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?