Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Jun 1924

Vol. 7 No. 19

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. ESTIMATES FOR PUBLIC SERVICES - MINISTRY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

Debate resumed on Vote 29 (Ministry of Local Government).

I move to reduce this Vote by the sum of £800 in order to raise a question which the Minister for Local Government has challenged should be raised, namely, the abolition, shall I say, of the Dublin Corporation. The House will remember, of course, from their general reading, that there has been fairly persistent agitation for interference by the Ministry in the conduct and working of the Dublin Corporation by people who professed to have knowledge of matters that they complained about, and more particularly certain newspapers. Presumably the Ministry have come to the conclusion, as a result of that agitation or a result of that knowledge or a result of political antipathies, that something had to be done to interfere with the activities of the Dublin Corporation, and, consequently, they found a way, or they thought they found a way, and they decided that they would appoint an inspector to conduct the sworn inquiry into the performance of their duties by the Dublin Corporation. That inquiry was held and the report was issued, that is to say, part of a report was issued to the Dublin newspapers, and following upon the issue of that report, or concurrently with it, an order was issued disestablishing the Dublin Corporation.

The Minister has not attempted to satisfy the demands of the public or the curiosity of the public, or the demand of the Corporation itself, as to the reason why he took the action he did. So far as I have been able to find out, no one knows what the reasons are for the suppression of the Dublin Corporation, and I am taking this opportunity to try and extract from the Minister some explanation of this very extraordinary and unprecedented action of his. I am not able to grow eloquent upon the history of the Dublin Corporation. I know it has a long history. I gather from the little handbook they issue that its first Charter was granted by Henry II. in 1171, and that that has been succeeded by 102 other Charters, and that since the establishment of Municipal Corporations it has continued its work, subject to popular criticism undoubtedly and subject to denunciations from the public, until finally it was broad-based upon the people's will and established as a representative body with a wide franchise. I do not know whether any Minister or Deputy in this House will suggest that a Corporation elected in 1920 was of a character that could not bear comparison with any of the Corporations that existed under the old regime for a generation or two back. If it is suggested that nothing so horrible as the character of the Dublin Corporation, which is now being suppressed, existed even a generation ago, I can understand the state of mind the Minister has got into. It was never thought desirable, or never thought politic, at any rate on the part of previous Governments, never thought desirable even on the part of the citizens of Dubline, to demand that the Corporation of Dublin as it hitherto existed should be suppressed. Reform was called for many times, but never suppression. It seems to me that the House is entitled to consider the position that Dublin occupies in the public life of the country, and that Dublin city particularly has the right to demand some justification from the Ministry for this most extraordinary action.

The Minister stated a couple of days ago that it was not only the report of the inspector which justified his action in suppressing the Corporation. Well, of course, one cannot understand what motives inspired a Minister so secretive as the Minister for Local Government, but, at least, we have the fact that the Minister ordered an inquiry into the performance of their duties by the Dublin Corporation, and that that inquiry was held, and that the inspector made a report, which report has been published, or rather partially published, and we have a right to assume that having gone through that procedure, the main reasons for the action of the Minister was contained in the report of the inspector.

Now I have been careful to read this Report as it appeared in the newspapers. I have sought the publication of the Report in full in the hope it did exist and that there must be in the full report something of a more damnatory character than appears in the Report of the Inspector as submitted. We have only got to deal with the Inspector's statement, and as far as I can read into it, it is in the main a very strong commendation of the Dublin Corporation for its activities and for the general method of conducting its business, and is a general testimony to its good character. And there appears to be a strain of regret on the part of the Inspector that he is not able to find anything to condemn of a very serious character. Mistakes of judgment undoubtedly there were, but nothing heinous. He admits quite frankly that the work of the Committees of the Corporation appears to have been carried out very satisfactorily. He speaks of their very onerous duties, and dealing with one Committee after another, he intimates he has nothing to complain about, but rather on the other hand, that their work has been very satisfactory, but he contends that the Corporation as a whole justified condemnation. One gathers in the final that the condemnation he wishes to pronounce is due to the fact that the Corporation has not been inclined to obey the orders of the Ministry of Local Government that wages should be cut down. Everything seems to lead to that conclusion; a general regret that the administration has been found to be satisfactory, but that the Corporation, in its collective capacity, has refused to obey the orders of the Minister for Local Government to cut down wages.

We, therefore, find that the Minister for Local Government has suppressed the Dublin Corporation because the Corporation declined to be instructed and ordered by him to reduce the wages of the workmen in their employment, or to cease paying the maximum pensions, although he appears to admit that the case for the pensions is a good one, and was justified by the fact that the old Corporations, the preceding bodies, left the present Corporation with a legacy which they had to deal with. "There were many old men in the service whom it was no longer a sound proposition to retain." I suggest to the Minister for Local Government that it is his duty to say frankly whether or not it is because the Dublin Corporation refused to reduce the wages of the Corporation employees that he suppressed the Corporation. It has been suggested that the Corporation has been suppressed, not because of the rates of wages paid, but because of a general lack of attention to business, of slackness of attendance at meetings, of certain extravagances, or to coin a word, incorrectitudes. I want to ask the Dáil to consider what would happen to this institution if the same criterion of conduct was applied. Is it shortage of attendance at the Corporation meetings that is at fault? Twenty-five minutes ago I counted one member of the Party which sits behind the Government, supporting the Minister for Finance when he was discussing the Finance Bill, which is one of the most important measures of the year, from the point of view of the Minister for Finance. We have 150 odd members elected to this Dáil. Some of them have not been able to attend because they have refused to comply with the conditions precedent to taking their seats, but one hundred odd members have, as a matter of fact, complied with these conditions. What, I ask, is our average attendance? Is it as good as the average attendance at the Corporation meetings? Then let us take the Committees. I wonder are we going to apply the same criterion to attendance at Committee meetings? Is the average attendance at Committee meetings of the Dáil better than the average attendance of Committees of the Dublin Corporation? I doubt very much. If there were a comparison of records could anything be said in favour of the Dáil? Secondly, we have to ask: why should the Dáil be allowed to exist, and the Dublin Corporatión be suppressed if these are the counts on the indictment? It may be said that there have been extravagances, that there have been faults in the administration, even grevious faults, in the administration of the Dublin Corporation. Supposing it were so, have there been no grievous faults of administration on the part of the Government, have there been no extravagances on the part of the Government, has it nothing to regret in the matter of administration, even in the payment of salaries? Have there been no jobs committed by members of the Ministry responsible for this suppression of the Dublin Corporation? If you are going to apply the same judgment, you will suppress the Dáil and the Government.

It is said in defence of the Government that they have lived through abnormal times and extraordinary conditions. Excuses have been made and generously conceded to the Government because of the abnormalities that existed. The Dublin Corporation was elected in 1920, and most of us know the circumstances of the election, most of us know who ran the election, how the election was run, how the votes were got to put members in, and most of us know that there has been a very considerable failure to act in the Corporation on the part of those who were elected because they have chosen to do other work. If the Dublin Corporation has not been satisfactory, is it because Deputies here, who were members of the body, have preferred to resign their membership of the Corporation? Is it because of faults committed while they were members of the Corporation, or is to be assumed that the faults were only committed after they resigned? I have a list of the members elected in 1920 who are no longer members. Several have died, but the great majority have resigned because they have instead gone into the service of the Government or have become members of the Dáil. Now, some of the responsibilities, if there has been failure on the part of the Dublin Corporation, lies with those members who preferred to resign rather than face their responsibilities. It may be said that you have a membership of the Corporation nominally of 80, of whom 20 or so have resigned or have died.

But, then, what is the remedy? Surely the obvious remedy is to order a new election. Surely the obvious remedy is to order elections for these vacancies. Unless you have it as a deliberate purpose to refuse to allow the public to have control of the affairs of the municipality, the obvious course to adopt was to call for a new election, certainly for these vacancies, and possibly, if it was within the power of the Minister, to order a new election for the whole Corporation. But that was not done. No. There is some reason. What is the reason? I suggest that the political fears of the Ministry are very largely responsible for the action they have taken. I suggest that that is not sufficient to justify such an action on the part of the administration as the suppression of a body of the great importance of the Dublin Corporation. If the Government is going to be motived by political fears, by the fear that the political results of a municipal election or an election for a local authority would be detrimental to their prestige, then, of course, we shall know that we are rapidly going towards oligarchy and dictatorship.

I say that the position that has been taken by the Minister is one that would require to be defended by the production of the fullest evidence of guilt in matters of administration, of corruption, and of utter inability to carry out the work assigned to it. The evidence that led to the report of the Inspector quite obviously does not warrant the Minister in saying that there has been either corruption or mis-application of funds or inability to conduct the work that was assigned. It then lies with the Minister to produce other evidence, evidence which would satisfy not only the Dáil, but the City of Dublin, to disprove the allegations that none of those other possible lines of justification can be the real meaning of his action, that political feeling and political fears only remain to warrant the work that he has accomplished. I do not think that the political results will be quite as satisfactory as he would wish. I think the slur that he has cast upon local government generally, and upon the Dublin Corporation in particular, is one that will take a long time to wipe out. There were obvious remedies to adopt if he were dissatisfied, and could prove bad administration; failure on the part of the Corporation to carry out the wishes of the people. The obvious remedy to adopt was to hold elections and to fill the vacancies. I want to know why he has failed to take those obvious courses, and when he intends to have an election for the Dublin Corporation?

The amendment is under sub-head (a), to reduce the sum by £800.

I do not know if this is dealing with the general or with the specific question?

No; it is confined to the specific question raised by Deputy Johnson regarding the Dublin Corporation.

The discussion yesterday referred to the general question?

Am I in order in replying to all now?

With regard to this question of the Dublin Corporation, of course Deputy Johnson, as well as the other Deputies, should be aware that there has been a considerable movement on foot in this city for some time in connection with the Greater Dublin Scheme for the whole re-casting of the City of Dublin administration. This is a general movement not confined to Dublin or Ireland. Our system of city administration has been found to be inefficient as compared with most of the progressive countries of Europe and America. That, alone, is one reason why I would be justified, without having regard to the personnel of the Corporation or as to how they are administering their duties, in appointing Commissioners temporarily, in order to have an opportunity of looking into and investigating this question of what system of administration would be the best suited to the city under modern conditions.

So much for the general position. During the war a situation arose here which was very difficult for the local authorities to meet. As a result of that situation the rates became very high, and local administration to a great extent became inefficient, apart altogether from the personnel. For that reason they have a position here in Dublin at the present time, that I believe, no Corporation as at present constituted, would be able to remedy. The question of trying to bring down the rate to a normal figure, a rate which is at the present time paralysing business in the city, is a propositions that I do not believe could be effectively handled by any body situated as the Dublin Corporation was. That is a difficulty that could not be remedied by an immediate election, even if the personnel were to be changed in that election. Now, with regard to the Corporation itself—that body was not by any means perfect. I think that even Deputy Johnson will be willing to admit that. We held an inquiry into their conduct and Deputy Johnson complains of what I might call the courtesy of the Inspector in giving them credit for everything that was praiseworthy. I think our Inspector acted properly, and as I wished him to act in that matter. But he also called attention to many glaring defects in their administration which certainly justified their abolition.

Would the Minister point out in what part of this report glaring defects appear?

Deputy Johnson referred to the question of wages. A person need not be a terrible autocrat to disapprove of the policy of the Corporation in refusing even to meet a deputation of the representatives of the employers to discuss whether or not the exceptionally high wages of the workers in the Dublin Corporation would not be brought down. Deputy Johnson himself will remember that in the Report my Inspector drew attention to the Stanley Street workshops where extravagant prices were paid for goods that could be acquired at a much more reasonable price from local merchants. But the general apathy and incapacity of the Corporation i pretty generally admitted.

Except by your Inspector.

As a body he paid a tribute to certain members of the Corporation in acting on Committees, but I do not think that anywhere did he give any particular praise to the Corporation acting as a collective unit. I might also refer the fact that the Government made available a free grant for the relief of unemployment in Dublin which was very rife at the time, and I consider the action of the Corporation in turning down that grant in the way they did was very callous, and certainly did not justify any commendation from Deputy Johnson or anyone on his side in the Dáil. Then, as to their action on the question of housing—the Corporation has been particularly slow in dealing with that exceptionally vital problem.

It was not their fault.

I think it was not in most cases.

Your own department and your own officials delayed them a good deal.

We deny that. On the whole, I do not think it is necessary to say anything further on that point. The rates of wages paid to the Corporation workers, with all the other advantages they received, are very much higher than the ordinary rates prevailing in the city, and on that alone Deputy Johnson challenges me to make a statement. I believe that fact alone justified us in taking action.

That is the whole truth now.

It is not. Deputy Johnson yesterday called attention to a case in the Pembroke Urban Council of some employee who did not get a pension. This case received particular attention from us, and was the subject of close legal investigation. Deputy Johnson hauled us over the coals for inquiring into this matter at all. The reason it was necessary to make a special legal inquiry into it was that it was a matter that did not come under this department. In the days of the old Local Government Board it was under the jurisdiction of the Lord Lieutenant, and, accordingly, when it came before us for the first time, it was necessary to have our legal experts make an investigation, and it was necessary to have certain doubts that arose cleared up by the Attorney-General. The Corporation of Dublin has power to grant pensions to employees who have over 20 years' service. That right was given to them by a special Act of Parliament. Otherwise employees have no right to get pensions. In England in certain cases employees do get those pensions. But those pensions are founded on a system of contributory superannuation. That is the employees themselves contribute towards their final superannuation. So we are nothing remiss in not paying, seeing that those employees contribute nothing towards the superannuation themselves.

Deputy Morrissey called attention to the fact that we increased wages in Limerick under the Road Grant. I think that that was rather an unfair criticism for Deputy Morrissey to make. I think that that criticism could come better from any benches rather than from the Labour benches. Deputies from the Labour Party have come to me on several occasions seeking to have road wages increased in different areas. Before we finally fixed on that rate we went very carefully into the matter. It was fixed, as I said, generally on a standard of about 3s. a week above the agricultural rate of wages; and in the town the rate was based on the standard wages current in the town at the time. That was the basis on which we went as a general rule. We did lay down that rule, and so far as we could, we made it a hard and fast rule, but I was prepared, where very good reason was shown, to relax perhaps a little in cases where, owing to exceptional circumstances, the rate we laid down was not altogether equitable. Deputy Morrissey seemed to leave the impression on our mind that Limerick was the only place in which I increased the rate that was fixed by our Committee. I think Deputy Morrissey is very well aware that that is not the case. I increased the rate in the case of Bray, and also in the case of Roscrea, in the Deputy's own constituency, at his suggestion, or I let it be increased, and in several other cases exceptions were made.

On a point of explanation, I might say that I did not raise any objection to the Minister giving an increase in Limerick. I wanted to find out, if he was going to make it a general increase all round.

There is no reason for making it a general increase. In the case of Limerick I was appealed to, to have it increased to 50s.—which is the rate in Cork, and the Limerick people insisted that the same wages that obtained in Cork should obtain in Limerick, because the cost of living is about the same in both places. I agreed to alter the rate to 47s. 6d. I can assure Deputy Morrissey that political considerations had nothing to do with giving the concession. As a matter of fact I delayed longer in the case of Limerick than in any of the other cases.

Deputy Davin raised a question yesterday with regard to relieving officers. In every case where as a result of amalgamation these officers had become redundant, they had been granted superannuation if they had been whole-time officers. In cases where they are not whole time officers we have no power to grant them such compensation. I am not aware of the particular instance to which Deputy Davin refers, and if he states the facts I will be willing to look into it, and consider it further.

Might I point out that the particular case I have in mind was before the Minister? In one case a pension was granted, and in the other the pension was turned down, because the officer was not regarded by the Minister or one of his officials as a full-time officer. There was no difference between one and the other, and I want to know what is the definition of full-time officer, so that the question of compensation may be rightly decided.

Off hand I cannot give a definition, but if the Deputy inquires into the case, he will, no doubt, find there was some important difference in the status of the two officers. Another point referred to by Deputy Johnson was the Army shaving brush contract. An order for the supply of 15,000 brushes was given to the Belgica-Hibernia Trading Company, Dublin. Their price was much below the other prices, and a guarantee has been obtained that the brushes to be supplied will be free from infection. I do not think there was any other question raised on the general question of the estimates.

I am rather sorry that Deputy Johnson has asked in this amendment to reduce the amount, because I am a thorough believer in the case of the man who fights and runs away, and his moving in the matter and criticising the action of the Minister in connection with the Dublin Corporation brings it home to me that I am a representative of a Dublin constituency, and I have had to ask myself what is my responsibility in this matter in endeavouring to speak for the people I represent. I have, perhaps, no great admiration for the Corporation, and as one engaged in business in the City of Dublin, I have often felt grievously inclined to abuse the Corporation roundly and soundly. That is as far as I am personally concerned, and of course a great many of the business people have taken up that attitude. But on examination of the question of the responsibility of the Corporation in connection with the administration, I have never found that charges levelled against them for maladministration have been proved. The administration of the affairs of the city may, and I think has been, largely responsible for the high rates that we are called upon to pay. On the other hand, in listening to Deputy Johnson I was convinced that he had made out a strong case that would require a strong answer from the Minister as to why the unusual and extraordinary step was taken of suppressing a representative body like the Dublin Corporation. The members of the Corporation may not represent my views, but they have been elected by the majority, and I suppose they are a democratic body.

The action of the Ministry in suppressing them seems to me to have been extreme, and, as Deputy Johnson said, on the face of it the case as reported in the Press did not seem to call for such a drastic and unusual action, and for such a very contentious decision as the Minister has arrived at. I, therefore, have to judge my sense of responsibility in this matter as a Dublin representative, and if this goes to a vote I am afraid, notwithstanding that I have no wish whatsoever to do so— my inclination is to support the Government in every possible way—that on the merits of the case as it appears before the Dáil there will be no alternative for me but to vote for the amendment as a condemnation of the somewhat hasty and, I think, ill-advised action by the Minister in this matter. I have tried to show to the Dáil the difficulty I find myself in. Three Commissioners have been appointed to administer the affairs of the Corporation. I believe that three Commissionsers operating and going closely into matters will find that the administration of the city can be carried on more economically than it has been in the past. That is beside the question. The big question that arises is, are the Government going to deal in this arbitrary fashion with Boards without, at all events, justifying their action in a better way than the Minister has been able, as far as I can see, to justify their action in connection with the suppression of the Corporation? I am not going to say anything more than that. I have discharged the responsibility. I feel that I have as a member representing Dublin. I have disclaimed any partiality for the Corporation, and I have tried to show that in voting with Deputy Johnson—personally, perhaps, I should rather vote against him— my conviction is that fundamentally the expression of opinion he has put before the Dáil is a right one, and that in travelling on the road that this action by the Minister initiates, we are travelling on very dangerous road, and that certainly is a course that I think the people of the country as a whole will not endorse.

I, as an interested party, would be wise if I said nothing, fearing I would be expected to give a one-sided view of this matter. I only wish to reply to a few points made by the Minister. May I say, as regards members of the Dublin Corporation, that in many matters politically, I differ with probably the majority of them; but, on the whole, I must certainly say of that body that I have found a good type of men and women in it anxious and willing at all times to do their best in the interests of the city. Sometimes, and I think this weighs more with the Government than anything else, I had reason to complain myself that the Corporation gave a little too much time to politics. The Government recognise that the Corporation, to a certain extent, has been a public platform for their political rivals. Very many resolutions emanated from that body—resolutions which, I think, did good work for the city recently, resolutions asking for the release of the prisoners, proper treatment of the prisoners, examination of the jails, inspection by our Medical Officer—all these probably the Government have taken into consideration, and not the Inspector's report.

I would like to correct the Deputy on that point. I have not heard anything from them for the last six or twelve months.

We will take Private Business if the Deputy will move to report progress.

Mr. BYRNE

I move to report progress.

Top
Share