Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 28 Jun 1928

Vol. 24 No. 12

CONSTITUTION (AMENDMENT No. 10) BILL, 1928. - CORK CITY MANAGEMENT BILL, 1928—SECOND STAGE.

I move "That this Bill be now read a Second Time." The Bill, I think, will be found by Deputies to be rather simple and uncomplicated. As to the main proposals, the first is with regard to the general powers, functions and duties of the Corporation. Prior to the Local Government Act of 1898, all such powers, duties and responsibilities were vested in the Corporation. After county councils had been set up under that Act, certain powers, duties and responsibilities were vested in county councils and, by analogy, these functions, duties and responsibilities were vested in the borough councils of different cities, and in the borough council of Cork. So that at present we have certain powers, duties and responsibilities vested in the Corporation of Cork, and certain powers, duties and responsibilities vested in the council. The Bill proposes to vest such powers, duties and responsibilities as are now vested in the Council in the Corporation, so that such powers, duties and responsibilities as are exercisable under the Council in Cork shall be vested in the Corporation. It proposes that these powers, duties and responsibilities may be exercised in so far as some of them are concerned, on behalf of the Corporation through the Council, and that the others shall be exercised on behalf of the Corporation by the City Manager.

The Bill proposes a change in the mode of election, and the nature of the Borough Council that will be set up, and it proposes the appointment of a City Manager. Generally, under modern conditions the problems that the communities of cities and urban areas have to solve, and the number of matters of a varied and intricate kind they have to attend to, are of such a nature that it has been found to require, in nearly all countries, a radical change in the type of machinery in order to get the work done. In putting forward these proposals for the government of Cork City we are not influenced by any other considerations or by the experiences of any other country except this country. The proposals are radical to a certain extent, but are not revolutionary. They are not dictated by any experiences other than our own experiences here.

The Borough Council of Cork that it is proposed to change consisted of 56 members who were elected in seven wards. In one ward eleven members were elected; in two wards, ten; in one ward, seven, and in three wards, six. In the 1920 election 46 out of the 56 members were elected with a quota of 306—that is, 46 of the 56 members required only 306 votes to elect them. The Corporation, as a whole, went out every three years. It is quite clear under present circumstances that a council of 56 is too big to allow of close and prompt discussion of matters, and to have them dealt with in an efficient and satisfactory way.

In the second place, where it was possible for a member to be elected to the Corporation by a quota of 306 and, in the case of ten by a quota of 208, it means that persons who are really representative, who would have the wholehearted support of a very large section of the city, as worthy of vesting responsibility in them for the management of city affairs, would find themselves in the Council on a level with a person who could only obtain the support of 200 or less votes in his own ward. So that as well as the numbers being too great the real representative persons in the city, whatever class or section they represented, would find themselves on a level with people who, it must be clear, could not be regarded as so representative, and their work must of necessity be impaired by such a position.

In the third place elections by wards must have blurred in members of the Corporation the city interests as a whole. If they were of the type that took an interest in their own elections to the Council, rather than in the affairs of the city as a whole, there must have been a tendency to look after ward interests as against city interests as such. The Corporation, as a whole, going out as one body every three years, created a gap in policy such as it seems advisable to avoid. It has also to be taken into consideration that the old Council of 56 did a very considerable portion of its work through committees. There were fifteen committees actually working in the Corporation and the work of these committees had to come before the council for ratification before their work actually came into effect.

Then, on the machinery side, under the old system it is a fact that under our local Government organisation, as a whole, there is not a chief executive officer working under local authorities to control and guide the whole of the official staff in the councils. In Cork there is a city engineer working more or less direct into the Council. You had a superintendent medical officer of health, an executive sanitary officer, you had an accountant who, to a greater extent, worked into the Town Clerk. While the Town Clerk had an over-riding authority in a vague kind of way he had no clear statutory responsibility for the control of the staff and neither have the County Council Secretaries or any Town Clerks of boroughs. There is, in fact, no such general control of the staff. So that you had, in view of the work it had to do through its committees, a loose council system. The different committees drew on their own sections of the staff, and, to a certain extent, the way in which the staff worked into the Council dissipated the staff in its organisation and the effectiveness of its work.

It is proposed to replace a council of that type by a council of fifteen elected from the city as a whole, five being elected every year, so that in the first election, which it is hoped will take place towards the end of the year, five members will be elected. Annually after that, in June, five members will be elected, each five going out three years after they have been elected. So you will have a small Council elected by the city as a whole. At present there are 27,236 local government electors in Cork. At an election in which 75 per cent. would poll, the quota for the election of five persons would be 3,441. That is, something approaching 3,000 votes at least would be required to put a representative on to the Cork Corporation, as against something like 300 under the system which it is proposed to supersede. Then there is the yearly election, so that the Council would be a council of a size that would be thoroughly representative and would be thoroughly responsible because of the number of votes a person must get in order to be elected.

It will be a size suitable for quick and nevertheless thorough deliberation. It will represent the city as a whole without any drawing aside of any part or section of the Council to ward interests or the interests that represent a part of the city alone. With a yearly election you will have none of the desire to develop policies of one particular kind simply because the triennial election is coming along. You will have a continuity of effort and a continuity of thought in the working out of the city's policy. As well as that, the Bill proposes that a Manager will be appointed, and it proposes that such functions as are not directly reserved to the Council by this Bill, to which we will refer later, that these will be exercised by the Manager, who as well shall have control and direction of the staff. He shall be the chief executive officer functioning for the Council and for himself, and, in so far as he carries out some of the functions of the Corporation, he shall be the chief executive person controlling and directing the whole machinery of the staff that will be serving the Council. Now it is proposed that certain of the functions of the Corporation will be reserved for direct exercise by the Council. These functions are:

(a) the making of any rate or the borrowing of any moneys;

(b) the making, amending, or revoking of any by-law;

(c) the making of any order and the passing of any resolution by virtue of which any enactment is brought into operation in or made to apply to the Borough, and the revoking of any such order and the rescinding of any such resolution,

(d) the application to be made to any authority in respect of the making or revoking of any such order as aforesaid;

(e) the promotion or the opposing in the Oireachtas of any legislation affecting the Borough or any part of the Borough;

(f) the appointment or election of any person to be a member of any public body;

(g) Parliamentary and local elections;

(h) subject to the provisions of this Act, the appointment, suspension, and removal of the Manager and the granting of an allowance or gratuity to the Manager on his ceasing to be the Manager, and

(i) the determination of the amount of the salary and remuneration of the Lord Mayor.

The Bill contains also a provision for such additional powers as two-thirds of the Corporation will recommend and decide at a meeting of which one month's notice will be given; such additional powers as they shall recommend should be reserved to the Council may be so reserved by the Minister with or without a local inquiry into the matter. In the same way, subject to two-thirds majority of the members present and voting, such an order may be revoked or reserved powers may be transferred from the Council to the Manager.

It may be presumed by some that certain powers are taken away from the Council which it is proper that they should have. Very careful consideration has been given to the matter, and we are of opinion that these powers that have been quoted there cover anything that the Council may usefully require to have reserved to themselves for direct action. If there are any other powers that should properly be regarded, or that experience might show might be better reserved for direct action by the Council we trust that experience in the actual working of the business of the Corporation under this arrangement will show what these are.

The general effect, however, of reserving to the Corporation only certain powers is that it will give the Corporation time and opportunity to pay the fullest possible attention to the real big questions of policy and control in the city, so that the real big problem of the city will be thoroughly, carefully and fully investigated. On the other hand, the provision of a City Manager with full powers of control over the staff, and the direction of the staff, will, we are satisfied, ensure to the Council that when it has reached decisions that it wants to carry out, it will have an effective and harmoniously organised machinery to carry out that work. The effect on the general efficiency of the staff by having a Manager there who will be in complete control, and who will be in a position to take complete responsibility to the Council for it, must be beneficial. Hitherto, simply because of the loose organisation of the staff, and the various ways in which the different sections of the staff came in connection with different members or committees of the Council, merit did not always get the direct recognition that merit should get. Circumstances of one kind or another tended to place the people who came in particular contact with committees and certain sections of the Council in a position for preferment that, under an ordinary sound and just organisation, they would not and should not come into. In the same way when there were defects in the staff it often came about that public notice was drawn to these defects in the first instance without these defects coming under the review or check of any responsible officer. And many an official was dragged into publicity and blamed in a way that was neither just nor desirable.

If there are complaints to be found with the staff or with any part of the machinery of the Cork Corporation in future, the members of the staff will be assured that before there is any public criticism of them, either by the Council or elsewhere, these complaints will be thoroughly investigated by the Manager and any defects which might show themselves up in public can be remedied by the Manager before the trouble of publicity is incurred at all.

The Bill arranges that where the Manager acts directly for the Corporation, where, under the old system the Council would act by resolution, the Manager shall act by Sealed Order. It makes it one of the principal statutory duties of the Manager that he shall prepare the annual estimates, and it makes provision for a systematic consideration of these estimates by the Council at the proper time. It makes provision that where the Council is of opinion that the estimates should be changed, and where in the opinion of the Manager such change would be prejudicial to the general interests of the City's work, the Council shall not take a decision on the matter but shall postpone the decision for fourteen days so as to allow a period of further consideration both by the Manager and the Council. If after the expiration of fourteen days the Council still consider that the changes in the estimates that they propose should be made, the Council can make them.

I spoke of the number of committees that were set up under the old Council. It would be possible I expect to do away with most of these committees. At any rate such committees as the new Council wants to set up it has powers under the recent Local Government Act to set up. But the work formerly discharged by these committees may be much more effectively discharged by the Manager, who may be regarded for the purpose of certain classes of work as a constantly sitting committee who can be in constant touch with his officials. He can have his material gathered to him for the purpose of decision without any restrictions with regard to notices of motions and such things. Much of the work that would be done by the committees in the old days will be done much more promptly and much more effectively by the Manager under the present Bill. In the very complicated working of City life to-day it is quite clear that prompt and frequent decision requires to be taken for very many matters that cannot possibly wait for the deliberation of a committee and subsequent ratification by the Council. There are other committees to which the old Borough Council nominated certain members of the Council. The present Bill makes provision for the exception of one particular committee, that is a committee appointed under the County scheme prepared under the provision of the Local Government Temporary Provisions Act of 1923.

The Council can appoint on such public bodies as it is due to appoint, or as in the old days it would be due to appoint, members of the Council, but under the provision of this Bill they can appoint persons who will not necessarily be members of the Council. They will be persons who because of their particular qualification and particular experience can be expected to give the best possible type of service.

Not a bad idea.

There are other minor provisions in the Bill, but I think I have touched on the ones that will be really effective from the point of view of principle on Second Reading. The Bill makes provision for the issue of an order by the Minister making such adaptations and modifications of and in any enactments, including any enactment contained in any local Act, that may be considered necessary in order to harmonise either present or future legislation with the arrangement set up in this Bill.

Could the Minister enumerate which of the powers, duties and functions of the Corporation are reserved to the Manager as distinct from the Council—those that are not mentioned in the Bill?

All powers that will now be vested in the Corporation and that are not specifically mentioned there in Section 8 as reserved for the Council—all these others are by the Bill vested in the Manager and he acts directly in these matters. Where these matters are such that it would have required a resolution of the Council of old to take action, he will now move by Sealed Order and it will be the duty of the Town Clerk to keep a record of the Sealed Orders and have a list of Orders so signed by the Manager ready for each Council meeting according as it meets.

Apart from the control of the staff, the making of contracts, and legal proceedings, would it not be possible to enumerate the functions and duties of the Manager just as the functions of the Council are enumerated?

To do so would require the greatest possible research, very deep research, into all kinds of Acts and all kinds of old legislation. It would require research into many old local Cork Acts of which, in the Local Government Department, they are not able to get a copy at the moment.

He will be the general Pooh Bah of the city?

As regards the cleaning, lighting, sanitation and so on, that is to be altogether in the hands of the Manager. The Council will have nothing to do with work of that kind.

As far as heating, lighting and sanitation are concerned, in so far as it is a question of carrying out any particular schemes, it must be understood that these schemes cost money with their plans and all that. If it is thought a housing scheme has to be carried out, or a waterworks scheme, the Council will first have to decide that such a scheme is necessary, and it will be the duty of the Manager to put up a scheme to the Council. Then it will be the duty of the Council to examine that scheme and decide that it is along the lines they consider proper before they vote money for it. I think Deputies will find that in holding the powers of making the rates and borrowing money the Council retains full control over the Manager and his doings.

We are glad that at last local government is going to be given back to the people of Cork—very glad indeed. We are rather sorry that it appears to be given so very grudgingly, as would appear from the fact that they are only to be allowed to elect five representatives at the start. I am in this rather difficult position in connection with this Bill, that we, as a Party, have not had an opportunity so far of considering it in detail. We realise it is a very important matter, because it will probably be taken as a headline for local government elsewhere. We would like very much to have an opportunity which, up to the present, we have not had, of getting opinions from different parts of the country and having this matter really threshed out amongst ourselves before we come to deal with it here. Speaking for myself, however, I may say that the general idea of separating the deliberative functions from the executive powers appears to me to be a good one. It is an idea that I, personally, thought might be applied to a much wider sphere than merely to a sphere of city government. I believe that when we come to examine this Bill in detail, when we come to examine the relations between the different powers that are reserved for the Council and the powers the Manager will have, and when we examine carefully where the ultimate control is to lie in all conditions, we may have a number of amendments to put in. I believe on the whole these amendments will be of a scope that can be dealt with on the Committee Stage.

The first thing that strikes me is the grudging way in which local government is going to be given back. If we are going to have the deliberative and the executive functions separated, as I have indicated already, I favour that to the greatest extent that it is possible to have it, provided that the ultimate control does really lie in the hands of the people's representatives. When I examined the details that have occurred to me from a casual reading of the Bill, the first thing that strikes me is the grudging way it is proposed to give back to the people of Cork the right of governing themselves locally in their local affairs. I think it is a wrong spirit and that it indicates the same idea that is obvious from all the Acts of the Executive from the day they got power. Their whole idea is to concentrate as far as possible in themselves and now they want to concentrate in a very small body of people over whom ultimately the Minister here is going to have a great deal of control.

Will the Deputy allow me to give an explanation of the reason, because it might affect what he is going to say?

I will be very glad.

The position is this, that it has been the practice to allow the municipality to divide the area under its jurisdiction into certain wards for election purposes, and in this case there is no Council to do so. Now, with five persons to be elected in the first year it will probably mean that there will be fifteen candidates and fifteen persons to be elected would probably mean forty-five candidates. I put to the Deputy the difficulty that there would be with a list of that size, unless the city were to be divided by the Local Government Department, and that is a thing that is certainly undesirable.

I see the difficulty about a big panel; I suppose it is the difficulty that we will have in the Seanad. Under this head I do not know whether it will be argued that we will be able to manage a big panel here, but that the people of Cork would not be able to manage a big panel.

The point is that thirty or forty names would be most confusing. The alternative would be to divide up the city into north and south, or into three parts, and it would not be a desirable thing for the Minister for Local Government to undertake that task. I doubt if he would like to do so. It is a local matter, and it should be done on the advice of local persons.

I can see that there is a certain amount of difficulty there, and at the moment I do not see a solution. But at the same time I feel that it ought to be possible to get a solution so that there would not be at the start a Council of only five. I might also say that, as regards the total number, I think that it is too small, if the functions of the Council are to be deliberative. If their functions were to be of an executive character the number might be reasonable, but I think that there would be no harm at all in increasing that number. After all, Cork is a fairly large city; you have a number of different interests in it that will want to be represented, and it would be only fair to give them representation. It seems to me that by this you are going to exclude the possibility of having the different interests that will be affected by civic government represented to voice their opinions. That is my view. I know that there are considerations of various kinds which go for limiting it to a fairly small number. The President has just mentioned one, the mere technical difficulty in regard to the election. You have to choose between two evils—dividing up the City into wards, or having a large panel. As regards a large panel, if thirty or forty names are put before the people of Cork they will probably be local names, and in a campaign of that kind they ought to be able to recognise the different individuals concerned. It would be a very different thing from a case where you had the whole country as an electoral area, as we had in the Seanad election, but even there I do not believe that there would really be so much confusion at all.

The number I had in my mind was twenty or twenty-five. That would be a fair number. If you make allowance for those who will necessarily be absent from meetings, who would probably average four or five, it would reduce it to a working number of about twenty, if the number elected was twenty-five. If you have fifteen you will have a number absent of necessity, no matter how anxious they are to attend, and that would bring the number in attendance down to about ten or eleven—ten or eleven men deliberating and really acting as a legislative body for the City. I think that number would be too small, that the framers of this Bill and of this scheme have gone to the other extreme as regards the number, and for my own part—I am speaking absolutely for myself, without having the opportunity that I would like of consulting other members of the Party who are more closely acquainted with details of local government than I am, because I can only deal with general principles as far as my knowledge of local administration goes from being in the country for some years—I think that that number could, with profit and in the interests of the citizens of Cork generally, be increased to twenty or twenty-five. If you had twenty-five you would have about twenty who, if they were really interested in their work, would be constantly in attendance, and questions would then be decided in a council where the citizens as a whole would be fairly well represented. I do not know whether the people of Cork themselves would be in favour of what I say, but believing in giving the largest possible amount of power to the local people in local government, I would think that in a matter of this kind the people of Cork themselves would have a great deal to say. I do not know how far the people were consulted on this. Sections of the people probably were, but we know very well that the sections of the people who are influential enough to be consulted in matters of this kind do not always represent the people——

The Cork Progressive Association is behind this Bill.

Deputy Anthony will be able to say more about local conditions than I can. I am simply talking as one who is interested in giving to the people of Cork the greatest possible control over their own affairs that can be given, consistent with the general interests of the country as a whole and with general principles. I think that as regards the number, this Bill errs in making it too small for practical purposes. As I said, if this Council had mainly executive functions I could understand that there would be a great desire to keep the number small, but they are to meet and they are to deliberate on matters of policy, on questions of rates, on the burdens which the people will have to bear, and on other matters of that kind. On that account I think, first of all, that the number is too small, and, secondly, I do not think that the reason given by the President is a sufficiently good one for having in the first year five, in the second year ten, and then fifteen—that is, that the full number of fifteen, small as it is already, in my opinion, will not have been elected until the end of a three years' period.

Eighteen months. The first election will take place in October, the second will take place in the following June, that is, eight months or so afterwards. There would then be ten, and within twelve months after that again there would be another election.

That is very much better, I admit, than a period of three years. But still I hold to what I said originally, that I do not think the difficulty about the division of the city into wards, and the objections to that, are sufficiently strong to have at the start only one-third of what is to be the total number. I think that the Bill ought to be improved in that respect. An amendment will probably be put down at the Committee Stage, because I do not think we are going to vote against the general principle of the Bill at this stage. As far as we are concerned, each member of our Party will be free to take any action he pleases on it. But as far as I am concerned. I am not going to vote against this Bill at this stage, believing that good and sound arguments will be put forward from our side which, if arguments are any use, I believe will have weight with those who support the general principles of the Bill, and will lead them to alter it in such a way that it will be a better Bill than it is now.

There is another matter about which, of course, everyone of us must be interested, and that is the question of the exact relationship between the executive and the deliberative body. We want to make quite certain that the control will ultimately lie in the people's representatives. I, for one, believe in giving the executive the greatest possible latitude for carrying out schemes, and in giving it all the latitude required in carrying out its executive work properly, but I hold that in every single case the ultimate authority must lie with the people's representatives, if they care to exercise it, and must lie continuously with them—that is, that it must not be a question of suspending it for a certain period; there must be continuous power in the hands of the people's representatives over the executive. Then there will be the question as to what powers the Manager is to have and normally to exercise. That is very important too. It will satisfy me if the representatives of the people can take back whatever powers it is proposed to give if they think it right, for one reason or another. If the representatives of the people think that the powers are not being properly exercised, and if they can take back these powers I would be satisfied. These are things I will have to examine in detail before the Committee Stage, but I think, from a casual reading of the Bill, what I desire can be done on the Committee Stage. The question of leaving to the Manager the right to fix salaries, superannuation and allowances is, I think, too great a power. After all, the power of the purse ought to be ultimately in the deliberative assembly, and the power of the purse ought to be definitely retained by the people's representatives. To give that away would be a mistake, and I will be in favour of having that power retained by the people's representatives. I hope that no representatives of the people here will stand for any principle which would be contrary to that. As I have said, I am only speaking in general terms on the Bill and on my own behalf. I welcome the fact that we are at last giving up this idea of keeping all power centralised in Dublin.

Another matter that I want to examine carefully is the relationship here between the Ministry and the local council. When the matter comes up again for detailed examination in Committee, if it seems to me that any powers are being reserved to the Department which are not necessary in the general interests of the country I will be against that. I think the Department ought to interfere as little as possible with the conduct of local affairs, as any undue interference is bound to have the result of weakening local authority, and generally making for bad local government.

I want to say, by way of preface, that my first duty is to congratulate Deputy de Valera on having made a most attractive speech about the most attractive city in Ireland.

It is not necessary to say that; we all know it.

I intend to oppose this Bill in its present form, and I also intend to move some amendments on the Committee Stage, where we shall have a fuller and a better opportunity of discussing the measure. I want to express the hope, partially expressed by Deputy de Valera, that there will be no indecent haste in rushing this measure through the House until the citizens of Cork have got a further opportunity of studying its provisions. A measure such as this, which is so much in conflict with the tradition and civic history of the ancient borough of Cork, will certainly necessitate a full and free discussion. There may be differences of opinion as to the wisdom or unwisdom of a city managership as against the old system of an elected corporation, but we have to face facts as we find them. Perhaps it would be just as well now that I should recite in brief some of the things that led up to the dissolution of the Cork Corporation. I want to say right here——

There is nothing in the Bill about the Cork Corporation.

I want to do so because I would like to hear some of the other Cork Deputies on this matter.

I think it is necessary that Deputy Anthony should be allowed to unburden himself to some extent in this matter.

I think the closer we keep to the Bill the sooner we will get to practical business and the less time we will lose.

The sooner some of you will be found out. To direct myself to the Bill: the reserved functions in this Bill leave very little power to the Corporation. It places such unlimited power in the hands of the City Manager that I, for one—and the word "democracy" has been used so very freely here that I begin sometimes to think it is losing its real meaning—as one of the common people, want to enter a protest against some of its provisions. So far as the number comprised in the new body is concerned, Deputy de Valera has suggested twenty-five. In Cork, at least, a considerable body of opinion is in favour of a larger Corporation. The figures which the Minister mentioned, three fives, are figures suggested to him, I submit, by the most reactionary class in Cork city, and these are the people who, for a considerable time back— and I say this without any prejudice whatever against the City Commissioner—and I hope, personally, he will be kept out of this discussion—have urged the bringing in of a Bill of this kind. That urge comes from a class that could never, under any circumstances, get elected to a public body, and to that particular body is due the dissolution of the Cork Corporation.

The same thing in Dublin.

I suggest that the ultimate number reached at the third election—fifteen—is altogether too small for a city of such importance as Cork, and that, at least, we should have twenty-one or twenty-five. So far as the range of the Bill before us is concerned I think it should present no difficulty. I do not anticipate that you will have such a large number of people tumbling over one another to get into the Cork Corporation. These men will be called upon to sacrifice a good deal of their time, and incidentally some of their money, and I do not imagine we are going to have such a very big ballot paper. As was pointed out by Deputy de Valera, that should not present any difficulty to the intelligent voters of Cork who, I am sure, will give a lead to other places in Ireland when the poll takes place, and that there will be very few spoiled votes. There is a feeling amongst certain sections of the citizens of Cork that the city should be divided into two wards. I am in perfect agreement with the suggestion of having the city taken as one constituency. As far as I can gather from those with whom I have come into contact for some weeks past, that feeling is pretty generally shared. As far as that section of the Bill is concerned I am not going to oppose it, but as I have said the feeling is fairly largely shared amongst the citizens of Cork that the city should be divided into two wards, a north and south ward. Other people submit that the natural division would be three wards, North, South and Centre. I am not going to labour that point, because I think that ultimately agreement will be found amongst all the citizens that the city should be divided into two wards.

The powers which the Bill proposes to vest in the City Manager are practically plenary powers. Whilst I agree that there should be absolutely no unnecessary interference with the City Manager, at the same time I think that there should be a court of appeal, whether that court of appeal be the Minister for Local Government or the Corporation, to deal with decisions which may be of an arbitrary character come to by the City Manager. I say that without prejudice to the existing City Commissioner, against whom I have nothing to say. Amongst the powers under the Bill reserved to the City Manager are the giving of contracts and the affixing of the corporate seal. These, to my mind, are powers that the City Manager should not have, unless of course with certain safeguards. Perhaps I might as well indicate now the safeguards that I would like to see provided. For instance, there is nothing in the Bill which makes it incumbent upon the City Manager to see that the fair-wages clause is inserted in all these contracts, or to encourage the use of Irish manufactured goods. As the outcome of the elaborate machinery set up in Dublin under the Central Purchasing Department which, I suppose, is intended to revolutionise the system of purchasing in connection with public boards, we had the spectacle a few months ago at a meeting of the Cork Harbour Commissioners of foreign wheel-barrows painted green, like the people, I suppose, and purchased because they were a few shillings cheaper than the others. That was done by a Board professing to be Irish. So far as Cork is concerned, we want to have certain safeguards introduced which will prevent that sort of thing happening again. On the Committee Stage, I propose to move a number of amendments, one of which will urge that the ultimate number of corporators should be increased. I shall also on the Committee Stage endeavour to have safeguards introduced ensuring that Irish manufactured goods will get a preference, and that in all contracts the fair-wages clause will be inserted, and that as regards all corporation employment trade union principles will be observed. If safeguards of the character I have indicated are agreed to and put in the Bill they will go a long way to satisfy me and the people I represent. I also intend to move on the Committee Stage an amendment to the effect that no member of the Dáil or Seanad be eligible for election to the Cork Corporation.

Hear, hear.

I will give my reasons for that at the appropriate time. I would ask the Minister, at the risk of having the elections for the Cork Corporation postponed, even for a few months, to delay the progress of this Bill for some weeks, if that can be done under Standing Orders, until the citizens of Cork have had an opportunity of examining the sections in it. I am not going to suggest that because of that delay there would be much improvement made in it by way of amendment or otherwise, but the course I have suggested will, at all events, satisfy the citizens that this is not rushed or panicky legislation. I think that the various interests in Cork City should have an opportunity of examining the Bill. We have two Chambers of Commerce in Cork. In fact, we have two of everything in Cork. We have two Chambers of Commerce and two cattle trade associations.

I hope that the Minister will be able to see his way to meet me on that point so that the various interests in Cork city will have an opportunity of examining the Bill. In making that suggestion, I do not want it to be taken that I am opposing the principle underlying the Bill. There may be much to be said for the proposal with regard to the City Manager, but at the same time I would like to see the powers of the City Manager a little more curtailed than the Bill proposes, and the powers reserved to the Corporation somewhat fuller.

This Bill seems to me to be a clear, sound, comprehensive and democratic Bill. I am very glad that Deputy Anthony has spoken so well about it, seeing that he said that the Minister, during his visit to Cork, was apparently in touch with the most reactionary body in Cork city. I take it that the Deputy meant that this Bill was the outcome of the brains of the most reactionary body in Cork city. I was glad to observe that Deputy Anthony has seen the light, and that there is some good among the people who belong to Chambers of Commerce and bodies like that. Deputy de Valera complained of the grudging way in which, under this Bill, local authority is being driven back to Cork. I think that is a wrong way for the Deputy to look at it, because just as a newly-built ship is slipped off the stocks into the deep water, instead of being dropped flat into it, this Bill will slide off by way of three elections into deep water.

Is it only now it is being launched?

With regard to the delay in taking the Bill, as suggested by Deputy Anthony, I am in agreement with him on that. I think that this Bill should be carefully considered in all its details. It is a Bill that will have tremendous influence on the future history and future life of Cork, and I think it would be a mistake to be in too great haste to push it through in order to get it under weigh in Cork. So far, I am in agreement with the Deputy who has just spoken. I think that on the Committee Stage the Bill will require some amendment, but when we reach that stage we can deal with the amendments that we think it desirable to introduce.

I think it is hardly fair to the Dáil to move the Second Reading of a Bill of this nature in the last hour and a half of a very long day's sitting, particularly in view of the fact that we had also a very long sitting yesterday. I think that in the interests of the Government, of the Bill itself and of the character of the Dáil the Second Reading of this Bill should be adjourned to next week. Deputies were here at an early hour yesterday and to-day and have had two long days' sittings, while the Dáil this week met on Tuesday at 3 o'clock, which has not been the usual practice. Therefore, they have not had the opportunity of giving the Bill the consideration which it undoubtedly requires. Deputies had to prepare themselves for the work which was before the Dáil during the last two days, and in view of all that I think the Government might agree to adjourn the discussion on the Second Reading of this Bill to next week.

I would meet the Deputy if some accommodation could be arrived at as to the Committee Stage. It would be a rather serious outcome to the introduction of this Bill if there was such a condemnation of it that it had to be withdrawn on the Second Stage. I understood that Deputy French was rather anxious it should be passed by October. I do not know what his ultimate view of the Bill was, but I think he gave it to be understood that he favoured the Second Reading. If we had an understanding regarding what time would be required for amendments I think it would be better to pass the Second Reading of the Bill to-night.

The only question is as to whether we may want to make amendments which may conflict with the general principles of the Bill. That is our difficulty. There are important amendments which we think it right to move, but they may be ruled out by the Ceann Comhairle on the Committee Stage as being outside the principle of the Bill. I have not been able to get definitely at the basis on which the Ceann Comhairle rules on these matters. It is very difficult to find out what he regards as the principle of a Bill, and what it is he would regard as outside the scope of the principle of a Bill. If we pass the Second Reading now we may find that certain amendments which we desire cannot be introduced on the Committee Stage.

The thing to be borne in mind is that this Bill comes perilously near being a Private Bill.

The title of the Bill is "An Act to make provision for the management of the administrative and financial business of the County Borough of Cork, and for other matters incidental to such management or in connection therewith."

So far as the long title is concerned it seems to be wide enough for anything anyone may want reasonably to bring in. So far as the criticism of the Bill has gone up to the present there is the question of numbers, as between 15 and 25. In the discussion up to the present there is not so very much difference that we need refuse a Second Reading on that point.

Could an amendment on that be brought in?

Yes. There is not such a wide difference there. In so far as the powers of the Manager are concerned and the powers that are reserved to the Corporation, they are plainly stated, and there is no question of principle that could be more effectively discussed on the Second Reading than has been discussed up to the present. The Committee Stage should be the place to get further with that. I do not know that there was any further material point.

There is the question as to the appointment of first Manager.

What I am anxious about is the relations that exist between the Manager, the Corporation, and the Department. I want to satisfy myself that these correspond with what I, for one, would like them to be. As I have indicated, I want to make sure that in the details of the working out of this the local council will have continuous control over the Manager, though they may not be allowed to exercise it without certain formalities, in the sense that if there is any conflict between the Corporation and the Manager and that there is something they positively object to and think is wrong the word of the Corporation should be final. I would like to know if amendments dealing with the relations between the two could be brought in on the Committee Stage?

With regard to the Minister's reference to the Title, I would like to make it clear that the Title cannot be taken by itself. It must be taken with the text of the Bill.

On the Second Reading of the Bill it would be well to indicate my personal attitude towards the general principles of the Bill, so that it would be clear to the Minister concerned what exactly are the points we would like to have dealt with on the Committee Stage. The purpose of the Bill, in so far as it proposes to restore to the citizens of Cork a Council elected by the citizens of Cork with control over the functions of the Corporation, and in so far as the Bill proposes to provide for a division between the deliberative and executive functions of the Corporation, appears satisfactory. Whether or not it is wise to concentrate in the person of a single individual appointed by the Local Appointments Commissioners and paid a salary fixed by the Minister over which the Council has no control in executive functions, is a matter to which I would like to give further consideration. It appears to me possible that some other and better system can be devised. The objections made to the size of the Council and the methods of election of the Council are, I think, sound. Deputy Barry Egan appeared to be under the impression that the system of election provided for, that is, the system of election for the first Council, is intended to be a device by which control over local matters could be gradually restored to the citizens of Cork. It is nothing of the kind. The functions, powers and duties which the five members elected this year will exercise will be identical with those exercised by the full Council. In so far as that is the case it cannot be taken as a gradual restoration. It is merely a device to simplify the methods of election. It does not seem to me necessary that this system should be adopted.

There is no reason why the full Council should not be elected the first year. The fact that the panel is large is an objection, but it is not likely to prove as destructive of results as the size of the panel of electors for the Seanad. All the persons whose names will appear on the panel will be those of prominent citizens of Cork, and known to the voters. The difficulty in the case of the Seanad election was that the voters, generally speaking, knew only the people from their own counties. In this case the difficulty that there was in connection with the election for the Seanad will not exist, and the voters of Cork will have little difficulty in picking out those citizens for whom they would like to record their votes. It would be better from several points of view to provide for the establishment of a full Council at the beginning instead of a gradual constitution of it, and then arrange for the first five to be elected for one year, the second group of five for two years and the third group of five for three years so as to enable an annual election of five members to take place. As regards the size of the Council I think that fifteen is likely to prove too small. It will be the experience of Deputies and Ministers that you can destroy the efficiency of any body by increasing its size and also by decreasing its size beyond a certain minimum extent. Discussion and deliberations by a small body become scrappy and inclined to turn into mere conversations carried out in a light-hearted manner which would prevent serious and well considered decisions being arrived at. I think that if the general principle was accepted that there should be one representative on the Council for every thousand ratepayers of the city you would get a Council of a reasonable size, and provide for the fair representation of all interests and that would result in giving Cork a Council of 27 members. That number would be divisible by three, and such a system would work out satisfactorily.

I do not think that is either too much or too little. It would also mean that there would be a fair attendance at every meeting of the Council and it would be of sufficient size to ensure that people taking part in the deliberations would do so in a serious manner, and not, as people do on committees, in a conversational manner. It seems to be possible to advance fairly strong arguments in favour of not dividing cities into wards and having the whole election carried out by all the voters in the city. Where the sub-division into wards has gone on to too great an extent it has resulted in the development of ward patriotism as distinct from city patriotism, and ward interests are likely to be placed above city interests as a whole. Whether or not you prevent that ward patriotism having effect by this system of election is doubtful. The electoral area will be of a fairly considerable extent, and we know, in the bigger counties, for example, in which elections to the Dáil took place, the effect has been quite the opposite. In the County of Galway, which is the largest constituency, I think, in the country, it cannot be said that any of the Deputies elected, with perhaps one or two exceptions, represent Galway County as a whole. Deputies Mongan and Tubridy represent Connemara, and some others represent North Galway and South Galway. The same applies to other counties. In Kerry, you have Deputies who are representatives of the Dingle, Cahireiveen or Killarney area and not representatives of the County of Kerry. The work which these Deputies have to do is generally divided up on that recognised basis. It is, therefore, probable that you will not avoid the development of that ward patriotism by this system of election. Whether or not that is true of Cork I cannot say from experience. Certainly, if the same system were applied to Dublin I do not think ward patriotism would prevail, because you will have North City, South City and County Dublin interests operating no matter what the system of election is.

In connection with the powers of the Council, I should like to see some effort made to enumerate in detail the functions of the Manager. To say that the Council shall have certain functions and that all the other functions shall be exercised by the Manager is, in my opinion, an unsatisfactory way of dealing with the matter. It should be possible to enumerate the functions of the Manager as precisely as the functions of the Council are enumerated. If there are old enactments which the Government cannot get copies of, surely they cannot be of any great importance and, if repealed by this Bill, no harm would be done. The known and necessary functions of the Manager could be enumerated. The powers of the Manager which are defined here are set out in a manner which will cause some uneasiness. In the first place, the method of appointment of the Manager will be regarded by Deputies on this side as somewhat unsatisfactory. I think the Council should have some say as to the choice of Manager. This Bill provides that the Manager shall be appointed by the Local Appointments Commissioners. We think also the Council should have some say as to the remuneration which the Manager will receive. I do not know whether the Government are afraid that the Manager will be paid too much or too little. In so far as the remuneration is to be fixed by the Minister, the method is unsatisfactory. The sanction of the Council to that remuneration should be secured. The Manager has also full authority in relation to the appointment and removal of officers and servants of the Corporation. I should like if the Minister would inform us what power the Council would have, for example, to ensure that appointments to the clerical staff of the Corporation would be by competitive examination. If the Manager decided on some other system, could the Council override his decision and insist on competitive examinations? Would the Council be able to secure that promotion would be upon some definite system, dependent upon merit or upon the period of employment? There should be some means by which general rules could be laid down by the Council, which the Manager would only be responsible for having carried out in detail. The same would apply to the dismissal of officials. There should be included in the Bill some provision by which an official who thinks he has been unjustly dismissed would be able to appeal to the Council. I do not say that that right of appeal should be so freely given that it could be availed of in all cases, but there should be some provision by which any attempt at arbitrary or hasty action on the part of the Manager could be corrected by the Council.

The same remark applies to the making of contracts. It does not appear from the Bill that the Council would have power to insist upon the matters mentioned by Deputy Anthony, such as the insertion of a fair wages clause or the giving of a preference to Irish manufacture. I should like the Minister to tell us whether or not it could be arranged that the Council could fix general rules of that nature, to which the Manager would have to adhere. I think it is a dangerous precedent to establish that the Manager, who is to have the power of making contracts, should also have the power of affixing the official seal to give the contracts validity. I think it would be wise if an amendment were introduced providing that the actual affixing of the seal and the giving of final sanction to the contract should be performed by the Lord Mayor and not by the Manager. There are other matters to which we will draw the attention of the Dáil on the Committee Stage. The matters I have mentioned appear to me to be the principal ones. I would be glad if the Minister, when replying, would give us his views on those questions and also if he would further consider them with a view to the introduction of amendments on Committee Stage.

It may be said by some Deputies that discussion in regard to this Bill should be confined to Cork Deputies. While this Bill applies to Cork City the possibility is that later we may have legislation introduced on similar lines in respect of other areas. Therefore I think the discussion should not be confined to Cork City representatives. We of the Labour Party strenuously opposed the proposal to abolish the Cork Corporation some time ago, as it took the election of members of the Corporation out of the hands of the people. We considered that that was a very undemocratic departure. We believe this Bill is democratic in parts but most undemocratic in other parts.

I agree with Deputy de Valera that fifteen members of a council are not sufficient. The objection to the number is stronger when we remember that there are to be only five members elected for the first year. I was greatly interested in the reference made by the Minister to the fact that on the old Cork Corporation the 56 members were elected from seven wards, the number of votes required in some cases to elect a member being only 306. The Minister thought that that was not sufficient for the election of a councillor or alderman to an important body like the Cork Corporation. The Minister does not seem to hold that view in all cases because, in respect of the Seanad, he thinks that ten votes of Deputies or Senators is sufficient to elect a member of that body.

Under Section 10 of the Bill the Manager is already appointed. I believe that is one of the undemocratic parts of the Bill. I believe the Council should have the appointment of the first Manager. It is laid down that the Council can appoint future Managers, but I think it is undemocratic to take out of the hands of the people's representatives the right to appoint a Manager in the first instance. As regards the salary of the Manager, it is laid down that that is to be fixed by the Minister, but the salary of the Lord Mayor is to be fixed by the Council. If you allow the Council to fix the salary in one case why not allow them to fix it in the other? Reference has also been made to the making of contracts. I think that is a question which should not be left exclusively to the Manager. We have heard it stated very often in this House—it has not been contradicted—that in respect of relief work persons holding certain political opinions were favoured in regard to employment. I do not say that that is going to happen in Cork, but it could happen if this particular Manager has the giving of the contracts. I think the Council should have the giving of these contracts, and if we are going to give the Manager this power I hold there should be some court of appeal against his decision. I never met this particular Manager personally, but from what I have learned of his action regarding Cork municipal employees, he is no friend of the working classes. We should not vest in him too much power. He has the taking on of all other municipal employees. I think that should be left to the Council. Those things are undemocratic. While I welcome the return of the right of election to the people, I think there are many undemocratic sections in the Bill.

I have no theories on this question. I am concerned only with two things. The first of these things is to see that continuous, intimate and effective control over finance belongs to the elected representatives. The second thing is to see that the executive work is efficiently done. Whether you have fifteen or twenty or twenty-five members of the Corporation is merely a question of machinery. So long as it is perfectly clearly understood that complete, intimate and final control over finance, and all that that means in the sense of responsibility for the initiating of works and the control of the nature of the works done with the money, I am not very much concerned with the other matters. If I had a choice between a big council and a small one I would be rather in favour of the small one. I am not at all unfavourably impressed by the suggestion that we should begin with a somewhat smaller number than we will have eventually. I think there are a good many advantages in that. I will approach the consideration of this Bill purely and simply from the point of view of securing that there shall be good municipal government in the city of Cork, that the people shall get value for their money, and that the elected representatives shall have control over policy. Every amendment which is put forward in relation to this Bill by anybody from any side will be decided, so far as I am concerned, by those considerations, and by those considerations only.

Would the President or the Minister be prepared to give an extension of time for further consideration of this Bill?

We would be prepared to deal with this Bill thoroughly on Wednesday next.

I would be agreeable to that.

We could leave the Committee Stage over until Thursday next.

If the Second Reading were postponed until Thursday next, we would be able to get a thorough examination of this Bill. It is quite obvious to anybody that we, as a Party, have to consider this Bill from the point of view of our general policy — the point of view of giving the utmost control possible to the local authorities so far as that is consistent with general efficiency. Matters of detail will require to be worked out to see if they are in line with that. We would be relieved from any anxiety about what would be possible on the Committee Stage if we had the Bill thoroughly considered in general terms before the conclusion of the Second Reading. It would then be possible for us to frame amendments which would get substantial support from our own members. It would be to the general advantage that we, who have general principles, should have an opportunity of discussing the Bill thoroughly. That will really mean the saving of time ultimately. I have no doubt that members of the opposite Party find that when they discuss matters of this kind amongst themselves it leads to simplification — that differences of opinion are composed and a general line of action decided upon. It would be a great advantage in considering the Bill to have no restrictions existing, as there would be if the Second Reading were passed. I have already indicated that, so far as I am concerned personally, the general principle of the Bill would be accepted by me. I believe that I could, on Committee, bring in amendments which would make sure that the views I have would be provided for in the Bill. My idea is that the Second Reading should be postponed until Thursday. We would be prepared to go ahead as soon as the Executive wants after that.

That would mean that the Bill would not be passed this session.

I expect that we will be finishing by the 13th July, and it would not be possible to get the Bill through within that time.

Does the President think it fair that a Bill of this kind should be rushed through at the end of the session? If we cannot have time to consider this Bill in detail, what is the use of bringing it in at all?

My answer to that question would be subject to the representations made to me by people in Cork concerning the desirability of having this Bill passed. I am very much mistaken if Deputy Flinn is not in favour of its passing as early as possible.

There are more Deputies concerned with this Bill than Cork Deputies, as was intimated by a Labour Deputy. Even if all the Cork members on all sides were agreed as to this Bill, there would be some of us who, no matter what sections they might belong to, might not be disposed to accept the final verdict of Cork Deputies. We realise that there are principles in this Bill which are likely to be extended, and we want to make quite sure that any extension of these principles will be on right lines. That is our anxiety in regard to the Bill. I think I can speak for members of our Party — who are probably as anxious to get their holidays as anybody else — when I say that we will come back and sit for another week, or even two weeks, in order to ensure that this measure shall be properly discussed and not rushed through, and to secure that there will be no faults incorporated in it that would have far-reaching consequences.

There is no great anxiety, so far as the citizens of Cork are concerned, to rush this Bill through, and there is no desire to incommode any Deputy who wants to get away on holidays, or any group of Deputies who want to get away. I speak for a large section of the citizens of Cork when I say that we would be prepared to have the Bill held over until next session. I would like to assure the Minister that we have no great anxiety to have this Bill passed this session. It will do no great harm to have it held over until next session.

I would plead with the House to dispose of Second Reading to-night and to take the Committee Stage on Thursday or Friday next.

Is the Minister concluding?

No. So far as the principles in this particular Bill are concerned no argument has been adduced against them. The different matters in the Bill have been under consideration since the beginning of this year. In so far as the people in Cork are concerned, I have met anxiety on every side to have the Corporation restored there at the earliest possible moment. I was anxious that the election would take place in the autumn and we might progress right away from that. I would suggest for the consideration of Deputies that there is really nothing in the Bill from the point of view of principle that they would not put in themselves, having had full opportunity of realising the object of the Bill.

I do not rise to speak generally, but only as to the principle of the Bill.

What principle?

The principle of this particular Bill which, I believe, is going to be a headline for other municipalities, namely, the continuation of the system of centralisation of government in Dublin.

I take it that the Deputy is making a Second Reading speech.

Yes. As the Leader of our Party has indicated, we have not had an opportunity of expressing our views on this matter — at least of discussing it amongst our Party. I hold views on this matter and I do not want to let it go out or let it be said that our Party did not take any action upon it. I have a great objection to the whole system of local government as introduced by the present Executive and that is sought to be continued in this Bill, namely, that the whole grasp and full control is to be retained by the Executive in Dublin. I am speaking personally, as we have not taken any Party decision. I stand for autocracy at headquarters in national affairs and for a bigger extension of freedom in local affairs. I think that would be far more desirable than having the centralised control of local affairs in Dublin. There has been a virtual dictatorship here in national affairs and I am more in favour of such dictatorship in national affairs than in local affairs. That is a subject which I could develop and for which I could make a very good case, but what have we here in this Bill? We are told that a Manager is to be appointed by the Corporation of the City of Cork. Subsection 3 of Section 10 says:

"As soon as may be after the termination of the office of the said first Manager (whether by his death, resignation or removal from office in accordance with this section) and from time to time thereafter as occasion may require the Council shall appoint a fit and proper person to be the Manager and every such appointment shall be made subject to and in accordance with the provisions of the said Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act, 1926."

In other words, the Council is not going to employ the Manager. It would be better to say that the Council was not appointing the Manager than to say that it shall appoint him subject to the provisions of the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act. That means that the people who are to be elected in Cork are to be told what they are to do. They are to give some sort of semblance of local sanction to the authority of headquarters. I think this country is going right against the tide in this matter. An extension of local government is very desirable, so that if the morale of the people is as bad as we are told it is it may be improved, and so that the people generally may take a more lively interest in their local affairs, and if there is all this corruption, surely there is enough talk about it to have a keen eye kept in future on every public representative. Deputy Cassidy mentioned one serious matter, and that is the salary of the Manager. Sub-section (6) of Section 10 says:

"There shall be paid by the Council to the Manager such remuneration as the Minister shall from time to time determine, and the amount of such remuneration shall be raised by the Council by the same rate as the rate by which the salary of the Town Clerk is raised."

In other words, the Council get the privilege of collecting the money, but the Minister is going to fix the salary. You can make no case for that. You say that they are going to appoint him when, as a matter of fact, they are not. They are going to get orders to sanction him. Therefore, why keep up the pretence that they are going to appoint him? They are allowed to pay him, but they are not allowed to fix his salary, and he, I think, will be allowed to fix everybody's salary except that of the Lord Mayor. That is a serious matter, and there is a principle in it for which I cannot stand. I suppose I will have to obey the Party discipline. I always do, but I take this opportunity before the Whips are on of expressing my views on this matter. Therefore, I cannot agree to the Second Reading of this Bill, for, as I say, we have had experience of dictatorship here, and if I could possibly admire the present Government it would be for that one thing. They did not care what anybody thought. They did as they wanted, and they got away with it very well indeed. I think there is a lot to be said for autocracy in national affairs.

You admire it?

Yes, even though I had to suffer for it. There is much power given to this gentleman, who is really not responsible to the people, because, even though the Council unanimously agreed to dispense with his services, the Minister for Local Government has a veto over the Council in that matter. There is a good deal of camouflage in that, and you might as well spare the paper this Bill is written on. As the general probably said when the war was on: "I am the boss and am going to be the boss." We respect that. This is not going to go through without a protest from me. This Manager can do practically everything. There is something to be said for the desirability of one person being in control of the staff, that is, when the staff are actually there, as it is desirable that there should be uniformity of control and that one person should be responsible for them. I do know Mr. Monahan, and you have three gentlemen in Dublin who may be all right, but we have not yet arrived at the stage at which we have produced supermen. You are putting too big a temptation in the way of an ordinary human being when you put the appointment of every member of the staff of the Council into his hands. It is not fair to the man himself. You are putting in his way temptation which few human beings could resist. This gentleman will not be put into a glass-case and kept away from people. He is not a person who will not go to dances and social functions at which influence can be worked.

The Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act will work on him too.

Mr. BOLAND

I did not notice that point. It is not specifically mentioned. Why not put it into the Bill?

It is in the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act.

Mr. BOLAND

I would like to see it in this Bill too. I read this through pretty carefully. I admit there was no one with me when I was reading it, so I will give you my own views on the matter. I have an opportunity of doing it now.

The Deputy had no witness when he was doing that.

Mr. BOLAND

I had no witness, but I am giving you my conclusions. I will say that if I had the assurance of the Minister, if I had it in black and white, and nailed him down to it, then I would accept it, but he is not nailed down to it in this Bill. We are told here that:

"The Town Clerk shall in each year not less than fourteen days before the date on which the rates meeting of the Council is to be held send to every member of the Council a copy of the estimates of expenses."

This gentleman is going to tell the people of Cork how much money they are going to spend. I agree with Deputy Anthony that Cork is a beautiful city and should be entitled to rule itself, and if the citizens wanted this system that is going to be forced on them by a select few from Cork I consider that I would have no right to intefere, but I am perfectly satisfied that this is the beginning of a new departure or, at least, a continuation of the departure that took place when we got our alleged liberty some time ago. I disagree with some members of our Party that five members should be elected at a time. I think that the whole Corporation should be elected together. I can see no reason for retiring five members every year, one-third of the Corporation. There is very seldom a gap. Deputy Alderman Byrne is a living witness of that. The old Council guards itself so well that a good portion of it is returned again. I do not agree with what Deputy Lemass said about ward patriotism.

Split in the Party.

Mr. BOLAND

Not at all. We can agree to differ. We do not differ on fundamentals. I do not think he gave it the right name when he called it ward patriotism. I think local patriotism is very desirable, and the more this Government delegates power to the people through the country, the less it interferes with local administration, and the less it maligns the people by stating that there is nepotism in every part of the country the better it will be for the credit of the country. You are continually reminding people they are not fit to get control of local affairs, but, as has been said repeatedly, there is a better type of elector concerned in the case of these bodies. You have a more restricted franchise and, if anything, the representatives on those bodies should be far better than we are here. I protest against this policy of centralisation of power in local affairs and I say that it is not fair to put into the hands of a human being a temptation such as is put into the hands of the City Manager here. The Minister said that the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Act is going to apply. I would like to see that in the Bill, but in any event it will apply only to officers who would come ordinarily under the Act. I suppose that will be only about one-third of the employees of the Corporation.

There are a few other remarks which I wish to make. The Bill states that:

"The Manager may by order signed by him and countersigned by the Town Clerk"—

I dare say seeing that he has the appointment of the Town Clerk if the Town Clerk did not countersign he would get his marching orders; there would be a new Town Clerk in the morning—

"—authorise the making of any payment out of the funds of the Corporation—"

This is terrible.

"—in respect of any expense or on account of any liability incurred by the Council on behalf of the Corporation in the exercise or the performance by the Council or the Manager of any of the powers, functions or duties of the Corporation which are exercisable or performable by them or him under this Act."

Here again you are giving the people the privilege of collecting the money and the Manager the privilege of spending it. That is very good.

A DEPUTY

Bad draftsmanship.

Mr. BOLAND

It is not bad draftsmanship. That was done deliberately in the hope that in half an hour a Bill containing these principles should be allowed to be rushed through. We will be told here when the same thing is being attempted for Dublin city, if we object to that principle "Oh you let the Cork scheme through and what right have you to object to the Dublin scheme?" There is a point also here about the smallness of the Council to which I also object. One of the Labour Deputies has also objected to it. That is that a particular type of representative, who could only get elected in a certain proportion in the Dublin Corporation and probably the Cork Corporation, would not be able to pull their full weight in a big body as well as they could in a small body. The next proposal you will have, if we let that go through, will be that only people who pay a certain amount of rates, people like Deputy Good, should have a vote at all. Then we will be back again to the days of the old pocket boroughs, from which the Lord deliver us. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned until Wednesday, 4th July.
Top
Share