I hope that Deputies realise that this is the Report Stage and that Deputies may speak only once on each amendment.
Committee on Finance. - Local Elections Bill, 1948—Report and Fifth Stages.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 2, after line 18, Section 1 (1), after the definition of "local authority" to insert the following:—"the expression `the local election year' has the meaning given to it in paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of this Act."
This amendment arises out of a discussion which took place on the Committee Stage as to the date of the next local elections generally speaking, with the two exceptions already provided for. As Deputies will remember, the proposals in the Bill visualise having the elections in 1950.
Arising out of the discussion in Committee, I agreed to table an amendment which would make provision for the earlier holding of the elections if that course was considered necessary. At the moment I am not in a position to state precisely the date on which the elections will be held. The amendment, however, seeks to give effect to the feeling of the House, so far as I could gauge it, when the Bill was in Committee.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Murphy
I move amendment No. 2:—
In page 2, Section 2 (1), to delete paragraph (a), lines 27 and 28, and substitute the following:—
(a) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Minister shall, before the 30th day of September, 1950, by Order appoint in respect of every local authority a day not later than the said 30th day of September, 1950, to be the appointed day for the holding of an election of members of that local authority and such election shall be held accordingly.
(b) The appointed day in respect of every local authority shall be in the same year (in this Act referred to as the local election year).
Amendment No. 2 is consequential on amendment No. 1, and the same may be said of amendments Nos. 3 and 4 and of some later amendments.
Surely amendment No. 1 is consequential on amendment No. 2.
The Minister's amendment fulfils the promise he made to the House on the last occasion. I would ask him to have the elections as early as possible, and to give as much notice as possible in advance of the date on which they will be held.
I am afraid the Minister will not do that.
Mr. Murphy
Wait and see. I feel sure that Deputy Cowan will realise that, whatever may take place in connection with other elections, snap elections in the case of local affairs are neither desirable nor usual.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Murphy
I move amendment No. 3:—
In page 3, to delete paragraphs (b) and (c) of Section 3, lines 3 to 20, and substitute the following:—
(b) the election held in the year 1948 shall be deemed to be a triennial election,
(c) it shall not be necessary for the Minister, unless he so thinks fit, to appoint, under sub-section (1) of Section 2 of this Act, a day for the holding of an election of members of such local authority,
(d) unless the Minister so appoints a day, the election held in the year 1948 shall be deemed, for the purposes of determining the times for the holding of subsequent triennial elections, to be held in the local election year.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Murphy
I move amendment No. 4:—
In page 3, lines 28 to 36, to delete paragraphs (b) and (c) of Section 4 and substitute the following:—
(b) the election shall be deemed to be a triennial election,
(c) it shall not be necessary for the Minister, unless he so thinks fit, to appoint, under sub-section (1) of Section 2 of this Act, a day for the holding of an election of such commissioners,
(d) unless the Minister so appoints a day, the first election shall be deemed, for the purposes of determining the times for the holding of subsequent triennial elections, to be held in the local election year.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Murphy
I move amendment No. 5:—
In page 3, to delete lines 37 to 39, Section 5 (1).
This amendment has been tabled to give effect to a promise which I made on the Committee Stage. As Deputies will know, it deals with the restoration of the Dublin Board of Assistance. It is in response to the very widely supported demand that was made in the House for the restoration of the Dublin Board of Assistance. Deputies will remember the circumstances under which that demand was made and the arguments that were advanced at the time in support of it. I should like to say, however, that it may be necessary, during the transition period arising out of certain proposals of my colleague, the Minister for Health, to make some special interim arrangements. It may be that I shall have to ask the House later to trouble itself for a short time to deal with that particular matter.
I am not quite clear as to what the Minister is doing now with regard to this amendment. It is quite true that the general consensus of opinion on all sides of the House is in favour of restoring the control of the board of assistance to the Dublin local authority. The Minister, on the Second Reading and Committee Stages, indicated that he thought it might be better to postpone its restoration as a result of consultations and conversations that he had with his colleague, the Minister for Health. On the Committee Stage we on this side felt that if there was any danger of retarding what was contemplated by the Minister for Health it might be better to leave it over for a time. I am not quite clear now as to when this restoration is to take place, particularly as the Minister has just said that some interim period may elapse to enable the Minister for Health to take certain steps and so that these steps will not be retarded by the restoration of the board.
Mr. Murphy
The Dublin Board of Assistance will be restored within one month after the Dublin County Council has been elected. What I had in mind, when speaking a few moments ago, was that a situation might arise in which some liaison arrangements would have to be made between the Department and the Minister for Health arising out of proposals he has under consideration. It might be necessary to make provision to meet that situation for a very short period. It was in order to be quite frank with the House that I thought it well to mention that matter at this stage.
In other words——
The Deputy cannot speak twice on Report. He can ask a question.
What I really want to do is to ask a question. Can we take it that the original Bill contemplated the restoration of the Board of Assistance at the earliest after the next Dublin municipal election? The Minister has admitted the principle, if you like, that it is desirable to have this board restored, but the position now is that it may, in fact, be delayed even after the election for the Dublin County Council if in the interests of the alterations contemplated by the Minister for Health that is found necessary.
Mr. Murphy
I suggest that the Deputy is trying to read into my statement something that it does not contain. I want to state without any qualification whatever that the Dublin Board of Assistance will be restored within one month after the Dublin County Council elections have taken place. I would hope that by that date the proposals of the Minister for Health will be well known and that there will be only a short period, perhaps one of a month or a period of weeks, during which some temporary arrangement would be necessary. I am not in a position fully to define the period yet. I ask the Deputy to accept my assurance that the Board of Assistance will be restored automatically on the first legal date after the Dublin County Council elections have taken place.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Murphy
I move amendment No. 6:—
In page 3, Section 5 (2), to delete the words "in the year 1950" in line 41, and in lines 42 and 43 to delete the words "as amended by this section".
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Murphy
I move amendment No. 7:—
In page 33, Section 5 (2), to delete paragraph (b), lines 47 to 51, and substitute the following:—
(b) the members elected by the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of Dublin, in the year 1948 shall be elected at a meeting of the City Council for Dublin held within one month after the day of election in the year 1948 of the members of the Council of the County of Dublin.
Would the Minister clarify this amendment?
Mr. Murphy
It is really a small change arising out of an amendment that has already been discussed. It deals with the city council side of the machinery setting up the board of assistance.
It really means that at the time the county council elections take place——
Mr. Murphy
The Dublin Corporation will elect their representatives on the board.
There could be no sort of selection before that particular date?
Mr. Murphy
No.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Murphy
I move amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10 which are consequential:—
8. In page 4, line 20, Section 8 (a), to substitute "the local election year" for "the year 1950".
9. In page 4, line 32, Section 9 (a), to substitute "the local election year" for "the year 1950".
10. In page 4, line 47, at the end of Section 10, to substitute "the local election year" for "the year 1950".
Amendments agreed to.
Mr. Murphy
I move amendment No. 11:—
In page 4, at the end of Section 11, to add a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) Every Order under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and if a resolution annulling the Order is passed by either 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.
On the Committee Stage of the Bill, in response to a very wide demand for certain protective safeguards in connection with the making of Orders or regulations under the Bill—although the Bill itself does not afford very wide scope in that direction—I undertook to bring forward an amendment to meet the feeling that existed in the House in connection with the matter. This amendment is the result. I should like to say here again that the sole purpose of putting in the section, as it was originally drafted in the Bill, was to guard against a situation that might arise, when some defect not foreseeable by the draftsman or the House would arise. It was felt that provision should be made for it. I think this proposal will meet the wishes expressed in various quarters of the House.
I do not intend to repeat what I said on earlier stages of the Bill but I want to say that I think the Minister has gone a long way towards meeting the point of view put from this side of the House with regard to legislation by Order. I think this amendment does give the necessary safeguard which Deputies from these benches sought and I should like to express to the Minister our appreciation for having met us in that way.
I should like to say that while this amendment undoubtedly meets the situation arising out of this particular Bill, all the powers which this Bill proposes to give to the Minister are, in fact, available to the Minister under other statutes. To that extent this amendment does meet the particular position of this Bill, but as regards the general principle of giving power to make Orders, I do not want to commit myself on this Bill to accept that method or to say that the method adopted here would be acceptable in the case of other Bills. I want to make that perfectly clear.
This side of the House opposed the amendment introduced to the original section of the Bill, I think in the name of Deputy Cowan and others. We did so from the point of view that we felt that the Minister must have some overriding control. This amendment really does not introduce in a sense any new principle. It is quite right, as Deputy Cowan says, that in any event that power rests with the Minister. I want to know if the Minister has been advised by his officers and experts in this matter, because I am afraid that he will have to deal with so many local authorities that it is quite possible we may have resolutions calling for the annulment of Orders by local authorities over a variety of subjects. I can envisage a situation arising where, because of a certain position in the country, the Minister might have to make certain Orders and he might find himself faced with a substantial number of resolutions questioning these Orders here.
The business of the House might not permit of the discussion of these resolutions in time to enable them to be annulled within the necessary 21 sitting days. I wonder if the Minister has satisfied himself that he is not leaving himself and his Department open to a position which could be very awkward and possibly very ugly? I say that in all sense of responsibility as a member of a local authority. Occasions will arise when the Minister will have to make Orders. I ask has he satisfied himself that he is not leaving this situation in a position in which it could be very troublesome and hamper very much the control of local authorities which is really exercised by the Minister on behalf of the citizens as a whole.
This amendment deals only with Orders under the section, and the section only applies to the adaptation of statutes, Orders or regulations already made in connection with these bodies.
I agree to a large extent with what has been said on this question of legislation by Order, with the reservation, that there are times of national emergency and times of emergency of a smaller nature than that which could be described as one of a national character, when legislation by Order is necessary. The Minister is a responsible representative of the people democratically elected—in fact twice democratically elected. He is elected in the ordinary course by the votes of the electors of his own constituency and he is elected democratically to his office in this House. Therefore it must be assumed that he is a responsible man and that any question of leanings towards bureaucracy could not arise if the Minister realises his responsibilities and his functions as a Minister. I would ask him, therefore, not to forgo in any other Bill of such a nature, his right to make Orders in cases where emergencies arise. He has in this amendment reserved to himself the right of making such Orders when he says that even though Orders may be annulled by the House, that will be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done in the meantime under the Orders. The Minister therefore has the sense to realise that this right of legislation by Order is necessary at least to some extent.
Mr. Murphy
I think Deputy Briscoe's fears in this connection are unfounded because, in fact, the scope of this Bill is very limited. It seems to do mainly one thing, to postpone the local elections and in the ordinary way to provide for the holding of local elections in Kerry and Dublin at an earlier date, so there is really no danger of any large number of Orders arising out of the operations of the Bill, if and when it becomes law. May I say how grateful I am to Deputy Lynch for his faith in my being able to retain my democratic principles, in spite of the fact that the history of the world has shown that the dictators of a later age were at one period democrats during their public career? I am very glad to find that, as a fellow-Corkman, the Deputy has some confidence in my being able to retain my democratic views in that and in other directions. There is no likelihood of any greater emergency arising out of the operations of this measure. In any case, I feel that if there were a large number of Orders arising out of the Bill, I can trust to the good sense of the Dáil. I have been in the House a long time and I have no reason at all to change the view I formed long ago that, if the responsible Minister takes the House into his confidence and asks for support, that support is never refused. I think this amendment will serve a useful purpose. It will provide the safeguards for which there was a strong demand in the House and will not lead to any infringement of what I know the House would desire to be the natural right and prerogative of the Minister for the time being responsible for the Department in question.
Can the Minister tell me whether if he found it necessary to suppress public representation on a board of assistance, this Bill, with this amendment, would not prevent him from doing so, without its being discussed in the House afterwards?
Mr. Murphy
No, I do not think the Bill would prevent my doing that. I hope that is a contingency that will not arise for me.
I only asked the question to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that it could cover a much wider field——
Than this amendment?
No, the number of bodies affected.
We are dealing with an amendment.
The Minister said he did not believe the Bill could affect more authorities than are involved in the Bill.
We are dealing only with the Bill.
I am asking whether the amendment will not affect local institutions which are not included in the Bill.
Mr. Murphy
I do not think there is the least danger in that connection. I am quite satisfied that the Bill will not put any serious limitations on the other responsibilities I have. Its scope, as I have said, is very limited, and nothing that can arise from it is likely to be a serious impediment to the discharge of the work of the Department, and I want to set Deputy Briscoe's mind firmly at rest in that connection.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Agreed to take the Fifth Stage now.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
The debate on this Bill has been in some ways very remarkable. If the records of the discussions on the Committee Stage are ever read by posterity, posterity will come to the conclusion that the present Minister must have been the original and authentic prototype of the hero of the nursery, the good old Duke of York. The Minister started off by pinning his faith to the proposal embodied in Section 5 to postpone the new election of the members of the Dublin Board of Assistance. I do not suppose that anyone in the House will disagree with me if I say that was a very serious decision to take. I think we were bound to assume that it was taken after full consideration and after a careful examination of all the consequences it involved. Indeed, I think it would be rather uncomplimentary to the Minister to assume otherwise, because he has told us that he went so far as to consult, as he was bound to do, being a member of a Government, the members of which are supposed to be collectively responsible for all the major decisions of a Minister, particularly in relation to legislation, his colleagues, the Minister for Social Services and the Minister for Health.
Having heard their views, he came to the conclusion that it would not be in the public interest—that is the really important fact—to reconstitute the Dublin Board of Assistance upon an elective basis until the reorganisation in progress for a number of years had been finally completed. I would say that I very strongly agree with what I thought was the view of the Minister in that regard. The Minister then comes to the House, and, after what struck me as being a rather perfunctory discussion, reversed his decision, and said he no longer believed it was proper that the affairs of the Dublin Board of Assistance should continue to be administered by a commissioner and that he proposed to restore the elective body as soon as possible.
That drives us to one or other of two conclusions—either the Minister did not give the serious consideration to this matter at the outset which he ought to have given, or he allowed his better judgment to be overborne here by, shall we put it, considerations of the most commonplace political type, that he realised he was dependent on the votes of a certain number of Deputies and that, even though they were trying to induce, to coax, to cajole or even to coerce him into doing something he did not think was in the best interests of the people, he was nevertheless prepared, because of the Parliamentary support he had, to defer to it. I should hesitate to believe that in fact the Minister would be overborne in that way, and I can only conclude therefore that this Bill was rather hastily drafted and that the Minister, in a moment of impulse, took a decision, which, when he had listened to the arguments here, he concluded was not a justifiable one and was therefore prepared to reverse his former attitude. I think perhaps that would be the fairer interpretation to place upon the Minister's attitude.
I think it is highly undesirable, and I think it will be generally conceded to be highly undesirable, that the Dáil should be faced with legislation prepared in this haphazard, happy-golucky way. When legislation is being prepared for this House, I know that the custom was for Ministers to study very carefully the details, to consult all the Departments likely to be affected by that legislation and then finally to submit the principles and heads of the Bill to the Government for approval and, when the Bill is finally drafted, to submit the final text to the Government for approval.
I assume that is still the procedure. I should hate to think for the sake of the country that that procedure, irksome as Ministers have often found it, burdensome as it undoubtedly is and, indeed, if one might put it this way, somewhat dilatory, has been departed from and that measures which are submitted to this House and which affect the interests of the people—in this case the interests of the ratepayers of Dublin—are being put forward without having received the careful consideration which they undoubtedly deserve and demand. I am very regretful that we should have had this volte face in relation to this Bill. I think it is a very bad beginning. I think it would be much better if the Minister had embodied in the Bill, as it was introduced, the proposals which are now embodied in Section 5, as amended. That would have been very much better because then we would have known that at least the Minister had made up his mind and that he had come to a decision over which it was his duty to stand and which, if necessary, he would defend here in this House and either fall or stand by it. I think it would be a development, very regrettable from the constitutional point of view, if the custom is developed here of Ministers putting proposals before the Dáil in which they do not themselves believe. If that takes place then our legislation will, of course, become the sport and plaything of the political balance in this House. That is something which it ought never to be.
I think the Government are bound to nail their flag to the mast on occasions and this was a rather important occasion. As we have been told by the Minister himself, his colleagues, the Minister for Social Welfare and the Minister for Health, had very decided views as to whether or not the present system of administering the affairs of the Dublin Board of Assistance should or should not continue. They apparently were in favour of continuing to administer the Dublin Board of Assistance through a commissioner until effect could be given to their plans. Notwithstanding the fact that the Minister's colleagues took this view of the matter, the Minister himself here in the House throws his original proposal, with the proposals of his colleagues, overboard. I think that is a very bad omen and a very bad augury for the future of the Government. After all, the members of the Government must hang together or, otherwise, in the political sense of the term they must hang separately. I am not going to say that I would deplore any division in the ranks of the Government.
Mr. Murphy
Surely not.
I could not be hypocritical enough to say I would not. I am not going to be like the Minister for Finance who quoted the Papal Encyclicals with his tongue in his cheek. I am going to be quite honest. I do not want to see this Government hang together, but I do think, from the point of view of constitutional precedent and from the point of view of securing stable government and well-considered legislation in the future, it is exceedingly regrettable that the Minister should have parted company with his own colleagues in the way in which he has with regard to Section 5 of this Bill.
An gereideann tú é sin?
Deputy MacEntee said that the Minister's attitude on Section 5 seems to be a bad beginning. There has been a bad beginning, but it has been a bad beginning so far as the Fianna Fáil Party is concerned in dealing with this type of legislation. Listening to their arguments on the Committee and Report Stages one is struck by the exceedingly laboured efforts they have made. As far as Deputy MacEntee is concerned, I think it would be a more truthful representation to say that he would prefer to see the commissioner retained. Deputy Briscoe, as a member of the corporation, spoke in favour of popular representation and on the Committee Stage expressed opposition to the Minister's meeting the viewpoint set out in the amendment.
One of the changes here is that it is generally accepted, both for the good of the House and for the good of the country as a whole, that there are issues coming before the House on which there can be agreement. On the Committee Stage we found ourselves in a somewhat similar position. I had occasion to indicate that when Deputy Lemass was a Minister in this House and we were on the Opposition Benches there were a number of occasions on which we complimented him for his attitude as a Minister and his willingness to meet us on the views expressed, even though he himself had come into the House with a contrary viewpoint. I do not think we ever had occasion to compliment Deputy MacEntee when he was a Minister. Possibly if we had, relations might have been much more friendly. It was unfortunate that we never had that opportunity.
Many measures go through this House in which no great divergence of political viewpoints is involved. So far as the board of assistance is concerned no issues of a political character enter into the discussion. We are all concerned here with only one object in that regard and that is the carrying out of certain plans. I do not know exactly what influenced the Minister to accept the viewpoint expressed by those of us who spoke in favour of amending Section 5. On numerous occasions he has expressed his desire to see local government restored to the ordinary local authorities. What we are concerned with is to secure the expeditious carrying out of that plan. Possibly it was the Minister's desire to associate popular representation with such features of the management as would make it desirable that made him listen to our plea. I stated before that I had knowledge that the plan that will be put into operation. I have equal knowledge that the plan is not proceeding as quickly as many of us would like. It is not proceeding fast enough, particularly in our endeavour to get rid of the character attaching to that institution and its services on both the assistance and health side. There has been considerable failure there. To that extent we urge that the association of popular representation with the effort to put that plan into effect would be beneficial. To that extent, at any rate, I think we made a case.
It may appear, as Deputy MacEntee said, that it is a question of the Minister's giving way to pressure or bringing in measures that are not proper for consideration. I feel that the most important thing we have to face here is the fact that, while we have got consideration by a responsible Minister and discussions with other Ministers directly concerned, plus the collective view of the Government, there is still a recognition that all the wisdom, political, legislative and administrative, is not contained merely in the members of the Government. Both sides of the House have got a contribution to make on measures of this kind.
In the past we had similar measures and efforts were made by the Opposition at that time to convince the responsible Minister that it might be possible to remove the measure from the field of Party conflict because of its character and type. It was even suggested in regard to one important measure that it might be dealt with more appropriately by a special committee. But we never could get that facility and the result was that we had acrimonious discussions here on minor points of detail entailing a waste of time. Many of the more important features of the Bill did not receive the consideration they should have got because of their own intrinsic merit or their effect upon those people with whom the Bill would be largely concerned when it passed into law. The attitude was adopted that the Minister had introduced the Bill and, no matter what argument was advanced, the Minister was not prepared to alter one comma in the Bill. That does not make for healthy discussion and it certainly does not make for progress. Because the Minister has listened to discussion in this House on this Bill and because the weight of that discussion bears largely on the side of the House supporting the Government, that does not in any way alter the fact that we have made a change for the better. Possibly, when Fianna Fáil have settled down a little more in the rôle of an Opposition and have ceased trying to labour for effect, they will be able to make equally valuable contributions. So far their contributions to this Bill have not been of great help and the laboured efforts they have made to meet the various viewpoints and adapt their tactics hour by hour have not been a credit to them.
It would be far better if we had an opinion expressed directly by Deputy Briscoe that, as a member of the Dublin Corporation, he welcomed the restoration of the board of assistance and he was prepared to support that proposal, rather than have Opposition Deputies entering into the peculiar type of tactics that they developed in Committee. It would, perhaps, have been better, and more honest, for Deputy MacEntee, with his background, to say that he still believes in the maintenance of the commissionership and opposes the restoration of popular representation.
I would like to support Deputy Larkin's remarks. Deputy MacEntee seems to think that the Minister for Local Government has made a bad beginning with the introduction of this Bill. I should like to congratulate and compliment the Minister very heartily for his introduction of what is, I think, his first Bill. He deserves to be complimented on the manner in which he introduced it. Deputy MacEntee describes the Minister's attitude as giving way to political expediency. If the views expressed by Deputy MacEntee were to be accepted, then the proceedings in this House would be all so much "cod" and eyewash.
After the Government was formed, the Taoiseach said it was his intention to make this House a deliberative Assembly and any measures submitted to it could be fully and freely discussed by all Deputies, whether or not they supported the Government. It was in that spirit the Minister for Local Government introduced this Bill. He treated the House as a deliberative Assembly. If Deputy MacEntee's viewpoint was honestly expressed—I am sure it was—and if it were accepted in its entirety, what would the position be? It would be absolutely futile for Fianna Fáil to move an amendment and it would be absolutely senseless for them to support it, because Deputy MacEntee's view contained the admission that they did not want the Minister to accept it and did not believe he should, and they thought the Minister would be doing a bad day's work if he were to listen to any arguments in favour of accepting amendments. That, in a nutshell, was the opinion expressed by Deputy MacEntee.
I am very glad that we have, in this Government, Ministers who are prepared to listen to the arguments advanced by all Deputies. I hope that will continue and that the House will always be treated as a deliberative Assembly. It is only now we are beginning to get the benefit of the Taoiseach's intention. We actually had a Fianna Fáil Deputy, Deputy Lynch, standing up here in sharp collision with the deputy leader of his Party on this Bill. All of us heard Deputy Lemass's defence of legislation by Order. I concede this to Deputy Lemass. I was impressed by the manner in which he made his defence of what I still consider an obnoxious principle. To-day, I assume it was because of the views he heard expressed here, one of Deputy Lemass's colleagues is now converted to the idea expressed on this side of the House. Deputy Lynch stood up completely unashamed and said he agreed with what was stated here against legislation by Order, with the reservation that there are times when legislation by Order is necessary. I concede that to him.
The point I wish to make is that by reason of the way in which the Minister introduced the Bill and allowed a case to be made on the amendment and met that case, we have succeeded in securing one convert from the ranks of Fianna Fáil. I trust before this Dáil ends we will secure many more.
I think Deputy Larkin is a bad judge of what he has described as the laboured efforts of another member of the House. I took the view, with regard to Section 5, that the Minister, having explained to the House that as a result of consultations with his colleagues, the Ministers for Health and Social Welfare, it might be better to postpone the return of public control of the Dublin Board of Assistance because of the reorganisation that is taking place, that he had agreed to it. I was satisfied that the case he made was a case which one could accept. If that is to be interpreted as lack of co-operation and agreement with a reasoned statement, very well. Then one finds that, although the Minister may be quite clear that he accepted the principle of public control of this body, he only wanted this postponement for a specific purpose and that he would, afterwards, have to change from that.
There should be no taxation without representation. I occupy a position different from that occupied by Deputy Larkin. I approach this matter from a practical point of view. Deputy Larkin thinks that by the immediate restoration of public control of the board of assistance the representatives will be able in time to participate in the work of reorganisation.
Plenty of time.
I am afraid that if that happens, instead of progress being made rapidly the Minister will find it retarded, because if the public representatives get back to control something which has advanced a considerable distance——
It has not.
A certain amount of reorganisation has taken place. Deputy Larkin actually referred to that but now he says "there has not." I do not know to what extent the particular Departments concerned wish to go before the position is reached where public control can take place. I am not against the restoration of the Dublin Board of Assistance, but I do say that the Minister must have had in his mind substantially sufficient reasons to have requested the House to wait until the job was completed, to that extent in any event where Departments have agreed and decided upon certain things. At least he was convinced of that, but now he comes to the House and he is convinced, notwithstanding what his colleagues requested, that what the House requested, without detailed information, can be accepted.
I have a very intimate knowledge of the workings of Dublin Corporation and its subsidiary bodies and I think that Deputy Larkin and Deputy O'Higgins can say that they equally have a detailed knowledge of what goes on and the tremendous amount of departmental and subsidiary organisations there are for us to deal with as public representatives. I feel that we are coming into the position now that may bring about discussions and questions. Even Deputy Larkin's own colleagues may question some of the things which may arise from the reorganisation with the result that the pace of the progress may be retarded. If Deputy Larkin considers that attitude of mind as something which he suggests is belaboured I present him with that. My approach to the Bill was, I believe—and I do not believe that it could be interpreted as anything else—purely from the point of view of co-operation, and I am afraid from my intimate knowledge of the workings of subsidiary bodies such as Grangegorman and Portrane, that if we were to come in and to take control —even limited control such as we have in, say, city management—our coming in when they were advanced a certain distance might mean that the whole thing would be thrown back into the melting pot and reconsidered from another angle.
I was anxious that the Minister should consider the matter for the reasons which he gave and that he would not accept the amendment. I am wondering why Deputy Larkin has not concluded that the Minister was going back on his principles that he had expressed here and which we accept that he holds. I accept that and I wish the Minister to accept that from me. He has not given us details but I am sure he has sufficient details. All the Ministers who requested a certain line were probably advised in the matter by their officials and experts. The Minister has now accepted the suggested alteration as a result of the amendment introduced by Deputies on those benches and I say to him that I hope he will not regret it. I happen to know how detailed a consideration of all matters regarding Dublin Corporation is given by all members of that body. I do not say this from a carping point of view, but I would not be a bit surprised if Deputy Larkin's colleagues were the persons who could contribute to a hold-up as a result of wanting certain things done. Deputy Larkin nods his head as if he agrees with me.
It would still be quicker than a commissionership.
I do not know that it would be quicker, but it is not a question of a commissionership alone but three distinct Departments, two of them new ones, dealing with the matter of reorganisation——
Oh, no!
What did the Minister mean then by saying that he only wanted the postponement of the matter for a little time, unless the work would be completed by that time? Either that is the position or not. If not, I am satisfied with the present amendment of the Bill, but if the position is as the Minister stated when he was introducing the Bill then I am not satisfied.
Mr. Murphy
Again I have to express my gratification for the great concern that has been displayed in connection with this. It is very good to know that I have two such competent guides for my infant steps as a Minister as Deputy MacEntee and Deputy Briscoe, and I would like to acknowledge their efforts to prevent me straying from the straight and narrow path. I do not think that I should trouble the House again with the arguments which I put forward in connection with this matter, when the Committee Stage of the Bill was under discussion. It is a fact, as I stated, that I was impressed with the discussion that took place on the Second Reading of the Bill, and in order to give expression to the view which I held long before I held any responsibility such as I have now, that is, that as far as possible measures going through the House should express the views of the members of the House, I accepted that amendment and incorporated it in the Bill without any reservation whatever.
The fact is, of course—I do not want to make more than a passing reference to it—that it is not what is in this Bill but what was in another Bill that is troubling Deputy MacEntee. It was a Bill which he introduced and rushed through the House shortly before the dissolution and it would be out of order as well as being highly undesirable that there should be any further discussion of that measure, but the difference between this measure and its predecessor is the difference between two Ministers, one of whom has had no experience whatever of acting as a member of a local authority, and the other who has some experience, be it good or bad, over a number of years. It was amusing to hear the references to hasty and impulsive legislation. I would have thought that from Deputy MacEntee's experience of that kind of thing, he would have found it best not to mention it at all. A notable example was the Bill which he himself was responsible for that was completely demolished when its validity was tested. It was not the only example, and while I am glad to get good advice, I am not taking it from the reference to the precedent already set up with regard to bad, faulty and hasty legislation in the House.
I think that it is a good thing for this House to issue, as a result of its deliberations, measures that bear the hallmark of discussion in the House. I think that that is the most effective instrument for keeping in touch with the opinions of the people. The passing of measures by a machine majority is and always has been an objectionable procedure and I feel proud of the fact that I am the first Minister responsible for introducing a Bill that bears upon it the mark of consideration in the House.
I do not think that there is anything further that I need say in connection with the matter at the present time except that I am quite satisfied that this Bill will achieve to the fullest the purposes for which it was drafted and that none of the fears which have been expressed for my welfare in the future or of the Bill when it is in operation will, in fact, be realised.
Question put and agreed to.