There is an amendment down, in the name of Deputy Martin O'Sullivan, to insert a new section.
Committee on Finance. - Local Government (Dublin) Bill, 1945—Committee and Final Stages.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I am quite prepared to accept the amendment proposed by the Minister, which is contained on a separate sheet, because I think it meets the anomalous position of members of the Dublin Corporation, with which my amendment was concerned. That anomalous position has existed since the passing of the 1930 Act, and it was necessary that it should be remedied. I feel quite certain that the position in regard to an alderman or councillor, acting in such a capacity, is covered by the Minister's amendment, and I am quite happy to accept his amendment.
I think, Sir, that my amendment cannot be disposed of until Deputy O'Sullivan's amendment is withdrawn.
In view of the Minister's proposed amendment, I am not moving my amendment.
Amendment No. 1 not moved.
I move amendment No. 2:
To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
Every Order under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as conveniently may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the Order is passed by either such House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the Order is laid before it, the Order shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
The members of the Dublin Corporation, as a whole, are very much concerned about this matter, and that is the reason why I have proposed this amendment which, I understand, the Minister is prepared to accept, at least, in principle. I would be satisfied if the Minister would say that he is prepared to meet the stuation so far as is possible.
Although I should like to meet the principle proposed by the Deputy in this amendment, I think it is inadvisable to lay down a period of 21 sitting days. If I were to accept the principle of this amendment, it would be on condition that that period should be reduced very considerably. I do not know whether 21 consecutive days would be sufficient. On the other hand, 21 sitting days might mean that the orders would have to lie on the Table of the House for a very long period, during which people concerned, like prospective candidates and their organisations, would not know what the final decision in regard to these electoral divisions was going to be, or how long they might have to wait before they could come to a decision as to which electoral area they would contest. After all, if one were to stipulate 21 sitting days of the Dáil, that might mean a period of five, six or even 7 months, if the Dáil were not sitting; and, accordingly, I think that that would be too long a period. I suggest that four sitting days would be better. That would give to the members of the corporation at least a week within which to consider the matter and to come here if necessary.
Surely, that means a kind of hand-to-mouth existence in the case of those concerned with electoral matters in the city. How often does the Minister want that change?
Actually, the Deputy has put his finger on what is the real objection to this amendment—that the mere fact of making the Order subject to annulment creates uncertainty.
No.
Yes, it does. It puts those concerned in the position of living from hand to mouth, as the Deputy has said, and that is why I suggest that we should reduce the period, at least as much as we can. I am quite prepared to meet Deputy Doyle's point of view, but I think it would be sufficient to give a week instead of this qualification of 21 sitting days, because, if we are to agree to 21 sitting days, without any qualification, it would mean that, if the Dáil did not happen to be sitting during the period concerned, there would be no certainty. I do not want that, and I am sure that the Deputy does not want it. I do not want, any more than, I am sure, the Deputy does, to prolong the period of uncertainty. I think that everybody would desire to have this matter decided within a very short period after the Order is made. I suggest four sitting days until the Order becomes final are enough. If any people want to put down a motion to annul the Order that would give them ample time for complying with Standing Orders and to make up their minds.
Will the Minister make it one calendar month? Supposing the Dáil adjourned indefinitely there would, otherwise, be no opportunity to discuss the matter. There might be something in the Minister's argument about a long hiatus.
That would not meet the situation. If we made it five or six sitting days.
Or seven days?
That would give a fortnight, probably three weeks. Those interested would be able to come to a decision by that time.
Members of the corporation would need some time to discuss whatever Order the Minister might make.
I will say seven days.
I have no objection to the Minister making an accommodation in this matter but we are creating a precedent. If the areas of representation in the city or in the country are going to be changed, long and mature deliberation as well as open consultation is required beforehand. The real guarantee that there would be no uncertainty with regard to any Order that may be made setting up these areas would be that there was the necessary consultation over a suitable period.
The Leader of the Opposition was responsible for putting through the Local Government Act of 1930 and that principle is not to be found in it, nor in the Act of 1941. I am creating a precedent, and I do so because I want people to be satisfied. If there is to be any consultation, it will be after the Order is made, and if a good case is made for amendment of that Order then, as far as I am concerned, it will be amended.
It is a grotesque conception of the Minister's responsibility in relation to the setting up of areas of representation, whether for municipal or Parliamentary purposes, to say that he will not have consultation with anybody until after he has made and printed the Order. The Minister has a very peculiar view of his responsibility in the matter.
Perhaps very reluctantly I have departed from the situation as I found it but I can point to the principle embodied in the Act of 1930. I did not want to do that. But if it is going to be said that I am putting myself in a grotesque position by proposing to give the Dáil the opportunity to discuss the matter, I do not see what else I can do. The Act of 1930 says: "As soon as may be after the passing of this Act the Minister shall divide the area consisting of the existing city, the added urban districts, and the added rural area into five borough electoral areas." There is not a word there about consultation with the Dáil or with anybody else. That is the principle the Deputy stood over when he was Minister for Local Government.
There is not a word in it suggesting that the Minister shall do so without consultation with anybody.
I am not going to be bound by statute to consult anybody in advance. The people I am responsible to are the citizens of Dublin as a whole, and their representatives will have the opportunity of discussing the matter in public if they wish to do so here.
Not until the Minister has done all this.
No, after the Minister has put his ideas into proper form and brought them before the Dáil. If it can be shown, when they are in black and white, and when they can be challenged, that they are not fair and equitable to all the interests concerned, I am prepared to abide by the verdict in that case.
The amendment is being accepted with the substitution of seven days instead of 21 days.
Amendment No. 2, as altered, agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 3:—
Before Section 4, page 3, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) Where the Lord Mayor of Dublin is unable to discharge his functions during any period on account of illness or necessary absence from the city, he may, subject to the provisions of this section, appoint a member of the city council to be Deputy Lord Mayor of Dublin during that period, and the person so appointed may discharge the functions of the Lord Mayor of Dublin during that period.
(2) The period for which a person is appointed under sub-section (1) of this section shall not, save with the consent of the city council, exceed two months.
(3) Where the power conferred by sub-section (1) of this section is exercised in relation to two or more periods occurring during any period of 12 months, the aggregate of those periods shall not, save with the consent of the city council, exceed three months.
(4) Section 48 of the private preUnion Irish statute passed in the session of 1771-72, and numbered chapter xi (An Act for better regulating the Foundling Hospital and Work-house in the city of Dublin, etc., 11 & 12 Geo. III, c. xi) is hereby repealed.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed:—"That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."
I urge the Minister to reconsider the question of holding county council elections this year.
Are we on that question now?
On Section 4, as in the Bill at present.
Is there another Section 4 up the Minister's sleeve?
No, we accepted a new Section 4.
The Minister omitted to make any definite statement as to what changes he proposed to make. I assume that he is not yet in a position to announce the proposed changes. At this stage, when the Bill gives him power to postpone elections for one year, and for a further two years, if necessary, we should have an indication as to when it is proposed to hold county council elections, as well as elections for the areas of Balrothery and Rathdown, and whether it is proposed to continue these two bodies in existence after the next local elections. While I agree that the Minister's plans could be put into operation, never the-less, I consider that the representatives of the people in this House should voice their opinions on the matter. The Dublin County Council has now been abolished for quite a considerable time and, while certain successes and improvements have been achieved, nevertheless it is undesirable that any drastic or far-reaching change such as the Minister envisages should be undertaken without consultation with elected representatives such as we would have if the county council were elected.
My position with regard to this matter was very fully stated on the Second Stage of the Bill. I have said, as far as I am concerned, that there will be no drastic change in the existing system of local authorities in Dublin until the representatives of the Dublin ratepayers and the Dáil have had an opportunity to consider the proposals. I pointed out, when I was introducing this Bill, that I was asking, first of all, for the unconditional power to defer the elections for the Dublin County Council for one year. I emphasised that a number of proposals of a constructive nature had reached a critical stage, that arrangements would be made in regard to some of them to hold the necessary public inquiries towards the end of this year, and that I felt it would unduly retard the completion of these proposals and plans if we were to have a change in the administration of the county council affairs at this stage.
The section proposes to give the Minister power to defer for a further two years the holding of elections for the County Council of Dublin, but that power is conditional upon the Dáil assenting to the Order which the Minister will make. I do not think there is anything I can usefully add to the very full case which I made on the Second Reading of this Bill, dealing with the powers which are sought in Section 4. The only additional point, I think, that Deputy Cosgrave raised was that he seemed to want some assurance that nothing of a radical nature would be done without the representatives of the ratepayers of County Dublin having an opportunity to consider the matter and I can give him that assurance without any hesitation.
It is quite true that the Minister has nothing to add to what he said on the Second Reading in this matter. His attitude at that particular time was that a very considerable amount of expenditure on important works was being made.
I did not say expenditure.
The Minister gave figures.
I said plans were being prepared for important works.
The Minister stated the nature of the works; he stated the amount of money that was going to be expended. It may be that none of the work is being done now but plans have been made and, in the making of plans, the carrying out of which will be important for the citizens of the county, and a large part of the expenditure on which will have to be borne by them, the Minister is deliberately preventing them from having any representative council that could in any authoritative way review or discuss these plans while they are under formation or while the work is being initiated. That is one very important matter that is happening at the present time, namely, the development of plans for the expenditure of a very considerable amount of money.
The next thing the Minister indicated was that he has not made up his mind as to what he is going to do with regard to the division of the administrative areas in the city and county and the organisation of their management. The report of the first tribunal that was set up under the Act of 1930 has been in the Minister's hands for seven years and the Minister has given no sign that he has begun to do any thinking about these proposals in any practical way. During the last four or five years, every section of the people in the City and County of Dublin has been mobilised and propagandised to form all kinds of most intricate organisations to deal with difficult and emergency circumstances. Voluntary work is expected of them. They have come together magnificently and they have performed a magnificent piece of civic work, but the Minister now decides that they are not fit to review, through local representatives, what is being planned for the future of the area, either in constructive work or administrative reorganisation. I think it is a complete insult to the whole adult population of the County of Dublin. Even if there was a danger in putting the responsibility on the electorate of the County of Dublin at the present time, I think it is dangerous to relieve the electorate of their responsibility in the matter. I think the Minister is atrophying a certain sense of responsibility that ought to be developed in the county and he is removing to some back room in the Department of Local Government the development of important plans, committing the area to a considerable amount of expenditure. In my opinion, that is entirely wrong. I think there is enough ordinary work to be done in the Department of Local Government and sufficient desire on the part of various sections of the people throughout the country to get that work speeded up and made more definite without the Minister adding to himself the unnecessary trouble of trying to do work that could properly be done by the representatives of the County of Dublin.
I suppose it is my fault, but I do not think Deputies have really grasped what I tried to indicate to them when I introduced this Bill. I said that we have many important proposals for the constructive development of certain of those services, that these are under immediate consideration and will have reached a critical stage about the period of June next, that these proposals envisage the construction of over 1,350 houses, the execution of water supply and sewerage schemes to the value of £358,818, and the construction and improvement of roads at an ultimate cost of over £5,000,000; that the actual execution of these works, except to a minor degree, will not be possible until the end of hostilities in Europe renders the procural of the necessary plant and materials more feasible than it is now. I did not say that these works were going to be carried out now. I pointed out what the difficulties are. I am not sanguine enough to believe that before the elections in the year 1946 are held, if they are held then, we will be in a position to carry out these undertakings, but I do think that it is desirable that we should be ready with our plans to undertake the works as soon as it is possible to do that.
The Government has a very practical interest in ensuring that these works are properly planned, because the Government is going to be a very large contributor towards the cost of these works. The houses will be heavily subsidised, the water supply and sewerage schemes will be heavily subsidised and I believe that a very large part of the road expenditure will have to be subsidised by the Exchequer. Therefore I have no apology to make for anything we might do in the Department of Local Government to ensure that these works are properly planned and that they are carried out in a very different way from the way in which certain works were carried out when the county council was in existence. I think that is a reasonable request to make—that we should have, at this critical period in the projection of these development schemes, this further respite; that we should be assured that there will not be a change in the administration until these plans are completed and ready to be put before the public. The necessary public inquiries will have to be held in connection with the housing schemes and I think they will be held at the end of this year, as I mentioned on the Second Reading.
In addition to that we hope to have the joint planning schemes for Dublin City and County. These schemes will have to be submitted to the public; they will be open to the inspection of the public. The public will be able to formulate their criticisms of them and these will be considered. When we have done that, we will be in a position then to come down and give close consideration to what actually are to be the local government authorities in the city and county and what the relationship is to be between them. After that it will be time enough then to have the elections for the local authority. There is no use proceeding to elect the authority now, as I said, changing the whole administration, and then, before these plans are even completed, perhaps having to change the whole thing again. We are not in a position to say now what will be the ultimate arrangement for the general administration of the city and county.
The Minister's statement is wholly inexplicable and entirely without point unless he adds something which he has apparently carefully refrained from adding, namely, that the ratepayers of the County Dublin are not to be trusted to carry out or initiate the plans that the Minister has in mind. I can see no other justification for the Minister's attitude. The Minister says that his Department has these plans. These plans are not to come into operation for some years. He does not even know when they are to come into operation. In the meantime, there is to be no county council election in County Dublin, although these plans are not finally prepared and will not come into operation for many years. I fail to understand the justification of that line of argument for postponing the election. The only justification which could be given is that the Minister will not trust the County Dublin ratepayers to do their duty. If that is the reason for asking the House to give this power of postponing the county council elections in County Dublin, why not say so? All this talk about plans, reconstruction and construction is all nonsense.
Under the system of local government that subsists in most counties at present, presumably the county council, through the local manager and the council themselves, are carrying out plans or preparing plans for the postwar period. Why pick upon the Dublin County Council and say that the County Dublin ratepayers are not to be trusted to carry out these grandiose plans in County Dublin? I entirely fail to follow the Minister's argument.
I could understand, while possibly not agreeing with him, the argument that the County Dublin ratepayers are not to be trusted. But, apparently, what the Minister says is: "We have plans in the Department. We do not know whether the County Dublin ratepayers would approve of these plans or not. We are not going to take the risk that they will not and some years ahead we propose to impose these plans upon whatever authority is carrying out the local affairs of the County Dublin." That appears to be the case for this section. In my view, it is no case for the section. If the Minister said that he does not trust the County Dublin ratepayers, I could understand that as a case, and I think I could put up an answer to it. But to say that, because there are plans in preparation in the Department which are not even finished and which it is not intended to put into execution for some years, the County Dublin ratepayers should not at present have their own local affairs conducted locally, the same as most other counties, passes my comprehension.
I do not think there is any county in which it would be more important or necessary, if any changes are taking place, or any important work is being done, to have the county council elected by the people than in the County of Dublin because of the particular nature of that area. It has three very different areas. In the first place, there is the Borough of Dublin. Then there is the portion of the county lying south of the Borough of Dun Laoghaire and the City of Dublin and the portion of the county lying north of the County Borough of Dublin. These are three very distinct areas with different interests of their own no doubt, but their different interests impinging on the interests of their neighbour in a very peculiar way. Because of the very diversity that exists in the county, it is all the more necessary and imperative that there should be a council elected to review what is being done and to advise the Minister and consult with the Minister, if the Minister had particular plans that he thought should be put into operation in their area. The nature of the county is such that it is imperative that the county council should exist.
There is one thing I want to add. If the Minister is not inclined to reply, I assume that the case I have made is the correct one, that the Minister thinks that the County Dublin ratepayers are not to be trusted. In the absence of any answer to the points put forward, the public must assume that the stand the Minister is taking is that the County Dublin ratepayers are not to be trusted. Assuming for the moment that those ratepayers who were responsible for the election of the Dublin County Council which was abolished some years ago were not to be trusted and were proved not to be trusted to carry out their duties, a number of entirely different people have now come on the register and will come on the register. It must be assumed that if there was any dereliction of duty in the past, that has now been purged, that the affairs of the Dublin County Council have been put on a proper basis by the county commissioner, and that the position is now clear for those new electors who have come upon the register in recent years to give proof of their ability to carry on their own affairs and that they ought to get an opportunity of doing it. They are being denied it in this Bill, in my view, on an entirely false case. Something about the plans being in preparation is put forward as the reason for asking for this power in this section. That, in my view, is a wrong, false and untenable case.
In the previous section power is taken by the Minister to increase the number of representatives of the citizens of Dublin on the Dublin Corporation. So that in one part of this Bill we are giving more representation to the citizens of the City of Dublin and in another part of the Bill we are depriving the people of the County of Dublin of any representation on their own local authorities. I fail to see the logic of or the justification for that except the one thing, that in the case of the City of Dublin the Minister is anxious to increase the representation in the corporation for political purposes. I stated on Second Reading that I was against that; that I could not see any reason why there should be ten more politicians put into the Dublin Corporation. In my view, these ten are being put in for political purposes in an endeavour by the Party or the organisation to capture the Lord Mayoralty of the city.
I do not think the Deputy's speech is worth answering. The thing is too fantastic.
The Minister is not able to answer it.
I do not know whether I am entitled to discuss Section 2 again on Section 4. But does not the Deputy know as well as I do that the principle of proportional representation will apply and that, unless his Party has given up the ghost altogether in relation to the Dublin Corporation, they will get their share of the ten seats as well as every other Party there? It is not worthy of the Deputy's intelligence to try to put that argument across the House. It does not, and it will not, add to his reputation——
I am not interested in that. The Minister should not be personal.
——any more than the suggestion that the reason why I am asking the House to give me power to defer the election of the county council is that I do not trust the ratepayers of County Dublin. Now, if we could find any way of taking a plebiscite of the ratepayers of County Dublin on this matter, I am perfectly certain that by an overwhelming majority they would all support me in the perfectly reasonable request I make that when the commissioner administering the affairs of the county council is preparing plans which have reached a critical stage, he should be permitted to go ahead, finish that stage and put his plans before the people. While he may not be able to carry out any of these schemes for the present, they will show at least his intention in regard to future development. When he has got as far as that, the citizens of County Dublin themselves will be in a position to form an opinion on the proposals which will be ultimately put before them for the local government of the county. That is all I am asking.
Do I understand that the Minister is now suggesting to the House that he will give an undertaking that none of the plans that are being prepared at the present time, will be initiated or that no commitments will be entered into until the county council has been restored to Dublin to consider these plans and to take responsibility for them?
I am not. I want to guard myself against that. Plans are being prepared for the construction of 1,350 houses. If a public inquiry is held when these housing plans are completed, and they are approved, I am not going to bind myself or to put myself in the position of giving a ridiculous pledge—a pledge which would be contrary to the public interest—that the construction of none of the houses is going to be undertaken until the Dublin County Council has been elected. I am not giving that undertaking and I think the Deputy on reconsideration will see that it is unwise to try to put me in the position of having to give it.
It was the Minister put himself in the position of saying that he would give that undertaking. Now he has untied his hands in regard to housing. What about the sewerage position?
They are both exactly in the same position.
Do we understand from the Minister that none of the plans in regard to sewerage schemes and roads will be proceeded with until an elected body is there to review them?
I did not say that at any time. I said that between now and the 1st July, 1946, it was unlikely that any of these schemes would be undertaken, but that I hoped we would have the plans prepared. What will arise after the 1st July, 1946, is another matter. The House will have other discussions on these matters and then the Deputy will have an opportunity of trying to tie my hands as he is attempting now.
I suppose any administrative changes will be brought before the House before they are effected?
Yes.
Will the Minister say how, if the elected body is restored, that elected body is going to interfere with the plans for the erection of 1,350 houses or with any of the other plans? Even if the council is restored, the executive functions will be carried on through the manager. He may be the present commissioner for all we know. He may be the same person carrying on in a different capacity. Even if he were to get 25 men from Mountjoy on the Dublin County Council, I cannot see how they are going to interfere with these plans.
I am afraid I cannot quite adopt that attitude in relation to Dublin County.
The Minister is assuming that the gentlemen who rendered such poor service to Dublin County in the past are to be the future representatives after the next election. He is apparently assuming that they are going to get back.
I do not know.
I cannot see any other argument for the Minister's attitude. If we on the Dun Laoghaire Borough Council have plans for the construction of 1,000 houses and various other schemes, and if we have an entirely new personnel on the council, as is probable after the next election, I cannot see how that new personnel will upset the plans that are already made with the present system of managerial control. The only thing I can see is that the Minister fears that some of the people who gave such disservice, according to him, in the past are going to get back and start to obstruct the manager. Even if they did get back they could not obstruct him.
I shall put it this way: I am not going to take the risk at this stage.
The Minister's reply to Deputy Cosgrave lifts the veil a little more. It suggests that under Section 3 we are saying good-bye for ever to a Dublin county council such as existed in the past and that he proposes under the powers of this Bill to keep public representation for the Dublin County area completely choked off until he has introduced legislation to reconstitute the administrative boundaries of the City and County of Dublin. That is now the point we arrived at in elaborating the Minister's plans. I submit, that being so, it becomes more important that Parliament should face its responsibilities in this matter and that Deputies should ask themselves whether they are satisfied, when elaborate plans are being made to readjust the administrative areas in the city and county, that one section which was under the county council in the past should be completely disfranchised in any public consideration of the Minister's plans. Again I want to ask the members of the Party behind him, if the Minister continues to remain silent about the matter, why is it that above all the part of the city and county that is the rural area is to be the part that is to be choked out of any representative discussion of plans that are going to affect their administrative future?
As I say, in a very round about way, only by a reply to a chance question from Deputy Cosgrave, the Minister has disclosed that we are not going to see any public body representing the rural parts of County Dublin until such time as the Minister has by his machine put the plans for the reordering of the administrative boundaries of the county before the House. According to his new administrative plan the new administrative machinery will be forced on the city and the county. In the meantime there will be no rural representation standing in any kind of official position to review what is happening and what is being planned or to discuss that plan. It is all going to be left to the Fianna Fáil Party here in this House.
I do not know whether Deputy Cosgrave understood that what Deputy Mulcahy has represented as being the position which arose after the exchange of remarks between himself and myself is, in fact, the position, but I certainly did not understand that. It seems to me that there is no use in trying to meet the Opposition reasonably in regard to these matters, because they will not be reasonable. I am beginning to wonder whether, in view of the trend of the discussion here this evening, it is worth while retaining sub-section (7) in this section at all. I am asking for powers to postpone the elections until 1946, and, if necessary, to come to the House again to have the matter further discussed should a further postponement be necessary. But if the discussion on the remaining sections of the Bill is going to follow the lines it has followed on this one, I am going to consider my attitude in regard to sub-section (7) on the Report Stage of the Bill.
Will the Minister then consider stating bluntly what his intention is in the matter, that is, whether we are going to have no more County Dublin until such time as he has introduced legislation here reshaping the whole administrative machine in the city and county?
I am giving notice now that I am going to consider the introduction of an amendment on the Report Stage of the Bill to delete sub-section (7) of this section.
The Minister is showing very plainly that he has been completely found out, and that the intention of this Bill is completely to disfranchise the County of Dublin, particularly the rural part of it which has no representation of any kind in the Borough of Dun Laoghaire—that the rural part of it particularly is going to be completely disfranchised while he is hacking up the organisation of the city and county.
I think it is well that the public should realise the frightful threat which is now hanging over them through the Minister's last observation. The Minister will carefully consider on the Report Stage the dropping of sub-section (7). I am sure the ratepayers of County Dublin will be appalled when they hear that in the morning, and when they realise the dreadful fate that is going to overtake them because of the Minister's attitude in the House. The Minister said that the Opposition are unreasonable. Because we will not meet him when he is running away from us he says he is going to drop sub-section (7). Sub-section (7) says that the Minister will graciously lay on the Table of the House the Order that he made under this section, and, if that Order is annulled by a resolution passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, then it shall be annulled. The Minister, with his over-all majority, is giving the tremendous concession to the House that, within the next two years, he is going to lay an Order on the Table of the House, and, if this House annuls it, then of course there will be no Order. A bright chance this House has of annulling any Order made by the Minister for Local Government in the next two years, with his over-all majority. There was never such a fatuous suggestion made by any Minister, and there was never such a childish exhibition by any Minister as the Minister for Local Government has given by the threat he has made here to-night to the trembling people of County Dublin.
I saw some backbenchers of Fianna Fáil rising a few minutes ago.
I should like to satisfy General Mulcahy. The people of County Dublin are very grateful to the Minister for Local Government for the attitude he has taken up during the last few years. The work which has been carried out by the county commissioner has been very much praised by every ratepayer in County Dublin who was at all times anxious to pay his rates and to pay his way generally. Before the Minister intervened, the position was that one or two men paid their rates while three or four others did not pay theirs.
That was the position with which the Minister for Local Government found himself faced when he had to put a commissioner in County Dublin. Mr. O'Donovan has done his job very well. Since he took over the administration of County Dublin his various schemes have been accepted generally by the people. He has not proved himself to be the ordinary office clerk at all; he has proved himself to be a man who has a deep interest in the welfare of County Dublin and in the welfare of the country. The attitude adopted by the Minister in postponing the County Dublin elections has, I am sure, the backing of 90 per cent. of the people of County Dublin generally.
I should like to ask Deputy Burke to face what exactly is being done by himself and the Minister in this matter—a thing which, as I say, we only found out by teasing the situation about. The rural part of County Dublin is to be completely deprived of representation until such time as there has been a complete reshaping of the administrative machinery in the city. As Deputy Costello pointed out, during that period the county borough is going to have increased representation, and the Dun Laoghaire Borough is going to have its full representation, but the county outside of that is going to be deprived completely and utterly of any kind of public representation while all this great planning is going on. The plans are going to be put into the form of legislation, and passed with the assistance of the Minister and the Deputy through this House, before anybody in the rural part of County Dublin will be in a position, as a representative, to say what he thinks about it.
Mr. P. Burke
That is not altogether the fact. Any representative in any particular area who has any grievance or wants anything done can go to the county commissioner.
Mr. Corish
Did he satisfy the mental hospital workers?
Mr. P. Burke
I will answer Deputy Corish later.
Mr. Corish
Very well.
Mr. P. Burke
Yes; that can easily be done by going to the county commissioner, and he has received representations at all times. Furthermore, post-war planning, as far as County Dublin is concerned, has been done in a most methodical manner. He has got his officers to go around County Dublin to see how things can be done and to do them impartially. It is not a case of putting a light here or a cottage there because two or three members want it. I believe that the Minister's attitude is the right one, and that the people of County Dublin will be grateful to him for what he has done. I am speaking not altogether as a politician; I am speaking out my mind; I am saying what I believe and what I think the people of County Dublin believe. Time will tell.
The Deputy is speaking his mind more clearly than the Minister spoke his.
I sympathise with the Minister, because he is afraid to have another Fianna Fáil county council; he might have the job of snuffing out another one. However, we may assist him in electing one that will not be wholly Fianna Fáil next time.
Question—"That Section 4 stand part of the Bill"—put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 55; Níl, 30.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Séan.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Brennan, Martin.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick (Co. Dublin).
- Butler, Bernard.
- Carter, Thomas.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Colbert, Michael.
- Colley, Harry.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Kilroy, James.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Loughman, Frank.
- Lydon, Michael F.
- McCann, John.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O Cléirigh, Mícheál.
- O'Connor, John S.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- Skinner, Leo B.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Ua Donnchadha, Dómhnall.
- Walsh, Laurence.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Beirne, John.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Cafferky, Dominick.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Coogan, Eamonn.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, John A.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Everett, James.
- Halliden, Patrick J.
- Hughes, James.
- Keating, John.
- Larkin, James (Junior).
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donnell, William F.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Sullivan, Martin.
- Pattison, James P.
- Redmond, Bridget M.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Rogers, Patrick J.
- Sheldon, William A. W.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies O Cíosáin and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies P. S. Doyle and Browne.
Question declared carried.
Acting Chairman (Mr. O'Reilly)
Section 5 agreed?
No; it is part of the Minister's general scheme and is opposed.
Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."
I take it that the Minister's reason for the abolition of the Dublin Board of Assistance, or rather for his failure to make provision in the Bill for restoring representation to the Dublin Corporation on that very important body, is that he has further plans in mind. I submit that it was quite unjustifiable to abolish that board at any time. If the Minister feels there is any particular aspect of administration in respect of which he thinks it necessary to have his own representative, he had that opportunity in the past, and there is no use in his saying that he is anxious to meet the wishes of the citizens and desirous of getting representatives drawn from people who will take a keen interest in the work when he denies representation to the corporation on this body. The corporation is represented on all the public boards, on the boards of hospitals and mental hospitals, and to fail to provide representation on the board of assistance is not in keeping with these statements. He may have ideas of his own, but I think it only right that we should know to what extent he proposes the development of plans for depriving members of the Dublin Corporation of representation. That board should never have been abolished, but the Minister is now taking power to refuse that representation to the citizens for another three years. To deprive the citizens of representation on such an important body as St. Kevin's is unfair.
I want to support the plea made by Deputy Doyle. Under the old arrangement with the board of assistance, a good deal of dissatisfaction was occasioned by the fact that the representation of the Dublin City Council was fixed on a very low basis. I believe the numbers were five or seven, and if troubles arose in the board of assistance, very possibly they might have been traceable to the fact that the members of the city council were not all able to give constant attendance at meetings of the board of assistance; but, now that there is to be increased membership of 45 instead of 35 members, it would be wholly inconsistent, to say the least of it, that the parent body should be deprived of any representation on the subsidiary body. I suggest that, as that increase is provided for, the basis of representation on the board of assistance should be similarly increased. In that way, you will get the attention which was possibly—I say, possibly—lacking, due to the limited number of members of the corporation on the board of assistance. Having regard to the expenditure of that body—over £500,000—which has to be paid on demand by the corporation, the time has arrived when the representatives of the city should have some voice in its administration.
Question put and declared carried.
Sections 6 to 9, inclusive, put and declared carried.
Question proposed: "That the Title be the Title of the Bill."
Could the Minister give some assurance that particulars of the areas will be available as early as possible? Can he indicate when they may be available?
I certainly hope to make them available within the next two or three months and certainly well before the date of the local elections.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
Report Stage?
Can we reach an accommodation? If we get it now, we will do without any further amendments.
What about the Minister's awful threat? Surely he is not going to give that up? It would be dreadful if the Dublin people were deprived of that thrill. I think we had better fix the Report Stage for this day week.
Again in a perfectly reasonable spirit, I am offering the Report Stage of the Bill without amendment. Let us have the Report and Final Stages of the Bill. We shall have the Mental Treatment Bill all next week.
The Minister is dropping his threat?
If the Deputy meets me, I will not say any more about it.
I do not like to deprive the people of that little thrill and amusement, but we will give the Minister the remaining stages.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.