The section is before the House. I think we could take the four amendments together. They seem to be seeking the same object.
Local Elections Bill, 1953—Committee.
Section 1 put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Suppose we discuss the first two amendments as they deal with sub-section (1). We can then see whether anything else will arise.
Very well.
I move amendment No. 1, which stands in my name and those of Deputy Corish and Deputy Kyne:—
To delete sub-section (1), lines 23 and 24.
The object of the amendment is to ensure that local elections will be held this year, whatever we may do about holding local elections at longer intervals on future occasions. We stated our position in regard to this matter on the Second Reading of this Bill. We took the view then and still hold the view that local elections due to be held in 1953 should take place and that that ought not affect consideration of the proposal that future local elections should be held every five years. I do not know why the Minister adopts the attitude that because he wants elections to be held every five years in the future he must now postpone the elections which are due to be held this year for a further two years. I see nothing wrong with the idea of holding the 1953 elections which are due to take place this year and then approaching consideration of the problem of extending the period in respect of future elections. We are not unwilling to look favourably on the proposal to extend the period of the holding of local elections from three years to five years but the fact that we agree to that in regard to the future is no argument for not holding the local elections which are due to take place this year.
As I said on the Second Reading, I see no valid reason why we should not hold the local elections this year. Iam convinced that the reason for not holding them is that the Government's political chances are receding daily, notwithstanding the brave face which the Minister for Local Government puts on the gloomy situation.
I am good at it.
Notwithstanding the Minister's brave efforts to put a face on the Government's receding political future, I am convinced that that is the reason why the Government do not want to hold local elections this year. The Government does not want elections this year—either local elections or, judging by the way they are holding on to office, Dáil elections. It was quite an achievement to get them to move the writ for the Wicklow bye-election. The same hesitancy is displayed here in their desire to postpone the local elections. The Government knows what is coming to it in local or Dáil elections. However, the fact that the Government is not popular with the electorate is no reason for a postponement: it is an extra reason why the electorate should have an opportunity of expressing their views on the Government's handling of local and national affairs. We see no reason why the elections due to take place this year should not take place, and then the electorate would know that those elected would hold office for five years. No real case has been made for not holding them this year. This amendment is designed to ensure that the normal right of the electorate to elect local authorities this year will be recognised, by the holding of the elections at the time when they are due to take place.
When the Minister was replying the other day to the Second Reading debate, he suggested that most—he did not say all—of the objections came from people who are not members of local authorities. If he looks into the matter further, he will find that the greatest objection comes from those who are members. During the Second Reading debate my colleague in the county, Deputy Harris, was here in the House. I indicated to the Minister then that a substantial body of ratepayers' organisationsthere had made it quite clear through the columns of the local paper that they wished to have an election this year. They wished, as far as I could gather, to get rid of Deputy Harris and myself and, so that they could not be accused of being in any way political, they also wished to get rid of Deputy Norton's principal representative in the county council.
Quite an ambitious programme.
Perfectly understandable.
It is a programme which they are perfectly entitled to put forward. They are entitled to an opportunity to change the council in Kildare. I understand that the same position obtains in other counties. There can be no case at all for introducing this legislation just now—no case but a political one.
We had a long dissertation from Deputy Briscoe, who purported to quote remarks made to him by various people. It was a speech which appeared to me to be a breach of confidence from beginning to end, for no matter what one may say to anybody about repeating a private conversation it still remains, in my view, a breach of confidence to repeat it. All that discussion, however, was on the question of a five-year term or a three-year term. This amendment cuts the issue clearly away from that point. These amendments would defeat the purpose of the Bill. The first principle underlying the Bill is that there should be no election this year. That is the purpose about which the Minister and the Fianna Fáil Party are really concerned. Having achieved that, there is a second principle. They felt that the only way in which they could cloak the purpose here would be to introduce a five-year term as the excuse for getting out of the 1953 election.
Ratepayers' organisations throughout the country say they want an opportunity to put representatives on local authorities. Whether they are going to succeed in what has been describedas their "ambitious programme" or whether they are not is entirely irrelevant. They are entitled to the ordinary democratic right to choose candidates and put them forward so that the people may have an opportunity of saying whether or not they want to support the candidates in question or whether they believe that the existing council should be reelected. The people have the right to know that the candidates they elect will come before them again for endorsement or otherwise at the end of the time for which they were elected. It is nonsense for the Minister to say, as he did in his concluding speech on the Second Reading, that when the people elected those representatives in 1950 they knew they were electing them, not for three years but for a longer term. The people knew nothing of the sort. The law was quite clear then that it was for a three-year term they were going before the people.
There have been substantial changes in the three years since 1950, substantial changes in the manner of running local authorities, substantial changes in the ways in which local authorities receive their money I do not want, and I know I would not properly be allowed, to go into the question of health on this Bill, but it is an undoubted fact that any new health legislation that may be enacted this year will impose a very different type of responsibility on the members of the local authority. Surely it is right and proper that the people would be given an opportunity of expressing their opinion on that and of expressing their opinion on the type of expenditure that they wish their representatives on the local authority to incur. The Minister and I had some discussion a few minutes ago about expenditure that a local authority was being forced to incur. The people would be entitled to give a verdict on that also in a particular area if it affected the issue.
We were told yesterday at the meeting of the Kildare County Council of a new basis on which the agricultural grant is to be allowed to our county and, I presume, to all counties. We were informed by our officials that, as a result, £29,000 less will come inagricultural grants to the Kildare County Council this year. These things change the methods of working of a local authority and therefore it is right and proper that the people should be given an opportunity of expressing their views. That is what this amendment asks. It does not suggest that the five-year term should not be introduced after that.
There is another reason why it would be desirable to do this. Many members of local authorities are over-burdened, as they have to deal with many tasks at meetings of subsidiary committees. A much better method could very easily be found which would enable them to give more time to their local authority matters and by which they would need to spend less time on subsidiary matters. We know perfectly well that the whole purpose of this Bill, even though the Minister was honest enough to admit that he put a very good face on it, is to enable the Fianna Fáil Party to avoid having to go to the country. The Minister is a good hand at putting a good face on a bad case, but even so, when you analyse his reasons, they can be blown sky-high. Fianna Fáil want to avoid general elections and local elections and there is no use in anyone telling the country that there is any other reason for this Bill. That is the primary reason for it and that is the reason why, for example, Deputy O'Reilly from the country and Deputy Gallagher from the city intend to support it.
We heard a good deal from the opposite side about the fear of local elections. We have 45 members in the Dublin Corporation and in recent years there has been very little change in the state of the various Parties there. If there were a local election to-morrow or in a month's time, the same thing would happen and there would be no great satisfaction to the Fine Gael people or anybody else.
Try it, and we will accept the verdict.
If we were to bow to this propaganda by the Fine Gaelpeople and allow them to have local elections, it would cost the State approximately £80,000, and is it worth it to spend that sum of money merely to satisfy this Fine Gael whim? It is quite a considerable sum of money, and, as a member of Dublin Corporation, I can say that we could build quite a lot of houses with £80,000. That is an idea we should not lose sight of.
How much would you do with £460,000?
So far as Fine Gael and other people supporting them are concerned, this is simply a little propaganda stunt and it would be a very expensive idea to spend £80,000 on satisfying this propaganda of theirs. I know that there is no great demand, so far as Dublin is concerned, for local elections. The people do not want them. It is not my desire to disclose private conversations, but it is generally agreed amongst members of the Dublin Corporation that five years is the proper term of office and the majority of them so far as I know are quite satisfied that it should be a term of five years from now, but I suppose they are tied by the Party Whip and——
We are all agreed on that—five years after this election.
We all want that.
You are all very quick on the pick-up. Before a fellow falls at all, you are inclined to pick him up, but I am not in the least groggy in this regard. It is well known in the Dublin Corporation—and the Fine Gael group are satisfied—that there is no need for this great call for local elections. I had no intention of intervening in this debate and would not have done so, were it not for the fact that I was honoured by Deputy Sweetman saying that I propose to speak. My main point is that elections would cost the people approximately £80,000 and I do not think such an expenditure wise because it would achieve no great purpose. There were local elections in Great Britain andthere was a swing against the Government, but, in a parliamentary by-election, the Government won the seat with a big majority.
We know that your eyes have been in that direction for a long time.
Local elections give very little idea of what would happen in a general election.
On that basis you will win the local elections.
In the case of Dublin especially there are people who do very well in local elections but who generally lose their deposits in a general election, and that applies particularly to the Labour group.
What about people beaten two to one in a by-election?
I am satisfied that this is merely a piece of propaganda which would cost the people £80,000.
The Deputy has said that several times.
I do not think the Fine Gael people are really in earnest about it. It is an idea which has come from the script writers of Hume Street and which has been followed closely by the Labour people.
We did not speak to little white cards like your boys some time ago.
I was not here then so I cannot say what happened.
The Deputy was doing honour to the country on that occasion.
I feel that in Dublin there is no great call for local elections, especially among members of the corporation, but even outside them the people themselves do not want them because they know they cost a great deal of money and will not give any idea of what would happen in a general election. I do not think Deputies opposite should be so cocky,anyway, because if there were an election they might not do as well as they hope. If there were an election, whether local or general, to-morrow I should not be in the least afraid of going before the public on the record of my work in the corporation and elsewhere, and I can say the same for the other Fianna Fáil members of the corporation. It would certainly be a very expensive plan to bow to this Fine Gael propaganda stunt and spend £80,000 on local elections.
I want to say quite frankly that, whether the Dublin Corporation is for or against this Bill, I am against it. I do not care whether what has been alleged here is true or not. Even if it were true, that not merely were Fianna Fáil members of the corporation in favour of the Bill but that some or all of the Fine Gael members were in favour of it, it would not make it right. On the question of the cost of £80,000, I could see the Minister making as good a case for the extension of the life of this Parliament from five to seven years by the introduction of a Bill next week on the ground of the cost to the country of a general election. May I suggest to the Deputy that the voters outside, whether we are concerned with elections to local authorities or to the Dáil, might be of opinion that, even if it cost £80,000, they might save a sum far in excess of that by making a change?
Three years ago, the voters of this country gave a three years' lease to certain people who offered themselves for election to local authorities, whether the Dublin Corporation or any local authority in the country, and a major change such as is contemplated in this Bill should not be made until the people have had an opportunity of expressing their view on it. We are not arguing here, by the way, whether the term of office of a local authority should be five or three years. I think it is admitted, generally speaking, that the five-year period is the better period. What we are arguing here is that the period should not be extended or the contract amended until such time as the matter is put formally before the people.
All we say is—and I think it is reasonable—that the present contract should run to the end of its legitimate life, which is three years, that the contract which the members of the present local authorities entered into with the voters three years ago should not be amended by us or by the people who are members of local authorities and that the next election should be fought this year and should be fought with people being informed that it was intended for the future that the period should be a period of five years. I do not see anything objectionable in that and I do not see anything in it to which any reasonable person can object. There is nothing at all in what the Minister says that the people who have spoken against the Bill are, in the main, people who are not members of local authorities. There is nothing surprising in that—it would be surprising if it were any other way. I have not got a shadow of doubt that the majority of the members of local authorities throughout the country do not want to fight an election this year —they would prefer to get an extension of two years. There is nothing wrong in that.
It has happened before.
In so far as there was any question of it, the circumstances were entirely different from the circumstances of the moment, and the Deputy knows that. We know quite well that there is only one reason for it. If the Government Party thought they had the confidence of the people and could hold or improve their position in the local authorities, there would be no question at all of this Bill. The elections would be held this year. It is because the Government, rightly or wrongly—I believe, rightly— fear that not merely would they not improve their position but would not hold their present position that they want to have this Bill put through. There has been no demand whatever from outside for this Bill. None of the ordinary voters, none of the citizens outside, so far as I know, either individually or through their various organisations,has asked for this Bill. So far as we know, the only persons who are in favour of this Bill and who want it are the Government and certain members of local authorities.
I want to put it again to the House that the case which is made here for this Bill, such as it is, could be made with much greater force for an extension of the Dáil period of five years to seven years. That would be highly objectionable, very objectionable and, certainly, if it were to be done at all should not be done in the middle of a parliamentary life.
It seems to me that there is no case for this Bill. There is no case for postponing the elections to 1955. The Minister made no case for it. He did his best but it was, I think, impossible to make a convincing case in this House or outside it for the Bill.
I venture to suggest, again to Deputy Gallagher, that it is not a convincing argument to talk about the cost of it. If you were to go on that basis, then the fewer elections we held, either for the Dáil or local authorities, the better. It does not follow. Neither does it follow that because the elections would cost £80,000 the ratepayers, the voters, might not consider that that was £80,000 well spent to give them an opportunity of expressing their view and making whatever changes they thought were necessary to be made in the personnel of local authorities. It seems to me, Sir, that there is no case whatever for postponing the elections.
Notwithstanding any claims that speakers on the Government side may make that there is no feeling in the country in favour of holding elections this year, I claim, in company with many other Deputies, that there is considerable support in the country for their being held, because the voters feel that many matters have arisen in the course of the past few years which make it imperative that they should be held. In the view of those interested in everything that is done in the county councils and subsidiary bodies it is desirable, in view of many developments, that the elections should be held. Many of those elected to thepresent councils did not envisage the developments which have taken place and neither did the people who elected them. Since the last elections were held people have come into public life who desire to become even more active and to take their place in local authorities. If the present Bill is passed these people will be denied that right for another two years.
The Party at present in office were at one time very keen on giving the vote in respect of local elections to persons at 21 years of age. If there is an extension of the time now, some persons will be 26 years of age before they will have a chance of recording their vote at local elections.
One of the major problems which affect rural areas and many urban areas as well is the considerable reduction which has been effected in the grants under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. In that respect it is necessary that by their votes at these elections people would register their protest at such reductions. At present the local authorities are very concerned about the number of unemployed in their areas. In the Cork County Council, for instance, an allocation of £150,000——
We cannot discuss allocations under the Local Authorities (Works) Act on this measure.
The whittling down of these grants has had the result that these people desire to voice their opinions. No doubt, when the local elections would take place matters such as the Local Authorities (Works) Act would be in the forefront of the people's minds and it would be an issue. In face of the fact that in our county the grant has been considerably reduced—to £49,000 for 1952-53 and, this year, to 50 per cent. of that figure——
The Deputy is endeavouring to get it in by a side wind.
The people of that county and every other county affected desire to record their dissatisfaction, just as I am endeavouring todo it now. By a postponement of the elections they would be denied that opportunity.
As I stated on Second Reading, there may be agreement as to the extension of the three year period to a five year period but that should be done after the elections are held this year. As Deputy Morrissey and others have stated, the argument as to the cost does not enter into the picture. That argument could be related far more effectively to the life span of the Dáil. I want to emphasise that far from agreement being reached among the members of any corporation or council, urban or county, the opinion of the electors who, to my mind are the people whose opinion should be taken into account, is that they should be given their rights by being afforded an opportunity of going to the polls and electing their local councils this year and then, perhaps, agreement could be reached that the period should be lengthened in future. In adopting that attitude we on this side, with the Labour people, are adopting a very reasonable one.
As I see this Bill it is only reviving the proposals made in 1946 or 1947, which passed through this House and also through the Seanad but which were rendered void by amendments and were not followed up by the inter-Party Government that came into power subsequently. That is the history of the proposals. So that this Bill is merely to implement what had the sanction of the Dáil at that period.
Apart from that, there are various changes being made at the present time by the extension of borough boundaries in Dublin and in Cork and, I think, in Limerick which affect not only the borough areas but also the county areas and thus make it impossible, until certain adjustments are made, to make the representation of those boroughs and counties effective.
There has been a request made to the Minister both by the General Council of County Councils and by the municipal authorities to have the elections postponed. Even though, in certain local authorities, various points of view have been expressed as to thepropriety or otherwise of holding the elections at the moment, in the two local authorities with which I am concerned, the members of all Parties unanimously wiped from the Book of Estimates the money which would be required to have the elections conducted in the present year. They left only a token vote of £10 in each case, as would happen in a year in which no elections were anticipated. They were unanimous in that. It would mean that Supplementary Estimates would have to be passed if this Bill does not go through and elections have to be held.
The Minister for Finance will be glad to know that you saved some money for him to pinch.
The Minister for Finance looks after the affairs of this State in accordance with the policy of his Government. This is a question of local authority administration and I do not see much point in the Opposition's agreeing that it is the right thing to do but that this is the wrong time to do it.
Does the Minister intend to say anything?
Everybody has nearly said everything I wanted to say.
Are you accepting the amendment?
No.
Then tell us what your views are.
I will say something.
I take it that we are now in Committee?
I am not saying anything about that.
I am perfectly agreeable and you can talk as long as you like as far as I am concerned. I thought I made my own position clear on this proposal in winding up the Second Reading discussion. There are two questions involved. One is that the life of existing local bodies should beextended from three to five years and the other is that any future elections should take place at intervals of five years. These amendments which we are now discussing seek to provide that the elections should be held this year but that in future the lifetime of local bodies should be as I originally proposed. You can, of course, debate that matter backwards and forwards for hours. You can, of course, for any purpose which you wish to serve, make any allegations that you wish which are consistent with order.
I am not putting forward as my main plea the question of the cost. Neither am I putting forward a plea that it is contemplated to introduce other measures as, for example, Deputy Mulcahy when Minister for Local Government did. In 1931, when introducing a measure of the type I am now sponsoring, he gave the House an assurance that it was his intention to amend the whole system of local government. I take it he had in mind the extension of the managerial system.
As I indicated when concluding the debate on the Second Reading, if I liked I could have seized upon my intention to introduce certain other proposals in regard to local administration, the responsibilities of local councils, the responsibility of managers and so on. But I did not think that I should take that course because I believe, and I have not come to that conclusion only since I came into the Department of Local Government, that the lifetime of local bodies should be five years. I have always held that view.
I am here for the purpose of giving effect to what is provided for in this Bill; that is, to extend the life of existing local bodies from three to five years and to provide that elections will be held in future at intervals of five years. No amount of argument, no amount of special pleading for any purpose which Deputies may have in mind, will in the least shake me in that. You can say that £80,000 does not matter. You can say that it is not what the Dublin Corporation think or what the representatives of the municipal bodies think. You can say that these are people who, having been elected asmembers of local bodies, do not want the trouble of facing an election. You may say that the ratepayers' organisations would like to have elections take place.
I believe that I have as close contact with the minds of the people as any of my predecessors have. For example, when the elections which should have taken place in 1923 were postponed until 1925, who could not have said that it would have been all right to provide that a postponement should take place in the future but not in that year? I surely have as much information as to the public view on the holding of an election for a period of three years as my predecessor who decided that the election which should have taken place in 1926 should be postponed until 1928. In that year somebody could have put forward the point of view expressed here by some few Deputies whose contact with local bodies is very limited. Somebody could have spoken along the same lines in 1926 as Deputies on the opposite side spoke this evening and when we were discussing the Second Reading of the Bill. In 1931, Deputy Mulcahy introduced a measure proposing to extend the life of existing councils and the very same argument could have been advanced then as has been advanced here. The same attempt could have been made to give the impression that the Fine Gael Party were mighty brave, that they were mad to face the electors. You might get enough of elections if you are that fond of them. You never know.
It looks like it.
There is no use in my making charges against somebody else and somebody else making charges against me, because we will not prove anything that way. My reply to the charge of cowardice levelled against me is that I have always believed that the period of three years is an unreasonable period. I have made it clear that for the last 31 or 32 years ten Bills on the same lines as this one, with the exception that I am proposing to extend in future the life of councils for a period of five years, were introduced by different Ministersand by different Governments. Of course you can always say for the purpose of argument: "I agree with the principle of five years, but why not let us have the elections this year?" I can only say to those who give the matter a tilt in that way: "Tilt away at it to your heart's content."
Local bodies are doing their best to discharge their responsibilities. Local bodies are as satisfactory as they have ever been. My contacts with them since I came into office are closer than they ever were before. They are composed of men who are genuinely trying to serve their people and to get along with the work for which local bodies are responsible. It is entirely unreasonable to suggest, even from the point of view of the ratepayers, or from the point of view of other sections of the community, that the mass of the people take a pride or a delight in continually having electoral battles of one kind or another. I think their judgment is entirely at fault. I thought one of the principal charges that used to be levelled against this Government—as a matter of fact it was used against us in 1951 at the time of the formation of the Government—was that this Party was one that would plunge the country into an election at the first opportunity. During the 16 years of our existence prior to 1948, that was one of the charges made against us, and that was the line of propaganda; and it was the line of propaganda that was used in this House in 1951 in order to frighten and to intimidate certain Deputies here who were thinking of supporting us. Now the charge is that we are a Party that does not want to face the electorate, that we are afraid to face the electorate, that we want to save ourselves and our positions, and so on. As far as I am concerned you are entirely welcome to all that.
Not even 40 per cent. of the electorate come to these elections.
You are entirely welcome to throw that argument around either in this House or outside it. However, again I feel I am capable of interpretingthe public mind at least as well as any other Deputy in this House, that my sources of information are as wide as those of any other Deputy and, I would say, wider than those of a great many. It is reasonable, if you like, for Deputies who are not members of local bodies to say: "Of course, members of councils do not want elections. They do not want the trouble of them". Who would blame them after a period of three years? They are not entitled to complete security but who will say— even taking men who are standing on political tickets or others who are induced to come forward to offer their services to the people and go through the turmoil of an election—that they should be forced out just when, as some Deputies have said, and rightly said, many of them are coming to know what local administration is like.
I do not want to indulge in any special pleading. I agree the cost is an important thing and it is something that should not be neglected in weighing the pros and cons. I also agree that members are entitled, within reason, to express an opinion upon the way in which local public men discharge their responsibilities, and so on. Nevertheless I do say that arguments in favour of holding the elections now are surely no stronger than they were on any of the ten previous occasions when ten other Ministers introduced proposals such as I am introducing here and proposals that were equally desirable and defensible.
There is no matter on which my mind could be so clear as it is on the wisdom of this proposal here. Of course, there is nothing new you can say on it. You can turn and twist it; you can attribute motives to me and to the Government. You can do all those things but you cannot change the fundamental fact that this is a sensible proposition that was made with the general approval of the people and it is because I have these beliefs and convictions I am standing firm on this matter.
We have been treated to an extraordinary series of statements by the Minister. He tells us because his view has been of a certainnature for so many years that that must be right of necessity. Secondly, he tells us that because ten other Ministers extended the lives of local authorities it must be right now. I know thoroughly well, no matter how valid the reasons were for postponing the previous elections, there were arguments used that had great weight with the people who were then occupying the Government Benches no matter who they were. But when the Minister blandly tells us that no matter what the argument is and no matter what case may be made from benches other than those of the Government, he will not accept or will not even consider them, that brings us to the position where Parliament is no longer a deliberative assembly and we must bow to the wishes and the whims of the Government of the day.
It was argued that there was no demand for the Bill but there is a positive demand for elections all over the country and I would be failing in my duty if I did not express in the House the views of my constituents. They are people who insist that because of the rising costs of local administration and what they argue is the failure to check expenditure, the local authorities should be changed now, or at least that they should get the opportunity of doing so. When that challenge is made I do not think this Dáil has the right to refuse that demand and we are running counter to all democratic principles when we refuse to allow them to decide upon questions that they think should be decided.
As Deputy Morrissey said and correctly said, and as I said myself on the Second Reading, whether the Dublin Corporation does or does not want it, or whether the Cork Corporation does or does not want it, does not arise. They are not the whole country. There are other parts of the country just as important as the swollen cities of Cork, Dublin or elsewhere.
Cork Corporation voted for it by a majority of two, which included Fianna Fáil.
To postpone the elections?
No. To have them, but they wiped out the money which would enable them to take place.
That is very important,; so that Cork wants the local elections? Why, then, deny them that?
They voted to show their point of view.
Deputy Gallagher said Cork did not want the elections. He said he knew the majority of all Parties in Cork did not want them, as well as those in Dublin and elsewhere. He said the majority of the Dublin corporators—45 of them——
I did not mention Cork.
I wonder do the people of Cork vote against their conscience as Deputy MacCarthy admitted he did in Dáil Éireann?
On a point of explanation——
I am not giving way to the Deputy.
On a point of explanation——
Deputy MacEoin has not given way so I cannot hear the Deputy.
On a point of personal explanation. An accusation has been made against me——
I shall hear the Deputy on a point of personal explanation.
The Deputy said that I said I voted against my conscience. I have never voted against my conscience and I never said it and never did it. I said against my personal convictions.
Could we get a definition of "conviction" and "conscience"?
Not from the Chair.
Deputy MacCarthy spoke for Cork this evening and said that the people of Cork did not want an election.
I did not.
And that not only did they not want it, but that they had cut out the money from the Estimate that was intended to be utilised for the election. That is all beside the point. It has nothing to do with the matter under discussion. It is quite clear that a large number of people who are ratepayers regard it as essential that the local elections should be held this year.
Deputy Sweetman challenged Deputy Harris here that in the case of Kildare there are people, young farmers, who think that elections should be held and that we should not suppress them. The plea was made that in 1923, the local elections were postponed and one would think from the glib way in which that statement was made that we had complete normality then.
There was a parliamentary election then.
There was not complete normality to hold an election then.
There was a parliamentary election then.
The local elections were postponed, but there was a parliamentary election and people got an opportunity of expressing their views.
Could you not have had local elections then?
There was not normality then, so that there was a valid reason for postponing the local elections but, whether there was or was not, the people got an opportunity of expressing their views in 1923. Deputy MacCarthy tells us that the reason the local elections are of no importance is that not 40 per cent. of the electors exercise the franchise in local elections. I am astounded to learn that any local election was ever decided on a 40 per cent. poll. I do notthink that is correct because I know that in local elections all over the country, votes registered at the booths were as high as 90 per cent. of the electorate. If only 40 per cent. turned out to vote, there must have been some others who turned up at the booths to vote for absent electors. A much higher percentage of votes actually went into the ballot box. I am strongly of opinion that the elections should be held this year when the ratepayers would know the period for which they were electing their representatives. They voted on the last occasion knowing that their representatives would hold office for three years and, if the elections are held this year, they will be voting in the knowledge that in future their representatives will hold office for five years.
I do not think that the Minister or the Government would be reversing their policy in any way by saying: "Very well, as it appears that there is not a unanimous view in the House in regard to the extension of the life of local authorities and having heard that all the Opposition Parties object to the postponement of these elections, we bow to their wishes, but for the future, after the coming elections, we shall have a five-year period." The people will then know that the representatives they elect at the forthcoming elections will hold office for a five-year period.
Would that not be a reasonable line to adopt? Why make a Party issue of it? Why make the question whether local government elections should be held this year or not a matter of confidence in the Government? I think the Government would be doing a very good day's work by simply saying to the Opposition: "Very well, when you do not agree to the postponement of the elections on this occasion we shall give way to you now, but after these elections, the new local authorities will have a life of five years." I think that would be a reasonable view and it would be a gesture on the part of the Government to show that Parliament serves some useful purpose, and that when arguments are adduced and reasons put forward as to why acertain course should be taken, the Government is mindful of the views of the elected representatives in this House, no matter on what side they sit. The Government, by their attitude so far, apparently take the view that they, and they only, know what is right and that in no circumstances will they consider any proposition made by Labour, Fine Gael, Independents or anybody else in the House. They take the view, apparently, that they are the sole repositories of the wisdom of the nation. I never heard such piffle in all my life. It is sheer nonsense, and anybody who acts like that or gives the impression that he holds that view is not serving the country well. I would, therefore, appeal even yet to the Minister, notwithstanding the fact that he may be convinced that a five-year period is the correct period, not to proceed with the proposal to postpone the elections but to allow the elections to be held this year and to provide that for the future members of local authorities shall hold office for five years. In doing that, he will have done a good day's work for the country.
The Minister's argument in connection with the man who had been induced to stand for election for a period of office of three years and who would be compelled to retire just after he had acquired a good knowledge of local government on the completion of that term of office, could easily be turned the other way. It could also be pointed out that the various political Parties had induced persons to stand for election by representing that they would hold office only for three years. I think that if there is anything in the argument, the person with the grievance as a result of the introduction of this Bill, is the person who was induced to stand on the representation that he would be obliged to hold office for three years only and who now finds his period of office prolonged for a further three years, perhaps against his will, if he does not want to let down the political group or the ratepayers' organisation he represents.
Could he not resign?
He could but there would still be a vacancy.
It could be filled by co-option.
Co-options are not always carried out in the friendly spirit that the Deputy suggests. If it happens in Waterford, for instance, the major political Party will scoop up the vacancy for themselves. It did not happen in Limerick either, when the last Minister for Local Government had to resign. The argument for a five-year period of office is sound. A good many people have been thinking of a longer term of office, but I think the amendment pretty well meets the view of the Minister. He can provide that after this election the period of office shall be five years. I do not see any objection to that course.
Deputy MacEoin rightly made the point that all the Opposition Parties have agreed to the principle of the measure and they only required that change to be made. It is not too much to ask the Government to yield to the Opposition in that point. There is very little use in having an Opposition unless, having expressed our views, we get some reasonable attempt from the Minister to co-operate with us. The point was made by the Minister, and I agree there is something in it, that the elections were postponed on previous occasions. I do not remember 1923 too well but I do know that things were not so happy for the holding of elections.
There were soldiers with fixed bayonets around every polling station.
What about 1948?
They should not have been postponed in 1948
Why did you not make the argument then? It would have been more appropriate.
I make the same argument now as I made then. During the war years there was not much point in holding such elections because of transport difficulties for one thing. Isee no reason why we cannot decide to accept a term of five years. If a subsequent Government wants to change the term it will have to do so openly and blatantly, and quite clearly for political purposes. There is no doubt that our local elections are an asset. We have here a system of free election. There are other countries to-day that would give anything to have a similar system. Any Government who deprives the people of an opportunity of expressing their opinion by a free vote is acting in an undemocratic manner and leaving themselves open to the charge that has been made from this side. If the Government wants to repudiate that charge the remedy is simple: hold the local elections this year and in the future have the elections every five years.
The Minister has adopted a very extraordinary attitude in relation to this measure, and he emphasised that attitude, rather than anything else, this afternoon. He holds that the electorate should be saved having elections, that it is tired of the electoral ballot and that it wants elections stopped. From a democratic point of view, I think that is a very peculiar approach. On what foundation did we establish our parliamentary and representative institutions here? What was the struggle that our people made for so long and so successfully in our own generation aimed at achieving? For what reason did we arrange our local government machinery the better to fit the particular needs of our own people? Are we to wake up now to the suggestion, after all these years of local government administration, that the people do not want this electoral ballot, that they want to be rid of it? It is said that they do not want the expense. It is said that they do not want the upset. Quite a number of very peculiar points have been brought forward in a rather finicky way perhaps. The Minister has swept them all aside. The Minister has made up his own mind. Like the Minister for Lands on some election platforms recently, he represents Party discipline; the ministerial mind has been made up and everything else must suitably and effectively flow from that.
Is it a bad thing to be able to make up your mind?
It is a very bad thing to be able to make up your mind in such fashion that you walk into an Irish Parliament and, against the opinions of every Party in the House and every Independent Deputy not bound to the Fianna Fáil chariot, proclaim that you will stand for your mind as against the mind of every other Party outside your own in this House. I think that is bad. The Minister's proposal to prevent local elections taking place this year has been opposed by every Party with the exception of those Independents concerned with the fate of the Government and with the possible aspersions cast upon their own representative character. I assert that these four Independents supporting the Government would, if they went forward in a local election, be deprived of any claim to represent the people.
Deputy Gallagher claims that the Government wants to save the ratepayers £80,000. He says houses could be built with that money. Deputy Morrissey very properly remarked that it might be well worth the ratepayers' while to pay that £80,000 in order the more securely and effectively to take the hand of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Local Government out of their pockets.
But it would be another £80,000 in two years time, or possibly another £100,000. That is my point.
The Opposition has very generously offered to accept the proposal that local elections should take place only every five years. I think the Opposition may well be overgenerous in its acceptance of that proposal. I would like to have the position examined further. I would like to have the Minister's proposals in relation to changes in the machinery of administration of local bodies put before the House before we are asked to consider that proposal. However, I am not at the moment making that point. I am dealing with the urgent and immediate point that the Ministerand his Party are steam-rolling their opinion over that of every other Party here in order to prevent local elections taking place this year.
On the point that this £80,000 could be spent on housing, if one can build x houses for £80,000, how many houses can one build with £450,000? Deputy Gallagher suggests that the ratepayers will be asked to pay, if our proposal is carried, £80,000 for a Fine Gael whim.
It would be a good price to pay for it.
I do not object to our opposition being described as a whim, but I do not want to grab all the credit for the Fine Gael Party, credit to which every other Party—with the exception of the Fianna Fáil Party—is entitled. If the Government and its supporters wish to describe as a mere whim our support of orderly, rhythmic movement in the election of our local authorities, they are at liberty to do so. We could find a better word for it, but we will leave them their whim. If it is a Fine Gael whim to spend £80,000 on local elections, what was the expenditure of £460,000 on Constellation aircraft to run a trans-Atlantic airline? Is that a whim? From where did that idea come? If the Government describes this as a whim, certainly it could all the more easily describe the expenditure of £460,000 by the Minister for Industry and Commerce as a mere whim.
The point has been made that changes are taking place in borough boundaries. My recollection is that a simple arrangement was made under the Dublin Managerial Act whereby, without any dislocation or disturbance of any kind, the boundaries could be changed gradually as occasion required. I do not think the machinery provided there would necessitate the holding-up of local elections in Dublin City or County. I am sure the same is true of Cork or any other area where an urban and a rural authority is involved in the changing of boundaries.
I think it was Deputy MacCarthy who made the point that this is getting back to 1946-47. That suggestion is a rather interesting one. In 1946-47 we had the Government of the day planningvery systematically to take more and more money out of the people's pockets and to keep the people more and more in subjection. You had your wages' squeeze Order to keep the workers in their place. You had the increased taxation on beer and spirits the purpose of which was to provide the Government with further additional moneys to carry on their Government operations. This is a measure to prevent the people electing their local bodies now in the atmosphere in which we find ourselves. The people suffered under the blow of 1947. They have also received the blow of the last Budget and are continuing to receive it now. In addition, they are receiving the kind of blows being prepared for them in some of the new Government legislation, including the Health Bill.
Does anybody think that the Government would to-day reduce the amount of money available for the agricultural grant if they did not feel they had a sufficient majority in this House to stop the electors electing new local authorities? Does anybody think that we would have the Minister for Industry and Commerce, with the Minister for Local Government apparently acquiescing, pinching from local authorities a certain amount of money for the Treasury because of the allegation that manufacturers in this country were not able to make waterproof clothing or to manufacture them to meet the standard of the Minister for Local Government or of the county managers?
The Deputy seems to be widening the debate on amendment No. 1.
I am saying, Sir, that the Minister would not be imposing these additional financial charges on the people if he had not it fairly well in his mind that his majority in this House was going to defeat the amendment. I am saying that the reason he is preventing local elections this year is that he wants to prevent the people, who understand the tendency of the Minister's policy to shove additional financial burdens over on to their shoulders and who can see whatis in the wind, from electing councils that will be strengthened to oppose policies of that particular kind.
Everything that is happening to-day on the ministerial side shows that the Minister is using every possible endeavour and plan to push over on to local authorities financial burdens and take them off the shoulders of the State. So much for the general idea. I repeat the remarks I made on Second Reading in connection with this Bill, that the real purpose of this Bill is to prevent being exposed as non-representative people four of the Independents who are holding the Government in power and who make up four of the five that the Government can muster in their critical divisions.
The proposal in this measure is just an attack on democracy—and a disgraceful attack, too. It is being pressed by the Government against the opinion of every single Party in this House and every Deputy who is really independent.
As far as I understand the matter, I think the Labour Party is agreed on a five-year period at any rate, but I am not so sure about Fine Gael.
We are prepared to give it to you.
Fine Gael knows a good thing and it fell in with the Labour Party when Labour gave the lead. That is my impression of the position. I am not a member of a local body. I am a co-opted member of a committee of agriculture and I have not heard very much from the members of that body as to what period is the more suitable. I am in contact with county councillors and I have not heard very much from them as to what period is the more suitable to them.
I must say that I have heard a lot from the people, and one of the things that I have heard from the people is that they do not want an election under any conditions. They want to keep away from elections. That is the attitude of the public. I thought it was better to inquire the reason why. The majority of the people were so well burned and scorched for aboutthree years that their wounds have not yet healed. They are hopeful that this present Government will remain in office for the legal term and that that will possibly give them time to heal the wounds that have been inflicted on them.
That is the attitude of the public and it is no use trying to bluff them. The public do not want the disturbance or the expense of a local election. They believe that a three-year period is too short. It is even impossible for members of committees of agriculture to develop any lines of policy they may like to pursue in three years. It takes at least some five years for that purpose. The main wish of the people in general is that they want to keep away from elections—especially general elections. The sooner that is realised by everybody the better. They do not want to chance their arm again. They chanced it before.
There would be no chance about a general election now.
They blamed the Leader of this Party for that misfortune by the simple statements that Mr. de Valera was, perhaps, a little bit too delicate in declaring a general election and going to the country.
You will not chance them any more.
The people will not be caught out again.
The Minister for Local Government blames the Taoiseach for that.
I was glad to see Labour taking the lead by suggesting that the five year period was the proper time.
We always take the lead if given a chance.
But the Labour Party did not agree as to when the measure should be introduced. Fine Gael followed the lead given by Labour.
Last week it was very amusing because Deputy McGilligan came in here and went to great trouble to point out that if the Government were beaten on the Financial Resolution in regard to the civil servants it would mean a general election. He laid great stress on that.
What has that got to do with the amendment?
He frightened the Opposition so much that only 56 of them came in here for fear there would be a general election.
That is a great contribution.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted, stand."
The Committee divid ed: Tá, 60; Níl, 48.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Seán,
- Breen, Dan.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carter, Frank.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Colley, Harry.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lynch, Jack (Cork Borough).
- McCann, John.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- Maher, Peadar.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Collins, James J.
- Cowan, Peadar.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Michael J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- de Valera, Eamon.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Fanning, John.
- fffench-O'Carroll, Michael.
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Gallagher, Colm.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kenneally, William.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Thomas
Níl
- Beirne, John.
- Belton, John.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Thomas N.J.
- Carew, John.
- Cawley, Patrick.
- Collins, Seán.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan.
- Costello, John A.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Anthony C.
- Everett, James.
- Finan, John.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hession, James M.
- Hickey, James.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Lynch, John (North Kerry).
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Mannion, John.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Murphy, William.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Hara, Thomas.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.)
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan Denis.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Reidy James.
- Rooney, Eamon.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tully, John.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Killilea; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Mac Fheórais.
Question declared carried.
I take it that the decision on amendment No. 1 governs amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
Agreed.
Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 not moved.
I move amendment No. 5:—
To add to the section a new sub-section as follows:—
Where any act, matter or thing which was done or omitted by any local authority or by any member or officer thereof (including a returning officer) before the passing of this Act would have been lawfully done or omitted if this section had then been in operation, such act, matter or thing shall be deemed to have been lawfully done or omitted.
Until this Bill becomes law the position is that 1953 is a local election year and local authorities and their officers are required to take action in preparations for an election. County councils and county borough councils are required to fix dates for the election and county secretaries and town clerks, in their capacity as Returning Officers, are required to publish notice of election between the 2nd and 12th June, depending on the date fixed for the election.
Because of the introduction of this Bill, such preparations for a local election are not, generally speaking, being made. This amendment is to protect the local authorities and the officers concerned.
Was it not lucky you did not take the Committee Stage last week?
Will the Minister explain what is "any act, matter or or thing" that is not an act, matter or thing?
To tell the truth, I did not look too closely at it. If the amendment, taking it as a whole, aims at achieving what I have explained to the House, should we not be satisfied with it?
You have the rubber stamp.
Are we to take it that what the Minister now purports is to flout the law as it stands at the moment?
No.
Under the law as it stands at the moment, the officers of the local authorities are legally bound to take the steps set out.
I am trying to protect them if they did not do it.
I suggest to the Minister that they have no option but to do it because that is the law and it will be the law between the operative dates mentioned here by the Minister. This Bill will not become law between those dates and, until such time as the Bill becomes law, there is a legal obligation on the appropriate officers of the local authorities to take the steps, as if the local elections were about to take place. What the Minister is now, in effect, telling the county managers or county secretaries or the responsible local officers concerned is: You can ignore the law; you can flout the law; you can pretend that it is not there. That, in effect, is what the Minister is doing.
I am seeking to protect them, in a legal sense, where they have not taken steps to give effect to the law as it now stands, and will stand, until this Bill becomes an Act.
I am trying to make the point that they have no option and that, if they do not act in accordance with the law as it stands at the moment, the Minister himself is boundto take action against them for not carrying out their legal obligations.
It is quite understandable that, under the law as it stands, local bodies and their officials are bound to act upon it in the legal sense. However, last February, in reply to parliamentary questions in this House, I gave public notice of my intention to introduce these proposals postponing the election of local bodies and some local bodies may have neglected or ignored the existence of the law as it stood. As a matter of fact, on a number of previous occasions a similar provision was inserted in a measure of this nature so as to protect local bodies and their officials who did not take steps, as provided in the law as it stood.
I want to make this point. No responsible officer of a local authority has power to ignore the law as it stands. No officer of a local authority has power to fail to discharge his legal obligations. No officer of a local authority nor, indeed, for that matter the Minister himself has the right to assume that this Bill will, in fact, become law. It may not.
That is my point. That is why——
If this Bill does not become law and if they do not carry out their statutory obligations, where are we then? I am making the point that, until such time as this Bill becomes the law of the land, the existing law must be operated and must stand.
The Minister is taking the line that he is assuming, and wants every responsible officer of the local authority to assume, that this Bill will become law and that they will be protected under this Bill for failing to carry out their lawful obligations under the law as it stands at the moment.
Some of them have assumed it.
They have no right to assume it. The Minister himself, as Minister for Local Government, has a big responsibility in this matter. If a county manager or the secretary ofa county council or a city manager refuses in any other respect to discharge his legal obligations then there is an obligation on the Minister for Local Government to bring him to task and to take whatever measures are necessary to see that he is punished. I want to make clear the point that the law, as it exists, is and will continue to be the law until this Bill becomes law, if it does become law.
As I understand it, this is an amendment which says to the official of the local authorities: Whatever you did lawfully, that is O.K. Whatever you failed to do that is O.K., as well, so long as it is all done in pursuance of this Bill.
Is it possible for a local authority to meet next week and decide that it will hold local elections in June or July of this year and is it possible for this section to give legal effect to the lawful character of that act, so far as the official of the local authority is concerned? Does that permit the local authority, in declaring a local election, to have a local election?
No.
Why not?
I have tried to make the position clear. This amendment is designed to rectify the position if an official of a local body failed to give effect to the law as it now stands, and as it will stand until such time as this Bill is enacted. A condition such as this was inserted in a previous measure. There is nothing more to it.
There is much more to it. This proposal is a directive to the responsible officers of local authorities to ignore the law as it stands. The Minister is intimating to them that he wishes them to refuse to carry out their obligations under the law. He is asking them to assume that the present Bill will become law. The Minister does not know whether it will or not. I can think of a number of ways in which it could fail to become law. It may not pass through this House; the Seanad might hold it up; I suppose even the President could refuse tosign it; or we might even have a general election beforehand, and where would it be then?
Where would they be then?
Where would the officers be? With respect to the Minister—I am depending entirely on my recollection, while he has information at his disposal—I do not think there is any precedent for this. It is something to put a section into a Bill to cover people who unintentionally and not deliberately evaded their legal obligations; but the Minister is giving not merely exoneration but a directive that they are to refuse to carry out their present legal obligations and he is telling them that if they agree with his direction he will cover them against any action that might be taken against them.
On past occasions when local government elections were postponed, is it not true that the county secretary or county manager ignored these same regulations?
That is a completely different point. When did he ignore them? When was the measure passed that gave him the protection?
The writs were not moved for the local elections in the years in which they were postponed.
That is a completely different matter.
There must be some meaning in this. Somebody must think it means something, but one person does not know what it means and that person is the Minister. It is bringing parliamentary government down to the level of a burlesque if the Minister can come in and read a brief to explain an amendment and then say that beyond that he did not take much notice of it and only read the brief someone put into his hand. It purports to describe this, but when we ask the Minister a few more questions he does not seem to know any more about it. I do not blame him for, as a laymantrying to interpret this section, it seems Greek to me. However, we ought not put it into the Bill unless someone can make a further effort to explain it. I can see some reason on the side where this underwrites anyone who omitted to do something, but where he lawfully does a thing I want to know what that is committing us to do? If a person lawfully does a thing to-day under the existing law, and if that lawfulness carries him to the stage of lawfully arranging for local elections this year, is that law so far as the holding of local elections is concerned? This amendment seems to say that it is lawful if he arranges that. I can understand that if he did not arrange it, if he omitted to do it, he would be protected, but apparently if he did take any steps to hold the elections, that is lawful also. Someone must throw some light on this.
The present law provides that this is an election year but, as this discussion has revealed, local bodies, on the strength of replies to parliamentary questions, have assumed that the local elections will not be held and have made no provision for the expenditure on them. What we are discussing here is a proposal for legislation. This is not the law of the land yet. The law requires that local bodies and their officials should do certain things. However, if they should act otherwise because of the declared intention to amend the law, this amendment will protect them. If, on the strength of the assurance by the Minister that the law will be amended, they do not act according to the present law, they will be protected under this amendment. That is the only explanation I can give, and I think it is a perfectly understandable one.
That is only one side of it.
Under the existing law the responsible officers are charged with doing certain things between to-day and the 12th of this month. Now, nothing that we are doing here at the moment exonerates them or relieves them of that responsibility. The merefact that a Bill is introduced and reaches the Committee Stage does not necessarily mean it will become law. We have numerous examples of Bills reaching the Second Stage or part of the Committee Stage and never completing the Committee Stage, or of reaching even the Fourth Stage and never being heard of again, because something happened in the meantime.
Deputy Norton's Social Welfare Bill.
You took part yourself in blocking it.
If this Bill becomes law, Deputy McGrath will have another chance of running. The point I am making is a serious one. We are proposing now lightly to set aside the existing law, we are purporting to do what I honestly believe we have no power to do—to give a direction to the responsible officers of local authorities that they are not to make the arrangements for local elections, on the assumption that this Bill will become law. I do not think any local officer has any right or authority to take that direction from the Minister or from any other Minister that might be sitting in his place.
I am not giving it to him.
In effect, the Minister is. The Minister himself has told us that the officers know that this Bill has been introduced, that they got information in answers to parliamentary questions and that they are not going to take the necessary steps. Of course, the Minister is giving them a direction. He is not issuing a mandamus, but it is the same thing.
I take it that what Deputy Norton is trying to get at is about the double safeguard, that if anybody does take the necessary steps in accordance with the existing law and if this Bill does not become law then they will be protected also.
Can they carry that to the extent of holding a local election this year? What ever they do towards that end is made lawful by this.
Speaking as a layman, I would say that there is nothing to prevent them from holding an election. I think that any county council which wants to do it can do it, as the law stands at the moment.
I am trying to find outwhether this amendment will legalise the holding of an election.
It is wide enough to legalise anything done illegally.
You are not so innocent as you would have us think.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 60; Níl, 43.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Dan.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carter, Frank.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Colley, Harry.
- Collins, James J.
- Cowan, Peadar.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Michael J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- de Valera, Eamon.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Fanning, John.
- ffrench-O'Carroll, Michael.
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Gallagher, Colm.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lynch, Jack (Cork Borough).
- McCann, John.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- Maher, Peadar.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Thomas.
Níl
- Beirne, John.
- Belton, John.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Thomas, N.J.
- Carew, John.
- Cawley, Patrick.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Costello, Declan.
- Costello, John A.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Anthony C.
- Everett, James.
- Finan, John.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hession, James M.
- Hickey, James.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Lynch, John (North Kerry).
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Mannion, John.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Murphy, William.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Hara, Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Denis.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Reidy, James.
- Rooney, Eamon.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tully, John.
Tellers :—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Killilea; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Brendán Mac Fheórais.
Question declared carried
Question proposed: "That Section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Could the Minister give us a little enlightenment as to exactly what is intended by sub-section (4)? What is the type of Order that is referred to? That is what I do not quite understand.
Part IV of the Local Government Act, 1941, enables the Minister to order a new election in the case of a local authority whose members have been removed from office.
I understand that, but how can there be an Order made between now and the passing of this Bill? That is what I do not understand.
There is an Order made in Buncrana, for example.
That has been made already.
Surely another Order of the same kind could be made now, if necessary.
Is this to provide that the Minister can, if he wishes, dissolve a local authority under this Bill where he could not dissolve it under the existing law?
No, but I can order an election.
I thought it was the dissolution of a local authority that the Minister could do by Order.
No. I am told it is consequential on dissolution.
Does this mean now that elections can be proceeded with in Buncrana? Will this Order enable an election to be carried out in Buncrana, where they have been dissolved or abolished?
This, as far as I understand, is consequential on the dissolution of a council and enables the Minister to deal with that situation if a new election is desired.
Does it not affect any case except a case where there has already been a dissolution at the date of the passing of this Bill?
That is right or if an Order was made between now and the passing of this Bill.
If an Order for dissolution was made up to the date of the passing of this Bill, already since 1950 and between 1950 and the passing of this Bill—is that all it affects?
That is all. It goes on then, of course, until 1955.
Is the Minister quite sure that that is all?
That is what I am told.
What happens then as regards the Minister's power between 1953 and 1955, after the date of the passing of this Bill? The Minister has the power under Part IV of the Local Government Act, 1941, to dissolve a local authority. Am I to take it, therefore, that this section and sub-section (4) thereof, which we are discussing particularly, only affect local bodies dissolved before the passing of this Bill? What happens supposing the Minister dissolves a local body immediately after the passing of this Bill? Where is his power to deal with that situation? Where is his power to dissolve? Where is his power to resurrect? I think as a matter of fact it is in this section, and that the advice the Minister has given to the House is wrong.
I am told that Section 6 covers the point made by the Deputy.
Section 6 only covers the election; it does not cover the removal.
My brief says to the contrary.
I am reading it. That is all. Sub-section (2). Perhaps the Minister would like to look into it between now and the Report Stage.
That, I hope, gives me very little time.
After what the Minister has done already, time does not matter. He will not have it finished before the 12th June.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 3 to 5, inclusive, put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill."
Perhaps the Minister would let us know where is the removal power in Section 6. I can see that the power to direct an election is contained in Section 2.
What is the point the Deputy wishes me to try to explain?
When we were discussing sub-section (4) of Section 2, the Minister stated that that sub-section gave him between now and the passing of this Bill the appropriate power to remove from office a local authority, that it gave him, in addition, the appropriate power to declare an election in respect of a local authority previously removed. These are the two things the Minister said it gave him power to do. I asked the Minister then where was the power by virtue of which he had the right to declare an election in respect of a body removed before the passing of this Bill and where was the power in respect of which he had the right to remove a local body from office subsequent to the passing of this Bill. The Minister told me that both these powers were contained in Section 6. I can understand sub-section (2) of Section 6 meaning that the Minister has power to declare an election in respect of a body removed from office. From the wording of sub-section (2) that seems so. But I cannot see where Section 6 contains the other power which the Minister stated he did have, or which I understood him to state he had anyhow.
I thought I made it clear that it was Part 4 of the Act of 1941 that gives the Minister power to remove.
What is the reference to Section 6 for then?
I do not understand the Minister. He said it was not in sub-section (4) of Section 2 but in Section 6.
I said that the power to remove was in Part 4 of the Act of 1941.
What did sub-section (4) give the Minister power to do? As the Minister explained it, it gave him a different right from Section 6.
An Order could be made to dissolve a local authority under the Act of 1941. Sub-section (4) of Section 2 provides that in such case the election for any such abolished authority will not be held automatically in 1955.
In respect of a body dissolved when?
Any time.
The Minister said exactly the reverse a few minutes ago, that sub-section (4) of Section 2 only affected bodies dissolved before the passing of this Bill.
I do not remember saying that.
The Minister did. That is why I cannot understand, if sub-section (4) of Section 2 only affects bodies dissolved prior to the passing of the Bill, where the subsequent power is.
Buncrana was the only council I could quote to you.
I know it is the only council you mentioned. Was the Minister wrong when he told us that sub-section (4) of Section 2 only referred to bodies dissolved before the passing of this Bill?
I added that it went on to 1955.
An election, but not a dissolution. I thought I understood what the section meant until the Minister told me that Section 2 did notmean what I said it meant and that Section 6 meant it. That is why I understood it was in Section 6. As I understand Section 2, it has the effect of saying that the power of the Minister to dissolve a local body and the power of the Minister to order an election for a dissolved local body shall continue up to the year 1955.
That is correct.
It does not matter when the local authority was dissolved. When I asked the Minister did it mean that, he told me it did not. It is on the records of the House and we can look it up afterwards. The Minister said when he was trying to get Section 2 that it only affected bodies dissolved before the passing of the Bill.
The Deputy knows at this stage that you can never be sure of what is on the records of the House.
That is an imputation against the recording officers of the House which I certainly would not allow to pass as far as I am concerned. No matter what I say, I am always satisfied with what they tell me I said in the House. It amounts to this, that the Minister got Section 2 through on an entirely false explanation. If Section 2 means that, Section 6 is superfluous.
The 1941 Act gave the Minister power and obliges him to hold a new election within three years of the date on which the members of the local authority were removed from office, or, if local elections were due, within a year of the end of the three-year period, he could wait until these elections were being held. Under the Bill the three-year period will be extended to five years.
Does not this section give power to abolish county councils as often as the Minister does not like them? If he does not like them he can abolish them.
That is in the 1941 Act. I like them all.
You abolished the Dublin County Council.
It means in effect that Section 6 has nothing whatever to do with the point we mentioned a few minutes ago, and that the Minister misled the House.
I am not conscious that I did.
I would not be so rude as to suggest that you did it consciously. Am I correct in assuming that the purpose of Section 6 is to enable the Minister to defer the holding of an election in the case of a dissolved body from three years to five years? Is that the purpose of it or has it any other purpose?
I can only give you the purpose as I have explained it.
We are trying to understand this. The Minister has a blanket power of dissolution under the 1941 Act. Under the 1941 Act, the Minister, for stated reasons, can abolish or dissolve a local authority. That power continues. As far as I can follow this, what we are now discussing deals with an election in the case of a dissolved or abolished local authority. Am I right in assuming that the purpose of what we are now discussing is to increase the period within which an election is to be held for a dissolved authority from three years to five years or is there something else in it?
I am told that that is correct.
I think it is correct, but the Minister told us something entirely different a few minutes ago.
Section put and agreed to.
Section 7 put and agreed to.
Question proposed: That Section 8 stand part of the Bill.
That covers subsidiary bodies like drainage committees and so forth?
Boards of public assistance, fever hospital boards, etc.
It says: "This Section applies to a board, committee or other body all or any of the members of which are required by law to be appointed by a local authority..."
And joint drainage bodies.
It covers them too?
Yes.
It covers not merely that proportion of the members of the joint committee who must be members of the council but that proportion who need not be members of the council.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 9 and 10 put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
I move amendment No. 6:—
Before Section 11 to insert a new section as follows:—
Where a date has not been appointed by a local authority before the 23rd day of June, 1953, for the holding of the annual meeting or quarterly meeting (as the case may be) of the local authority which is required by law to be held during the period beginning on the 23rd day of June, 1953, and ending on the 1st day of July, 1953, the county secretary or town clerk (as the case may be) shall summon a meeting of the local authority for a convenient hour and date within that period for the purpose, and a meeting held in pursuance of such summons shall be regarded as an annual or quarterly meeting held on a date appointed by the local authority.
On the passing of this Bill, the present year will cease to be a local election year and, consequently, every local authority will be obliged to meet and fix a date for an annual meeting, or in the case of boroughs or county boroughs, a quarterly meeting, to be held between 23rd June and 1st July. Some local authorities will have done this in anticipation of the Bill passing, butwhere a local authority has not done so, it may not have time or may find it inconvenient to meet to fix the date. This amendment proposes to overcome the difficulty by providing that if the date of the annual or quarterly meeting has not been fixed by a local authority by the 23rd June, the county secretary or town clerk shall fix a convenient time for holding a meeting within the statutory period.
I think I understand quite clearly what this amendment means, but I want to know what the Minister's view would be, whether this is an amendment which would enable a county manager to carry into force the view that was expressed by one county manager the other day, namely, that he would be able to do good work if both his council and the Minister's Department were both abolished. The Minister may have read the statement by the said county manager.
I did, yes.
Does this section help him to do it?
There might be more than that county manager saying the same thing.
I would not like to think it did.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section put and agreed to.
Schedule and Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage?
To-morrow?
Very well. I thought I might get it now.
I am going to exercise my ingenuity in an amendment. In view of the explanation we have got on Section 2, I shall put down an amendment that might make an improvement.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 3rd June, 1953.