With regard to this Bill, might I say that there was an idea of putting in an amendment and it may be my fault—I am not sure— but I was not aware of the fact that this Bill was coming on to-day. It was only yesterday that it was given a Second Reading. The amendment I had in mind was not sent in, as I was not aware that the Bill would be taken in Committee to-day. I would like to know if we could have this stage of the Bill postponed.
Local Elections (Dublin) Bill, 1929. - Committee and Final Stages.
The Dáil went into Committee.
If the amendment is a simple one, from the point of view of the Chair, I would take it without notice. Seeing that the Bill was only ordered yesterday for Committee Stage to-day, I would be bound to take an amendment without notice.
The amendment is a simple one — the date.
Will the Deputy take it now?
SECTION 1.
Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Local Elections (Dissolved Authorities) Act, 1926 (No. 22 of 1926), the new elections to the Council of the County Borough of Dublin and to the Guardians of the Poor of the Dublin Union respectively required by the said sub-section to be held not later than the 31st day of March, 1929, may be held at any time after that date, but not later than the 30th day of September, 1930.
I move: Section 1, lines 29-30, "that the words and figures ‘30th day of September, 1930,' be deleted and that the words and figures ‘31st day of March, 1930,' be substituted," and the same in Section 2. To our minds there has been quite enough time to enable the Department to have examined the Report of the Greater Dublin Commission, and to have come to a decision as to what policy they wish to lay before this House for the reconstitution of the local governing authorities in Dublin City and County. We made a protest here before when a similar Bill was before the House, urging that it was an unfair and an improper practice for the Government to insist that the charge of local affairs in Dublin City should be kept out of the hands of the citizens. We do not want to tire the House by going over these arguments again and again, but we take a serious view of the matter, and we certainly think it is not creditable, either to this House, to the city of Dublin, or to the Department concerned, that they could not have considered the matter, even agreeing, as we do, that it is a serious one, involving various types of opinion that have to be taken into consideration, including engineering, financial and general local government opinion, questions of public health, poor law and other matters that are of very great importance. Nevertheless, having experts at the disposal of the Department, and having them presumably in sufficient numbers to give consideration to these professional and important matters, we believe that twelve months' consideration ought to have been sufficient to enable the Department and the Minister, with the advice of his officials, to have come to a decision with regard to this question.
The Municipal Council of Dublin has now, for close on almost five years, been suppressed, and an irresponsible body — I will not say any more than that about them now— three gentlemen called Commissioners are put in charge. They have no responsibility to the citizens of Dublin, except so far as some may claim that they are responsible to the Local Government Department, to the Minister, and the Minister is responsible to this House. That kind of responsibility is very involved, and it deprives the citizens of direct touch with the Municipal Council, with those who collect their rates and spend them. Even though the administration of the Commissioners were eminently satisfactory — and I claim it has not been, but we are not going to go into that now — still it would be, to my thinking, an injustice to the City that the regime of those gentlemen should be continued. We believe that it is the right of the City to have its own elected Government; that it is improper and unjust to the ratepayers to have their Municipal Council suppressed, and to have that suppression continued for such a long period. Now it is proposed to continue it for another year and a half. We protest against this prolonged continuance of the suppression of the Municipal Council. We believe the time the Government had for the consideration of this matter, and the time that will be given up to the 31st March, that is thirteen months more, for further consideration and the passing of legislation will be ample to secure all the further consideration that the legislation may require, and that all the advice that can be got from the experts will be in the hands of the Minister to enable him to make up his mind by that time.
Both the Deputy, his colleagues, and the other members of the Oireachtas would find it impossible to agree to accept this amendment if they fully appreciated what was involved in it. Not only the citizens of Dublin, and every particular class of rights involved on their part by having Commissioners in charge of the City's affairs at the present moment, but the citizens of the seven urban districts in the County of Dublin, and the people in the County of Dublin themselves, are involved in this particular matter.
I explained yesterday the circumstances in which we dealt with the settlement of the government of Cork before dealing with the Dublin problem, in spite of the fact that in November, 1927, I thought we should deal with Dublin first. Deputies will remember that the discussion that took place over the Cork Bill involved the keeping of the Cork Bill in the Oireachtas from about the 22nd June till the 23rd February. It took the Cork Bill practically eight months to pass through the Oireachtas. I told Deputies, arising out of what was involved in the Dublin measure, that it would be impossible to put before the Oireachtas proposals in respect of Dublin City and County earlier than perhaps to have the First Reading of the Bill before the Summer Recess in order that the Bill might be in the hands of Deputies for a fairly long period, so that the subsequent stages of the Bill might be dealt with in the Dáil during the following Autumn Session. There are principles in the measure that will involve very considerable discussion, and it may reasonably be expected, particularly in view of our experience of the Cork Bill, that the measure will not pass out of the Dáil, say, before Christmas of this year. The Seanad would require a substantial period in the earlier part of the year to deal with the Bill from its particular point of view. Assuming even it were possible to get a First Reading of the Bill on the 1st July, if we keep the analogy of the Cork Bill in mind it might easily happen that the measure would not pass out of the Oireachtas earlier than some time at the end of February or of March.
I would have been in a rather awkward position, from a statutory point of view, if I had not got the Cork Bill as early as I did, because as the previous law stands in the matter, it would be necessary if I had not got it before, say, the second week in March to have established a Cork Corporation on the old lines. If we insert this amendment in this Bill it will be necessary to have the Dublin Bill passed completely through the Oireachtas before Christmas, and even assuming that was done, you have a period in which you would have to have elections for a certain number of public bodies in Dublin, and you would then have, with very sweeping changes, new bodies up against a very difficult financial and administrative position, to which they would have to give attention straight away. In respect to county councils and county boroughs the 1st March is a very important date. The adoption of the Estimates has to take place before that date in respect to urban districts, of which there are seven to be considered in connection with the Dublin Bill. The 31st March is a critical date. The adoption of urban estimates has to take place on that particular date. I cannot possibly see a measure as important as the measure that will arise out of the Greater Dublin Commission Report, in the first place, being put before the Oireachtas and passing through it in such time as would give local representatives a fair chance of facing the problems that would arise in the new bodies on the 1st March.
I see the possibility of the legislation arising out of the Greater Dublin Commission Report being put through the Oireachtas, say, before the end of June next, and the elections for those different bodies taking place perhaps, at any rate before the end of September, and these new Councils given an opportunity of surveying the new state of affairs— financial and otherwise — presented to them in such time as to deal effectively and satisfactorily with the financial business that would arise to them either on the 1st March or on the 31st March. In fairness and in justice both to the citizens of Dublin and the residents in County Dublin, and in fairness to the Oireachtas here, we will require to give very serious consideration to this legislation. I have again to urge that the acceptance of this amendment for the 31st March would be unfair, unjust and most impracticable.
If we are to judge by the Minister's remarks it appears that the Greater Dublin Commission, having been set up in 1925 and having reported in 1926, and its Report having been pigeon-holed for two years, during which the Executive Council made up its mind to reject every principle of City management in respect of which it made recommendations, and the recommendations having been pigeon-holed again for the purpose of getting these principles examined, it is still impossible for a Bill dealing with the future management of Dublin City to be introduced and passed through this Dáil within thirteen months from to-day. That is what the Minister said, and he takes as an example of that the progress of the Cork City Management Bill. For eight months, he stated, that Bill was before the Oireachtas, during five of which, I would remind the Minister, the Dáil was not sitting, because the Executive Council, in spite of Deputies on this side, persisted——
To their dismay.
—in adjourning the Dáil over three months in the summer and two months in the winter. That Bill took eight months to go through. It would not have taken eight months if the Executive Council had been anxious to put it through in a shorter period. The Minister tries to throw some of the blame in this connection on the Seanad. He talked of the delay, not only here, but also in the Seanad. It was exactly two days in the Seanad, and was disposed of in two days.
Nonsense.
I am speaking of the records.
If the Deputy would examine the records of the Seanad for December and February he would see.
I think I am correct in saying that it took one day in each session to dispose of the Cork City Management Bill.
The Deputy is not right.
The Bill took some time undoubtedly to pass through the Dáil, but it would not have taken that time if the Minister had not been so very stubborn in the advocacy of his own view concerning the Bill.
An attribute the Deputy knows nothing about.
Not at all. Certain suggestions, some of which the Minister ultimately accepted, were argued here for hours before we could get the Minister to appreciate that we were attempting to improve the Bill and not trying to play ducks and drakes with it. A number of these amendments were finally accepted after days had been wasted discussing them. If the Executive Council are not trying to hoodwink the citizens of Dublin in this connection, they must have already made up their minds as to the general principles to be embodied in the Bill. According to the Minister yesterday, the actual heads of the Bill have not yet been sent to the draftsman. It is to be presumed that in his Department there is some general understanding as to what the main outlines of the Bill will be. If the Bill were given to the Government draftsman it could be introduced. The First Reading is purely a formal matter. Its Second Reading could be taken before the Summer Recess, and it could easily be passed through the Dáil in the autumn. It could reach the Seanad before Christmas. If they give it the same consideration as they gave the Cork Bill, it will be out of the Seanad before Christmas, and there is nothing whatever to prevent the Greater Dublin Council being set up and an election for it being held before the 31st March. In any case we think it is advisable that Deputies should put that limit on the Government in this connection in order to make them move a little faster in the matter than they have been moving heretofore.
The Minister mentioned one or two things that I think should be dealt with. He apparently foresees the possibility of members of the Councils now existing in the areas which will be included in the Greater Dublin Council making representations to the Minister and members of the Dáil when the Bill comes before the House. He foresees also that there may be some compromise arrangement made with the members of this Council under the Bill. I would like to remind the Minister if he contemplates that such a development will take place, if he intends to encourage it, that he is placing the citizens of the city in a very unfair position in so far as they will not have any elected representatives to speak on their behalf, and will not be organised to make representations to protect their interests wherever their interests come in conflict with the interests of the other Councils. The Minister, of course, appears to be of opinion that the persons who will succeed in getting elected to the new Council will be babies in all matters concerning city government, and will require at least six months careful coaching by the city manager or the officials in their employ before they will find themselves expert enough to prepare an estimate for the year. I think we can assure the Minister that it is not at all unlikely that there will be elected to the Dublin City Council a number of persons with at least as much experience in Local Government matters as the Minister himself possesses, or even President Cosgrave possesses. The argument that September is a much more suitable period during which to set up a Council than March is, I think, one that has no weight behind it. On the contrary, it is my opinion that it is at the beginning of the financial year that the new Council should begin to operate, having placed upon it from the outset the full onus of conducting the affairs of the city efficiently and economically.
In view of all these arguments, I think there is a strong case for the amendment proposed by Deputy O'Kelly. The eighteen months over which the Minister proposes to extend the term of office of the Commissioners is, in our opinion, altogether too long. Even thirteen months is long, but it is not unreasonable, and if the Minister will accept the amendment we can promise him, if he is prepared to do the same thing, we will facilitate him in every way in getting the Bill, if it is a good Bill, through the Dáil.
I must say that I had nothing in mind with regard to representations from members of other bodies outside the city, nor had I anything in mind with regard to the capacity or otherwise of the members who may be elected to the City Council. But I have this in mind, to make a complete financial change over as between a different set of local areas in the city and county, and to make the time at which that should take place exactly coincident with the time of changing the persons and the areas of the local bodies is, I think, most undesirable. It is for that reason that the 31st March is very unacceptable. Even if, as the Deputy suggests, it were possible to get the Bill through before Christmas of this year, I think it would be almost impossible, and certainly most undesirable, that elections should be rushed immediately after Christmas, and that the change over and the disentangling of finance should coincide almost exactly with the setting up of the new Council and areas.
Would the Minister tell us when the elections to the new Council in Cork will take place?
The position in Cork is entirely different. In Dublin there are several areas; there are seven urban district councils, five rural district areas, the Dublin Municipal Borough and the Poor Law Union in Dublin. You have the control of these areas, with all their different liabilities in the matter of loans and all their differences with regard to matters of rating. In Cork you have one area, with financial liabilities arising out of the past quite undisturbed. I think Deputies will understand that it was a matter of concern to me as to whether we were not likely to put the new Cork Council into a difficult position by having them elected almost immediately, when they would have to face the striking of the rate immediately after they were elected. I gave the matter considerable consideration. The striking of the rate in Cork, as a matter of fact, will have to be postponed for a short time in order to enable it to be struck by the new council. I think it would be misunderstood if we postponed the elections and allowed the Commissioner in Cork to strike the rate, and then had the election, say, in a month or two after the striking of the rate. My concern in the matter was entirely to have things satisfactory and easy, and not to make their responsibilities or difficulties too great for the new council. That applies to Cork where, as I have said, the position is of the utmost simplicity as compared with the position that arises in the county and the city of Dublin.
Question put: That the words proposed to be deleted stand in the section.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 50.
Tá
- Aird, William P.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Coburn, James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cooper, Bryan Ricco.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
Níl
- Allen, Denis.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Colbert, James.
- Colohan, Hugh.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- Doyle, Edward.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Holt, Samuel.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killane, James Joseph.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Carney, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Clery, Michael.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.)
- Smith, Patrick.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle. Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Allen.
Motion declared carried.
Question—"That Section 1 stand part of the Bill"—put and declared carried.
Question proposed: That Section 2 stand part of the Bill.
The same principle is at issue in this section except that the section refers to the county council and the urban districts in the county.
In speaking on Section 1, the Minister referred to the fact that the members of the various urban and rural councils would be drawn into consultation in the matter of Greater Dublin.
No. I said nothing at all about it, but Deputy Lemass suggested that he thought I did. I did not.
Did the Minister not say that they would require a certain number of months' apprenticeship before they would be in a position to understand the finances of the respective councils?
I did not talk about apprenticeship at all. My attitude is that it is undesirable that new councils over new areas of jurisdiction would come in at a date that coincided with the striking of a new rate. The reason for that is, that they would be asked to strike a new rate in respect of changed areas and changed circumstances immediately after they came in. The position with regard to the Bill is, that I anticipate that in March, 1930, the present councils, and in the city, the present Commissioners, would strike the rate for the following year, and that in September the new councils would come in over the new areas; that under their guidance, and during the subsequent six months or so, the change over with regard to finance and all that would take place, and that before they would be called upon to consider estimates and the striking of a rate for their new areas of jurisdiction, they would have had six months' experience of their new areas and their new position; that they would have been there while the financial change from one system of rating to another was being made, and while the financial arrangements that are inevitably involved in changing from one set of local bodies and local jurisdiction to a different set was being superimposed over the same county area.
During the time that this change is being actually brought about, the Local Government Department will be in consultation with someone representing the various urban councils as it will be with the Commissioners for Dublin City?
What would happen is, assuming that the election for the new areas takes place on the 3rd September, 1930, and the present local bodies will disappear and their places will be taken by the new councils set up over the new areas of jurisdiction, the Department, instead of dealing as up to whatever date in September it is that the present councils over their present areas, will, from the date of the change, deal with the new councils over the new areas of jurisdiction. I do not understand what other type of consultation with local bodies Deputy Lemass referred to originally, or Deputy Briscoe refers to now.
I will try to explain myself to the Minister. When he will be considering the Greater Dublin scheme he will be in consultation with the representatives of certain areas outside the city proper for the purpose of bringing certain areas under the Greater Dublin scheme. If that is the case, certain bargains or arrangements will be arrived at arising out of consultations. Dublin city during that time should have some sort of representation in connection with the Minister's Department apart from the Commissioners, for the view I have, and the view that is generally accepted by the people of Dublin, is that while the Commissioners represent the city of Dublin they are actually under the control of the Department of Local Government. In the bringing about of this change over, would the Minister consider giving representation to certain sections of the city for the purpose of consultation and discussing matters for the benefit afterwards of the smooth running of the Greater Dublin scheme.
I do not accept it as necessarily arising at all that in the framing of the legislation that will be put before the Oireachtas there will be any direct consultation either between myself or the Department and representatives of either urban councils or representatives of the county council area of the city. Even if there were, the proposals that would come before the Oireachtas would have to pass the gauntlet of the Deputies and Senators. If any points arise that might call for consultation, I would be very glad to consult with the Deputies who represent Dublin City as regards matters of any special interest to the city that may be involved in such negotiations or bargains. I had not thought of bargains at all until the question arose this evening.
took the Chair.
I did not want to suggest when I used the word bargains that anything done would not be in the interests of the city, but I believe there might be discussions with citizens of Dublin who might feel that something of theirs was being given away, and that such consultations would be of advantage when the striking of the rate arose. The Minister stated that he would be prepared to meet representatives of the City of Dublin to discuss points that might arise. Deputies of the City of Dublin, as the Minister is aware, are not in the position of representatives of rural and urban areas who come in direct contact with Councillors, who also are in contact with officials in their areas. Representatives of Dublin are not in direct contact with officials of Dublin City. I feel that the officials of the City of Dublin are of the type that would have the interests of the city at heart, and if they were brought in contact with people who might not be Councillors, but who would be able to discuss with them on matters concerning the best interests of the city, it would be far better eventually.
I feel the difficulties and the problems and the possibilities referred to are rather hypothetical. Any problem there is, financial or otherwise, will be the subject of discussion.
If the Minister will state that, should something arise which could not be given proper representation by Deputies, he will be prepared to meet representatives of the Dublin citizens, or certain interests in Dublin, that will satisfy me.
The question is too general entirely. Of course I will want the co-operation of the Deputies on all sides of the House in order to deal with this measure in the Oireachtas. Naturally, I will look for their co-operation in every way, and will be prepared to deal with any problem or any difficulty that they may put before me.
Sections 2 and 3 and the Title agreed to.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Bill reported without amendment.
The further Stages are rather formal, and I would ask the leave of the House to take them now.
Leave granted.
Question—"That the Bill be received for Final Consideration"— put and agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.