Act of 1925; but, in order to bring local government legislation up to date, we must now include the manager,

"(or, in his absence, such other officer as may be designated by the manager) and he shall object and state the grounds of the objection, and, if a decision is taken on the proposal, the names of the members present and voting for and against the decision and abstaining from voting on the decision shall be recorded in the minutes of the meeting."

That is the wording of the old section of the 1925 Act. I am merely bringing the law up to date and it does not contradict in any way the powers given under Section 4.

It is necessary that I should stress that the question of warning does not arise where the local authority are proposing lawful expenditure outside the provision made in the estimates, such as the repair of a road which was not included in the road works scheme. I think someone mentioned that particular point. Once the request is made by the members and the work can lawfully be carried out and the council authorises the expenditure, the manager must carry out the work. Once it is a lawful act he must do it and, so long as the money is provided, it is not illegal.

Most of the arguments advanced here are arguments which could more advantageously be made on the Committee Stage. I have taken a note of them. If I can meet them in any way by ministerial amendment I shall be glad to do so. On the other hand, I would like to see Senators themselves putting down amendments.

I want to emphasise one point with regard to the employment of temporary employees of a local authority. It has been suggested that the council should have some say in the appointment of temporary employees. Supposing some slates came off the council chamber, would it not be ridiculous to suggest that a meeting of the council should be held for the purpose of appointing John Brown to put three slates on the council chamber? Supposing, on the other hand, that a doctor drops dead or is taken seriously ill, a locum must be appointed. I understand that locums are appointed at the rate of two or three per month in local authority areas. Would it not be a drastic state of affairs if we had to leave a dispensary denuded of a medical officer while the council were coming together and arguing and deciding as to who should be the locum tenens appointed to fill the vacancy?

Mr. Hawkins

Has the position ever occurred that a dispensary has been left vacant because of the local authority not coming together to make an appointment?

Mr. P. O'Donnell

The local authorities have nothing whatever to do with it. The Senator knows as well as I do that when a doctor takes ill or is called away, say, to visit his sick mother a couple of hundred miles away a locum has to be appointed. Theoretically, he appoints the locum with the sanction of the county manager, but if you have to call together the county council——

Mr. Hawkins

I am afraid the Minister is not quite right——

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator will please permit the Minister to conclude without interruption.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Again, one can imagine a case of a permanent assistant engineer who is taken suddenly ill. A good deal of road work is going on in the local authority area and, at the moment, the managers have power to appoint temporary engineers, but it would be a shocking state of affairs if, in counties like Mayo, Donegal or Cork, the entire council would have to be called together involving travelling expenses of £60 to appoint a temporary engineer for a fortnight or three weeks. That is all I wish to say on temporary appointments of staff. We have given the councils under this Bill full control over increases in permanent staff, and not only that, but over increases in the salaries of permanent staff. I think we have gone a long way towards reaching democracy so far as local affairs are concerned.

Much criticism has been made of the estimates committee proposals. I do not want to say very much about it. In Senator Hartney's county, when I visited it, I was told by the deputation, the councillors who saw me there, that their difficulty was this: "We do not know," they said, "anything at all about our finances until we read in the county manager's orders that he has done such a thing." Or: "We do not know anything about our finances until the end of the year when we see the estimate presented." This impressed me. Several councillors in other counties said: "We would like to know something about our finances and how they are going on." I decided it would be a good thing to set up a small committee to examine the finances of the local authority from month to month or, if they wished, from quarter to quarter, from half-year to half-year or at the end of the year. If they wished to prepare the estimate they would have at their disposal all the officials now at the disposal of the county manager in preparing the estimate.

I was impressed in the Dáil by some Deputies who said: "We do not want that," and I said: "After all, this is to be democracy, and, if you do not want it, we will not give it to you. I will make it optional." I do not think I could be fairer than that. But I was disappointed to hear from Deputies about how difficult it is to procure members to sit on estimates committees. Like Senator Sheehy Skeffington, I was never a member of a local authority but for over 30 years my father was a member of the county council, of the board of health and of the mental hospital committee. These bodies met once a month and to get to the council meetings and back took him three days—a day travelling, a day there and a day coming home. He gave exactly six days each month to the work of the local authority and not one solitary penny of expenses did he get where gentlemen are now getting £5 and £6 per day for each day they attend these functions. I am disappointed to hear that even at that we will not get men to man the estimates committee. I do not believe it. I am satisfied that if we give power back to councils, the power which I propose giving them under this Bill, we will get men to do these jobs voluntarily, merely for their out-of-pocket expenses, and in that way we will go a long way towards cutting down expenses.

I wish to thank the House for the manner in which Senators received this Bill and for their most constructive criticism. I look forward, as I said earlier, to having their amendments on the Committee Stage and we shall discuss these amendments in the same friendly spirit as we have discussed the Bill on the Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 8th June.

The Seanad adjourned at 8.10 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 8th June, 1955.