If the Dublin Corporation has no politics except on a couple of days in the year, if any local authority is in the position of having no politics except on a couple of days in the year, is that not merely strengthening my case, that there is no necessity for national politics in local bodies and that you would do away with any confusion which may exist if we all co-operated in trying to see that national politics were kept outside of the local arena? I think that is sound.
I should like to refer at this stage to a matter which I think the Ceann Comhairle will be relieved to hear deals solely with administration, and that is a question which I raised, as Deputy Breathnach will remember, at a meeting of the Dublin Corporation. It is in connection with circular letter No. 81 of 1945 which was issued by the Department of Local Government to the employees of local authorities and which reads as follows:—
"A Chara,
I am directed by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to refer to the growing practice of officers of local authorities making representations through public representatives concerning their remuneration, duties and conditions of service. This practice is undesirable and a definite intimation should be given to each officer that he or she is forbidden to make application directly or indirectly on such matters through channels outside the local authority. It should be made clear that any representations made by an officer in contravention of such instruction is likely to have an effect far from helpful to the officer's interest, and may also render the officer liable to disciplinary action. An officer who is aggrieved by a decision of the local body can appeal to the Minister under Section 10 of the Local Government Act, 1941. The manner in which the appeal can be made is prescribed in Article 35 of the Local Government (Officers) Regulations, 1943."
That circular letter was sent to each officer of local authorities. It came before the Dublin Corporation some time last year and we had some discussion regarding it. Some of us felt that if the terms of the circular were carried into effect the constitutional rights of employees of the corporation were going to be interfered with. I should like to draw that circular to the attention of the Minister very specifically and I should like him to inquire into it and to consider whether or not he will have that circular withdrawn. I believed that any person, no matter who that person is, should have a right to approach the public representatives of his area, whether local representatives or Deputies; that any person in this State should have a right to approach those public representatives if he feels that he has a grievance which can only be dealt with properly by open discussion in this House or by Deputies making direct and emphatic representations to the Minister in his office.
I am perfectly well aware that, as is referred to in that circular, under the Local Government (Officers) Regulations, 1943, a prescribed method, a standard method, of making approaches to the Minister is laid down. The point I want to make and which I want to draw to the Minister's attention is that, no matter what other methods are laid down, every individual in this State should have a right to make representations to those whom he has elected to represent him, whether it be on the local body or in this House.
I raised that matter, as I said, at the Dublin Corporation and Deputy Byrne and myself were responsible for sending a resolution to the Department asking them to clarify the meaning of that particular circular. The Department replied to the resolution in these terms—I do not think it is necessary to read the whole of it; it was addressed to the city manager and was dated 27th December, 1947, and the reference is No. 10394/1947:—
"I am directed by the Minister for Local Government to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 3rd instant in regard to circular letter No. 81/1945 attached as Appendix K to this Department's circular letter G.115/47 of the 15th September last and to state that the Minister has noted the resolution of the city council in this regard, and to point out that officers and servants can themselves make representations directly to the manager and if aggrieved by the manager's decision they can under statutory authority appeal to the Minister. If an officer or servant belongs to an association or other body formed for promoting the interests of its members, he can, through such association or body, place his case before the manager or appeal to the Minister. These are the normal methods of dealing with disputed questions regarding remuneration, status or conditions of service. The circular letter of 6th July, 1945, was intended to bring to the attention of officers their power of appealing to the Minister in case they feel aggrieved and put an end to the practice of making representations through public representatives. As stated in the letter, the practice is undesirable and is now definitely forbidden."
I think it is quite clear from the terms of that letter that the Department never intended to make the case that anything in the regulations of 1943 or in the Act of 1941 deprived an individual of the right to make direct approach to public representatives. I think it is quite clear from the circular and that letter that the only thing which is depriving these people of their right to approach public representatives is the Order or direction made by the previous Minister in that regard. The letter says that such a practice is undesirable and is now definitely forbidden. The practice may be undesirable. That is a matter to which I assume the Minister will give careful consideration. It may be undesirable. Perhaps we should try to discourage it in any way we can. All of us, probably, have quite sufficient on hands from our own constituents and frequently from other Deputies' constituents, without inviting new tasks of this sort, but I believe that we should vindicate the right of these people to approach representatives in that way while, at the same time, discouraging them from doing so, if we can. I do not like, I quite definitely object to, the particular threat held out in the circular which I have quoted, which says:—
"It should be made clear that any representations made by an officer in contravention of such instruction is likely to have an effect far from helpful to the officer's interest."
I believe the use of a threatening big stick in that way is unjust and unfair. It may not be desirable that public representatives should make representations of this sort but it is grossly unfair to the individual and to the individual's case if, merely because those representations are made—and I believe there is a constitutional right to make them—a Minister or an official of his Department should say to the individual concerned: "Because that representation was made on your behalf I am going to see that you get nothing." That, in effect, is what that circular means. I would like to call that matter to the Minister's attention and to hear what he has to say about it in reply.
The next point I want to deal with is the question of delays in correspondence between local authorities and the Minister's Department. Any of us who has acted even for a short while on any local body has been from time to time infuriated by the delays which occur in correspondence between our authority and the Minister's Department. For no apparent reason, not infrequently, matters are left in abeyance for three, six or 12 months because, apparently, the Department had not the time to deal with them. If that is due to shortage of staff, I will go this far with Deputy MacEntee and say: "Spend more money in order to increase your staff" but cut out irritating delays which create bad blood and bad feeling between local authorities and the Department of Local Government.
I do not know whether or not I would be permitted to mention the next point I want to mention, which is in connection with the office of Lord Mayor of Dublin. There is a fairly widespread feeling that the Lord Mayor of the capital city should reside in the Mansion House. That has not been the practice recently and I believe the reason is that the term of office is too short. I want to make that passing reference to it and to inquire whether or not it might be possible to extend the term of office to ensure that the Lord Mayor will reside in the Mansion House for his term of office.
Another matter about which I have heard complaints is what occurred in Dublin at the last mayoral election, that is, the election of a Lord Mayor out of the hat. I think Deputy Cormac Breathnach, being on that occasion the man who remained in the hat, will agree with me.
