Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 May 1948

Vol. 110 No. 14

Local Elections Bill, 1948—Committee.

Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.

I move amendment No. 1:—

In sub-section (1), paragraph (a), line 28, to delete "1950" and substitute "1949".

The object of the amendment is to provide that the local elections will be held next year instead of in 1950, as contemplated in the Bill. I think everybody is agreed on the importance of local authorities and how necessary it is to have an election as soon as possible after the normal term of office of a local authority expires. The postponement of the elections until 1950 would mean that the present local authorities would be too long in office and that the people who elected them would not have the opportunity they should have to replace unsatisfactory councillors by satisfactory representatives. There has been a change in this country during the last few years, a gradual change, slow and sure, but that change is accelerating and it is desirable that the people should have an opportunity next year to elect councillors to represent them on the local authorities. On the Second Stage I said that an infusion of new blood was absolutely necessary in local councils and I understood from the Minister that he was not tied, as a matter of principle, to 1950 and that the only reason 1950 was put into the Bill was because it was the year that was inserted in the Local Government Bill that has been discharged by this House.

There is another reason, and I submit, with respect, a substantial reason, why these local elections should be held as soon as possible. The Minister and the Government have indicated that they propose to amend the statutes dealing with county management. We all know that since the County Management Act was put into operation many persons who would be desirable and suitable local representatives felt no desire to go forward for election because they would have no power, and the result is that the local councils now in existence are not the best that could be there, for that particular reason. If the Minister and the Government intend to honour their promises, as I am sure they do, to make substantial modifications and amendments in the County Management Act, it is a certainty that people who would not otherwise go forward for election will be glad to come forward, seeing that the responsibility, power and authority that should be theirs will be theirs under the new scheme of local government. I do not think there is anything else I could usefully say on this amendment. I submit to the House that it is desirable that these local elections should be held as soon as possible, that they could very easily be held in 1949, and that to postpone them until 1950 is to deprive people throughout the country of their rights to have representatives in whom they can have the greatest trust. I, therefore, have pleasure in moving the amendment.

On the Second Stage of the Bill I indicated some reasons, at the request of some members of the House, as to why in my judgment it was not desirable that the local elections should be held earlier than 1950. They had to view the relation of the local elections to the period of the year in which Dáil elections would take place and I think it will be generally accepted in the House that we have had, in a short period of years, a great many elections. It was felt, therefore, that this was the most advisable course to take, but, even taking the case made by Deputy Cowan, there is another reason, and I think a very important reason, why we should get more time in regard to fixing the date for local elections. It is proposed to revise, amend and change the whole structure of the County Management Act, so far as it is considered practicable, and that, I think, will be shown to the House to be going a very considerable way. This is not a process which can be carried out in a short time. It will involve very considerable time and preparation, the revision of Public Bodies Orders and various other matters, and that, I think, is another reason why, when the councils are elected, they will have a clear field and be free from any of the obstructions or difficulties which impeded them in past years. Might I, therefore, suggest to the Deputy that he accept a compromise on this question, the compromise being my promise to introduce on the Report Stage an amendment providing that the local elections should be held not later than 1950 and, if necessary, providing an opportunity for holding the local elections earlier, in 1949 if considered desirable, and having regard to exigencies and possibilities of the Parliamentary programme?

I regret that I cannot accept what the Minister suggests because it means nothing more than what is in the Bill. The elections will be held in 1950 and that is what I oppose. We know that any Bill takes a considerable time to get through all its stages, and it is clear that, if I were to accept that undertaking from the Minister, the local elections would not be held until 1950. I want to see them held in 1949. With regard to what the Minister said about avoiding a clash between the local elections and a general election, we have to assume, this Dáil having been formed in 1948, that the next general election will be in 1953. That is a reasonable assumption, and, if the local elections are held in 1950, they would fall to be held again in 1953, so the very thing the Minister wants to avoid is quite possible on the basis of holding the elections in 1950 instead of 1949.

You are an optimist.

Mr. Murphy

I am not sure that I made the position quite clear to the Deputy. I intend, as I have said, to endeavour to meet his point of view by introducing on Report Stage an amendment which will give power for the holding of the local elections at an earlier date than 1950. I suggest that the matter might be reviewed at a later stage to see whether that would not be the most desirable course. The Deputy will realise my difficulty in committing myself entirely to that view by a positive provision in this Bill and I suggest that the amendment is a fair attempt to meet his point of view, a point of view with which I personally have some sympathy.

I regret I cannot accept it.

It is hard to know what to do.

I have no doubts at all. What the Minister is asking me to agree to is what is in the Bill.

Deputy Cowan does not understand exactly what the Minister suggested.

He understands perfectly.

If the section is accepted as it stands, it means that, neither by hook nor by crook, can the elections be held before 1950. What the Minister is now suggesting is that he should incorporate in the Bill an amendment to enable him to hold the elections earlier than 1950. He goes that distance to meet the point of view put forward by Deputy Cowan and he has explained that there are difficulties which may be resolved and that Deputy Cowan's point of view might prevail, in which event, if the Minister's amendment is accepted, there will be authority to hold the elections in 1949.

That should be clear now.

I have no doubt with regard to what the Minister intends. He intends to hold the elections in 1950, and, if this Bill had not been introduced at all, I think we would have the elections this year. The Bill proposes that they be held in 1950 instead of 1948. I want to compromise and have them in 1949.

Why not have them in 1948?

I think the Minister has been very reasonable. None of us here wants to have another election in a few months' time and we should set out to do something practical. I think the Minister has been very reasonable in his attitude, as I say, and Deputy Cowan is unreasonable.

If the amendment is put to a division, this Party will vote for it. I want to explain why we take that line. I confess I was shaken in my view in favour of the amendment by the very bad arguments advanced by Deputy Cowan in support of it. It is well known that Deputies on this side and many Deputies on the other side of the House are strongly of the opinion that local authorities should be elected for a five-year term. That view was expressed in the Bill which was passed by the Dáil last year and passed with the support of Deputies from every Party in the House at the time. But while still holding that view, there is no reason why the elections now due should not be held now, because the existing authorities were elected for a three-year term. In so far as there was any obligation accepted by those who contested the election, it was to serve for three years and that period is up this year.

It may be undesirable to hold the local elections this year, but there is no reason why they should not be held next year. The Minister's reason for not holding them is an insult to the members of local authorities. He is accepting Deputy Cowan's view that, because of the county management legislation, the standard of local councillors is lower than it was before that Act was passed and lower than it would be if that Act were amended. There are a number of Deputies here who are members of local authorities who would not accept that view and would not participate in recording that insult to the quality of the members of local authorities which Deputy Cowan expressed and which the Minister apparently supports. If that is the only reason for delaying the elections, it is a bad reason.

The fact that the Minister contemplates an amendment of the Act does not affect this question at all. There is no reason why the elections cannot be held next year, whether the Act is amended this year, next year, or the year after. The only reason why one is associated with the other is because the Minister accepts Deputy Cowan's view that the quality of the membership of the local authorities is bad and that it would be improved if he revised county management legislation.

I have no intention of intervening in the discussion on this amendment save to say that, while I have considerable sympathy with the viewpoint expressed by Deputy Captain Cowan as to the necessity for an early infusion of new blood into local authorities, Clann na Poblachta as a Party will accept the compromise offered by the Minister.

Mr. Murphy

May I make one reference to the speech of Deputy Lemass? I think it was as dishonest a performance as I have had an opportunity of listening to in this House for many years. Deputy Lemass belongs to a Party that had already brought proposals before this House and rushed them through in order to postpone the elections until 1950. He, of course, knows that quite well but he thinks there are other people in this House who are not aware of it. Surely, it is necessary to mention that.

He said that.

Mr. Murphy

I do not think his Party or he himself has given a very high example of respect for local bodies. Thirteen county councils were suppressed in this country during the Fianna Fáil régime. No Party has set itself out more positively to insult the people than the Fianna Fáil Party has done. I believe that the County Management Act for which he and his Party were responsible should disappear from the statute books of the country. I want local representatives to be free and independent. The provision in this section is that the election for members of local authorities should be held in the year 1950. My suggestion is that that should be altered to provide that 1950 shall be the latest date and, if necessary, the elections might be held in 1949 if certain proposals that I have in hands and which are only in their initial stage as yet are accepted by this House.

While it is correct that the Local Elections Bill last year contemplated postponing the elections to 1950, that was for the purpose of giving time to carry out the complete reorganisation of elections. If the same system is to prevail next year or in 1950 there is no reason why that delay in the holding of elections should take place.

Question put: "That the figures proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 51.

  • Belton, John.
  • Blowick, Joseph.
  • Brennan, Joseph P.
  • Browne, Noel C.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Cogan, Patrick.
  • Collins, Seán.
  • Commons, Bernard.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Costello, John A.
  • Crotty, Patrick J.
  • Desmond, Daniel.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Donnellan, Michael.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Dunne, Seán.
  • Esmonde, Sir John L.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Finucane, Patrick.
  • Fitzpatrick, Michael.
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Halliden, Patrick J.
  • Hickey, James.
  • Hogan, Patrick.
  • Hughes, Joseph.
  • Keane, Seán.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Kinane, Patrick.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • Larkin, James.
  • Lehane, Con.
  • Lehane, Patrick D.
  • McAuliffe, Patrick.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • McQuillan, John.
  • Madden, David J.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, Timothy J.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Gorman, Patrick J.
  • O'Higgins, Michael J.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick.
  • O'Sullivan, Martin.
  • Palmer, Patrick W.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
  • Roddy, Joseph.
  • Rooney, Eamonn.
  • Sheehan, Michael.
  • Spring, Daniel.
  • Sweetman, Gerard.
  • Timoney, John J.
  • Tully, John.

Níl

  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Brennan, Thomas.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Butler, Bernard.
  • Collins, James J.
  • Cowan, Peadar.
  • Crowley, Honor Mary.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • Friel, John.
  • Gilbride, Eugene.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Mary B.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, James.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Kitt, Michael F.
  • Lahiffe, Robert.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • Lydon, Michael F.
  • Lynch, John.
  • McCann, John.
  • McGrath, Patrick.
  • Maguire, Patrick J.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Movlan, Seán.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Ormonde, John.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • Rice, Bridget M.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Walsh, Thomas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Keyes; Níl: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy.
Question declared carried.

Amendment No. 2, in the name of Deputy Peadar S. Doyle, is out of order, as it would deal with the method of election and not the time, which is the purpose of this Bill.

Sections 2, 3 and 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.

Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 stand together. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 seem to be consequential on amendment No. 3.

I move amendment No. 3:—

To delete sub-section (1), lines 36 and 38.

The purpose of this amendment, which stands in the names of Deputies Cowan, Larkin, C. Lehane and myself, is merely to restore the position which was reflected in the Act of 1945, and, generally speaking, to keep the Bill in line with Section 3. Section 3 refers to the abolished bodies and, in that connection, reference is made to the position in Dublin and Kerry. In so far as Dublin is due to have an election this year, obviously we want the Dublin Board of Assistance restored. Paying as it does over £500,000 a year on demand, it has been without representation for the past six years. The logical conclusion to come to is that the position prior to 1942 should be restored and the board of assistance, concurrently with the election of the Dublin County Council, should be set up as in 1942.

I have already spoken in favour of the substance of this amendment on the Second Stage and, more particularly, I have addressed myself to the need we feel in Dublin of restoring, in relation to the board of assistance, the atmosphere of popular representation. Over a period the duties of the board have been carried on by a commissioner. I will not enter into the manner in which the commissioner has discharged his duties. We are concerned with the fact that one of the primary functions he was delegated to undertake under the reorganisation scheme was to try to eliminate as quickly as possible the old atmosphere and the old prejudices attached to that institution, both from the assistance and medical side and generally designated by the term workhouse.

I am aware that a certain amount of reorganisation has been put into effect, but from the viewpoint of the citizens of Dublin that institution still remains the workhouse. Despite the fact that on the medical side there have been great improvements made, we are still faced with the problem that the ordinary working man and woman in Dublin, even at the risk of their health at their time of life, are not prepared to utilise the services of that hospital if there is any alternative. We have no quarrel at all with the efforts which have been made for the reorganisation of this institution and the creation of a different atmosphere, but I do feel that it would be helpful if that reorganisation could be carried on in association with the popular representatives. Because no matter how keen a commissioner or other whole-time official might feel with regard to that aspect of the matter, the representatives of the citizens of Dublin would have a greater driving force and a greater interest in bringing about these improvements which would be merely the ordinary official duties of a commissioner or other official. On the Second Stage debate when this viewpoint was pressed on the Minister, he appeared to indicate a certain degree of sympathy with it and I feel that the wishes which are the general wishes of the representatives of Dublin City might be appreciated and that the amendment could be accepted. We should be able to achieve the restoration of this popular body parallel with the restoration of Dublin County Council and the re-election of Dublin Corporation. It is a part of a general scheme for local administration in the area and the absence of the Dublin Board of Assistance creates a gap which I feel should be filled with the least possible delay.

Mr. Murphy

When the Second Reading of this measure was before the House there was considerable discussion of this matter and I then explained that the matter was presented to the House in the form in which it appeared because of the fact that it was felt that certain work of reorganisation was going on and should be allowed to reach a certain point as rapidly as possible, and for the purpose of that reorganisation it was thought wise to defer the re-establishment of the Dublin Board of Assistance. I was impressed however by the case made for the restoration of the board and I accept in principle the amendment and I hope to give effect to this on the next stage of the Bill. In that connection I may at a later stage have to ask the indulgence of the House for special powers for an interregnum or interval in the work of reorganisation. I have personal sympathy with the amendment and the amendment is therefore accepted and on the Report Stage it will be incorporated in the Bill.

I want to speak. My Party considered this amendment in the light of the statement which the Minister made regarding this matter on the Second Reading of the Bill and we are convinced from his statement that this amendment is undesirable. So this Party is prepared to support its rejection. He informed us on that occasion:—

"The Minister for Health is actively engaged in preparing a scheme for the reorganisation of health services generally with particular reference to the institution responsible for the administration of the Dublin Board of Assistance. The remaining functions of the board in connection with home assistance are supervised by the Minister for Social Welfare. I have discussed this matter with my colleague, the Minister for Health, and he assures me that plans for the reorganisation of the institution and of all the services connected with it are being rapidly drawn up and that in all probability special legislation will be required in the near future in connection with the matter. It would, I think, be undesirable therefore to provide for the election of a board that might have to give way in a short time to some alternative."

No case has been made for this amendment at all. We all recognise that there is a need for the reorganisation of the health services in Dublin, and plans were made some time ago for that purpose which I understand have been adopted, and include the amalgamation of the assistance authorities of Dublin Borough and Dublin County. If that is true it is clearly desirable to leave the present set-up unchanged, while considerable legislation will be necessary involving a complete reorganisation of the present authorities unless the Minister contemplates a considerable delay in carrying out those reforms. Everyone realises that they are necessary, but he tells us that his colleagues, the Minister for Health and the Minister for Social Welfare, are working at it, and in that case it would be best to leave the present situation unchanged. If you re-create the board in this Bill I would say that the board would be an added complication and would have nothing whatever to do with the reorganisation of the health services. That presumably would be under the auspices of the Minister for Health, whether the board was brought back or administered by the present commissioner. I am suspicious of the Minister's ready acceptance of this amendment, because it seems to me that the assurance which he gave us on the second Bill was unfounded and that there is, in fact, going to be a long delay before the necessary reforms are carried through. Otherwise it would be wiser to leave the situation unchanged, to reject this amendment, and to get ahead with the plans as quickly as possible.

Mr. Murphy

I have no intention of accepting Deputy Lemass's advice on this subject and I have no intention of submitting my veracity and my honour to his judgment. I do not think that the House—the responsible section of the House—would believe that I had tried to deceive them on any matter connected with the Bill, or in any matter whatever during the many years since I came into this House, long before Deputy Lemass came in. Since I came into office I have got a formidable list of local bodies which have been knocked out since 1932——

As a result of Blue Shirt conspiracy.

Mr. Murphy

I propose to assist the House by accepting the amendment which has been moved and I will provide for it in the Bill.

The frequent changes of the Minister's policy are going to make serious business in the House impossible. We had the Minister's argument against this amendment which was diametrically opposed to his present attitude.

Mr. Murphy

Not a scrap.

This is a section upon which I have not got very strong views, but I have decided quite firmly now to support the amendment and the Minister's acceptance of it, and I want to tell the House and to tell Deputy Lemass in particular that one of the reasons that I am quite firm upon this now is that I was completely disgusted at the performance that has been put up by Deputy Lemass. It is quite obvious, to me at any rate, that Deputy Lemass had the opportunity of speaking and giving his views on this section. The Minister waited a considerable time to see if anybody wished to speak. Deputy Lemass waited deliberately to see what the Minister was going to do, so that he could direct his Party to do the direct opposite. That is obstruction of the business of the House.

I knew what the Minister's attitude was going to be. It is set out here in the Official Debates of May 13th and that is not such a long time ago. The Minister was going to review the whole policy——

Mr. Murphy

Will the Deputy quote me on that question?

I have already quoted:—

"It would, I think, be undesirable therefore to provide for the election of a board that might have to give way in a short time to some alternative."

Was he not talking about that very matter to the Ministers for Health and Social Welfare and they were both against a change? Have they changed their mind also?

Mr. Murphy

There was a discussion in the House with which I confessed certain sympathy.

Certainly.

Mr. Murphy

And arising out of Deputy Larkin's speech I expressed that sympathy.

Let me tell you what happened. The Fianna Fáil Party met to consider this Bill and the amendments to it. We discussed this amendment. There are a number of Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party who are members of the Dublin Corporation and who are just as keen as Deputy Larkin or Deputy Martin O'Sullivan in getting the board of assistance or some reorganised board of assistance back instead of the commissioners. I read to that meeting the Minister's speech and I said: "He has made a reasonable case against the amendment" and, as a result, the Party decided to support the Minister in resisting the amendment. Now the Minister has turned tail and is running in the opposite direction.

Mr. Murphy

This is a new issue.

I am glad the Minister has seen fit to accept this amendment because, no matter what reorganisation may be contemplated, that reorganisation would take time and it is essential that this democratic board should be established and constituted at the earliest possible date. For that reason, I support the amendment.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I am afraid the House may be led away from the main purpose of this amendment by the discussion to which we have just listened. May I say that Deputy Lemass has vitiated his own argument or the argument he intended to put before the House when he said that, irrespective of any reorganisation or the acceptance of this amendment or otherwise, certain reorganisation would take place under the Minister for Health? That may be the case and probably will be the case but I want to repeat to the House the main purpose of the amendment. There are members on Deputy Lemass's side of the House, as he said himself, who will appreciate the point when I say that in 1942 the board of assistance was abolished under pretexts or excuses which, in my opinion, and in the opinion of a good many other Deputies, including members of Deputy Lemass's Party, carried no validity or force whatever. That being so, since 1942 the Corporation of Dublin is paying on foot of a demand a sum of not less than £500,000 each year. To the extent that the principle of representation based on taxation is violated, I suggest that this amendment is justified and that we in the Dublin Corporation should have the representation on that board which would ensure our having at least a voice in the administration of that very large sum of money.

As Deputy Lemass has intervened in connection with the amendment, I think some remarks should be made concerning the conduct of his Party on this particular Bill. It is perfectly apparent to everybody in this House that Deputy Lemass fails to recognise that the Government now in office is composed of Ministers who are prepared to consider arguments urged on behalf of any Bill or measure introduced in the House. I can well understand Deputy Lemass being amazed at such a practice. His Party when in office were very concerned in sticking their feet into the ground.

Are we going to discuss this fully on the amendment?

Deputy Lemass has gone out of his way to quote the Minister in introducing the Bill. I note that he did not read to the House the Minister's speech in reply to the debate. I have not the report before me but my recollection is quite clear and if Deputy Lemass had done so, he would have found the Minister saying that he had the greatest sympathy with what had been urged by Deputy Larkin and others on this particular proposal. That is something new for Deputy Lemass. It is something new to find a Minister having sympathy with what is urged by an ordinary Deputy. I am very glad the Minister has welcomed and accepted this amendment. It is about time we got back to freedom in local bodies and away from the policy of the big stick from the Minister for Local Government.

The Deputy is getting away from the amendment.

We can all get up now.

We do not want a debate on the managerial system now.

And the abolition of the Dublin Corporation before 1928.

Has Deputy Briscoe something more to say?

Yes. I am getting up in a minute.

I am glad that this amendment has been accepted. I am glad it has been accepted in the manner in which it has been accepted by the Minister. The case was made in this House for the amendment and, on its being made, the Minister did accept it. I deplore the petty opposition tactics of Deputy Lemass and the rest of the Party opposite.

And Deputy Cowan.

I happen to be a member of the Dublin Corporation. I think I was the seconder at the Dublin Corporation of the motion calling on the Minister for Local Government to restore representation on all Dublin Corporation suppressed bodies, including Cork Street Fever Hospital. What Deputy Lemass has said is correct. The Minister gave on the Second Reading what was in our opinion a reasoned explanation as to why he thought the immediate time was not the appropriate time for the restoration of control by the Dublin Corporation of the Dublin Board of Assistance. In spite of what Deputy O'Higgins has just said and what the other Deputy O'Higgins said when he preceded him, as to why he has now decided to support the amendment, there is such a thing—it may surprise the Government—as an occasion such as this where a reasonable request by the Minister should have co-operation from Deputies on all the benches in this House. We believed that was co-operation and it was decided by our Party to accept the Minister's point of view on the matter.

There are some of our members who are also members of the Dublin Corporation and who are just as keen in supporting the point of view of having representation by the citizens who are taxed. Deputy O'Higgins touched on the point as if Fianna Fáil as a Government was the only Government ever to have suppressed a public authority.

I did not say that.

I said the manner in which Deputy O'Higgins referred to the point——

I notice the Deputy was silent about Cork Street.

Deputy O'Higgins can throw a lot of dirt about Cork Street if he likes. I say that when he was speaking he gave the impression that he was not aware that this suppression of local authorities had a precedent even before Fianna Fáil became the Government. Those of us on these benches who are representatives on public authorities are in favour of universal restoration of public bodies so that the citizens who elect them may have the full sense of freedom they should have under the Acts. But it seems rather strange that, having given what we considered a reasoned explanation for the further short postponement of the restoration of representation of the Dublin Corporation on the board of assistance, it should be suddenly thrown overboard. As a matter of fact, I do not object to the restoration of the representation on the board of assistance as from tomorrow provided it is not going to interfere with the reorganisation which the Minister referred to and which he and his colleagues have in mind. I think we would be very wrong if we pressed for the restoration where the Minister has agreed, from his own long experience as a public representative on a local authority, that he stands four square for the principle which has been stated by those who have put forward this amendment. It would be a pity to interfere or to retard in any way the reorganisation and the benefits which would accrue from such reorganisation by accepting this with too much haste.

I was not disappointed at all when Deputy Lemass expressed his viewpoint on the amendment. The peculiar thing is that when he was the Minister I was one who wanted to pay him a tribute, because he at that time showed a certain reasonableness. I do not mind if he changes now when he is on the opposite side of the House. He is quite entitled to use the tactics he considers best for his Party. However, I suggest to him that not only he but other members of the House are able to feel the atmosphere in the discussion and to sense the mind of the Minister. We have had to do that in the past with himself and his colleagues and fellow-Ministers, and we have to do it now with the present Minister. I have no doubt in my mind that in the reply by the Minister to the Second Reading debate there was an indication of sympathy with the viewpoint expressed by a number of us with regard to the restoration of the board of assistance, and I had no doubt in putting down the amendment that it would be a question of arguing a point of view and not trying to force an impossible position. I have learned enough in my experience to know the difference between the two positions.

The question of whether it is right or wrong is not important, but the point of view put up by Deputy Lemass is the one I am concerned with. He says I have concentrated my argument on the health side. I have not and I have already referred to the board of assistance side. I have a certain amount of knowledge of the plans going through, and it is because I am concerned to see the plans carried through as quickly as possible, whether they be the original plans put up by Dr. Ward or such new plans as the Minister might introduce, that I want to see a popular board of assistance in operation.

I can assure the House that the plans already in hand are making very slow progress. So far as the plans are concerned, the important feature of those plans and of the reorganisation is the effect upon the citizens; and while there has been a great superstructure built up and a lot of additional expenditure incurred and additional officials employed, the ordinary atmosphere and ordinary relationship between the board of assistance and the people as regards that particular social service still remains much the same as it was before the plan was brought into operation. I have already given praise for the improvements that have been carried out on the health side, but although those improvements have been carried out they are still not effective enough on the position of the needs of the people. They are not using them, and the Parliamentary Secretary knows that as well as I do. In reference to the problem we have in association with the board of assistance, both on the assistance side and the health side, any plans that have been made by the previous administration and that may be made by the present administration, can be put into operation more quickly and more effectively if we have a proper board, representative of the Dublin Corporation and the Dublin County Council, than if we are without a board.

I am as concerned as Deputy Lemass or Deputy Briscoe to see that the reorganisation proceeds and it is because of the lag and the delay that has taken place that I am concerned to have the board restored. We are not yet getting the results, and any improvements or changes in the plan will not in any way be invalidated by the existence of the board, but rather the board will be a help to the Minister for Local Government, the Minister for Social Welfare and the Minister for Health, in dealing with this problem. I suggest, as far as the members of the Dublin Corporation are concerned, like Deputy Briscoe— and I understand quite sincerely his desire to see these proper powers restored—they should support the amendment because it is giving effect to something desired by all parties on the Dublin Corporation. I can assure the House personally, from my own knowledge, that there is some need for turning the searchlight of public opinion on this matter and getting the viewpoint of popular representatives associated with this particularly desirable reorganisation of both the assistance side and the health side of the activities associated with the board.

For the average Deputy, the case to be made for any proposals for legislation becomes known for the first time when the Minister makes his Second Reading speech on the Bill. When this Minister made his Second Reading speech, these proposals did not include the restoration of the Dublin Board of Assistance in replacement of the existing officials.

But he did say he had great sympathy with them.

Yes, a certain sympathy; but when his colleague, the Minister for Health, and his colleague, the Minister for Social Welfare, had argued against it, he told the Dáil, when replying to the debate, that he was impressed by the case made by the Minister for Health against the restoration of the Dublin Board of Assistance. I would like the Minister for Health to inform the Dáil now what that case was which was put to the Minister, so that we could judge it. It was a case which was sufficient to convince the Minister and if we heard it, it might convince us and, perhaps, if Deputy Larkin heard it it might be sufficient to make him withdraw his amendment. The Minister for Health is here now and he could help us out.

Mr. Murphy

I am quite aware that the discussion on this Bill has been utilised to further the policy of delaying tactics that has been so much in evidence in this House in the last few weeks. If I am the victim of those tactics this evening, I suppose I cannot complain unduly. I am long familiar with Deputy Lemass's method of perverting statements. It is an old trick and the Deputy has become a past master of it. I want to put on the records of this House what I did say on that occasion:

"I am impressed by what Deputy Larkin has said with regard to the position of the Dublin Board of Assistance."

and at a later stage—

"having regard to what Deputy Larkin has said, it seems inevitable——"

Why go to the later stage? Why skip what is in between? If the Minister is going to quote, he should quote the whole statement.

Mr. Murphy

"it seems inevitable that there will be a further discussion on this matter at a further stage of the Bill".

Read the lot.

Mr. Murphy

"I was impressed by the line taken by my colleague, the Minister for Health, in this matter... I want to say quite clearly that I sympathise with the view that he has expressed as regards the difficulties of the poor people in this country in reconciling their prejudices against the workhouse with the fact that they need treatment in an institution. In so far as I have any views to express on this question, from that point of view I am with him."

Go on from that. Why stop there? The Minister accused me of misrepresenting him and I now accuse him of misrepresenting me.

Mr. Murphy

I have to protest against the continuous interruption.

The awkward interruption.

Mr. Murphy

Not a bit awkward, from my point of view.

The Minister quoted certain statements and the Deputy quoted certain statements. Neither quoted in full and I cannot compel them to do so.

Mr. Murphy

Deputy Lemass has already had three or four opportunities. I suggest it is not fair he should be allowed to mend his hand at every point. I am satisfied that I am perfectly consistent in accepting this amendment. Since the Second Reading of this measure was before the House, I have had further discussions with the Minister for Health. I have taken into account the fact that the local elections may not be held for five or six months in County Dublin and that the period that will intervene will enable a good deal of the reorganisation work to go on. It is quite possible that the policy that the Minister for Health has in regard to this institution can be related without any inconsistency whatever to the due election of the board of assistance at the proper time. Consequently, I accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 3 proposes to delete certain lines. I am putting the question:

"That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

There is amendment No. 3 which is linked up with amendments Nos. 4 and 5. As I understand it, the Minister is not accepting the amendments, but is undertaking to the Deputies who moved them to produce on the Report Stage amendments which will have a similar effect and he asks that the amendments should be withdrawn.

Mr. Murphy

I ask nothing of the kind.

The Minister said he would consider bringing in some amendments on the Report Stage. The Chair, in accordance with the usual practice, asked that these amendments be withdrawn so as to give the Minister an opportunity of drafting his own amendments. Objection was raised by Deputy Lemass to the withdrawal of the amendments.

Without discussion.

Very well. If the Deputy desires to change now, I have no objection.

I do not wish the Chair to misunderstand me.

The amendment may be withdrawn now?

Yes, I think I will agree to its being withdrawn.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.
Section 5 agreed to.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
Section agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Amendment No. 7 not moved.
Section agreed to.
SECTION 10.

Mr. Murphy

I move amendment No. 8:—

Before Section 10, page 4, to insert a new section as follows:—

10—In the application of paragraph (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Harbours Act, 1946 (No. 9 of 1946), to a harbour authority in relation to whom Part II of that Act is in operation at the passing of this Act, the reference to the year in which elections of members of councils of counties are held next after the first election year shall be construed as a reference to the year 1950.

This is a simple amendment. It is brought forward in order to make quite clear that this Bill is in line with the Harbours Act of 1946—that the year fixed by the section of the Bill will be the election year for the purposes of the Harbours Act. I think that that is, in fact, already clear, but, in order to remove any doubt, the amendment has been brought forward.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 9:—

In line 44, after the word "Act" to delete all words to the end of the section.

Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 might be discussed together and two separate decisions taken, if so desired.

This is a simple amendment. Its purpose is to delete the words—

"and the Minister may by Order make such adaptations or modifications in any such statute, Order or regulation as may in his opinion be necessary to enable it to have effect in accordance with this section."

The section provides that every statute, Order and regulation relating to elections of members of any local authority or to the meetings of any local authority shall have effect subject to the provisions of this Act. I suggest that the first part of the section is adequate for the Minister's purpose. On the Second Stage of this Bill I raised objections in a general way to the giving of powers to any Minister such as are contained in the words proposed to be deleted. I am pleased to note that Deputy Sir John Esmonde and Deputies M.J. O'Higgins and T. F. O'Higgins (junior) agreed with the criticisms that I made on that stage. If an Act is to be adapted it should be adapted by statute. This is an authority to make any changes in legislation. I am opposed on general principles to any Minister's getting powers to affect any statute whatsoever. I should imagine, in view of the discussion on the Second Stage, that the Minister will accept this amendment. In that hope I will say nothing further about the matter now.

Might I intervene at this stage for the purpose of informing Deputy O'Higgins that he may not run away on this section or the next? We are prepared to support them.

You could not avoid it. After all, there is a similar provision in your own Act.

I should like to say that I hope the Minister will accept this amendment. I say so as a representative of a public authority. I regard the Minister as the custodian of the ordinary ratepayer over and above the powers that are conferred upon local authorities through the Acts of this House. I think the Minister would be putting himself and his Government in a very awkward position if he did not retain the powers. I have said before that I am satisfied the Minister stands for the principle of public representation to the full extent as we understand it. I feel also that he recognises that there is a very grave responsibility on whatever Government of the day happens to be over there to be an authority over and above the local authority itself. After all, the State is a very large contributor to the local authority funds. It subsidises very many of the local authority or Dublin Corporation undertakings——

I submit, with respect to the Chair, that this is not relevant to the amendment.

The implication of the amendment is——

I am not so sure on that. I should like to hear the Deputy.

In my respectful submission it is not, so far.

Would the Deputy like to change places?

I said "in my submission".

I imagine that the Minister himself will agree that what I see in it can be implied if this amendment is accepted.

I certainly do agree with the principle of the amendment. The section as it stands, if it is passed by the Oireachtas—inasmuch as it provides that the Minister may, by an Order, amend or, in fact, repeal an Act of Parliament— is a very dangerous section. I was very concerned on the Second Stage when I read that particular section. The Minister said then that he felt himself bound by the Act of 1937 and, I think, also that of 1940—where a similar section was passed by the House—to follow on the lines of that section. At the same time I think that it is a matter that he should consider. The Minister is asking this House to pass a Bill containing a section allowing the Minister for Local Government to amend laws and Acts of this House. It would seem to me that a section containing that power is a section which may be open to considerable doubt so far as its constitutionality is concerned. If the Minister would give some indication that he would meet the objections contained in principle in this amendment, I certainly should be quite satisfied but I feel that a section like this should not be passed without careful consideration and inquiry in this House.

On the Second Reading of this Bill I was one of those who raised the objection to the form of Section 10. In doing so I may say that it was consistent with the attitude I have adopted on numerous occasions some years ago when I was in opposition. I feel that, as a result of legislation during recent years—which was emphasised by the Emergency Powers Act of 1939 and subsequent legislative Orders flowing from that—it had come to be overlooked in this Assembly that this is the law-making body of this State.

There has grown up a lazy method of dealing with matters which should be properly within the review of this House and this House only. There has been passed on to various Ministers power to make Orders which have the effect of Acts of Parliament. In a great many cases that is not likely to be abused. In my objection I am not at all interested in any legal or constitutional aspect. I rise purely on a question of principle to indicate what I think are the grounds upon which we were sent here, namely, to legislate on behalf of the constituents who sent us to this Assembly.

We have had numerous examples in the past of very wide powers having been passed over to the head of a Government Department, to the Minister, under similar sections and clauses in Acts of Parliament. While one is perfectly satisfied that the particular Minister concerned would act with due regard for the legislative assembly that gives him these powers, yet we must all recognise that many decisions are taken in a Government office by members of the Civil Service. I do not wish to quarrel with any reasons which they might have for drafting a rule or regulation in a certain way, but I think it is a most undesirable practice and should not be continued. We should endeavour, so far as we can, to see that we hold in our grip the right to make laws and that we do not, for the sake of convenience or expediency, pass that right over or delegate that right to any person who is not responsible to a constituency. I feel that the Minister must agree that there is considerable force behind the objections made by various Deputies to the section as it stands. Having regard to the fact that these words are frequently included in Bills of this character, I feel that the difficulty which I have in my mind can be better met by the next amendment than by the one which we are discussing at present.

I should like to express my agreement with the general principle contained in this amendment and in the one following. We on these benches object to the principle of legislation by Order. We object to it as being undemocratic. We object to it as being a usurpation of functions properly exercisable by this House and by this House alone. For that reason I would ask the Minister to accept this amendment and the amendment following. In the past few years we saw legislation by Order gone mad. Perhaps it is as a result of that that there is in us, particularly in the members of the Clann na Poblachta Party, a desire to clip Ministerial wings where possible. That desire probably springs from the experience we have had in the past as to what flights the unclipped wings of Ministers legislating by Order can make. We have seen legislation by Order becoming almost the normal and commonplace. In matters even far more serious than could be the subject of consideration or decision by any local body, we have this wrong principle accepted. During the régime of the Party opposite we saw legislation by Order reaching a pitch where the law of evidence was altered in order that the Governmental vendetta against George Plant should be pursued to its bloody and tragic end.

The Deputy is miles away from the amendment on the Committee Stage.

With respect, I am referring my remarks to the general principle of legislation by Order.

I understood the Deputy to give us a very particular case. Perhaps my hearing is bad.

Merely as an instance of the general principle.

That may be, but it may lead to an acrimonious debate, and I do not want that. We will hear the principle.

We support the amendment and ask the Minister to accept it, because we believe the right of the elected representatives of the people in this House to legislate should be protected. We ask the Minister, if it is not possible for him to accept amendments Nos. 9 and 10 in their exact form, at least to meet us by accepting them in the spirit and to embody the general tenor of these amendments in the Bill when he comes to bring it to the next stage.

In connection with the section as it stands, I should like to support the general view which the House has so far expressed that there is a very serious menace to the legislative functions of this House by allowing such an omnibus section as Section 10 to come into operation. Like other Deputies, I feel that we are sent into this legislative assembly for the specific purpose of having some say in framing and guiding the law of this country. I feel that the principle embodied in amendment No. 10 should impress itself upon this House as a reasonable protection—that the Minister may not by Order change the complete character of any Bill. I am fundamentally opposed to any section that will allow, as Deputy Lehane has properly stated, legislation by Order to become the normal practice rather than become subject to searching and inquiring review by this House.

I would ask the Minister if he is not prepared to accept amendments Nos. 9 and 10 in their present form to embody in the section some restrictive clause that will make him, as he properly should be, accountable to this House when any changes of a fundamental nature are proposed to be made by Order. I think the time has come to get away from the obnoxious principle that left us in such a position under the last régime: that, no matter how one might endeavour to discover some Orders that were made, one could not do so. This principle gives rise to complex and, in some cases, of irreconcilable Orders being issued. We have had a painful history of the Emergency Powers Act, and of the Emergency Powers Orders made under it. I do not believe there is anybody in the country conversant with the wide range of Orders made under that Act. I think the time has come for the principle to be re-enacted in a very definite way that the legislative functions of this House should be preserved as far as possible and protected by the Minister, and that he should have no qualms about allowing any Orders he makes to be the subject of review by the House.

Deputy Lemass and I joined issue on so many occasions in the other House on sections such as this that I am rather surprised one particular point that was discussed there constantly has not been adverted to in this discussion. There is an entirely different principle involved in omnibus sections from the principle that arises on Deputy Cowan's amendment. That difference is included in three words in line 45 "in his opinion". The Minister should have power to carry out what are purely consequential directions of this House, but he should not have the power to decide whether what he does is or is not a consequential direction of this House. That power should be left to the courts. Though, in this particular instance, I would be against the principle in Deputy Cowan's amendment, I suggest to the Minister that, on the Report Stage, he should delete the words "in his opinion", because it is not for the Minister to decide what is a consequential direction of this House. That, as I have said, should be left to the courts to decide and not for the Minister to decide in his executive capacity. I support the plea made by Deputy Collins that all Orders made should be tabled so that they would be easily available for reference.

It is interesting to see all our legal friends so determined to ensure that this House is going to be safeguarded against Ministers, and in this instance the Minister for Local Government. May I say that, during my period of membership of the House, there has been no question which I think has received so much attention here as this one of legislation by Order and regulation? Speaking from these benches, it may seem strange if I say that there is no member of the House who has convinced me more that a Minister should have power of this kind as regards certain sections of a Bill than Deputy Lemass. I cannot quote his exact words, but I remember that when somewhat similar objections were being discussed on another measure he very properly replied that it is impossible to prepare a Bill on the lines of making provision for every contingency that is likely to arise. He urged then that a Minister should, within reason, be left room to move so far as being able to meet unforeseen possibilities and contingencies. As to the manner in which the power to legislate by Order may be used by a Minister, I think that so long as provision is there that the Orders so made must be laid on the Table of the House and that a period is allowed for their discussion with a view to their annulment, if necessary, a proper safeguard is thus ensured.

As regards the amendment in the name of Deputy Larkin and myself, I think it goes a little bit too far in so far as it suggests that the approval of both Houses should be got before the Order becomes effective. I think that if the Minister were to give an assurance, as his predecessors did in the case of a good many Bills, to place any Orders made on the Table of the House so that any member could put down a motion for their annulment, it would, I think, meet with the general desire of Deputies.

On the Second Reading of the Bill I was one of the Deputies who appealed to the Minister to reframe Section 10. I did so because, as I said at the time, the principle embodied in the section was a bad one. I am still of the opinion that this principle of legislation by Order is a bad one. I do want to say, however, that I have been impressed by the arguments made by Deputy Sweetman and Deputy O'Sullivan. Deputy Sweetman has pointed out that his objection to the section would be met by the deletion of the words "in his opinion". I agree with him that if these words are deleted there is a sufficient safeguard left. I also see, on rereading the section, that the fears I expressed before on the general principle might not be strictly applicable to a section such as this, because the regulations and Orders referred to here concern only very specific things which occur infrequently, and cannot be made in any kind of a concealed manner. They refer to the election of members of local authorities and to the meetings of such bodies. Therefore, the extension of the principle of legislation by Order to these particular matters might not be as serious as I thought on Second Reading.

I do not want the House to get the opinion that I am departing at all from my objection to what Deputy Collins has rightly described as this obnoxious principle. I believe that the principle is obnoxious and, as Deputy Lehane has put it, it is definitely not democratic. I would like again to take this opportunity of appealing to the Minister to reframe this particular section in some way. I think it would be a very good idea if the Dáil were to decide to break with what has now become tradition. I am well aware, in case some of the Deputies opposite might think of reminding me of it, that provision for legislation by Order was made even before Fianna Fáil had anything to do with the administration of the Government of this country. Speaking as a lawyer, I want to say that Deputy Collins was quite right in what he said in connection with the Emergency Powers Orders. In regard to them, the position so far as lawyers were concerned was fantastic. I had the experience of being enabled to know what was in one Emergency Powers Order in time to defend a prosecution merely by the courtesy of the Government Publications Office. Only one copy of that particular Order was printed at the time, and the Order was not on sale. The Government Publications Office kindly and courteously loaned me, for the duration of the court, the one copy of the Order that was in existence. Otherwise, I was in the position of going into court without having any idea of what was in the Order. I know that has happened to other members of both branches of the profession. I know that some of them had the experience of going in even without as much information as I had.

Under the Emergency Powers Act an Order could be made verbally.

I know that but I think the Deputy will agree that a fantastic situation could arise and in fact did arise in these circumstances.

And ignorance of the law was no defence.

If the Minister would indicate acceptance of either of these amendments, or if he would make a suggestion to the House as to what he would do to meet what is obviously desired by most Deputies who have spoken, I at any rate would be quite prepared to support him on that.

It has been very interesting to listen to the luminous legal opinions which have been expressed in this debate, but they have not thrown much light on the darkness of the problem which is presented to the House. It is a peculiar thing that legal training sometimes seems to be more of a handicap than otherwise in these matters. The amendment which I have put down has been moved merely to permit of the argument of a position which we have argued many times in this House, and I am not at all satisfied that the amendment as it stands would be practicable. Quite frankly, everybody agrees with the proposition that the machinery of the Dáil is not sufficient to deal with all the laws that are necessary for the administration of a Department of State. It is equally clear that you cannot deal with all these laws by way of regulations and Orders as they are required, and we have, therefore, got to have some compromise. So far there has been no practical proposition put up by those who are opposed to the rigidity of the section as it stands. Quite clearly, it is impossible for any Minister to include in any Bill coming before the Dáil all possible provisions which may be necessary in order to give effect to the terms of the Bill when it becomes an Act. Equally so, it is clear that unlimited and very extensive powers cannot just be handed out automatically to the Minister. Previously the difficulty has been got over by an arrangement with the Minister that all Orders would be laid on the Table of the House and that they could be annulled within a certain period by a vote of the House. That seems to be a rather negative approach to the matter, and something more positive should be considered.

I wonder would the Minister meet us to the extent of agreeing for the moment that we should carry on with the old practice of laying Orders on the Table subject to annulment and consider a further extension of the checks on these Orders—that is the advisability of establishing in the House here something in the way of a standing committee which would take positive action in the sense that the Orders would not merely be laid on the Table for notice by some Deputy who would be sufficiently interested but that the Orders would go automatically to the committee for consideration? Either of two courses could be accepted: (1) that the Orders would not be effective until they had been adopted by the committee or, alternatively, that they could not come into operation until after a certain period. I think that some machinery of that kind has been in operation in the British House of Commons and so long as we accept the principle that there must be some delegated authority and that we cannot get all the legislation we require through the machinery of the House, a compromise of that nature is one that will commend itself to all Parties because the Minister would be able to obtain the Orders he required and the House would have the knowledge that while these Orders and regulations were being made, there would be some positive check on them within a limited period. Where there was anything discovered that required attention, it could be brought before the House under the machinery provided.

It is quite possible under the machinery of laying Orders on the Table of the House to bring these matters before the House within a stipulated period but we know there have been very grave difficulties in that regard because, in the first place, the Order Paper sometimes carried several pages of Orders made at one particular period. Secondly, there is no use blinking the fact that Deputies find it probably as much as they can do to keep up with current Bills and to familiarise themselves with all that is happening under them without having to go through a list of Orders and regulations and read them carefully to see if there is anything in them of a nature which should call for their annulment. Without pressing this particular suggestion, I would ask the Minister merely from the point of view of providing machinery that would be helpful to the House to consider the possibility of having a committee of that nature established here—the actual details could be worked out later—to which, as I say, Orders would go automatically and not be effective until passed by the committee or go automatically to the committee and be effective only after they had been brought before the House by motion within the stipulated period.

To adopt the suggestion that has been made of joining the two amendments does not make sense at all because if you adopt the first amendment you cut out the last portion of the section including the portion giving the Minister power to make Orders and then, in the second amendment, it is proposed that any Order made by the Minister under the section shall not have effect until it has been approved by a resolution of both Houses—that is, that the House must approve of an Order which the Minister has no power to make. I feel personally that the Minister has a certain sympathy with the views that have been expressed because he has given expression to similar views himself on several occasions and for these reasons I think it might be an interesting and useful innovation if he would consider the appointment of a committee of the nature I have suggested.

I do not want to initiate any sort of debate on this question of legislation by Order but I think there are some practical considerations the House should keep in mind. Deputy Larkin referred to the British practice but if this were a British Bill it would consist only of one section, a section which would say that the local elections would be postponed until 1950 and that the Minister, by Order in Council, could make any provisions to produce that result. The idea that we here have travelled much further than the British legislation in these matters is completely unfounded.

But is there not machinery in Britain for the examination of Orders?

There is a different practice according to the nature of the matter to be dealt with. In this country our system of drafting Bills is such as to create a lawyers' paradise. Our legislation is far more technical, far more detailed in its provisions, far more complex in its wording than in any other country I know of. Deputies may get an example of that if they study the recent publication of the Government Information Bureau of the Department of External Affairs relating to the Marshall Plan in which was inset an American publication of the Act passed by the American Congress to give effect to the European Recovery Plan. They will be astonished with the simplicity of the wording compared with the very involved wording of our Acts, which are frequently not capable of being understood at all by a layman.

The constitutional position is different.

The purpose of that complex drafting is to avoid, where possible, this delegation of powers to Ministers to enact legislative provisions by Order. There are three methods, as Deputies know. In serious matters, where it is quite clear that action of the Minister is going to have serious consequences for individuals, it is generally the practice to require the prior assent of the Dáil to the making of the Order. The purpose of having the provision in the Bill at all is merely to avoid the slower procedure of legislation. In less serious matters, where the intention of the Act is clear and where the provision is solely designed to give the Minister power to carry out that intention in varying circumstances, this device, to which Deputy Larkin referred, of requiring the Minister to lay the Order before the House, where it may be annulled by resolution of the House, is followed.

In the particular case here, however, there is no point at all in doing that. Here the Minister has introduced a Bill. The purpose of the Bill, as we all know—and the Dáil has approved of it —is to postpone the local elections and to make certain other consequential changes. He knows and we know that there are probably a multitude of Bills on the Statute Book, or regulations or Orders in force, which may, in some or other of their provisions, affect this matter of postponing local elections or holding them in 1950. He cannot be sure, and no lawyer will give him an absolute guarantee, that there has been a complete search of all the legislation, regulations, and Orders so as to ensure that there will be no hitch in giving effect to the Bill when passed. If the Minister finds that there is some legal provision, some clause in some Act or regulation, which the lawyers have not adverted to which may prevent the Bill being implemented without amending legislation, the Minister may by Order adjust that. That is a normal common-sense provision, and it is not contrary to democratic principles. The one thing of importance about democracy is to make it work, and work effectively, and if we are to have a situation in which every change, even of the most insignificant character, in any regulation is to be the subject of a Bill going through five stages in the Dáil and four more stages in the Seanad, parliamentary time would be so clogged up with these trivialities that no progress at all would be made.

If Deputies want to understand what is involved, let them look at the Order Paper on the first day of any week, and particularly the first day of any session, and note the number of Orders tabled during the recess, and then ask themselves what the business of the Dáil would be like if every one of these had to be the subject of positive legislation before it became effective. They will baulk at imagining what the prospect would be if each of them had to be the subject of a Bill going through all the different stages up to the Seanad. You cannot work government on that basis in modern times. That was all right when governments were concerned only with foreign affairs and the preservation of order, and when it was a business for gentlemen. Nowadays government interferes in every social and economic activity. The scope of legislation is very much wider, and, if the business of the State is to be done at all, there must be some device to enable it to be done expeditiously.

I advise the Minister not to listen to Deputy Sweetman's suggestion about leaving out the words "in his opinion". I am not a lawyer, but let me see if I can argue like a lawyer. If the words "in his opinion" are there, the Minister must apply his opinion to the question. One of the problems I came up against when I was Minister was that I was advised by the legal adviser to the Government, if the Act said something could be done, that it could be done, if, in my opinion, it could be done, or if I thought fit to do it, or considered it wise to do it. There must be legal evidence that I had an opinion, that I was capable of thinking and that I had considered it, and it was, for instance, illegal for me to say to the secretary or the assistant secretary of the Department: "Look here; you go and handle that". That was not good enough. It was my opinion, my thought, my consideration which had to be brought into effect and if the words which Deputy Sweetman suggests should be deleted were not in the section, the section would, in my opinion, be meaningless.

I think there would be a lot to be said, having regard to the trivial nature of Orders made under this section, for putting in "in the opinion of the Minister or of the officers of his Department," who, we know, will in fact decide the question, because that will absolve the Minister of the responsibility of having to deal with the matter personally. But the section would be quite meaningless without these words, unless it were intended to substitute the opinion of some court after a whole lot of lawyers had got fees for arguing the point. Perhaps that is what Deputy Sweetman had in mind. If we are going to give the Minister power, clearly he has to exercise that power in circumstances where, in his opinion, it should be exercised and these words are the most vital in the whole section.

Mr. Murphy

This has been a very interesting discussion, but I would not like the advocates of the rights of this House and of individual members of the House to feel that they are alone in that field. What I want to remind them of is that they may unwittingly land this House into very serious difficulties and make matters very difficult for the Minister concerned, if these amendments are given effect to. The first amendment would have the effect of prohibiting the Minister for Local Government from making any Order whatever under the section. I do not think that was desired, and, if that were approved of by the House, I have no doubt it would reveal a very unsatisfactory position in a short time. The second amendment asks that the positive approval of the House should be obtained for any Orders or regulations made under the Act. I suggest that that is going somewhat far. I propose to meet the arguments raised —I have no reason to think that they are anything but well meant and in the best interests of the House itself and of the rights of the citizens—by framing an amendment on the later stage of the Bill which will make it possible for the Orders in question to be brought under review in this House and the necessary power taken to annul them.

Does the Minister realise the risk that is there? There was one member of the Seanad who made it a practice to move to annul every Order.

Mr. Murphy

I trust to the good sense of the House in that respect.

Is he still in the Seanad?

He is not.

Mr. Murphy

I think that, interpreting fairly the discussion I have listened to, this will meet the position, and I would be prepared to have examined further the suggestion made by Deputy Larkin that, if the House so desires, a committee should be responsible for supervising the operation of Orders under this and other Bills in future, to see that no abuses arose and that no powers were used which were not intended. It was, in fact, a pleasure for me to discover that, in the case of the previous Local Government Act, where powers of this kind were taken, there was very little need for using them. They were, in fact, hardly used at all. There is only one reason which, I think, should be emphasised to some extent as to why powers of this kind are necessary. They are, in fact, necessary to give effect to the spirit of a Bill; in other words, they are necessary in order to do in a common-sense way something which, if it were not done, might involve legislation in this House with resultant inconvenience because of delay in putting the necessary legislation through. It is also well known that in the passing of any Bill an unforeseeable situation may arise in the future for which some provision must be made. I assure the House that there is no desire or intention to abuse any of the powers that may be given under this section. I am prepared to arrange at the next stage for such modification as will enable the Orders made under the section to be reviewed by the House if the House so desires. I suggest that might meet the points raised in the various amendments.

Did I understand Deputy Lemass to say that a member of the last Seanad made it a practice to ask that House to review every Order that was put before it?

I said every Order made by me.

That is patently untrue because I happened to be a member of that House for five years and there were only two such motions. The House will get an opportunity, therefore, of judging the value of Deputy Lemass's statements from that extravagant one.

This Bill has no other function except the function of arranging for local elections. This section put into the Bill by the Minister seems to me to be unnecessary. There does not seem to be any reason for it. I have looked over the Local Government Acts as carefully as I could and I think Section 54 of the Act of 1941, which is the major Act, gives the Minister the widest possible powers to make regulations, modify statutes, or do anything he likes. That being so, I cannot see why this section has to be put into this Bill at all unless perhaps it is just a routine matter in the Department to provide against something that may happen and which the Department did not foresee. This is the first opportunity I have had of objecting to power by Order. Apart from fundamental objections on principle, there is the added objection that there is no necessity for this section at all in this Bill. The Minister has indicated that there is no necessity for it.

Mr. Murphy

I did not indicate anything of the kind.

In my opinion the Minister has all the powers he wants in the other Acts. The Act of 1945 deals with corporations and the Act of 1941 deals with local authorities generally. This Bill proposes to do nothing except postpone the elections. The feeling of the House seems to be that what the Minister has indicated will meet the House as far as this matter is concerned. I do not want to divide the House on this. I would probably find myself in a minority of one. But I do want to make it perfectly clear that while I am here and whenever any such section as this is proposed I will oppose it and reasons will have to be given for it.

You had better make him a Minister; then he will be arguing for it.

I do not think I will. I think I could manage without that. These powers are only put in in case they may become necessary. They are purely routine. Having listened to the discussion and the Minister having indicated to the House what he proposes to do I think that is as far as I can go on it.

Amendment No. 9, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 10 not moved.
Section 11 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with one amendment.

We cannot agree to take the Bill on Tuesday unless the Minister undertakes to circulate the amendments he has suggested to-day or to-morrow. This being Thursday afternoon we could not agree to take the Bill on Tuesday, if there are amendments, without ample notice.

Mr. Murphy

Deputy Lemass will appreciate the difficulty in which I am. If the Bill is not law within a certain time the local elections must be held this year. I think that is a sufficiently urgent reason for asking to have the Report Stage taken at the earliest possible date. The amendments that have been suggested have been indicated this evening. They are not of very great importance and they are not very substantial in themselves. They are for the purpose of reflecting, as far as possible, the views expressed in the House. I suggest that I might be permitted to have the Report Stage on Tuesday.

That will depend on when the amendments are circulated.

Mr. Murphy

I will arrange to have them circulated immediately.

Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 25th May, 1948.
Top
Share