Is it intended to stop the discussion of this Bill at 7.30?
In Committee on Finance. - County Management (Amendment) Bill, 1942—Second Stage.
At 7.30, I understand.
Will the discussion not run beyond that if it is not finished?
No. The order as made fixed one hour, 6.30 to 7.30. The Committee discussion on the Central Bank Bill will be resumed at 7.30 p.m.
I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The primary purpose of the Bill is to enable the County Management Act, 1940, to be brought into operation at an early date, whether the local elections are held or not. The Bill does not in any way vary the powers conferred on a council and on the manager of a county respectively by the Act of 1941, nor does it impose any new duty or give any new function to either.
The original Act provided that the system of county management should be instituted in all county council areas simultaneously. The main difficulty, therefore, in putting that system into operation at once arises from the fact that in a number of counties the members of the councils have been removed from office and commissioners are acting in their places. In some counties, Dublin and Clare, for instance, the removals have taken place quite recently and, apart altogether from the question whether it is practicable or not to hold the elections in the circumstances of the present time, it is obviously undesirable, in the case of counties such as these, to reconstitute the local authorities on an elected basis until the commissioners have completed the task of cleaning up and reorganising the administration there. Accordingly, in counties where the local authorities have been dissolved, it is proposed under this Bill, pending the restoration of this council, to retain the commissioners and to empower them to act as managers of the counties for which they are responsible. Sections 5, 6 and 7 of this Bill provide for that, accordingly. In all, there are seven counties in which the members of the county councils and the boards of health have been removed from office. There are also two counties in which only the members of the boards of health have been removed.
In addition to dealing with this managerial problem, the Bill deals with two minor matters. Section 3 of the Bill relates to one of these and extends the definition of a joint body to include a statutory body, at least one half of whose members are required to be appointed by two or more rating authorities. New statutory bodies, drainage boards and the like, may be created by future legislation for particular purposes and it may be desirable to extend the managerial system to them. Under this section there will be power to add them to the number of other joint bodies to which the relevant section in the Principal Act already applies.
Section 4 of the Bill makes a variation in the scheme of priorities to be followed in the selection of the first county manager. At the present time there are six persons acting as commissioners and discharging the functions of county councils and boards of health. One of these individuals is a secretary of a county council and, under the Principal Act, will duly receive a preference in respect of that post. With regard to the remainder of his colleagues, it is considered that in view of the experience which they have acquired, some of them acting virtually as managers of the counties to which they have been appointed, the Local Appointments Commission should not be debarred from considering their fitness for the post until all the existing priorities have been exhausted. The Act of 1940 gives a preference to county secretaries and secretaries of boards of health. From the viewpoint of the widest public interest, perhaps the best thing to have done would have been not to have fixed priorities, and even yet, perhaps, it would be best to wipe out the priorities altogether and leave the field of selection the widest possible.
Why not do it?
Because I feel if we did, bearing in mind that the Oireachtas only a short time ago conferred this statutory right upon these individuals, it would be too great an infraction of the principle which has already been established. My view, therefore, is that the best compromise between having a wider selection and accepting the preferences which have already been conferred upon certain individuals is to ensure that individuals who have been specially qualified by experience to act as county managers should receive early consideration at the hands of the Local Appointments Commission. It is proposed, accordingly, that the commissioner for a county, including the commissioner discharging the functions of the board of health for a county in which members of the council are not removed from office, should be given priority in the county in which he is functioning after the secretary of the county council and, in other counties, after the secretary of the board of health.
Regardless of his age?
That would be a matter for consideration by the Local Appointments Commission. No doubt the question of a man's age will be taken into consideration in determining his suitability for office. The effect of Section 4, in conjunction with Section 4 of the Principal Act, may perhaps be more readily apprehended if I cite the proposed order of priority. The normal case, of course, is that of a county in which the county council is functioning and which is not grouped with another county.
The order of priority in such counties, of which there are at the moment 13, will be, first, the secretary of the county council; second, the secretary of the board of health; third, the commissioner or commissioners of suspended county councils or boards of health; fourth, the secretaries of other county councils, and fifth, the secretaries of other boards of health.
Speaking of the commissioners, is that only in connection with the particular counties in which they are serving?
No.
Any county?
I said the normal case is that of a county in which the county council is functioning and which is not grouped—I am considering now the case of the 13 counties. In counties in which the county council is suspended —except the County Dublin, which, by reason of the provisions of the Principal Act, is in a special position—the order will be, first, the secretary of the county council; second, in these cases where the county council has been suspended, the commissioner for the suspended county council or board of health; third, the secretary of the board of health; fourth, the other existing commissioners for county councils or boards of health; fifth, the secretaries of other county councils, and sixth, the secretaries of other boards of health.
I should like to explain in this connection that, once these priorities have been exhausted, if it is found, that there are still some vacancies for county managers, then the field would be open to any other candidate who cares to apply for the post. The purpose of this arrangement—an arrangement to which the Dáil has assented already, if not, in fact, asked for—is to ensure that those acting in what appears to be an analogous position will be considered first, before any other candidates can be considered at all.
Why not mention town clerks in that category?
If the Deputy asks me, I would not mention any.
I know, but the Minister has already mentioned some people.
The Act already mentioned some people.
The Minister has mentioned them now.
I am making a small variation, to ensure that people particularly suitable will be considered. I am not prepared to say that all town clerks could be so considered.
Is it not a matter for the Appointments Commission? Surely, when you are leaving the field open, the town clerks should be considered further?
In grouped counties, the secretary of each county council will stand on an equal footing as regards first preference, that is to say, that, irrespective of whether there is a commissioner in one of those grouped counties or not, both county secretaries will take precedence over the commissioner, so far as priority of consideration is concerned.
If they are not prospective candidates, what happens?
Then they are not considered.
It goes to the next in order?
Then they simply drop out, and the secretaries of the other county councils or the boards of health, as the case may be, come in. Naturally, if a man does not offer himself as a candidate, the question of priority does not arise in this case. I have already pointed out that Sections 5, 6, and 7 are designed to secure the primary purpose of the Bill, which is to enable the managerial system to be brought into operation as soon as possible, in as large an area as possible.
Section 5 relates to the counties, other than Dublin, in which members of the county council have been removed from office. Under this section, the selection of a permanent manager for such a county will be deferred until it has been decided to reconstitute the council on an elected basis. When that decision has been taken, the selection of the permanent manager will be proceeded with by the Local Appointments Commission, and the appointment of the permanent manager in accordance with that selection will be made before a new council is elected.
There is no option.
In the meantime, the existing commissioner will act as county manager, as if he had been appointed temporarily. In the case of a county in which the county councillors are still in office, but which is grouped with another county in which the county council is suspended, the Minister will appoint a person to act temporarily as county manager, until the dissolved county council is being reconstituted and the appointment of the first permanent manager for both counties in the group has been made.
If an assistant county manager is required to be appointed for a county —again other than Dublin—in which the council has been suspended, or for a county grouped with it, he will not take up office until the suspension has ceased. The reason for this provision is that, where the county council of a county in a group is suspended, there will be in the interim period, until the first county manager is appointed, the commissioner in that county and there will also be a temporary manager in the other county. These two officers, in my view, ought to be able to carry out the work of the county manager and the assistant county manager.
I am particularly interested in Tipperary, North and South Ridings, which seem in a peculiar position under the Bill. I would like to ask the Minister if, under this Bill, there will be two managers or just a manager or a county commissioner at present having jurisdiction over part of the county that is not yet dissolved and is functioning under local bodies in North Riding.
As far as Tipperary is concerned, the position will be that there will be in the south the present commissioner, who will also act as manager for the South Riding. In the North Riding a temporary manager will be appointed, who may or may not be—I do not want to commit myself at this stage—but probably will not be the existing commissioner for South Riding.
That means that one of them loses office when the new man is elected.
The temporary man may. He may be the secretary of a local authority and if so he will not lose any of his priority.
It will be pushing him down for the time being.
This Bill does not make permanent the division of Tipperary as under the previous Act?
No, it does not.
I intend to move an amendment regarding that.
This Bill does not interfere permanently with anything that is done under the Principal Act. The purpose of the Bill is to enable, to the extent to which it may be possible, to bring into operation the original County Management Act at the earliest possible date. In order to do that, we have to adopt some temporary expedient to deal with the position which is being created by the present emergency. One of the things we propose to do in regard to Tipperary is, so far as South Riding is concerned, that the existing commissioner will become the manager for the South Riding. So far as the North Riding is concerned, whether the temporary manager who will be appointed will ultimately be selected by the Local Appointments Commission as manager for the two groups—North and South Ridings— when they are grouped, I do not know. It may be the secretary of one or other of the county councils, or, if he is found to be unsuitable, it may be the existing commissioner or following that, the secretary of one of the boards of health.
Are we to understand from the Minister that it will be mandatory on the commission to appoint that man?
No, they will have to consider his suitability.
May I ask a question? Ultimately there would be one man appointed for the joint position of manager. Does the ordinary preference still obtain for the county secretary?
Yes.
That may be taken away by the fact that the man in possession of the job will have been functioning for a time. Is it not loading the dice against the county secretary? In the meantime all the other positions will have been filled in the country. The postponement in this case will act unfairly against the non-dissolved county.
No. Where two counties are grouped and where one of the counties is administered by a commissioner and the other is being administered by a temporary manager, the secretaries of the county councils will in each case hold a priority over the commissioner.
The commissioner is manager in the meantime.
He is only temporary manager. Before they come to the commissioner at all, the Local Appointments Commissioners will have to consider the position of the county secretary and say whether he is, in their view, suitable for appointment. If he is found suitable, he is bound, if my reading of the Bill is correct, to get the appointment. That does not necessarily mean that he must be the best man; it merely means that he must be suitable.
Section 6 of the Bill relates again to counties outside Dublin in which the members of an elective body have been removed from office. At present, there are the cases of the Urban District Councils of Longford, Buncrana and Trim, and a few others. Pending the reconstitution of such local authority on an elected basis, it is intended that the commissioner who has been appointed to act for it will perform the duties of both council and manager. When the County Management Act comes, in due course, into full operation in the county, after the local authority has been reconstituted, the permanent manager will be appointed under the Principal Act by the Local Appointments Commissioners and will be the manager for the elective bodies within the county. There is a similar provision in respect of the elective bodies wholly or partially within the County of Dublin.
Section 7 deals with the position of Dublin County. Under the Principal Act, the Dublin City Manager is appointed to be Dublin County Manager. The provisions of this Bill with regard to the order of priority for the post of county manager are not applicable to Dublin. Dublin County Council was suspended last September and it is proposed that the commissioner appointed in place of the county council, the board of health and Balrothery and Rathdown Boards of Assistance shall continue to act for these bodies pending their reconstitution. This applies also to the position of the commissioners administering the affairs of the Dublin Board of Assistance. These arrangements will necessitate an adjustment of the payment to be made to Dublin Corporation by Dublin County under Section 14 of the Principal Act in respect of the cost of management and sub-section (3) of Section 7 of this Bill makes provision accordingly.
If the Oireachtas passes this Bill, as I hope it will, it will be possible, in due course, to bring the County Management Act into operation and, with it, the remaining portions of the new Local Government Act of 1941 as well as the Public Assistance Act of 1939. These three Acts will then form the general basis of the new system of poor law, public health, and local government, which is designed finally to replace the somewhat cumbersome, inefficient and unsuitable system which was taken over from the British Administration. Measures for the complete reorganisation of the whole system were initiated by the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923, were carried somewhat further by the Local Government Act, 1925, and by the several Acts reorganising the municipal administration of the County Boroughs of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford, and the Borough of Dun Laoghaire. We have now reached a stage when, as I have said, far-reaching changes are about to be made. The passage of the Public Assistance Act of 1939 has necessitated the drafting of new public assistance regulations, while the passage of the County Management Act, 1940, has involved the recasting of the forms of account of the local authorities. The extremely detailed work entailed by both is almost completed, and it is hoped to have the new form of local accounts and the new public assistance regulations ready very shortly. As soon as they are ready and when the new county managers shall have been selected by the Local Appointments Commissioners, as provided by the Principal Act, it is intended, subject, of course, to the passage of the Bill now before the House, to put the County Management Act, 1940, the Public Assistance Act, 1939, and the remaining provisions of the Local Government Act, 1941, into effect.
I do not want to comment on the historical survey added as a tail-piece by the Minister. I shall confine myself to his remarks regarding this measure. Did you ever hear of such a piece of legislative and administrative thimble-rigging in all your life?
Presumably, that is a rhetorical question as addressed to the Chair?
I intended to say "Yes", because I was speaking, through you, to the Deputies of the different Parties. I do not think they did. This House had brought before it a County Management Bill in which, swallowing some of the principles they once enunciated, the Government proposed a certain type of improved administrative machinery for county councils. That Bill was passed. It was supposed to improve, and in my opinion would improve, the carrying out of the functions of local bodies. That Bill was given the Government a couple of years ago. The Minister now presents this patchwork business to us and explains what the result will be when the Oireachtas passes it, as he hopes it will. The Minister speaks as a member of an Executive Council that feels itself saddled with very serious responsibilities arising out of the emergency.
May I remind the Deputy that there is no such thing as an Executive Council?
I do not know what it is.
There is a body in the Constitution known as the Government.
Things change so quickly here that it is hard to be familiar with everything.
The Deputy should, at least, be familiar with the Constitution.
I am dealing with the proposition put before the House by the Minister, and when we consider how much more varied and widespread in relation to the whole country are the antics of the Government in relation to nomenclature, the Minister will appreciate that it hardly tends to systematise the machinery for carrying on business with clarity, or as to how that machinery is going to work. The Minister asked that he should not be interrupted, and I do not want to do so or to reply to his interruptions. The House passed the County Management Act in order to get better machinery to carry on local government. The Minister who is now presenting this Bill to the House is a member of a Government that feels that it has very serious responsibilities, and that it has to direct the work of the country through very difficult times. We have got organisations of various sorts in which the people are called together. In my opinion, there is not a more important piece of machinery than machinery to control local bodies. If we turn to the county medical officers of health we know that they deal with evacuation and with A.R.P., and we turn to the county surveyors when certain things want to be done on the roads, or to have turf supplies gathered. There is no systematised piece of machinery so valuable, but the position in which that machinery is being left in a time of emergency is indicated in this Bill. Men and women have been brought together and have elected their controlling bodies in various classes of public services. Here we have local bodies but, instead of getting people elected to local bodies, in accordance with the law as it stands, then putting the County Management Act into operation by these local bodies and giving the country a clear-cut vigorous lead, we have this chipping and chopping.
The Minister pointed out that a number of local bodies had been dissolved. Will he say if much of the reason why it was necessary to dissolve them was because they were old and withered, and so long on the job over the statutory time that they have not been functioning properly? These councils were last elected in 1934. Normally they should be elected in 1937, but were not, because it was said that would clash with the general election. Then they were going to be elected in 1938, but that clashed with another general election.
That situation went on until they were to be elected in 1940, but then there was an emergency. While the people are asked to come together and to elect governing bodies, the Government does not call upon the country to elect local representatives. As a people we are either the biggest pack of hypocrites or are the biggest pack of muddlers. I do not know what we are. For generations we are supposed to have been struggling in order to set up our own machinery of government. Now when we have it, these bodies for the slightest reason are trampled upon and set aside. I could understand them being trampled upon and set aside for political Party purposes of one kind or another, but I cannot understand the machinery of local government being trampled upon and set aside in a time of emergency, by those who howled so much to the contrary about the importance of the people standing up to responsibilities and doing their duty in order to be prepared for the emergency.
There is one way to give a real lead to the country and that is by seeing that the machinery is in good trim for any emergency that may arise, whether a military or, as is much more likely, any social emergency, that we may be up against, and in the spirit of these times to ask the people to set up their representative local bodies and then without any chipping or chopping to get the newly ordained machinery into their hands. We will then know where we are with regard to the fabric of local government and its scope, as we will have a closely knit machine, including the county managers, the county medical officers of health, the county surveyors and the secretaries of county councils in every local government area, with men and women freely elected in the spirit of the emergency and ready for responsibilities and the duties that will face them. If the Minister is going into an emergency with this type of Bill, then he is going into an emergency with no local government machinery, except machinery where a man will be known here and there for his initiative and energy, and will be contacted with because of his initiative. He will not be there as a piece of systematised machinery with a proper local body around him. I ask the Minister if he really thinks that I am making these remarks for any other reason but that I absolutely believe in them, and because I am convinced that we should have local government in such trim to-morrow that it could operate.
I agree with Deputy Mulcahy that we have not for a long time heard such a lot of thimble-rigging as was expounded by the Minister when introducing this Bill. I take it that if the Minister was in the House when the parent Bill was put through, he will remember that everything that has happened in connection with that Bill was indicated from various parts of the House. As far as one can see from the Bill now introduced it is trying, in my opinion, to make confusion more confounded. I have consistently opposed the county management system, because I am not yet convinced that it is going to create any better system of local government than we have at present. I am perfectly satisfied that if the people are permitted to retain the power they have at present, better results will be obtained for the people whom they represent than there will be if county managers are appointed all over the country. The principal aim of this Bill seems to be to set up a priority category. The Minister has mentioned certain people, people holding positions as commissioners at the present time, county secretaries and secretaries of boards of health. I asked him, in the course of his statement, why it was that town clerks in rather important boroughs in the country should not be placed upon that priority list. I understood from him that when he had reached, I think, secretaries of county boards of health, it was proposed then to widen the field and permit any person in the State to make application for the position of county manager. I suggest to the Minister that that is very unfair. I propose to submit an amendment on Committee Stage to endeavour to secure that, at least, town clerks of municipalities with certain population should be given an opportunity of endeavouring to secure a position as county manager. I think it is most unfair to keep out people in that category while you open the position to men who have had no previous knowledge of local government.
We are aware that at the present moment the Local Appointments Commission have placed in the position of town clerk and in other positions under local authorities, people who have had no experience hitherto of local government in the country. I, for one, am perfectly satisfied that in some cases these people have made a mess of local government in the areas in which they were appointed. I have one particular place in mind, where a town clerk was appointed who was taken out of a commercial office, who had had no connection, good, bad or indifferent, with local government work. The result is that, although that man has been in that position for a couple of years, he has not yet acquired the necessary knowledge to enable him to be helpful to his council in carrying out local government in the county.
I said before that it was pointed out to the Minister's predecessor that, in the opinion of a great many people in this House, the original Bill, when passed, would not work smoothly. As far as I am concerned, I am going to vote against this Bill. I am absolutely opposed to the county manager system. I am perfectly satisfied we could do better without it. I am not going to vote for this Bill or do anything to put the parent Act into operation.
In my opinion, this Bill has been introduced largely because of various resolutions which have come from South Tipperary. I do not fall out with it on that account because practically every local body in Tipperary, parish councils, and so on, have passed resolutions, copies of which I have received, asking that the County Management Bill be amended so as to permit of the present county commissioner retaining office as manager.
Does the Deputy suggest that that is the reason why this Bill is brought in?
Rightly or wrongly, I think it has something to do with it. I am not quarrelling with it at all. The people want it and they are probably the best judges as to who would be suitable. There is also in South Tipperary—Deputy Loughman can bear me out—an insistent demand that the county should be divided as it is at present, into North and South Ridings, for the purposes of county management. I moved an amendment to the County Management Bill to that effect, and I hope to do so again, because I feel that County Tipperary is much too large to be managed by one man. When I come from Carrick-on-Suir to Dublin by road I touch five counties, and I could drive the same distance in my own constituency, going the shortest way, and still be in County Tipperary. I feel that if a county manager has to manage a county of that size, he cannot give it the necessary attention. There are counties in which it is proposed to have a county manager which are much smaller in area and population than South Tipperary, and even much smaller than North Tipperary. I cannot give the names of these counties at the present time, but I think I mentioned them before in connection with the Principal Act. Unless the Minister says that he will agree to accept an amendment of that kind—his predecessor refused—I will be again compelled to put down an amendment to add a new section to the Bill to divide County Tipperary, for the purposes of this Bill, into North Riding and South Riding. In South Tipperary we have corporations, we have at least four urban councils. All these things require looking into. I feel that if a county manager has to deal with the eastern part of the county he will be able to pay very little attention to my part of the county. I would like Deputy Loughman to reiterate what he advocated on a previous occasion.
It is very seldom that in this House or in any part of Ireland we have a public representative trying to create another partitioned area in the country. Deputy Curran has been advocating such a thing for his particular county.
The Deputy should ask his colleague what he proposed by resolution in Clonmel.
Tipperary is partitioned already for local government purposes, but the proposal in the County Management Act is to have one manager for the whole county. Deputy Curran is not satisfied with that. He wants permanent division of his own county.
I do not want that at all.
That is not what I got up to talk about. Deputy Mulcahy seems annoyed about this Bill. He wants a local election as an alternative to the Bill. I think if there were normal conditions existing in the country everyone would welcome a local election, but the problem, in my opinion, is whether you could hold a local election and do full justice and get a fresh mind, under present conditions. I believe that, under present conditions, the large urban areas would, to a great extent, control future county councils. That is why I would be opposed to local elections at the present time. I was not clear when the Minister mentioned the priorities in connection with existing commissioners. Will they have a right to apply to be made county manager, after the secretary and the secretary of the board of health, in all counties?
Yes.
I mean they will have that right?
Yes.
I want to protest against that. I think it is most unfair to set up six men and give them the choice of, I think, 24 areas.
Fifteen at the moment.
You are going to give the six men now acting as commissioners a choice of 15 areas or a choice of the whole country. You are going to allow them a choice as to what county they might like to be manager in. I am sure that the Local Appointments Commissioners, when they come to fill post X, we will call it, will know quite well that the secretary of the county council will apply, that the secretary of the board of health will apply, and that one or two commissioners will apply. They will know that those two— we will call them niggers in the woodpile—are there. They can easily pass over the secretary of the council or the secretary of the board of health, knowing that these men are there to fall back on. That is the objection I see to this Bill. It fundamentally changes the principle of the County Management Act. If they were allowed to compete only in the counties in which they are acting as commissioners at the present time, there would be no real objection to it, but to give them the right to apply to be county manager in any one of the Twenty-Six Counties was never suggested and I should like to put it to the Minister that that is a fundamental change in the County Management Act.
That is a point to which I should like to call the Minister's attention and I think it is important that we should give it serious consideration. It is strange that six men should be given a priority over all other men and placed in exceptional positions as against any other citizens in the State. The existing secretaries of county councils or boards of health would not have any chance against them. These other men will get priority in a county in which they have not been functioning at all. I would ask the Minister to reconsider that aspect of the matter very seriously.
I agree with Deputy Mulcahy. I think it is a very regrettable fact that local authorities should have outlived their term of office three times over. The dissolution of so many local authorities is due in no small measure to that fact as it was inevitable that a certain amount of senile decay should have crept in amongst them. People lost interest in the work of local administration. Many of them failed to attend meetings and the natural result was that there was inefficiency. For that reason, it is to be regretted that a further postponement is now about to take place. I also agree with Deputy Mulcahy that, facing a period of very grave uncertainty, particularly during the emergency, it will be a serious handicap in rural districts if people have to depend on the direction of one man who possibly may not be very well acquainted with local affairs at all. Certainly a virile local body, newly elected, would add greatly to the strength and the power of organised effort to meet any contingency that might arise. I think that this measure is going to give rise to many complications and difficulties of administration as well as to certain injustices.
The point raised by Deputy Allen is one that the Minister might well consider. There is the question of appointing two temporary managers in two counties which it is proposed to join for the purposes of management later on. It appears that one temporary manager is going to lose office later. I think it is an injustice, first of all, to appoint a man in a temporary capacity in that way and then afterwards deprive him of office. It will mean that there is little likelihood of his getting a similar position in any other county. If a manager is appointed from the priority list in another county, that in fact means that a secretary who has been acting as temporary county manager will have no chance of being elected for that county. To that extent, at all events, I feel that it is an injustice to the man who is expected to fill the position of temporary county manager.
There is one other point to which I should like to direct the attention of the Minister. Some of the commissioners who have been appointed recently may be applicants for the position of county manager later on. If they are appointed by the Minister —the Minister in fact said that the appointment was made by the Appointments Commission——
The manager will be selected by them.
The Minister said "appointed".
I said "selected".
I took a note of the Minister's words. He may have meant to put it the other way, but that is what he said. Where a man is appointed to an office, when he is pretty well on in years, I should like the Minister to tell us how his superannuation is ultimately going to be calculated. If he has given long years of service in another county, and he is taken out of that county and appointed as manager in some neighbouring county, he may possibly only serve ten years as manager. I should like the Minister to tell us whether the county of which he is appointed manager will have to pay his superannuation, although he has given the best part of his life to the service of another county. I feel that this whole measure is very unsatisfactory. It would be far better to face up to our responsibilities and to have local elections now. New bodies coming into office imbued with new vigour would produce better co-operation and would provide a better prospect of working the County Management Act effectively.
I should like to say that the Government is no less anxious than any member of the House that these local elections should be held. I feel that the situation which Deputy Mulcahy has described is the cause of many of the difficulties we are experiencing with local government, but against the desirability of holding these elections we have to put the very solid difficulties with which the country would be confronted if it were proposed to hold them in present circumstances.
First of all, I think there would be a vast mass of public opinion against the holding of these elections. The people would say: "Here we have a united country with men of all shades of opinion and of all Parties in the various services that have been organised to meet the emergency and the worst contingency that the emergency may bring. Are we going to divide the country again into factions and political camps?" Then we would have difficulties with regard to the provision of election materials, transport, etc. For that reason it is doubtful if we could hold elections in present circumstances, but we are anxious to get the County Management Act into operation at the earliest possible moment. If we get this measure through, it will enable us to put the Act into operation.
The Minister is utterly insincere in what he says.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 48; Níl, 21.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Fogarty, Patrick. J.
- Friel, John.
- Fuller, Stephen.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Keane, John J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Loughman, Francis.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Lynch, James B.
- McCann, John.
- McDevitt, Henry A.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Loghlen, Peter J.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Richard.
Níl
- Bennett, George C.
- Broderick, William J.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred (Junior)
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Davin, William.
- Everett, James.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hannigan, Joseph.
- Hickey, James.
- Hughes, James.
- Hurley, Jeremiah.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Nally, Martin.
- Norton, William.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and Seán Brady; Níl: Deputies Keyes and Hickey.
Question declared carried.
Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 30th April.