Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Jun 1972

Vol. 261 No. 12

Local Elections Bill, 1972: Committee Stage.

SECTION 1.

Mr. Treacy

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 2, line 18, to delete "twenty-one" and substitute "eighteen".

It will be agreed that the age of 21 in respect of elections is not regarded as sacrosanct in any part of the world. We seek to avail of this opportunity to have "twenty-one" deleted and "eighteen" substituted. While it is appreciated that an amendment of the Constitution is required to provide for votes at 18 in respect of Dáil elections and referenda, it is clear from the Minister's statement yesterday that a referendum is not required in respect of providing votes at 18 for local election purposes. It was, therefore, a matter of astonishment to us when this Bill was being drafted and having regard to the assurance given in the House by the Minister for Local Government that he was making arrangements to bring in votes at 18, that he should inform us that a referendum will be held on this issue in the autumn. We think it appropriate, right and proper that the Bill be amended to provide for votes at 18, especially as the Bill refers to local elections.

Despite the fact that the Bill provides for the postponement of the local elections to June of next year, there are many in the House who feel that the local elections may not take place at that time, for a variety of reasons which I need not go into now, the basic one being that the massive work of restructuring local authorities will preclude the possibility. There is also the fact that other important elections are pending—a referendum, a presidential election and a general election. This is all the more reason why we want votes at 18 provided for in this Bill.

The Minister told us yesterday in a statement on local government that the voting age for local elections can be changed by ordinary legislation, that there is no need for a referendum. This is the appropriate Bill, in so far as the Labour Party is concerned. We are now asking the Government to show good faith in this matter by agreeing to our reasonable request to delete "twenty-one" and substitute "eighteen". This is a matter which could not be regarded as controversial. It is a pity that a referendum must be fought on such an issue which is non-contentious and non-vexatious. Our suggestion would have the accord of the vast majority of the people. I know of no good reason why our wishes in this matter should not be granted.

In almost all the countries of Europe which we are about to join, the voting age is 18, Eighteen is also the voting age in Britain, Belgium, Germany and the USA. The voting age in Sweden is 19. This is the time, if the Government are sincere, to provide votes at 18 and we ask that this be done.

It is most desirable that the younger generation should be involved in the democratic process. So many of them are accused of going outside the democratic process that it is desirable to involve them, to give them an effective say in the running of the affairs of our country, in the election of their public representatives and to allow them to participate fully in the whole process.

I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, then, to seize this opportunity of accepting the simple amendment we propose and so give an assurance that, whenever the local elections take place, the voting age will be 18 and that will be guaranteed. We are also very conscious of the fact that there is a further amendment in the names of the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party which seeks earlier local elections.

An Ceann Comhairle

The amendment before the House deals with the question of age.

Mr. Treacy

This is all the more reason why you might allow me to add——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not discuss a later amendment now.

Mr. Treacy

I am not dealing with that amendment now. I am merely emphasising once more the urgency and importance of making clear at the earliest possible opportunity that the voting age will be 18, in anticipation of elections of this kind. Now is the time. Now is the hour.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): It has been Fine Gael policy since 1965 to give votes in parliamentary elections and local government elections to citizens who have attained the age of 18 years. We considered the matter very carefully at that time and came to the conclusion that it was in the interests of democracy that votes should be given at 18. Everything that has happened in the world and in this country since then has proved that the decision of Fine Gael in 1965 was correct. Since then, young people seem to be maturing earlier in life. They certainly take a more active part in national affairs and they express their interest in the running of the country and in the future of the country.

I always think young people who can look forward to a life of 60 years are much more entitled to have a say in the running of the country than older people, because they have a much greater and a much longer stake in the country. That does not mean we should hand over the entire Government of the country to people of 18 years but it does mean that people of 18 years should have a voice in the running of the country, that they should be able to make their views felt and that they should be able to influence decisions being made which will affect them as citizens for, with a bit of luck, 60 years.

That was the reason that prompted Fine Gael to call for votes at 18 as long ago as 1965, and we have been doing it since. Developments in the world since have proved us right. We have entered an era in which youth, if not given the right to do so in the ballot boxes, will express their feelings by public protests, by marches, by taking to the streets, by sit-in strikes and other demonstrations of one sort or another. I am firmly convinced that if teenagers felt they had the right to go into a polling both to express their views on national and local matters they would be much less inclined to resort to those other less desirable methods of making their views felt.

Accordingly, I think there is an unanswerable case to be made for giving votes at 18 and for giving them at once. The argument which undoubtedly the Parliamentary Secretary will put forward, and indeed I think he did put it forward on the Second Stage, against the amendment standing in the name of the Labour Party is that a national referendum is necessary to give votes to people under 21 years of age in general elections, presidential elections and referenda. I do not accept that as a vital argument for not availing of this opportunity to give votes at 18. I think the fact that the Government, who claim the right to lead public opinion, have made up their minds to hold a referendum and apparently to recommend to the people that citizens of 18 years and older should have votes in a general election, a presidential election, et cetera, is the best argument why they should now give the lead and confer votes on people at 18.

It is no argument to say that be cause a constitutional referendum is necessary to give votes at 18 in national elections, votes should be denied to citizens at 18 in local government elections. The reason behind the statement I have just made is that the Constitution was very careful in 1937 to differentiate between local elections and parliamentary elections. It is spelled out carefully and clearly that only by a national referendum could votes be given to citizens younger than 21 years in general and presidential elections and referenda, but the Constitution equally carefully excluded local government elections, thereby conferring on this House and on the elected representatives of the people the right to decide at any time that votes should be given in local government elections to people younger than 21 years.

Therefore, the argument put by the Parliamentary Secretary as being up-to-date is not a valid one. A recent argument which the Parliamentary Secretary put up was that at any rate the local elections have been postponed and the referendum will be held in the autumn—that by the time the next local elections come around an Act will have been passed conferring on teenagers the right to vote in local elections. In my opinion that is not a valid argument because if this House believes—and I believe all parties in it so believe—that people should have the vote at 18, the sooner that is spelled out in black and white and conveyed to people of 18 years the better for the society in which we live, because by conveying that decision to them we will be saying: "We regard you as responsible citizens of this State. We regard you as of now as being entitled to take an active part in the local administration of this country and we hope your elders will endorse our decision in regard to parliamentary elections when given the opportunity to do so in the referendum soon to be held."

That is my thinking on this subject as of now and I believe it to be a line of thought that must recommend itself to all people who believe in an ordered society here, in a society operated through the ballot box rather than from the streets. I believe the Minister and the Government have nothing to lose by accepting this amendment at this time. We are now entering the school holiday period when young people have not a lot to do and it would be a nice thing to say to them before we go into recess: "We recognise you as citizens entitled to exercise the local franchise and we have so decided by an Act of Dáil Éireann. It will be only a matter of months until, we hope, the people of the country in a national referendum will recognise you as citizens entitled at the age of 18 years to play your part in electing the Parliament of this country, in electing the President of this country and in deciding when and why the Constitution should be amended." I find it difficult to understand the reluctance to date of the Government to accept this amendment—may be they will change their mind.

Dr. O'Donovan

On Second Reading of this Bill I stated on my own responsibility—I do not mind admitting I had not consulted my party—that I was in favour of this amendment. I am glad to say our spokesman on local government agreed with me and I am delighted that Fine Gael, in recognition of the new attitude between the Labour Party and Fine Gael, came in with us.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government (Mr. Cunningham)

I am glad that the Labour Party have unanimity...

Mr. Haughey

Is this the first evidence of the new liaison?

Dr. O'Donovan

There was some evidence of that yesterday—more on the Deputy's benches. The complete silence on the Fianna Fáil benches was the real proof. A silence descended.

Mr. Haughey

I only asked a simple question.

Dr. O'Donovan

I have answered the Deputy. I said silence descended on the Fianna Fáil benches.

Mr. Haughey

Is this the first evidence of the new coalition?

Dr. O'Donovan

Does the Deputy object to this evidence?

Mr. Haughey

I am only asking a question.

Dr. O'Donovan

The Deputy may ask a question but I do not have to answer him. I can ask the Deputy a question—a well-known Irish method of answering a question is to ask a question in return and the Deputy is not unaware of that.

Mr. Haughey

Does the Deputy think that they will be able to agree on anything more fundamental?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Did the Deputy and the Taoiseach agree on fundamental matters?

Dr. O'Donovan

When I think of the way Deputy Haughey has been treated by the Fianna Fáil Party for the past few years, I am amused that he should come into the House with a smile on his face and ask me such a question. There is no doubt that members of Fianna Fáil have good, thick skins.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): They think the people have short memories.

Dr. O'Donovan

I do not think that the people have such short memories. Can we believe anything the Government tell us? They tell us they are in favour of votes at 18 years; in fact, the Minister said so yesterday in his statement to the House.

Mr. Cunningham

He said that 12 months ago.

Dr. O'Donovan

I do not know why the Parliamentary Secretary makes that remark. It proves that he is even more dense than I think he is. If the Minister made this statement 12 months ago, why did he not do something about it? There has not been so much business in the House during that time. The House has been messing around with things but has achieved very little. We are going to have a plethora of elections in the next 12 months, causing general confusion, but where we could grant votes at 18 in local elections by means of a simple Act the Government will not do it. Local elections are not in the first division of elections in this country and I think that will be accepted by everybody. I assume the first division is in respect of Dáil elections; presumably the second is the Seanad elections; referenda and presidential elections come somewhere along the line, and local elections are still more remote from the first division.

As my colleagues have pointed out, when the Constitution was passed it rightly provided for votes at 21 years but the method of approach was wrong. The Constitution should have stated that any citizen over 21 years could vote; nowadays most citizens are 24 years or 25 years before they get a vote. Generally speaking, no person will vote until they are 20 or 21 years if this amendment is accepted; in fact, they may be 22 years if we accept the six-year system of local elections. Apparently this is the desire of the Government now since they will not have even a five-year election in Dublin city. All of us know that this Government have not a shred of decency.

As Deputy Fitzpatrick has said, it is clear that the Government are not in earnest about this. It is also clear that the age of 21 for parliamentary elections was deliberately put into the Constitution. If I know anything about our present respected President, it is clear he did not miss this point when the Constitution was under consideration. Whatever we might think about his effect on this country from time to time, certainly he would not miss an arithmetical point of this kind. I do not know what the Government have in mind when they bring in this Bill to postpone local elections and do not at the same time provide for votes at 18.

I agree with Deputy Treacy and Deputy Fitzpatrick that it is good training for young people to vote in local elections when they are 18 years. We do not know whether votes at 18 for parliamentary elections will be passed in the referendum. That is all the more reason why young people should get votes in local elections when they are 18 years. Many a young person is paying a large amount of income tax. Even where the income of the father is small and where the son or daughter is earning a sizeable amount, they cannot assign part of their income to a younger brother or sister, even if the family is large. Of course, this it typical of the Government's attitude to large families and to young people. They have no regard for young people.

It is specious to suggest, as the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have done, that the referendum will decide this matter in the autumn. Why was it not put into this Bill? It is an outrage for a Government to pretend they are concerned and then behave in this manner. As I have said before, the motto of the Government is: "Do not do as I do, do as I say." Any Government that would come in place of this Fianna Fáil Government would be very unwise to do as they have been doing in the past few years.

We will await the Parliamentary Secretary's reply. I strongly recommend this amendment to the House.

Mr. Cunningham

I cannot accept this amendment for a number of reasons. I want to make it clear that a statement made by Deputy Treacy that the Government had no intention of holding local elections in June, 1973— this was referred to on Second Stage——

Mr. Treacy

I did not say that. What I said was that in my opinion it might not prove possible having regard to the amount of legislation and restructuring in the sphere of local government.

Mr. Cunningham

If this Bill is passed we must, legally, have local elections in June, 1973.

Dr. O'Donovan

What is to prevent the Government from having another Bill passed?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): They might have to hold a general election first after which the Parliamentary Secretary would not be here.

Mr. Cunningham

So far as the Government are concerned there will be elections in June, 1973. As announced by the Minister for Local Government on the 9th March, 1971, it is the policy of the Government to ensure that an opportunity will be given to people of 18 to vote at all elections, at general elections, presidential elections, local government elections and referenda. The referendum will take place in the autumn to enable a change to be made in the Constitution whereby people of 18 will be able to vote in national elections. It is logical not to make the change suggested by this amendment until after the people have decided on this issue. The Bill that will be required before the holding of the referendum will pass through this House. I do not know what amendments the Fine Gael and Labour Deputies will table in respect of that Bill. Deputy O'Donovan speaking, as he says, on behalf of a united Labour Party, is glad to note the unanimity of the Fine Gael Party on this issue. However, Deputy Esmonde is on record as having said that it was accepted that all Deputies were in favour of giving votes to people at 18. He continued that in his considered opinion and knowing the inherent conservatism in the Irish race and the lack of desire for change, it is by no means certain that this would go through in a referendum. That is the summing up of what one Fine Gael Deputy thinks the people might do.

Dr. Byrne

It is quoted out of context.

Mr. Cunningham

Even if we accepted this amendment, it does not mean that the voters would have votes at 18 any sooner. Whether we accept the Bill as it is or whether we accept the amendment, the voters at the next local election will have votes at 18— depending on whether the referendum is carried. If it is not carried, there will not be votes at 18. I do not know what the Opposition want to prove.

Dr. O'Donovan

If the referendum is carried, I wonder whether there will be votes at 18? The referendum will refer to parliamentary elections.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This can be clarified when the Parliamentary Secretary has made his contribution.

Mr. Cunningham

It is not necessary to have a referendum to allow for votes at 18 in local elections but the Government have decided to let the people decide by way of referendum whether there are to be votes at 18 for parliamentary and presidential elections and for referenda.

Dr. O'Donovan

The Minister will have to bring in another Bill.

Mr. Cunningham

It would be necessary to bring in a Bill—a very short Bill—to allow for votes at 18 but seeing that all parties are agreed on this, there should not be any great difficulty.

Dr. O'Donovan

That would be a complete waste. Why not have another Bill now?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary is in possession.

Mr. Cunningham

The main issue involved so far as the Government are concerned is that they wish to ascertain what are the views of the people. The Opposition always tell us to find out what are the wishes of the people. Deputy Treacy mentioned that a large number of the European countries gave votes at 18. From a list I have here I can tell the Deputy at what age votes are given in the various countries: France, 21 years; Germany, 18 years; Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands, 21 years; Luxembourg and the UK, 18 years; Norway and Denmark, 20 years. I merely mention that in passing so as to indicate the inaccuracy of some of the statements that are being made from the other side of the House.

Mr. Haughey

Would the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that we would be in an absurd position if we adopted this amendment and, sub-sequently, the people decided by way of referendum not to have votes at 18?

Mr. Cunningham

That could happen.

Dr. O'Donovan

What would be absurd about it?

Mr. Cunningham

One can visualise a situation where a Bill will be introduced here followed by a referendum. In the passing of this Bill there could be amendments. The Bill will be a Government Bill which will specify votes at 18 but there could be some amendments for, say, votes at 19 or at 20 or, even, at 21.

Dr. O'Donovan

Would these be Government amendments because, otherwise, there would be no hope that they would be accepted.

Mr. Cunningham

The Government Bill would specify votes at 18. Why anticipate all this? Why not let the people decide at what age votes will be given?

Mr. Haughey

Let the people decide on principle.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I am surprised at Deputy Haughey's intervention in this. Clearly, he does not see that the Constitution differentiates between parliamentary franchise and local government franchise. The Constitution spells out clearly that in parliamentary elections, presidential elections and referenda a person must have attained the age of 21 years before he can vote. It was equally clear and careful to leave the question of local government franchise to the elected representatives of this House. Therefore, the Government would find themselves in no difficulty. I would have thought that Deputy Haughey would wish that everybody would be entitled to express his views. There will be various elections within the next 12 months in which I am sure Deputy Haughey will have as much interest, if not more, than anyone else.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy need not worry about me: I will be all right.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): It is strongly rumoured that the Tánaiste, Deputy Childers, will be going to Brussels. I am sure that Deputy Haughey will not object to that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are discussing votes at 18.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): There will be by-elections if that happens. I am sure that Deputy Haughey would like to see everybody voting for Deputy Childers' successor. We will have a presidential election next year. It is on the cards that the Taoiseach may be a candidate in that election.

Dr. O'Donovan

What about Deputy Haughey?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I am sure that Deputy Haughey would wish the Taoiseach well in the presidential stakes. He will not have any chance of getting elected, but I am sure that Deputy Haughey would be very pleased to see him throwing his hat in the ring and would like to see him getting elected. Deputy Haughey would also like to see the widest possible electorate.

Mr. Haughey

I am all for votes at 18.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): If Deputy Haughey is, why not exercise the rights conferred on this House by the Constitution to give votes at 18? That is all we are saying. I had doubts in my mind as to whether the Government are really in favour of giving votes at 18. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that several countries of the Ten do not give votes until people are 21 years old.

Mr. Cunningham

I was refuting an erroneous statement.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): It is an argument put forward in favour of withholding votes. It does not make sense otherwise. In so far as Deputy Esmonde's contribution is concerned, the Parliamentary Secretary quoted in order to suggest——

Mr. Cunningham

In reply——

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan):——that Deputy Esmonde was against giving votes at 18. I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to read the quotation again. He will not see any suggestion in it that Deputy Esmonde personally is against votes at 18.

Mr. Cunningham

Not alone did I read it but I heard the Deputy saying it. I was in the House.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): All Deputy Esmonde said, in the quotation given by the Parliamentary Secretary, was that he would doubt what the people in general might do. Deputy Esmonde did not speak against it or say that it was not a good thing or that he did not approve of it. Either Deputy Haughey or the Parliamentary Secretary said: “Why not let the people speak and express their opinion?” That is what this amendment is about. That is what we are inviting the Parliamentary Secretary to do. We are inviting him to let the young people speak in the local government elections, whenever they are held. We are asking that the young people should have, as of now, the right to vote in local elections at 18. The sooner this is done the better. It is for the good of our society that this right should be conferred on young people now, and that they should know now that they have that right. The Government are blowing hot and cold on this.

Dr. O'Donovan

So they are.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): It is a waste of public money to inflict another referendum on this country this year. Such a referendum is entirely unnecessary.

Dr. O'Donovan

And another Local Government Bill.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): If the only question that is going to be put to the people in the referendum in the autumn is whether or not young people should have votes at 18, there is no reason whatever why that question could not have been put to them in conjunction with the EEC referendum. The question could have been put on a separate ballot paper, as was done in 1968. Two ballot papers on complicated matters were put to the people separately then and the people answered them separately. The Parliamentary Secretary said something about spoiled votes. How many votes were spoiled in 1968? The number was small. The people showed very well that they could manage two ballot papers. Substantially the same number of people voted in the 1968 referendum as voted this year.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary telling us that in 1972 the people are so stupid that they cannot distinguish between a question asking them should the Constitution be amended to let us go into the EEC on the one hand and a question on a separate ballot paper asking should people have votes at 18? There could be a white ballot paper and a green ballot paper. The Minister for Finance has told us that the referendum held on the 10th May cost £140,000. It would be a waste of public money to have an unnecessary repeat performance. I would not be in favour of having any sort of package deal with the EEC referendum or associating any controversial subject with it, but surely there is nothing controversial about this? I wonder whether the Government are serious about this. I doubt it very much.

Mr. Kavanagh

It is to be deplored that the Government have refused this opportunity to allow young people have votes at 18 in local government elections. We feel that all parties in this House are apparently in favour of votes at 18. From the recent referendum it could be assumed that all parties could anticipate a referendum result that would be heavily in favour of votes at 18. This opportunity which presents itself now to make this decision should be availed of by the Parliamentary Secretary. Although Fianna Fáil say they are in favour of votes at 18, all the indications are that they are not.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. Kavanagh

Many of us will remember that in 1965 the Government was dissolved. Elections were held on the 7th April, 1965, so as to prevent young people who were on the register for the first time and who would have had votes on the 14th April, 1965, from voting in the subsequent general election. As a result, people aged 26 and 27 years cast their first votes in a general election in 1969. I was one of those who was in my middle twenties before I got an opportunity of casting my first vote. This opportunity should be taken so that in September next people aged 18 would have their names on the register.

There is no guarantee that local elections will be held next year although the Parliamentary Secretary has said that legally we are supposed to have them. Legally, we were supposed to hold them this year but they were postponed. The number of elections due to take place may make it necessary once again to postpone the local elections next year. In many areas there has been no local democracy for many years. I am speaking about the Bray area and the corporation area of Dublin. The Fianna Fáil Government have looked at recent opinion polls once again and have seen that young people will not vote for them in the same numbers as they will vote for other parties. They have said: "We cannot obviously be against votes at 18 but we will take the necessary steps to see that the decision is delayed as long as possible."

There is an opportunity here for the Parliamentary Secretary to write this provision into the Bill and he is refusing this opportunity. The Parliamentary Secretary says that people should be allowed to express their opinions. We are passing a Bill here which will stop the people expressing their opinions at local elections for another year. This may be done again next year. All the indications are that Fianna Fáil are preventing young people from expressing their opinions. Yesterday the Minister talked about the substitution of community councils for local councils. Once again this may deny people democracy at local level. We have a ridiculous situation in my constituency in Wicklow where one council, which will be reinstated if local elections are held——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We must keep to the amendment.

Mr. Kavanagh

If the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary accept a later amendment of ours and deny us this one, they will prevent the young people of Dublin and Bray voting in elections which will have to be held in July.

Dr. Byrne

The one thing that surprises me in this is the choice the Parliamentary Secretary says he is giving in the form of a referendum to the people some time in the autumn. He will not give them any choice; he will merely state that people at 18 years of age shall have votes. He says we can table amendments to make it 18, 19 or 20 years. This is not true. The Constitution makes no reference whatever to local electors having to attain the age of 21 years. Because of that, we support this amendment fully. There is no reason why a person who is old enough to carry arms for his country, to pay income tax, to hold a driving licence, should not have a say in electing representatives to run this country. This can be included in the Bill. The referendum will refer simply to general elections. The Parliamentary Secretary is confused on this issue. After the referendum he will have to come back here with a further local government elections Bill and we shall have to discuss once again what we are now discussing, something on which we are all agreed in principle, that a person of 18 years of age should be entitled to elect local authority representatives.

I congratulate those who moved this amendment and caused the Government to initiate activity in this regard. I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to see reason. There is no indication that the referendum on votes at 18 will be defeated. The referendum will refer simply to a change in the Constitution which refers to those who are entitled to vote in a general election.

Mr. Cunningham

I was referring to the referendum Bill, not the referendum itself.

Dr. Byrne

This referendum could have been held quite simply on May 10th, as Deputy Fitzpatrick said. In November, 1968, there was a very complicated dual referendum held and the people voted wisely on that occasion. There is no reason why this referendum——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are dealing with an amendment.

Dr. Byrne

There is no reason whatever to wait for a referendum to give people the franchise at 18 years for local elections. I am fully in favour of this amendment and I would urge the Parliamentary Secretary to accept it.

Mr. Treacy

I do not suppose anything more I can say in this matter will bend the Parliamentary Secretary towards our wishes. He has given no valid reason as to why this amendment should not be included in this measure now. To talk about the necessity for the referendum and to presume that it will be a contentious issue and challenged in a large way by the people and to go on to infer that amendments may be tabled in this House is absurd. The Parliamentary Secretary knows full well that all parties in this House are agreed on votes at 18 and the probability of amendments to any other age is out of the question. I am sorry that he should quote a Deputy of this House out of context in his inference that there was likely to be objections by certain sectors of the people by reason of their alleged conservatism. This is simply the old stone-walling attitude of the Government party——

Dr. O'Donovan

Hear, hear.

Mr. Treacy

——the attitude of the dog in the manager, that they will, in no circumstances, concede that any of us on this side of the House is right in respect of any proposition we make. However valid, cogent, urgent or important it may be, it will not be accepted but they will copy our proposals months, sometimes years, afterwards and implement them. The Labour Party attempted in February of this year to get the Government to accept legislation on this matter. Again, it was rejected by the Minister for Local Government. We have persistently endeavoured to convince the Government of the necessity for granting votes at 18 and we find ourselves stone-walled, fobbed-off, all the time on this issue. Like my colleagues, I have doubts about the local elections next year. I shall not go into that now. The Parliamentary Secretary also inferred that I was guilty of virtual untruth or misleading the House in respect of certain information I gave. I mentioned specifically certain countries in Europe where the franchise has been conceded under 21 years. I mentioned Belgium. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned Belgium.

Mr. Cunningham

I did. Belgium is 21.

Mr. Treacy

Since when?

Mr. Cunningham

It is now 21.

Mr. Treacy

Germany is 18; Sweden 19.

Dr. O'Donovan

He did not mention Sweden of course.

Mr. Treacy

The UK is 18; the US 18. The Parliamentary Secretary's attitude today is an insult to the intelligence of the Irish people. He does particular injury and insult to 140,000 young people who could come on the electoral register today if votes were conceded at 18. Some 140,000 people can be disfranchised by this reluctance to concede votes at 18. I regret there is the refusal to seize the opportunity; I regret that so many spurious arguments have been raised against it. Our young people are as intelligent as any teenage group in the world. They are very well educated. They are mature physically and educationally at 17 or 18. As has been said, they may bear arms for their country at 17, they may marry and found a family, they may be taxpayers and ratepayers. They may take on all the responsibility and the full status of citizens and we still deny them the right to be actively involved in the political affairs of their country.

One could go on for a long time but one would only be wasting one's sweetness on the desert air trying to convince an intransigent Parliamentary Secretary and a hostile Government of the rightness of proposals made by this side of the House. I hope the young people will realise how they are being duped and deceived and, when the time comes when they can avail of the franchise, I hope they will give vent to their feelings and take the necessary steps to put out of office a Government which treats them with such disdain.

Mr. Cunningham

The Opposition pattern is beginning to emerge. One sets up something which is false and tries to give the impression across that it is a fact. It sounds very good, if the Opposition can get away with it, to argue that the Fianna Fáil Government are depriving people of 18 of votes in local elections. There is the statement made by Deputy Treacy that we could put the 18's on the register today. Deputy Treacy knows perfectly well that that cannot be done today, tomorrow, or any other day until the 15th April next.

Mr. Treacy

One can do a great deal by legislation.

Mr. Cunningham

One can also do a great deal by misleading the people with false statements like the one the Deputy has just made.

Mr. Treacy

It is the Parliamentary Secretary who is misleading, saying the vote cannot be given in local elections until we pass a Bill here.

Mr. Cunningham

The Deputy tries to create the impression that the Fianna Fáil Government are preventing people of 18 being put on the register today. The Deputy is shadow Minister for Local Government and he knows, or he should know, what I know, but yet he is prepared to say something else. He knows cannot put 18's, even if this amendment were accepted and passed by this House, on the register until April of next year. We are not depriving people of 18 of votes.

Mr. Treacy

Fianna Fáil have deprived them of votes for years.

Mr. Cunningham

We are doing what is logical. I see no merit at all in this amendment. Even if it were accepted, it would not give votes to people of 18 until after 15th April next. Secondly, there will be no local elections until June, 1973, and they will have votes by that time.

It is the intention of the Government to bring in the Constitution Amendment Bill in this session to enable the referendum to be held in the autumn. Deputy Fitzpatrick asked why the referendum for votes at 18 was not held with the referendum on the EEC. I thought that all parties in this House were unanimous——

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): That there would be no controversial subjects associated with the EEC referendum. This is not a controversial subject.

Mr. Cunningham

——that there would be no other issue in the referendum other than the single issue. I will quote the Deputy's leader, Deputy Cosgrave. I am quoting from the Official Report of 23rd February, 1972, column 271. The Minister for Local Government quoted from the contribution of Deputy Cosgrave and the quotation is:

At the outset I want it to be clearly understood that we favour a referendum. We have consistently expressed the view that the people must decide the issue. Consequently we approve the task of putting clearly before the electorate in simple language a single question——

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): On the issue of the EEC, yes.

Mr. Cunningham

This was the EEC issue. And that question only.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Read on. Be fair. A single question on the EEC referendum.

Mr. Cunningham

I would read on if I had the particular speech, but this is the Minister's speech in which he quoted Deputy Cosgrave.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): He quoted what suited him.

Mr. Cunningham

I am not convinced by any of the arguments put forward that this amendment should be accepted.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Arising out of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, which generated a little bit of heat, to the effect that even if this amendment were accepted it would be impossible to give votes to people of 18 before 15th April next, I do not accept that. As Deputy Treacy said, one can do things by legislation. There is such a thing as a supplemental register of electors.

Mr. Cunningham

I was referring to the statement that they could be put on the register today.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): If this amendment were accepted, there is no reason in the world why these people of 18 should not be invited to apply forthwith to the county registrar for a vote and get themselves on the register.

Mr. Cunningham

For an election next June?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): For an election which, I hope, will come before June. What I am going to say now is in relation to the next amendment but I submit it is relevant also to this amendment. There are two other amendments in the names of members of the Labour Party and in my name calling on the Government to hold elections soon—we hope in July—for the restoration of Dublin Corporation and Bray Urban District Council. I cannot anticipate the decision of the House on those amendments and I do not go further than to say that I cannot anticipate any reasonable Government continuing to deprive the citizens of Dublin and Bray of votes in local elections.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise on this amendment.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I am going on the premise that these amendments will be passed and, if they are, there is no reason why people of 18 should not participate in these elections. It would not be outside the bounds of possibility to invite these people of 18 years to apply forthwith to the County Registrar for a vote and get themselves on the supplemental register if the Parliamentary Secretary is serious. The more I hear of the arguments on the other side of the House the more convinced I am that the Government are not sincere about giving votes at 18. They were not convincing in 1965 and they have not done anything since. They deprived those of 18 of votes in the 1969 election. They deprived them of votes in all the by-elections. They deprived them of votes in the 1968 referendum. They deprived them of votes in the referendum earlier this year.

I believe this is a deathbed repentance by this Government. I do not believe they are really serious. If they were serious this is the place and now is the time to state that they are giving votes as of now to people of 18 years in local elections and that, subject only to the say of the people, they will give them votes in the June elections. If the Minister for Justice were sitting where the Parliamentary Secretary is sitting now and he believed, as the Parliamentary Secretary says he believes, in giving votes at 18, then the Minister for Justice would accept this amendment because he has given evidence here of that sort of thinking in the past month. I do not accept—I regret to have to say this—the genuineness of the Government in this matter. There is no use trying to confuse the issue or to say that the referendum on national elections has some bearing on local elections because it has not. If you want to carry this argument to its logical conclusion you could argue that local elections are something less important than national elections and have been so treated by the Constitution because the Constitution did not deal with them : it left them to the elected representatives of the people to deal with.

There is no use trying to confuse the issue by saying that votes in a national election have something to do with this. As Members of the Labour Party have said, the Government were given an opportunity earlier this year and, I think, in time, to have these people on the register of electors in April last if they chose to avail of the opportunity. But they came here and voted down that proposal by voting against a private Bill introduced by the Labour Party to give votes at 18. How can the people accept the Parliamentary Secretary as being really sincere and genuine? Either he is not serious or genuine about it or it is the case that because they introduced the Bill it would be a blow to their prestige if they accepted an amendment. I am glad to say that the Minister for Justice seems to think otherwise and that when he brings in a Bill here he believes it is not beyond amendment and he will accept amendments. Apparently the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government is either not enthusiastic about votes at 18 or he belongs to the old school which says that once a Bill is introduced it cannot be altered one iota.

Dr. O'Donovan

I think the second one is correct—or, perhaps, both.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): We should let the young people see the position now. At the beginning of the summer holidays it would be good to send a message from this House to those going home on holidays from universities and secondary schools that they are treated as grown-ups and expected to behave as such and that as from now they are statutory citizens entitled to vote in local elections.

Mr. Treacy

There has been a marked difference of opinion between myself and the Parliamentary Secretary in regard to the information we gave this House concerning the countries in Europe where votes are in operation under 21. I have put my information on the records of the House and I am prepared to stand over that. The Parliamentary Secretary has stated that in Belgium, in particular, the age for voting is 21. I mentioned Belgium as a country where people are entitled to vote in municipal elections at 18. That matter might be clarified. It may well transpire that the person who is misleading the House in regard to this important information is the Parliamentary Secretary. Should I be proved wrong, an apology will be readily forthcoming from me.

Mr. Cunningham

The list I have read refers to parliamentary elections only.

Mr. Treacy

The Parliamentary Secretary should be very careful before accusing people of misleading the House. There are votes at 18 in Belgium for municipal elections.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is amendment No. 1 withdrawn?

Mr. Treacy

No.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am putting the question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand." I think the motion is carried?

Mr. Treacy

Vótáil.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 53; Níl, 38.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Lorcan.
• Andrews, David.
• Barrett, Sylvester.
• Boylan, Terence.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Brosnan, Seán.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Browne, Seán.
• Carty, Michael.
• Childers, Erskine.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Herbert, Michael.
• Hillery, Patrick J.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Kenneally, William.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Loughnane, William A.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, John.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Colley, George.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Connolly, Gerard C.
• Cowen, Bernard.
• Cronin, Jerry.
• Crowley, Flor.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Noel.
• Delap, Patrick.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gibbons, Hugh.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Meaney, Thomas.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Moore, Seán.
• Nolan, Thomas.
• Noonan, Michael.
• O'Connor, Timothy.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Des.
• Power, Patrick.
• Smith, Michael.
• Timmons, Eugene.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

• Begley, Michael.
• Belton, Luke.
• Belton, Paddy.
• Bruton, John.
• Burton, Philip.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Collins, Edward.
• Conlan, John F.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cooney, Patrick M.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cott, Gerard.
• Coughlan, Stephen.
• Crotty, Kieran.
• Desmond, Barry.
• Dockrell, Henry P.
• Donegan, Patrick S.
• Donnellan, John.
• Dunne, Thomas.
• Finn, Martin.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
• Governey, Desmond.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Keating, Justin.
• L'Estrange, Gerald.
• Lynch, Gerard.
• McLaughlin, Joseph.
• McMahon, Lawrence.
• Malone, Patrick.
• O'Donnell, Tom.
• O'Donovan, John.
• O'Reilly, Paddy.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Spring, Dan.
• Taylor, Francis.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Treacy, Seán.

Tellers—Tá: Deputies Andrews and Meaney; Níl: Deputies Kavanagh and Pattison.

Question declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Mr. Treacy

I move amendment No. 2:

To add to the section a new subsection as follows—

"( ) Section 57 of the Local Government Act, 1941, is hereby repealed."

Section 57 of the Local Government Act, 1941, reads:

Where, at the expiration of any local financial year, any rate made by a local authority in respect of that year is unpaid, to the extent of an amount either equal to the whole or part of such rate or would be unpaid to that extent but for the fact that such amount has been advanced and paid to such local authority by a rate collector, the following provisions shall apply and have effect, that is to say:—

(a) if the person liable to pay such amount to such local authority or such rate collector (as the case may be) is a member of any local authority at the expiration of such financial year, he shall be disqualified from continuing to be such member,

(b) such person shall be disqualified from being elected or chosen to be a member of any local authority until he has paid the whole of such amount.

In seeking to have this section deleted we are not condoning the non-payment of rates. Indeed, public representatives should be the first to give good example in the matter of providing the finances for the maintenance of the essential services of their local community. There is not, therefore, inherent in our proposal any suggestion of a let-out for public representatives in that regard. The amendment is designed to ensure that members of local authorities would not be disqualified from membership without just cause, would not be disqualified except for very grave and compelling reasons.

In this instance, I understand that if a member of a local authority has not paid his full rate demand within the period prescribed, by the end of the appropriate financial year, he is automatically disqualified. We believe that this is a penal clause. There may well be good and compelling reasons why one was unable to pay the rate demand. It may well be that one entrusted—a member of one's family, one's agent or one's solicitor—with that responsibility did not fulfil it without one's knowledge. It may be due to illness or adversity or any other good reason. It may well be that the rate demand was not supplied to the aggrieved person. We are merely asking the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government to concede to representatives of local authorities the same privilege as other citizens in our society have in regard to the payment of their rates, that they would be given adequate warning and a reasonable opportunity of paying. I am concerned here about the public representative who, through no fault of his own, has not met his financial commitments within the prescribed time.

It is admittedly very difficult to be elected to public life. Much confidence is reposed in those of us who attain to such positions, and we feel it is wrong that any Minister, county manager or other public official, should have the right to take action against him because he has not paid on the nail; indeed, if he comes along with the full payment an hour later than the time prescribed he will be disqualified. I understand from my colleagues that there is evidence to show that some representatives have been so disqualified by reason of simply being late in the presentation of the cheque for the amount of money due. This is a situation in which a public representative could be discriminated against and could be served for ulterior motives.

We have already acknowledged that a bankrupt may now continue in public life. There is an amendment in this Bill to ensure that those unfortunate people in public life who are obliged to avail of home assistance are safeguarded and may continue in public life. We are concerned about what I consider to be automatic disqualification without any consideration. This seems to me to be harsh and unjust. There are instances, too, where many people pay their rates when they are afforded the opportunity of doing so and, depending on the nature of the business, this may involve the disposal or sale of goods, crops or animal stock, particularly in rural Ireland. The rates are paid on that basis annually and county managers and rate collectors are aware of this.

There is no right of appeal, as far as I know. If you are late you are late; you are disqualified and you lose your public office. There comes with that virtual disgrace and, I might say, political ruin, and it is very difficult to make a comeback in those circumstances.

This amendment may not be the most appropriate device to achieve the aims I have in mind, and I hope I have made these aims reasonably clear to the Parliamentary Secretary. However, it was the best advice we could secure in relation to the appropriate Act. If there is any other way that the Parliamentary Secretary can come to our rescue in this matter, I should be grateful for it. If either himself or his Minister or the county manager or, indeed, the members of the local authority could be given some discretion in this matter, it would be welcome— some discretion in dealing with a situation of this kind where a man is disqualified from continuing in public life through no fault of his own in respect of the non-payment of rates. That is the only reason why we thought in terms of deleting the section. If there is another way in which the Parliamentary Secretary can meet our wishes I would be grateful so that in the event of such a thing happening— there have been many cases in the past —it will be dealt with on a realistic and humane basis and in an understanding fashion, as has been done in respect of a bankrupt who got into difficulties through no fault of his own, or the public representative who got into difficulties and had to avail of home assistance.

These are the sentiments I wish to express at this time. I hope some modus operandi may be found to implement our wishes.

Mr. Cunningham

I certainly appreciate what is in the mind of the Deputy and the others who have put down the amendment. It is an effort, first of all, to widen the choice of the people and, secondly, to prevent a person being penalised for various reasons. As the Deputy has said, the Bill has provision to cover cases of bankrupts and persons in receipt of public assistance. The category mentioned in the amendment is slightly different. In the case of persons elected to a local authority charged with the expenditure of large sums of money and with the duty of collecting rates as part of the revenue of the local authority in order to enable the work for which the authority was elected to be carried out, it would be wrong that he should set a bad example by not contributing his just share to the smooth running of the local authority. There can be cases such as the Deputy has mentioned where the person is not able to pay rates but most local authorities operate a waiver of rates system and if the person can show to the local authority that he is in the same boat as others who are getting the advantage of waiver of rates, he would not be debarred from continuing as a member of the local authority.

The other point mentioned by the Deputy was that he could inadvertently forget to send in his rates or that the rate collector could forget to make the demand in time and that the person is vulnerable in these circumstances. I know from my experience as a member of the Donegal County Council that the county manager or one of the officials would certainly bring it to the notice of an elected member that he was in arrears with his rates. I do not know how this is done but it is certainly brought to the notice of the person concerned, either directly or indirectly. The local authority ensures that the person who is in danger of being expelled or of losing his seat is well and truly warned in advance and given an opportunity to put the matter right if it is his intention to do so. Most local authorities do that and they should be encouraged to do it.

There is legislation under consideration to up-date and consolidate the law relating to qualifications for membership of the Oireachtas and membership of local authorities. It is a consolidation Bill dealing with disqualifications as they exist at the moment. I would suggest that it might be better to try to deal with this matter, if the House felt it were desirable to do anything about it, when that Bill is before the House. I would suggest that the Deputy might consider that.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Is the Parliamentary Secretary certain that a person who has his rates waived under a scheme for necessitous persons is not disqualified?

Mr. Cunningham

Yes. Supposing a county councillor were a necessitous person and applied for waiver of rates he would as a citizen get that if he was entitled to it and, having got waiver of rates, he then would not be or could not be disqualified from membership of the local authority.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): It depends on the wording of the section, but if the Parliamentary Secretary tells me that, I will accept it.

Dr. Byrne

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the qualifications for waiver of rates are very strict? If a councillor were to become ill and be liable for heavy medical expenses, he would have to fall into a special subsection before he would take a lot waiver of rates and it would take a lot of time. Deputy Treacy suggests leniency when the demand is due, provision whereby he could go over the due date. Recently somebody was expelled from a council because of two or three days delay in payment.

Mr. Cunningham

It would be a matter for the local authority.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): They can re-instate him immediately on payment of the rates.

Mr. Cunningham

The local authority would deal with this matter, if he were a person who was entitled to waiver of rates.

Mr. Treacy

I am grateful for the manner in which the Parliamentary Secretary has met us. We look forward to the legislation to which he has adverted. I would hope that we will have his goodwill and understanding when that Bill is before the House in regard to giving effect to the wishes expressed in the amendment, which I think are reasonable.

I want to make it clear, once more, that nothing that we have said should be taken as condoning in any way the non-payment of rates by persons who can afford to pay them. I have emphasised the importance of those in public life giving a lead and being the first to pay in full, and gladly, for the provision of improved services for the community. I look forward hopefully and enthusiastically to the introduction of the legislation the Parliamentary Secretary referred to. I hope it will be possible for the Government to find means to give effect in that legislation to the wishes expressed in the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that the position now is that a bankrupt who may owe thousands of pounds to the citizens of the country and to the Inspector of Taxes and various other people can still remain a member of a local authority provided only that he pays his rates in full and prefers the council to all his other creditors. Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that that is the position, that a member of a local authority may become a bankrupt and owe endless thousands of pounds and still remain a member of the council provided that he pays his rates in full? He need not pay anybody else but he must pay the last penny of his rates. Does the Parliamentary Secretary approve of that?

Mr. Cunningham

Yes.

Dr. Byrne

If people were on a rent and rates strike, would they be debarred for standing for local elections? If on the next amendment——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot discuss the next amendment.

Dr. Byrne

We will not discuss the next amendment but supposing local elections were held in the very near future, would people on a rent and rates strike be debarred from standing for election?

Mr. Cunningham

One of the features of this is that elected representatives on the local authorities might be pressurised by organisations to take part in a rent and rates strike. This will prevent them from being pressurised by any group into taking part.

Dr. Byrne

They cannot stand for election so?

Mr. Cunningham

If they do not pay their rates for any reason, yes.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Is a bankrupt eligible for membership of this House?

Mr. Cunningham

He is not eligible.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): On Second Reading I spoke against the provision to remove the bankruptcy disqualification in respect of members of local authorities. I still think it is unwise to declare that a bankrupt shall be a fit and proper person to sit on a local authority and vote on decisions regarding the striking of a rate and the sale and purchase of property. The argument has been put forward that if the people want to select him they should be entitled to select him. There is a certain amount of force in that argument.

A person could have been elected to a local authority in 1967—I think the last local elections were held then. He might have appeared to the electorate to be a solvent and perfectly responsible citizen. A year afterwards he might have defaulted and not met his liabilities and he might have been declared a bankrupt. If the present proposal had been the law then, he would have continued to be a member of the local authority to this day, notwithstanding the fact that, if the people had known he was insolvent they would not have elected him.

I have serious doubts about this matter. I do not believe it is correct that a bankrupt should be elected to a local authority. I certainly do not believe that a man who is elected to a local authority while he is solvent, and who subsequently becomes a bankrupt, should continue to be eligible to sit on that body. He is not eligible for membership of this House and, in my opinion, he should not be eligible for membership of a local authority. The Parliamentary Secretary should consider this matter between now and Report Stage and he should consider it seriously between now and bringing the Bill into the Seanad.

We must preserve a certain amount of balance in what we are doing. We cannot overlook the fact that people who are elected to local authorities are charged with striking the rate and, in certain respects, they are charged with the expenditure of large sums of money. They are charged with coming to decisions about the sale of valuable property. That is a reserved function. The county manager cannot dispose of land without putting down a resolution and getting the approval of the council for the sale. These are the type of things that strike me. I do not want to be taken as a person who wants to restrict the choice of the electorate. I do not want to be taken as a person who does not believe that there can be hard luck cases such as those outlined by Deputy Treacy in regard to the payment of rates.

I fully realise that a citizen could find himself in a road accident. He could have overlooked paying his insurance premium or he could have been using his car for a purpose other than that for which, it was insured. He could find himself having judgment given against him for thousands of pounds which he did not have and, in order to get at the motor insurance bureau, it might be necessary to have him declared a bankrupt. I understand and quite appreciate that there are such cases but those are not the sort of cases I have in mind.

I have in mind the person who becomes reckless for one reason or another and, through his own reckless behaviour, finds himself a bankrupt and then presumes to sit on a local authority and discharge the serious responsibilities involved in membership of that body. The Parliamentary Secretary should think seriously about this. Strange to say, I would put the receipt of public assistance disqualification in quite a different category. I would not hesitate for one moment to remove that disqualification. I have serious doubts —and I expressed them on Second Reading—about removing the bankruptcy disqualification.

I know that on Second Reading Deputy Treacy spoke eloquently about men who, through no fault of their own, had become bankrupt and notwithstanding that had proved to be distinguished public representatives, men who had a big contribution to make to the debates in Parliament. I am thinking about the principle of the thing. There might be something to be said for removing a disqualification in respect of Parliament, where you have 144 Deputies, and at the same time speak against removing disqualification in respect of membership of a small local authority where you have as few as nine members and where one vote could be vital on a particular issue.

There is certainly food for thought here and I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to think about it seriously between now and Report Stage or the time the Bill goes to the Seanad. If we are to make this amendment in the law, we should do so with our eyes open and I am against the proposal to remove the bankruptcy disqualification for the reasons stated.

Mr. Cunningham

This is in line with the European Social Charter.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I agree with that entirely.

Mr. Cunningham

We have adopted it in the Council of Europe.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I hope I made it clear that I agree with it.

Mr. Cunningham

The bankruptcy recommendation came from the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Electoral Law which sat here in 1960 and 1961. That committee recommended, among other things, that bankrupts should be permitted to become candidates for membership of the Oireachtas. I think the Deputy's difficulty is in relation to a person who would become bankrupt in mid-term and about whom people had not information at the time of election—they thought he was a well to do citizen.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): At least that he was a solvent citizen.

Mr. Cunningham

Yes, but in mid-term he became bankrupt. It creates a problem. This provision whereby a bankrupt can sit for local elections and let the people decide what they want is all right but I cannot see the point about a person who in mid-term becomes a bankrupt. I am in favour of letting the people decide at an election. The aspect on which the Deputy spoke is one I should prefer to consider in connection with consolidation of disqualification legislation.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): When will it come up?

Mr. Cunningham

I cannot say, but it is under consideration. It will deal with a number of disqualifications for Oireachtas and local authority elections.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): If I have convinced the Parliamentary Secretary that there is food for thought here, especially about the mid-term man, I am satisfied. Will the Parliamentary Secretary give us an assurance that it will be considered seriously by him, the Minister and the Government? Can he tell us if this consolidation legislation is on the way, that it is not in cold storage?

Mr. Cunningham

It is on the cards. I appreciate the point the Deputy has made.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 3.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 may be taken together.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I move amendment No. 3:

In subsection (1), page 3, line 4, before "An election" to insert "An election of members of Dublin Corporation and Bray Urban District Council shall be held in July, 1972, and"

The purpose of this amendment is to ask the House to avail of the introduction of this Bill to restore the city council of this city and Bray UDC. For the purposes of my argument on this amendment it is unnecessary to go into the merits or demerits of the sealed order made by the former Minister for Local Government which dissolved Dublin City Council and Bray UDC. The merits and demerits of that matter have been gone into in this House on previous occasions, as late as yesterday, and I do not consider that they are relevant to this amendment.

Rightly or wrongly, Dublin Corporation and Bray UDC were dissolved in 1969 and since then the capital city has been left without a city council or a lord mayor and Bray has been deprived of an urban district council. I believe that when a decision is made to remove an elected council, the area served by that council should not be deprived of the council for one moment longer than necessary. I would always argue that proposition. I believe that in the age in which we live it is simply courting trouble to deprive an area of a council, to deprive a city or a town of its elected representatives. It is inviting street politics, unsavory protests of one type or another, and whether we like or do not like to admit it, we are living in an age in which people will express their thoughts, in which they will protest about things with which they disagree.

I believe in the ballot box and my party have always believed in the supremacy of the ballot box. I believe the vote is a great weapon and that citizens of this country feel they have the right to approach their local representatives about things that are troubling them, about grievances they have whether individual or communal grievances. I believe that when a citizen goes to his local representative, puts his case and hears that case put in the local council, he feels he has let off steam and he will find it no longer necessary to pursue his protest.

At the moment, this large city of nearly one milion people has no city council. At a time when we have controversies about rents and rates, about a differential rents system, we have no city council to come between the county and city manager and the tenants. The result is, in my opinion, that we have strikes, the witholding of rents and other things of that nature. If Dublin Corporation were in existence they would provide a forum for an exchange of views on these matters. The citizens of Dublin could lobby their city councillors; they could hand in letters of protest and in that way they would be exercising in a peaceful way what they consider to be their democratic right. It is disastrous and not in the public interest that Dublin city should be deprived of a corporation for one moment longer than is necessary. Now is the opportune time to restore the corporation.

Let us consider the reasoning behind the dissolution of the corporation. According to the Minister for Local Government, he dissolved Dublin Corporation and Bray Urban Council because he thought the elected representatives on those bodies were not discharging their statutory functions. If that is so, the people with whom he had fault to find were those who elected the corporation and urban council. Who is the Minister punishing now? On whom is he casting a reflection? It is not the elected representatives with whom he did not agree; it is the citizens of this city and the people of Bray. He is depriving them of a right to replace the representatives he removed from office. I suggest he is not entitled to do that.

In the past the practice has been that when a local authority is dissolved it stands dissolved until the next local election. Here the Minister is inviting the House to postpone the holding of local elections for the entire country, including Dublin city and Bray Urban Council. In this way he is extending the penalty imposed on these areas by depriving them of the right to elect representatives for another year. I do not believe this House should stand for that. We should avail of this opportunity to ensure that local elections will be held in Dublin and in Bray next month. There is no problem about that. All the Parliamentary Secretary has to do is to accept my amendment and instruct the returning officer to get busy. That will not prejudice any plans the Minister may have with regard to the re-organisation of local government.

I want to repeat that I do not believe we will have local elections in June, 1973, if it is to be a condition precedent to the holding of those elections that legislation to re-organise the entire local government structure is passed. We are now entering the concluding days of this session. The Dáil will go into recess when the programme of work outlined by the Taoiseach has been completed and probably it will not resume until the end of October. The Local Government Bill will be lengthy and controversial; it will be gone through with a fine comb in this House and in the Seanad on all stages. I do not know how it will be possible to deal with that and hold elections in June, 1973, either simultaneously with the presidential election or within weeks of it. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell me how this can be done.

I should also like to know at what stage is the drafting of legislation to re-organise local government. Have the headings been agreed in principle by the Minister and the Government? Has the measure yet gone to the Parliamentary draftsman? I doubt if it has been agreed to in principle by the Minister. I imagine that the Minister and his Department will prepare draft headings or proposals for the re-organisation of local government administration and that they will bring it before the Government for approval. When the Government clear it, I presume it will go to the Parliamentary draftsman. I venture to suggest we have not yet cleared stage 1 and, if this is so, there is little hope that the Parliamentary draftsman will get it before the end of this year. Consequently, there is little hope that he will deal with the matter within 12 months.

We have an example of the Landlord and Tenant Bill which was drafted by the predecessor of the Minister for Justice. We have been told that when the present Minister came into office on that fateful day of 7th May, 1970, he did not like the look of the Bill; he thought the sections were too long and would be difficult to interpret. He invited the Parliamentary draftsman to redraft it but we have not seen it yet.

It is farcical for the Minister for Local Government to tell us he will reorganise local government by statute and have it done within the next 12 months. I do not believe it. Does that mean that Dublin Corporation or Bray Urban District Council will not be restored until the next local elections are held? If that is so, if the Minister and the Government have their way, I am satisfied we will not have a city council, a lord mayor or an urban district council for Bray for the next two years at least.

We would be failing in our duty if we did not do our best to ensure that the city council and Bray Urban Council will be restored now. That is what this amendment proposes to do. If members of the city council had defaulted, I could understand the Minister punishing them and saying that they are not yet cleansed, that they might do the same again, but that is not the position. What we are asking here is that the citizens of this city be given an opportunity to elect a brand new city council of their own choice and that the same would apply in respect of Bray UDC. I should like to hear any reason that the Parliamentary Secretary has for refusing this amendment. In the interests of this country, as a tourist centre, it is not right that the capital city should be deprived of its mayor. It is one of the hallmarks of a city that it has a lord mayor who would be available to preside on ceremonial occasions, who would receive distinguished foreign visitors and who would be available to accept invitations abroad. A lord mayor can be the best ambassador that a country can have so far as tourism is concerned, that is, if he is doing his job well and most of the mayors in the past have done a good job.

The dissolution of the city council was a piece of viciousness on the part of the Minister and the Government. They became indignant with the council and decided to teach them a lesson. However, it is not the 45 members of the dissolved city council that the Government are chastising or on whom they are casting a reflection. The citizens of this city and the people of the country as a whole are being deprived by not having a city council or a first citizen. The Government should think seriously about this point. Dublin is, perhaps, the only capital in the world that is deprived of a mayor. I could say much more at this stage but I would like to hear first what valid argument the Parliamentary Secretary can put forward for refusing to accept the amendment. When he is replying, I should like him to distinguish between the 45 members of the dissolved city council and the 75,000 citizens of Dublin, to put them into different compartments and talk about them in a different sense. Unless he does so, we will not be treating the amendment seriously. I could discuss at length the rights and wrongs of dissolving the city council but that is not relevant. The point at issue is the election of another council.

Mr. Treacy

Our amendment, which is to add to the section a new subsection, reads as follows:

Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section or in any other Act, an election of members to Dublin Corporation and to Bray Urban District Council shall take place on such date during the month of July, 1972, as may be fixed by order of the Minister.

It is more or less the same as the amendment moved by Deputy Fitzpatrick. I have always contended that Dublin City Council and Bray UDC were dissolved in a fit of pique by the then Minister for Local Government. Indeed, there may have been a much greater ulterior motive in destroying Dublin City Council which was known to comprise a minority of Fianna Fáil members and a majority of others.

It is difficult to understand the rash decision of the then Minister and the indecent haste with which the city council was abolished. We know of many other councils and corporations throughout the country who have taken similar strong stands on the striking of rates, who refused to strike rates but there was no attempt by the Minister of the day to abolish such councils or corporations. There were discussions, there was compromise and there were assurances given to these authorities that certain steps would be taken to cushion the impact of the rates on the community. Certain grants were provided in order to ease the situation and as a result of the extending of the hand of friendship by the Minister of the day there was stepping back from the brink of dissolution. However, there was no such attempt to compromise in respect of Dublin City Council. It is wrong that the capital city should be without its mayor and council members for so long. It is wrong in particular that one man should control the destiny of almost a million people, a man entrenched in the city hall with vast dictatorial powers and with no one to say "yea or nay" to him. It is no wonder that there is this estrangement between large sections of the people of this city and its executive. That gulf has widened in recent times. The reason for this has been that there were no public representatives to put the views of the people to the city manager.

There is now the opportunity to restore democracy to this city and to Bray also. All the signs are there of anxiety, estrangement and protestation by various sections of the community. I do not wish to refer at any length to the rent strike or the evictions that have taken place except to say that this sorry state of affairs would never have reached such serious dimensions if there had existed during the past few years a Dublin City Council and a Bray Urban District Council. Knowing the calibre of the public representatives involved who could represent the hopes, the needs, the fears and the aspirations of the people, this rift would never have taken place.

We all know that democracy ordains that the voice of the people shall be heard. Public representatives are the liaison between the people and the Executive and there will be, I fear, a worsening of relationship as long as this void is unfilled, until the corporation is restored to its full vigour. We have in this measure an opportunity to restore the democratic process. I do not think the situation is such that we can wait until June, 1973, or, perhaps, later to hold these elections in Dublin and Bray. We have the opportunity now to do so and the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government should grasp it with both hands.

There was undoubtedly disappointment throughout the country that the local elections were postponed and this disappointment was expressed in areas where local authorities have been operating fully, actively, enthusiastically, on behalf of their people. There must surely be a feeling of despair among the people of Dublin and Bray that they should be without a corporation and an urban district council for a longer period. The postponement must surely have been a great disappointment to them in particular. We are asking now that this wrong should be redressed. I know that the members of the Dublin Corporation of that day have been maligned for what they did. It has been said that it was their own fault, that they were responsible for their own abolition. We have experienced scant sympathy from the Fianna Fáil benches for any excuses we put up or our claim for the restoration of these bodies. I believe that the Labour, Fine Gael and other members of Dublin Corporation took a noble and honourable stand on that occasion. The stand was to expose the scandal of the spiralling of rates and to impress on the Government the urgency and importance of doing something positive to cushion the impact of rates on the people. It was their way of protesting in the strongest possible terms. It was the only thing they could do to bring to the notice of the Government the urgency of reform in respect of rates generally. We all know the extent of public indignation concerning the spiralling of rates, the growing hardship that is on all our people, not merely in this city but throughout the length and breadth of the land. We all know how much people desire a change in the rating system.

An Ceann Comhairle

This has nothing to do with the amendment.

Mr. Treacy

This was the primary reason for the stand taken on that occasion, to expose and highlight a national scandal and call for redress. There was nothing ignoble about that. They did nothing more than many other local authorities have done to my knowledge. Waterford County Council adopted the same posture and attitude.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is going on to a subject that does not relevantly arise on his own amendment. It has nothing to do with the two amendments before the House.

Mr. Treacy

I am merely seeking to explain the basic reason for the dissolution. Wexford County Council——

An Ceann Comhairle

The amendment deals with the holding of elections. Would the Deputy address him-self to his own amendment?

Mr. Treacy

——and many other local authorities have taken a similar stand. The Dublin Corporation of the day were not given the opportunity of taking a deep breath. As soon as they made their decision the axe fell, dissolution took place, and it may well have been for the ulterior motive of smashing the effectiveness of this very excellent democratic institution on which there was a majority of members who did not conform to the diktat of the then Minister for Local Governement.

I know there are men more capable than I of speaking on this matter which appertains primarily to Dublin and Bray but I felt resentful yesterday when our very right to refer to this matter was challenged by other Deputies. From what I have heard from the Government benches on this issue in recent times, it seems to me that there is no inclination whatever on the part of the ex-members of Dublin Corporation in the Fianna Fáil Party for the restoration of this body, no anxiety, no desire, no great enthusiasm for the reconvening of that assembly or the holding of elections to give the people a say in who should represent them. It is difficult to understand why we should have what seems to me to be an element of gloating in the downfall of Dublin Corporation and an outright intimation to us that it would not be reconvened, that we would be stymied, obstructed, in any attempt to carry out local elections for that purpose. The gauntlet has been thrown down here this evening.

We are now asking that whatever about the postponement of local elections throughout the country this capital city and Bray must not be included, the elections must take place here, the corporation restored, the mayoral office which has been referred to as one of status, dignity and importance restored. As one who was mayor of my native town, I understand the intrinsic worth of a mayor. I understand the continuity of the mayoral office and the great historical pride involved. It will be a matter of wonderment to future generations that in these years there was no mayor of this city, there were no aldermen, there were no councillors, because the Minister, Caoimhghín Uasal Ó Beóláin, decided to abolish them in such disdainful fashion. I believe the city has lost much in prestige, in the matter of local democracy and all that word implies, and I believe it has lost much in the obvious worsening situation between sections of its citizens and the Executive. The virtual dictator in the City Hall controls in his hand the destiny of nigh on a million people. In that kind of situation where democracy is set at nought there is bound to be a worsening situation. We have seen the evidence of that in Coolock when the old evil British days of eviction and terrorism were brought back again by the presence of the sheriff, the bailiff, the bums, the battering rams. This is the extent to which the situation has deteriorated because of lack of liaison between the people and the Executive. For these reasons we are asking that the opportunity be availed of to hold elections in this city and in Bray thereby restoring democracy to this very important part of Ireland.

Mr. Moore

I share the concern of Deputy Treacy about their being no Dublin City Council. Perhaps I can speak with a little more authority on this being an ex-member of that council. In the interests of historical accuracy I should like now to go over the acts which led to the downfall of that city council. In April or May of 1969 Dublin City Council in committee adopted the estimate. For some years the Fine Gael Party in that council had played at brinkmanship by threatening not to strike a rate and always, at the last moment, changing their minds. In 1969 the Labour Party played the same game of brinkmanship, hoping Fine Gael would again change their minds, and they would have a majority to adopt a rate. On this occasion, having gone too far over the brink, and despite the efforts of the Fianna Fáil group to bring some sanity into the council, the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party, by deliberate action on their part, left the Minister for Local Government of the day no option but to abolish the city council. Deputy Treacy suggests this was done by a Fianna Fáil Minister. That is so, but might I remind him that in 1924 a Cumann na nGaedheal Minister took the same action, but not over rates.

Mr. Enright

The Deputy was not a member of the corporation then, was he?

Mr. Moore

I was not around at that time, but I have read the records. The Cumann na nGaedheal Minister abolished Dublin City Council because they would not control the number of staff. In the fifties the Minister in the inter-Party Government threatened that, if the council did not strike the rate, they would be abolished. This shows that the Minister did not in 1969 act out of pique or animosity towards the members of the council. The Fianna Fáil group was the biggest group in the council. They did not have a majority but they did have a sense of responsibility. It may have looked good to refuse to strike the rate to those people who find it hard to pay rates, and there are such people.

Dr. O'Donovan

It is hard to pay them now, is it not?

Mr. Moore

It probably is.

Dr. O'Donovan

They are a lot higher.

Mr. Moore

But one does not solve a problem by refusing to face it which is what the Labour and Fine Gael Parties did on that occasion. They played politics to a disgraceful degree.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair pointed out to Deputy Treacy that this was not relevant. There are two amendments before the House and the Deputy's arguments now do not relate to either of them.

Mr. Moore

I was replying to Deputy Treacy.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair informed Deputy Treacy that he was out of order in pursuing that particular line.

Mr. Moore

I did not hear that. In the interests of historical accuracy might I be allowed some latitude on this point? There are precedents for the abolition of Dublin City Council and if, in the future, the Council acts in the same way, whatever Minister is in office will have to do the same thing. Dublin City Council is not legally due to be restored until 1974. If we are to have a proper system of local government then we will have to have in the council men and women who will do their duty even though at times it may not be a pleasant duty. I cannot agree with Deputy Treacy that there is gloating on this side of the House because we have no city council.

Mr. Treacy

The Deputy should have been here yesterday.

Mr. Moore

There are Members of this House who were not alone members of the city council but were also lord mayors, men who have a deep affection for their city and its local government. I look forward to the day when the people will be given an opportunity of returning to the city council members dedicated enough to carry out their duty, even if it is an unpleasant duty. We all of us want to see the city council back, but we do not want a hotch-potch council. It must be a council with all the dignity and characteristics of the good councils that preceded it.

Dr. O'Donovan

The Deputy means a council on which there would be a Fianna Fáil Lord Mayor.

Mr. Moore

That would be no handicap.

Dr. O'Donovan

Is that what he means by dignity?

Mr. Moore

To my mind, a good council would be synonomous with a good Lord Mayor and a good Lord Mayor would be synonomous with being a member of the Fianna Fáil Party.

Dr. O'Donovan

That is what I wanted to get.

Mr. Moore

It is on the record now.

Mr. Treacy

And a good bunch of "Yes-men" behind you and you are away with it.

Mr. Moore

The Deputy should not mention "Yes-men" after last month.

Mr. Treacy

We are talking about different yeses.

Mr. Moore

Legally, 1974 is the date for the restoration of Dublin City Council.

Dr. Byrne

That could be changed by voting in favour of this amendment.

Mr. Moore

What guarantee would there be that the Labour and Fine Gael Parties would not be just as irresponsible as they were in 1969 and do the same thing all over again?

Mr. Cunningham

The Deputy is assuming they might be elected.

Dr. O'Donovan

Were the Government members irresponsible?

Mr. Moore

No. The irresponsibility lies with the members of the Fine Gael and Labour Parties who deliberately, by collusion and coalition, wrecked the city council.

Dr. O'Donovan

But the Government broke their word.

Mr. Moore

They did not.

Dr. O'Donovan

Yes, they did.

Mr. Moore

We all want to see a council elected over this ancient city, a council which will carry out the wishes of the people. Somehow I do not think the Opposition relish the idea of going before the people. I have no fear of local elections. I want to see the city council restored. This putting down of amendments, without one word of contrition, is just so much gimmickry on the part of the Fine Gael and Labour Parties. They should honour their pledge to the people and not back out in a vital decision. We want a council which will have the courage to do the un-popular thing if that is the right thing to do. The council should be truly representative. In the last council Fianna Fáil had one-third of the membership. In the next council I believe they will have a great many more. The important thing is to elect a council which will not turn tail, for political reasons, at the first obstacle. I have no intention of supporting these amendments. I speak with all the experience of a member of Dublin City Council. Deputy Treacy never had the privilege of being a member of that council.

Therefore we look forward to the time when the council will come back, but for goodness sake, let this House give a lead to the prospective members of the city council, that if they are elected they are elected to serve the people. Deputy Treacy talks about true democracy, but it is hardly true democracy to act in such an irresponsible manner. In fact, this is the type of thing which makes a laugh of democracy.

Dr. O'Donovan

Yes, this is the type of thing that makes a laugh of democracy, what is going on in this city at present.

Mr. Moore

Yes, this wrecking of a city council——

Dr. O'Donovan

Exactly.

Mr. Moore

——by the irresponsible members of Fine Gael and Labour. We remember that some Independents voted for the Fianna Fáil Party. Deputy Treacy said the Minister acted without giving the council a chance to think. He did no such thing. If you read the record you will see that many weeks went by after the council had refused to strike the rate before he abolished the council.

An Ceann Comhairle

The only question before the House is the date on which the election should be held.

Dr. O'Donovan

Mr. Caoimhghín Ó Beoláin is a true democrat.

Mr. Moore

It is not a question of whether Mr. Caoimhghín Ó Beoláin is a democrat or anything else. The fact is that he was a Minister at the time. A Cumann na nGaedheal Minister acted in the same way, and a Fine Gael Minister in the fifties threatened the same action, and rightly so. The Fianna Fáil members of the Dublin Corporation did not try to wreck the council just for political gain. As you remarked, Sir, the main point here is the date of the election. Under the law passed in 1941, which is a long time ago, 1974 would be the date.

Dr. O'Donovan

No. It is due this year.

Mr. Moore

No, it is not.

Dr. O'Donovan

Why is this Bill before us?

Mr. Moore

The Deputy is talking about local elections in general, but I am talking about the situation under the law, in relation to a council which was abolished, and it is a five-year term.

Dr. O'Donovan

Yes, since 1967.

Mr. L. Belton

Dublin Corporation and other local elections are all held the one year; whatever is for one is for the other.

Mr. Moore

No. The Deputy is missing the point. If Dublin Corporation had acted in the same way as Cork, Limerick or Galway Corporations, then they would be included in this, but because they acted as they did they were rightly dissolved. Therefore they must do an even longer term.

Dr. O'Donovan

Is this a new law made by Deputy Moore?

Mr. Cuningham

Yes. That is the law, June, 1974.

Mr. Moore

The trouble about the Labour Members is that they will not do their homework.

Mr. P. Belton

Any time within five years.

Mr. Moore

I am no mathematician but I can at least say that from 1969 to 1974 is five years.

Mr. P. Belton

Within five years.

Mr. Moore

The maximum time is five years. Deputies will not do their homework, and this is what happened to the Dublin City Council.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Deputy Moore is now misdirecting himself.

Mr. Moore

I am not misdirecting myself. I am stating that the maximum time for the replacing of a council is five years.

Mr. L. Belton

Any time within five years.

Mr. Moore

I am talking about the maximum time.

Mr. L. Belton

Why go to the maximum?

Mr. Moore

Because we do not intend to pander to the whims of the Labour Party or Fine Gael Party.

Mr. P. Belton

What about the people of Dublin? They want a say.

Mr. Moore

I am glad the Deputy mentioned that.

Dr. O'Donovan

Why have you only 17 members out of 45?

Mr. Moore

The people over there are very concerned now about the people of Dublin, but they were not concerned about the employees of Dublin Corporation, the nurses in the hospitals, or the rest of the staff there who might not have their salaries or wages had the Minister acted in the same manner as these people acted and deprived the city of its finances.

Dr. Byrne

What about Matt Larkin being taken to court?

Mr. Moore

Who is Matt Larkin?

Dr. O'Donovan

This man who knows everything does not know who Matt Larkin is.

Mr. Moore

The point about Mr. Larkin is——

Dr. O'Donovan

He does not know Mr. Larkin.

Mr. Moore

He is the secretary of NATO. I have just thought of it now. It is suggested now that there was never a rent strike in the city council, but this is wrong, too. There were rent strikes in Dublin before that. Ask Deputy Luke Belton. Of course there were rent strikes, but the fact that you have not got a city council is not the cause of the rent strike. There are other reasons for the rent strike.

Mr. P. Belton

They did not last long before when there were members there to approach instead of a dictator.

Mr. Moore

I cannot recall how long they lasted, but we did have rent strikes.

An Ceann Comhairle

I wonder could we come back to the amendment. The amendment is very simple.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Might I help Deputy Moore to come back to the amendment? Does he not think it would be desirable to restore the council as soon as possible in the interests of the citizens of Dublin?

Mr. Moore

That was my first remark. I want them back——

Dr. O'Donovan

He wants them back in 1974.

Mr. Moore

——when Fine Gael and Labour have acquired some sense of responsibility.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Moore

I worked with these people for 20 years. I know what they are. If the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party would give some indication that they intend to act as responsible members of the corporation——

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Maybe Fianna Fáil would get a majority on it.

Dr. O'Donovan

I do not think so. I think this is the reason why——

Mr. Moore

Whether we have a majority or not we would not act in such an irresponsible way.

Mr. L. Belton

Fianna Fáil are afraid to meet NATO at the present time.

An Ceann Comhairle

That has nothing to do with the amendment.

Mr. L. Belton

One year Fianna Fáil proposed not to adopt the rate.

Mr. Moore

When was that?

Mr. L. Belton

A good few years ago.

Mr. Moore

Never in my time in it.

Mr. L. Belton

The late Bob Briscoe was on it. He was chairman of the finance committee.

Mr. P. Belton

That is when they were in opposition.

Mr. Moore

We never did that.

Mr. L. Belton

No, but you proposed it.

Mr. Moore

Even when we had an inter-Party Government I remember on one occasion proposing the rate. I just spoke those few words to try to record the reasons why the city council was abolished.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Would the Deputy not tell us why it should be restored?

Mr. Moore

I have done that, too.

Dr. Byrne

One thing I fail to understand about Deputy Moore is that while he is in favour of the corporation being restored he is going to vote against this amendment, for what reason I do not know. I should like to put it on the record that I wholeheartedly support this amendment. One million people, one-third of the population of this country, are left without any local representation whatsoever because the corporation was dissolved by the Minister for Local Government in 1969. In this city at the present time fantastic housing developments are taking place. Many of these housing estates are local authority housing estates and straddle the border between the city and the county. Because of this there are numerous local complications which the Minister for Local Government and his Parliamentary Secretary appear to fail to understand. One of these is the prohibiting of the serving of free meals to children who live in the city but attend a school in the county.

An Ceann Comhairle

What has this got to do with the amendment?

Dr. Byrne

It has this much to do with the amendment.

An Ceann Comhairle

It has nothing whatever to do with the amendment, which deals with fixing a date for an election.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): On a point of order, if the Chair would bear with Deputy Byrne——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair has borne very well for the last half hour.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Deputy Byrne is making the case that there is no one to look after these problems and I would submit that that is quite in order.

An Ceann Comhairle

That might be in order on the Estimate which is before the House but not on the amendment. I would ask the Deputy to relate his remarks to the two amendments being discussed by the House, which are very simple and specific.

Dr. Byrne

I support fully what Deputy Fitzpatrick said earlier on, that the capital city, one of the most historic cities in the country, is without a council and without a Lord Mayor, that, as a result of there being no local authority, there is nobody present to look after the many bureaucratic complications which have developed in the areas where education, housing and other developments are taking place. This has resulted in children being deprived of school meals. Were Dublin Corporation in existence at the present time, I am quite sure that this problem would be solved. The absence of a local authority has also resulted in tenants of Dublin Corporation being deprived of local authority housing grants because, although they are tenants of Dublin Corporation, they live in the Dublin county area. This is all very complicated. The Parliamentary Secretary failed to understand this when I mentioned it to him by way of supplementary question. I should just like to say as regards the rents strike that has gone on, it has finally been agreed by the city manager——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not debate this. If the Deputy imagines that he is going to debate the rent strike, he is wrong.

Dr. Byrne

I am not debating it. I am just pointing out——

An Ceann Comhairle

It does not arise and the Deputy is intelligent enough to know that.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Surely, the Deputy is entitled to give reasons why it is necessary to have a city council? One cannot discuss the amendment unless one can do that.

An Ceann Comhairle

It would open up a very wide debate on local government administration.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): It is much more important than the reason for the abolition of it, which is not relevant, with all due respect.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is what the Chair has been pointing out for the last hour. I am glad the Deputy agrees with me.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I agreed in my opening speech because I did not refer to it.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputies have an opportunity of discussing these matters on the Estimate now before the House.

Mr. P. Belton

Deputy Moore got away with it.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Moore did not get away with anything. The Chair intervened, as in the case of Deputy Treacy. The Chair is trying to keep the House to the Labour and Fine Gael amendments.

Mr. P. Belton

The reason why they want the council restored is involved.

Dr. Byrne

One of the reasons why the Fine Gael Party wants the city council and lord mayor restored is that they are of the people and are elected by the people and know the views of the people. The persons in charge of this city, the city commissioner, the city manager and the assistant city manager, very well qualified as they are, might not be as aware of the problems of the people as elected representatives would be. I find it hard to see how Deputy Moore, on the one hand, can say that Dublin Corporation is very necessary and that he would be glad to see it restored and, on the other hand, will walk into the division lobby and vote against the amendment proposing that Dublin Corporation be restored in the month of July, 1972. I happened to see a number of persons who were badly beaten—14 women and three men—arising out of an unfortunate strike which lasted for seven months. The tenant was allowed to build up arrears of rent of £300.

An Ceann Comhairle

I cannot allow the Deputy to discuss the strike on this Bill. I hope the Deputy understands that.

Dr. Byrne

I will say nothing more except that when you have in any part of the country people undergoing physical suffering and injury, be they members of the Garda Síochána or people acting on behalf of the corporation, or corporation tenants, it is an indication of the immediate necessity for the recall of Dublin Corporation and for local elections to be held in the Dublin Corporation area as soon as possible. The fact that the cost of building a one-bedroom flat in a high rise tower in Kilbarrack costs £3,957 is an indication of the need to recall Dublin Corporation. What elected representatives could possibly justify to the electorate a cost of £3,957 for such a flat, 10 storeys up? That cost was given to me two weeks ago, in reply to a Parliamentary question. You could build a house for that. Houses have been built for that cost. Dublin Corporation built houses for that cost. This is the figure given to me by the Minister for Local Government.

An Ceann Comhairle

It does not arise on the Bill.

Dr. Byrne

It would not have happen if Dublin Corporation were there.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is a matter for the Estimate, not for this measure.

Dr. Byrne

I support the amendment completely and wholeheartedly. I challenge any member of the Fianna Fáil Party who lives in a Dublin constituency to walk into the lobby against this amendment, which calls for an election in July, 1972. We will see to it that the public are informed as to who voted for the amendment and who voted against it. We will see who is going to meetings and saying one thing but saying a completely different thing by their vote in the House. I will see to it personally that the public are made aware as to who voted against Dublin Corporation being restored in July, 1972, who voted in favour of the victimisation and brutality that have gone on, perhaps through the fault of no one but because there was no corporation. Now is the time for the corporation to be recalled, not 1973 or 1974.

Dr. O'Donovan

I might at this stage tell the House what the Corporation of Dublin was. The Corporation of Dublin was the personification of the people of Dublin. The elected members of the corporation represented the citizens—one million people. They embodied the idea of the city. The individual who, above all others, represented the city was the Lord Mayor. We have had no lord mayor in this city for three or four years. Of course, the real reason we have no Lord Mayor is the fact that the Fianna Fáil Party had only 17 members on Dublin Corporation out of 45. An arrangement was made between the other two parties that they would elect the mayor in rotation. Of course, this did not suit the Fianna Fáil Party. What Deputy Moore was talking about a while ago was sticking out a mile.

Mr. Timmons

That is nonsense.

Dr. O'Donovan

It is not nonsense. It is the truth.

Mr. Timmons

Look at the record.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Dr. O'Donovan

This is typical of the Fianna Fáil Party. They are always trying to prove that black is white.

Mr. Timmons

The record shows that Fianna Fáil had more mayors than any other party even though they were in a minority on the corporation.

Dr. O'Donovan

They were never in a smaller minority than they were on the last corporation which was obliterated by the then Minister for Local Government, a well-known fascist.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Dr. O'Donovan

The word "corporation" has its origin in the Latin word "corpus", a body. This is the body which represents the people. It is much more than a bunch of individuals. In a city which is growing at the rate at which the city of Dublin is growing there are many interests and communities who need to have their voices heard. It is a great insult to the one million citizens of this city that they have been deprived for years of their traditional representatives.

The abolition of the corporation was an arrogant and arbitrary act of injustice. No matter what is said from the Government benches, that is a fact. It was a tyrannical and brutal act perpetrated by a Government whose respect for democracy has never been exemplary. They have not yet learned to honour properly the established institutions of their country. They pay lip service to them occasionally, when it suits them. They say that the corporation would not provide the money to pay for the social services, to pay the nurses, or to do this and that.

In recent years in particular, the double-think of the Government party has been so dubious that it has led the country to a ghastly situation. There is no better example of that than the position in Dublin. The result is that there is grave danger to our democratic institutions. For example, after Bloody Sunday in Derry, this was the only city in the country which was not represented at the funerals. Of course the Government were represented and they had the occasion to themselves thus proving something they believe: that they are the only people who count.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

What we are dealing with now is the date of an election.

Dr. O'Donovan

Before you came into the Chair, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, there was a lot of this sort of talk for the last hour and a half. I am only at it for a few moments. We had Deputy Seán Moore for over an hour.

Mr. Cunningham

That is an exaggeration.

Dr. O'Donovan

There is no harm in my indulging in a little exaggeration considering the way things have been going this evening. The Parliamentary Secretary will agree that we had Deputy Seán Moore for half an hour? Silence gives consent.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

What I have before me at the moment is the date on which these bodies will be elected.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I do not want to quarrel with the Chair but I made the same point to the Ceann Comhairle and he did not entirely agree with me. I would find it very hard to continue the debate on this amendment if I were not at liberty to point out reasons why there should be a corporation in Dublin city. It would be impossible to argue the case in favour of this amendment. There is no corporation at the moment in Dublin city and, to convince the Parliamentary Secretary and the House that the amendment should be accepted, it is necessary to point out all the reasons why there should be a corporation in this city at the first possible opportunity.

Mr. Cunningham

This amendment is not needed for that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

In case the Chair might be held to be inhibiting Deputy O'Donovan I want to point out that it is in order to give reasons why a corporation should be elected. It is not in order to go back on administration matters.

Dr. O'Donovan

I am giving reasons and examples of how this city suffered as a result of having no Lord Mayor and burgesses. We got an official document the other day which said that the Lord Mayor and burgesses of the city of Dublin did so and so. I forget what it was about.

Mr. Timmins

Alderman and burgesses.

Dr. O'Donovan

We all got this document in our post. It is all imagination. There is no reality. It is a pretence and a piece of cod. The document mentioned a non-existent Lord Mayor, alderman and burgesses.

I want to come back to a very unfortunate occasion in our history recently. This city was the only city in the country which was not represented at the funerals in Derry. That had a serious influence on the people of the city. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will know what I am talking about. Other cities were able to send a wreath or had their Lord Mayor or mayor present but the people of Dublin had no one to send on their behalf. This is one example where the lack of the symbolic embodiment of the spirit of Dublin had most serious consequences and a most devastating effect. By denigrating the people of Dublin through the abolition of the corporation, and treating the citizens of Dublin with contempt, the Government have weakened the fabric of our society. The population of Dublin is one-third of the people in this part of the country. The Government have, in fact, dealt a dangerous blow to democracy and democracy has been a slow growth in this country since 1921.

Fundamentally there is a most important principle at stake here, the principle on which the America colonies fought for their independence: no taxation without representation. There is no representation in this city and at the moment taxation through the rating system is the highest it has ever been. It went up from £4 in the £ to £6 in the £ since the corporation was abolished. In other words, it has gone up by 50 per cent in a few years. The officials who are the servants of the people carry out their work to the best of their ability, but they do not represent the citizens. These officials and, in particular the city manager and the commissioner, decide how much money is to be levied on the people of the city, a most improper business. There is no use in Deputy Moore talking at length about the time when the Cumann na nGaelheal Government abolished Dublin Corporation. At that time they abolished many other local authorities and there were serious reasons for it.

Mr. P. Belton

That is correct.

Dr. O'Donovan

There was no serious reason recently. The fact is— and I stand over this—that the then Minister for Health had promised that the levy for health services would not be increased and the very next year the Government broke their word. They abolished Dublin Corporation because the corporation stood up to them. What is the philosophy obtaining among those authorised by the Government to run this city? Certainly it is not a democratic philosophy.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Will the Parliamentary Secretary not give any views as to why he will not hold elections?

Mr. Clinton

He should not run away.

Dr. O'Donovan

Is he running away? Does he not like the trouncing?

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr. Lemass)

We never run away from Deputy O'Donovan.

Dr. O'Donovan

That is good to hear.

Mr. Clinton

The Parliamentary Secretary now in the House is in a very embarrassing position.

Mr. Lemass

I had a nice chat with Deputy Treacy last night.

Mr. L. Belton

Would he like to have a chat with Matt Larkin?

Mr. Lemass

I would do that, too.

Dr. O'Donovan

Deputy Moore attempted to tell the House that the next election for Dublin is due in 1974. That is the kind of thing that stinks in my nostrils. It stinks to high heaven to hear a Fianna Fáil man arguing to our faces what is to me an obvious falsehood—that the next election for Dublin Corporation is not due until 1974. Why, then, is this Bill before us? It is before us because the election is due this year and the purpose of the Bill is to postpone it for a year. It is no use anybody telling me there was any other reason for the abolition of Dublin Corporation except that Fianna Fáil had only 17 members out of 45.

Mr. Lemass

Two more than the time before when we elected three lord mayors with 15 members.

Dr. O'Donovan

Perhaps he would explain why it is——

Mr. Lemass

I will. There are some people with independent opinions who make the best out of the talent available. People realised that Fianna Fáil had the best talent.

Mr. P. Belton

People with bad eyesight.

Dr. O'Donovan

The corporation were abolished because Fianna Fáil knew that in the past 20 years they have never had real support in the city of Dublin and, therefore, they punished the people of Dublin like on many occasions they punished the people of the country for refusing to elect them as a Government. They think they have a God-given right——

Mr. Lemass

The city council were given two chances to carry out their statutory duties.

Dr. O'Donovan

What about the chances the then Minister for Local Government was given? We hear all sorts of references to the Dublin Corporation. This, of course, is a myth of the worst sort. Suppose Dublin Corporation to be still in existence——

Mr. P. Belton

Fianna Fáil would have three members fewer if they were still in existence—the three members who have left the party.

Dr. O'Donovan

I agree that never again they would have seen a Lord Mayor among their ranks.

Mr. P. Belton

Those days are gone forever.

Dr. O'Donovan

There was not to be another Fianna Fáil Lord Mayor in the five-year period. That is what they were faced with. If the city council were in existence, I can well imagine the rumpus there would be at the moment with the rates standing at £6 in the £. I can imagine what we would hear from the Government, a Government who think they are entitled to spend any money they like but that nobody else is entitled to do anything.

This amendment put down by Deputies Treacy, Kavanagh and me is the proper way to deal with this matter—the restoration immediately to the people of Dublin of their democratic council. If the present Government had any commonsense they would realise that if they do harm they can undo some of it by taking the first opportunity to restore the position as it was. The Parliamentary Secretary does not have to answer me on this amendment because it is not alone this amendment which is contentious from the Government's point of view. They do not accept any amendment. You can count on the fingers of your two hands the number of amendments they have accepted.

Mr. Cunningham

The Deputy must not have been in the House for amendment No. 2.

Dr. O'Donovan

Indeed, I was. The Government did not accept that amendment.

Mr. Cunningham

I suggested a method of dealing with it.

Dr. O'Donovan

The Parliamentary Secretary gave a promise but he did not accept the amendment. There is no use in the Parliamentary Secretary starting this kind of battle because he will get the worst of it. I spend a lot more time in the House than he does, for reasons of my own, and I have watched systematically amendment after amendment, ones with real merit, being turned down because they did not appeal to Ministers.

Mr. Cunningham

Deputy Fitzpatrick disagrees with the Deputy.

Dr. O'Donovan

On what?

Mr. Cunningham

On the Deputy's statement.

Dr. O'Donovan

Which statement?

Mr. Cunningham

On Ministers not accepting amendments.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I said Deputy O'Malley is the exception.

Dr. O'Donovan

Deputy O'Malley was on pretty thin ice and if it broke he might have fallen in and got cold. He accepted certain things, therefore. I again commend the amendment but I am well aware there is not a chance of it being given any consideration. If the Parliamentary Secretary is not a dishonest man he will get up and say he will accept it.

Mr. Timmons

I just want to say a few words on this. I do not want to be repetitive on the background to the dissolution of the former city council except to say that I think it is a matter of deep regret that the council had to be abolished. In previous discussions on this, the responsibility for that dissolution was put fairly and squarely on the shoulders of those who are now in this House advocating the holding of elections. The Fine Gael and the Labour members coalesced to bring about the dissolution of the city council. It was a conscious decision on their part and it was an evasion of their responsibilities with regard to the health charges. I have been a long-standing member of the council and have given many years service to the citizens of Dublin, as have many Members of this House. A new council was elected a year prior to the dissolution of the city council and certain people were elected who might be regarded as irresponsible. I regret the city council was dissolved. As has been pointed out, I had the honour to be elected Lord Mayor of Dublin, following in the footsteps of many illustrious people.

Dr. Byrne referred to the fact that in the last few years the city of Dublin has expanded enormously. It is obvious that the areas which constitute the boundaries of the city council are completely out-of-date. If a new council is established it must be on a wider basis and that will take time. In the north-east area of Dublin there are more than 200,000 people; new families are coming in every week and there is a spillover into the county areas. The Parliamentary Secretary adverted to this fact when commenting on the White Paper on local government reorganisation.

It will not be possible to rush in and hold elections for the new council. It will take time, consideration and informed opinion on the structure of a new city council. For that reason I oppose any move to have an election pending reorganisation——

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Does the Deputy mean gerrymandering the constituencies?

Mr. Timmons

There is an urgent need for the revision of boundaries, with the election of more members to serve the needs of the rapidly developing districts which now constitute our city.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

I support these two motions, both of which urge on the Government the necessity to hold the elections in Dublin Corporation and Bray Urban Council before this year is over. I am sorry that Deputy Timmons is leaving the House; he was Lord Mayor on two occasions and he filled that high office with distinction.

As a result of the actions of the Government three years ago, the city of Dublin has been deprived of a Lord Mayor and a council. We all know that the officers of the council have carried out their work ably and efficiently in the meantime, but that is not the point. The important and vital point in this matter is what has happened since then to the image of democracy in this part of Ireland, and God knows we need to fly the flag of democracy as bravely and as proudly as we can. Many things depend on it—many things which are more important than 45 men and women meeting in the city council or more important than the presence of a Lord Mayor. Important as all that is for this city, there is the more important fact that the Government of this part of Ireland in the eyes of the world, and in the eyes of the inhabitants of the North of Ireland, should not only administer democracy to the best of their ability but, to quote a cliché, should be seen to administer it.

What has happened in this case? I have served on Dublin Corporation for more than 30 years. I have spent a great part of my life dealing with matters of local administration and local government as a member of Dún Laoghaire Borough Corporation and of Dublin Corporation. I was fortunate enough to be chosen Lord Mayor. The year I spent as Lord Mayor was the happiest and loveliest year of my life. Nothing can ever come up to that again. Although I was not Lord Mayor for a second time I did not mind because it was such a splendid and fine experience. To experience the esteem in which the people of Dublin held their Lord Mayor was something that would humble one and leave one in a position where no other office or no repetition of the office of Lord Mayor could ever have the same meaning again.

Unfortunately, Deputy Timmons who was Lord Mayor for three years in succession, was almost inaudible to us on this side of the House when he spoke a few moments ago. However, he made an apologia, as anyone who was ever Lord Mayor must make, for the Government but there can be only an apologia. There can be no vindication and certainly no justification for what happened. I speak from the heart when I say that to deprive the citizens of Dublin of a city council and of a Lord Mayor was one of the greatest hurts that the Government ever inflicted on them. The citizens of this city always loved their Lord Mayor and, God knows, down through the years there were times when they had to tolerate strange individuals in that office. They were delighted to have a Lord Mayor to preside at various functions. He was their first citizen and, with the exception of the President, he had precedence over everyone. I regret to say that there were occasions on which Ministers of State attempted to filch that position.

The Lord Mayor is not concerned in any way with political matters but, yet, he represents a father figure to the people. He is one who does not assume the role of a leader but he has great antiquity going back into the mists of time. Long before the EEC were ever heard of we were part of Europe. We shared the heritage of Europe and, far back, shared in the heritage of the great Roman Empire which had the wand of office of Lord Mayor. The red robes worn by Lord Mayors are a symbol of authority. In Dublin the office of Lord Mayor moved far beyond the position of authority. As I have said, he represented a father figure to the almost one million citizens. For as far back as I can remember the people of Dublin have believed that this figure could stand between them and certain dangers. We have had very many fine Lord Mayors. The late Alfie Byrne, for instance, was elected to office on about ten successive occasions.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sure the Deputy will appreciate that we are dealing with an amendment which deals with election of members.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

After all, I am an ex-Lord Mayor of this city. Behind this amendment there is the urge of the citizens of Dublin to have a Lord Mayor, regardless of which political party he belongs to. I wish to point out how disgraceful it was—I use the word "disgraceful" with all the sincerity that I am capable of expressing—that a Government, owing to the temperamental disposition of a Minister, should have deprived the people of this city of their rights.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has pointed out already that the past should not be dealt with.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

It is of vital importance that there be a city council and the Lord Mayor is the spearhead of the council, but his role involves more than merely being a member of the council. He can be likened to an ambassador. The hurt that has been caused to the people of this city must be righted as soon as possible. It is nonsense to say that various changes must take place. The Corporation of Dublin and the office of Lord Mayor were not abolished because the boundaries were not right. They were abolished because of a personality clash between the Minister of the day and the corporation and the Government should have been big enough——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair must point out to the Deputy at this stage that reasons for elections for Dublin Corporation are relevant but to deal with the past is not.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

It was a personality clash and that personality clash must not be carried on any longer because the personality clash which occurred and brought about that sad and tragic event was afterwards echoed in the Government.

Mr. Cunningham

There is a procedural clash between the Deputy and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle at the moment.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

Not at all. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle in his infinite wisdom has merely given me an opportunity to point out the difficulties which brought about the abolition of Dublin Corporation, which afterwards caused a personal hurt to the Government but not more than to the citizens of Dublin. Therefore, it is high time and overdue that Dublin Corporation should come back again, perhaps with all the embarrassments it brings to a Government, but that is democracy. It is a democratic body of 45 people and different from Dáil Éireann in not accepting the governmental whip and not answering to the tempo set by any Government.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair must point out that the Deputy is moving away completely from the amendment.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

I wish to point out that because these 45 people have their own democratic and independent way of looking at things, they are bound inevitably to be at a degree of variance with the Government, but if a Government are truly democratic and wish to have in the city of Dublin, the capital city——

Mr. Cunningham

If the Deputy were democratic, he would obey the rulings of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

I bow to the democratic rights of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Mr. Treacy

One of the most distinguished Lords Mayor of this city is now speaking.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair hopes the Deputy will keep to the amendment.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

My point is that a grievous hurt was done to the city of Dublin and the sooner it is remedied the better. It came about through a personality clash with the corporation which in fact was nothing to the personality clash which came later in the Government. They even lost a seat over it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may not deal with that matter.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

I want to make that point because it is vital.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may not proceed on that basis.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

It is a point that has to be made and must be made. I have made a brief intervention in this debate but I could talk for a month, having spent so many years on this body and loving it so dearly. I saw what it could do for the city, notwithstanding what the officials can do. They do a good job but they cannot do what the Corporation of Dublin has done. In the speech of the previous Deputy who also was Lord Mayor, I see raising its rather slimy head the idea that changes must be brought about. The abolition of the Corporation of Dublin and of the office of Lord Mayor had nothing to do with changes to be brought about. It had to do with the ill-temper of a Minister who afterwards vented it on his own Government.

Mr. Cunningham

This is a very simple amendment, proposing a date for local elections to be held in the case of Dublin. I did appreciate the lengthy contributions on this Committee Stage but the amendment is of course superfluous——

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

It is vital.

Mr. Cunningham

——and the proposers of the amendments have so indicated. It is not necessary to put an amendment in the Bill to enable local elections to take place in Dublin and Bray. This is possible under the 1941 Act and the Minister at any time up to five years, which is 1974, can by order cause elections to be held. It is not proposed to do this in the context or against the background of discussions, talks and proposals for the reorganisation of local government in which the city and county will be involved.

Mr. Clinton

That is the greatest single reason why it should come into being.

Mr. Cunningham

The Deputy's colleague, Deputy Byrne, complained about what is happening, due to the spread and expansion of the city into the county and this point which he mentioned is one of the very good reasons why some reorganisation in local government should take place. What I am saying is that a Bill will be introduced based on the White Paper on local government reorganisation—I do not know what the contents of that Bill will be—which will put forward certain proposals to the House which may or may not be acceptable but from which will emerge at least a certain reorganisation of local government.

Mr. Treacy

When?

Mr. Cunningham

Fairly soon.

Mr. P. Belton

Never.

Mr. Cunningham

In view of that it is not proposed to have local elections to deal specifically with these two areas where local bodies have been abolished. Any Minister would do this. It is a pity the Fine Gael Shadow Minister is not here. He would have done exactly the same thing if he were Minister. So would the Labour Shadow Minister for Local Government. It was done by Ministers of all parties. A large number of local authorities have been abolished for this and other reasons. It is nothing new. To say that the rates in Dublin have gone up because there were no elected members of the corporation and no Lord Mayor is just not true. Rates in every local authority have increased for various reasons. The people demand better services and are getting them; they demand more houses and are getting them; they demand all the various other services and to have these services, which are provided in small part by the rates contribution, we must have rates and we have all over the country increases in rates. This has happened irrespective of whether there are or are not elected councils or corporations. Take the rent strike at the moment, the NATO thing which was referred to.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

That has nothing to do with the abolition of the council.

Mr. Cunningham

I agree with the Deputy. That is what I was about to say. He has said it for me. His colleagues have been arguing all afternoon that it has.

Mr. P. Belton

Of course it has.

Mr. Cunningham

I do not want to go into the whole background of what caused this but it was referred to by every speaker, I think. It must be remembered that we had a situation where a rate for the ensuing year was proposed based on calculations or estimates of expenditure for the coming year and also, as far as I remember, part of that rate was required to cover over-expenditure the previous year. In other words, we had a council who were prepared not alone to spend the money which was provided for in the rate of the previous year but who ate into next year's loaf also and then refused to strike the rate for the coming year which included estimates for actual expenditure and for over-expenditure the previous year.

Mr. P. Belton

Plus increased health charges. That was the reason.

Mr. Cunningham

Plus increased everything. Yes, Deputy. Plus increased money for all services, not alone health.

Mr. P. Belton

Fianna Fáil promised to stabilise them.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. L'Estrange

They promised to stabilise health charges in 1965 before the general election and then forgot all about it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary should be allowed to speak.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Carter

Take your medicine quietly.

Mr. Cunningham

Deputy Dockrell is beginning to complain. I interrupted him twice I think. We will not quarrel about these things.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

We did not come to blows and I did not propose the Parliamentary Secretary's abolition, though I might have.

Mr. Cunningham

We will not take this too seriously. The amendment is superfluous, in the first place. It does give an opportunity to have quite a wide-ranging debate. But to get back to Dublin Corporation, which it is proposed in this amendment to reinstate following a proposed election next month, the cause of the abolition was the notice they put up: "Non Serviam, we will not serve, we will not do what we were elected to do”—that is, provide for the ensuing year enough money to run the services together with any balance of unpaid debts which were left over from the previous year. Having had their cake and eaten it the two parties, the grand coalition, decided to abandon ship.

Mr. L'Estrange

Fianna Fáil councillors did it in the previous years.

Mr. Cunningham

It has been done previously by all parties.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I think we should allow the Parliamentary Secretary to make a case against restoring a brand new council.

Mr. Cunningham

I shall deal with the matter in my own way and fairly briefly. A public inquiry was held after this decision not to strike a rate. The Minister did not rush in, pick up the hammer and knock Dublin Corporation.

Mr. L'Estrange

He knocked himself since then. He committed harakiri.

Mr. Cunningham

There was a public inquiry held and it was reported to the Minister from that public inquiry that the rate the members proposed to strike was not adequate. As a result the Minister, having given a further 14 days, had to prorogue the corporation. This is the picture. If the people of Dublin are without that beautiful father figure Deputy Dockrell has mentioned, place the blame fairly and squarely on the grand coalition. It is a pity that father figure did not take the councillors aside and say: "This is what is going to happen if you do not do your duty." It happened before in Dublin Corporation, and not under a Fianna Fáil Government.

Mr. P. Belton

For different reasons.

Mr. Moore

It was still abolished.

Mr. Cunningham

Dublin Corporation was out of existence from 1924 to 1930, a period of six years. It has happened all over the country in various county councils, urban councils and town commissioners. These from time to time have been abolished. The bringing back into being of councils, by and large, coincided with local elections. We are following a well——

Mr. Clinton

Worn path.

Mr. Cunningham

——known path There are many precedents for this.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): All very interesting as to why it was abolished, but no case for not restoring it.

Mr. L'Estrange

Hear, hear.

Mr. Cunningham

They knew perfectly well why they were abolished. There was an inquiry and there was no undue haste.

Mr. Clinton

It is the present we want to deal with, not history. We want to deal with the present tragic situation

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary must be allowed his opportunity.

Mr. Cunningham

The Minister will have to deal specially with the situation in Dublin and Bray. He will have to make a special order in respect of both Dublin and Bray to enable the elections to be held in June of next year. Legally he could leave the corporation prorogued until 1974. This amendment is superfluous. It is not necessary to do the job about which Deputies have been talking.

Mr. P. Belton

I support the amendment. Deputy Timmons said that the council would be on a wider basis. We have no information that that is to be the case. The Parliamentary Secretary also referred to this. It is amazing what the Government Party can do when they like.

I represent Dublin North-East and I saw a big section taken out of Dublin North-East for the Dáil elections in order to make sure that Deputy Foley would be elected.

Mr. L'Estrange

They would not do that now.

Mr. P. Belton

Deputy Dockrell said that we should have some democracy in the city of Dublin. We criticise the North, particularly Belfast, but, if one party is in control there, they have at least been elected by the people. That is not the position here.

Dublin has a population of 1,000,000 people and no city council. In the rest of the country you have 1¾ million people with something approaching 30 councils to represent them. That is one reason why I think we should have an election immediately. There are a great many civil servants and Ministers running 2¾ million people. In Dublin 1,000,000 people are being run by a commissioner and a city manager.

Mr. Moore

There are not 1,000,000 people in Dublin.

Mr. P. Belton

There are 700,000.

Mr. Moore

Not even that— 300,000.

Mr. P. Belton

We have 200,000 in Dublin North-East. The Deputy should get his figures correct.

Mr. Moore

The Deputy's figures are wrong.

Mr. L'Estrange

His figures are right.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot have an argument on this. Deputy Belton.

Mr. Moore

The Deputy is taking the Greater Dublin area.

Mr. P. Belton

That is why Deputy Timmons wants in and that is why I am referring to it. There are two men running the city of Dublin, a commissioner and a city manager. They make the decisions. Both can be sacked by the Minister. It might be difficult to sack the manager but the commissioner could be sacked tomorrow morning. The commissioner is under instruction from the Department. If one puts down a question here, however, one is told by the Minister that he has no function and the matter is one for Dublin corporation.

It is argued here that the abolition of the council was brought about by the Fine Gael and Labour members of the council. When the health charge was first introduced, Deputy Ryan, Minister for Health, said it would cost only 2s 6d in the £. It increased and, in 1964, we were told there would be no further increase and that it would be kept at that particular level. But each year it went up and the Labour and Fine Gael representatives watched it going up, contrary to the Minister's promise, and eventually they decided they would vote against it because they could not possibly let it go any higher. In the same way Deputy O'Malley, Minister for Justice, promised that the Forcible Entry Act would not be used unless people were squatting. It was used the other day in Cromcastle against a tenant.

A council acts as a buffer. Representatives can be approached for assistance in various matters or to have grievances remedied. Now the people have no buffer because one man makes the decisions and no one can change them.

Members of the corporation are elected in the same way as Members are elected to this House. Constituents can approach Members of this House and ask them to do something for them. They could do the same with the members of the corporation. There is no approach open to them now where the corporation is concerned. There is no one to meet deputations and no one to make representations. Residents' associations have now no one to approach if certain amenities are not provided. At the moment in Dublin North-East there is a specific problem; builders got permission to build subject to leaving enough space for schools. These builders are now asking an exorbitant price for this land. The people there have no representation on Dublin Corporation because Dublin Corporation has been abolished and they have no one to approach to solve this problem for them. They could see the city manager but it usually takes a long time to see the city manager. Residents' associations are anxious to get open spaces. Here, again, it is through the decision of the manager that permission is granted but it still has to come before the council of the corporation where it will be discussed. If he is overruled or if there is a lot of opposition, he will think twice before taking a decision the next time. I can see the city manager making good decisions and making bad decisions, but when there are 45 members in the council there will be fewer bad decisions and less of a dictatorial attitude.

This is the biggest city in the Thirty-two Counties and when people visit the city there is no Lord Mayor to meet them. They are entertained by a Minister who, of course, represents the Government. I shall not go into the question of the mayoralty because Deputy Dockrell spoke about it very eloquently, but I think the people of Dublin would like to have a Lord Mayor to meet the people, and this has gone with the abolition of the council.

There are various other matters in which Deputy Moore is interested. There is pollution around our coast. The corporation officials are too busy to deal with this. How often have Deputies who were also members of the corporation got in touch with the Department concerned and had the appropriate action taken?

Mr. L'Estrange

Some of them were out cleaning up rivers themselves.

Mr. Moore

That is right. Some of the Deputy's colleagues.

Mr. L'Estrange

They were giving good example.

Mr. P. Belton

Reference was made to tenants' associations. These people are looking for what might be called a negotiating licence. They have objected to the manager not meeting them. When there was a council there they were representative of three parties and some Independents and these associations could try to put their point across. These points could then be put across at a council meeting, but now you either meet the manager or you meet nobody. If there is a meeting with the manager at which certain proposals are agreed upon and if subsequently there has to be a slight variation, he has not time to meet them again. The council member acts as a liaison between the residents and the corporation itself. Until the council comes back, the city has no image. The officials are doing their job as well as they can, but there is no substitute for elected members of the council.

In Northern Ireland they have a corporation. One wonders which part of the country is for democracy. It looks as if they have democracy there, but they have not; we have it here but we are trying to get rid of it as we go along. When these people were put out of their houses in Cromcastle Court it is amazing the number of people who would have thought—I am not saying this happened—that the Minister for Local Government, the Minister for Justice and the manager had a hand in putting them out under the Forcible Entry legislation. Until the council is re-established this image will not disappear.

Mr. Dowling

I should like to congratulate the upholders of democracy, particularly people like Deputy Tom Fitzpatrick of Cavan, Deputy Mark Clinton, Deputy Seán Treacy, Deputy Maurice Dockrell, people who never condoned the irresponsible action taken by certain members of Dublin Corporation, people who always fully accepted their responsibilities, people who struck the rates for their local authority, indeed, struck the rate during that particular year, notwithstanding the fact that indications had been given that a promise was made. If it was made to one local authority it was made to all local authorities. All these men, whose real concern is for democracy, have spoken. They would not condoned the irresponsible action of a group of people, members of the Fine Gael and Labour Parties, who neglected their duty and deprived Dublin of a city council. On that occasion I was the one who proposed the adopting of the rate because I felt that I, with other members of my party, had a duty to strike the rate. The members of Fine Gael and Labour had no thought for the aged people, for the recipients of home assistance, for the home helps, for medical card holders, for old age pensioners, for widows and orphans and other social welfare beneficiaries.

Before Deputy Belton goes I want to say a word about pollution. He spoke about pollution, but I want to speak about the political pollution of this city which was evident in the lifetime of that council and which is so obvious to the Members who are here today. It is remarkable that the Fine Gael and Labour Parties have not brought a single speaker who was a member of the council at that time to defend their actions. The reason they are not coming forward is that they know how irresponsible they were. They know the section of the community who would be hurt most if their resolution was carried. If there was a lay-off of personnel because of the lack of finance to meet the cost of the various services there would be another story.

I have absolute sympathy for Deputy Mark Clinton, Deputy Seán Treacy, Deputy Tom Fitzpatrick and Deputy Maurice Dockrell and for all the other Deputies who spoke from the Fine Gael and Labour benches because they do not know what happened at that council meeting. They do not know what happened in committee or what happened at the party meetings of the particular groups. The fact is that the Fine Gael and Labour hatchet men at the time were concerned about eliminating members of their own party so that they would not be an election opposition for them. They succeeded, at the expense of the city council. We know the type of meetings that were held, where they were held and what happened. Certain members of the Labour Party and of the Fine Gael Party were concerned about their own members, about budding politicians in their party. They are the people they wanted to put out of public life and they succeeded in doing that.

An Ceann Comhairle

How is this related to the two amendments before the House, which deal with the date for holding an election?

Mr. L'Estrange

The Deputy is completely wrong.

Mr. Dowling

It is a pity you, Sir, were not here a few minutes ago when they were dealing with the Criminal Justice Bill, the eviction of tenants, the pollution of rivers and various other things.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Chair did not allow it.

Mr. Geoghegan

Do not be twofaced. Everything was covered.

Mr. L'Estrange

I am not getting like Jack. There is no double talk and double action on this side.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Dowling

I am concerned about the election of a proper council.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Exactly.

Mr. Dowling

I hope the day is not far distant when we will have, in fact, a responsible council, when we will have members who are just as responsible as Deputy Fitzpatrick is——

Mr. L'Estrange

The people of Dublin are responsible enough to elect such a council. Give them the opportunity.

Mr. Dowling

——who are just as responsible as Deputy Mark Clinton and Deputy Treacy, who will always strike the rate, always meet their responsibilities in full.

Mr. L'Estrange

Are you afraid to meet the people of Dublin now?

Mr. Dowling

We heard a great deal from Deputy Dockrell. He spoke about the Minister of the day, the clash of personalities, about the results of the action of the Government. As I pointed out, the Government were not responsible in this case. It was the shameful and scandalous behaviour of the Fine Gael and Labour members of the city council that was responsible. As I have said, every effort was made by Fianna Fáil to ensure the continuity of the city council at that time and every effort was made by the irresponsible councillors who allowed——

An Ceann Comhairle

What has this to do with the amendments?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Does the Deputy want the city council restored? That is what the amendment is about.

Mr. Moore

He told you that already.

Mr. Dowling

I want to correct some of the statements made. As I said before, I have absolute sympathy for the members of Fine Gael and Labour who have spoken.

Mr. Clinton

Has the Deputy sympathy for the citizens of Dublin?

Mr. Dowling

I have absolute sympathy for them. I and my colleagues supported the adoption of the rates and wanted the city council retained and it was because of the irresponsible group that the council was abolished.

An Ceann Comhairle

We cannot hold an inquest on the reasons why Dublin Corporation was abolished. It is not relevant on these two amendments.

Mr. Dowling

I am only participating in the same inquest as has been going on here all day.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Include Mr. Boland in it, while you are at it.

Mr. Dowling

I am confining myself to the city council. Others dealt with the pollution of the Dodder, the Criminal Justice Bill and various other matters.

Dr. O'Connell

The Forcible Entry Bill.

Mr. Dowling

I want to see a responsible council. I hope the day is not far distant when the citizens will have a responsible council again. I am quite certain that when they get the opportunity they will elect responsible persons to the city council. I would point out, however, that when the council was in operation, before it was abolished, every single member of Fine Gael and of Labour adopted in a committee of the whole house the rate which they refused to adopt in public. This was typical of them. They do one thing behind closed doors and another thing in public. This was not the only occasion on which one decision was taken behind closed doors and another decision was taken in public. We know quite well the reason. It was because the politicians in the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party had their eye on budding people in their areas and wanted to get them out of the way.

An Ceann Comhairle

This has nothing to do with the amendments. I would ask the Deputy to come to the two amendments.

Mr. L'Estrange

The reason for what?

Mr. Dowling

I am merely making the point that the reorganisation of local authorities is very important in order to ensure that we will have responsible local government, responsible local councils and that they will be brought in a realistic way into focus in the cities and in the development areas of this city, that requires largescale adjustment in order to cater for the new needs.

I hope the reorganisation will take place at an early stage and so enable the Dublin electorate once again to express forcefully their opinion as to who should represent them. I am quite certain that, when the time comes, the people will do that in no uncertain terms. We will make the position quite clear, that it is a responsible council that is required, a council that will not endeavour to deprive the weaker section of the community of the services to which they are justly entitled.

I want to congratulate all the responsible public representatives of the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party who have so ably contributed here today, who, in their own local authorities, accepted their responsibilities in full and adopted the rate on every single occasion. I hope they will not condone the irresponsible action of the political opportunists, who sought the opportunity to have the city council abolished in order to get someout of the way. Now that that somebody is out of the way, they are quite prepared to go back. I hope the Minister will expedite this reorganisation as far as possible and that in due course there will be a reorganised local authority in Dublin. When that day comes we will have a council that will meet its responsibilities in full.

I sympathise with the members of Fine Gael and Labour who have spoken, who know nothing at all about the mechanics of the Dublin Corporation, because it was a peculiar set-up. We know where meetings were held and how they were held, the pressures that were exerted right along the line. I sympathise with them for the second-hand information they got from the people in their parties who have not shown up here today. Not one single member of the Fine Gael Party or the Labour Party who was a member of Dublin Corporation at that time has come in here to defend their irresponsible and disgraceful action in depriving Dublin of the city council, which was abolished as a result of their irresponsible and scandalous action.

Once again, I would ask the Minister to ensure that when the reorganisation of the local authority takes place we will have at the earliest possible moment a council elected to Dublin city that will do justice. I am quite certain that it will have a Fianna Fáil majority.

Mr. Kavanagh

These two amendments give an opportunity to both Deputy Moore and Deputy Dowling to put their words into practice, to allow the corporation to be re-elected in the month of July. The professions of their belief in local democracy will ring very hollow to the people of Dublin if they do not support the amendments. We are calling on anybody here who believes in local democracy to vote for the return of the corporation and of the Bray Urban Council in July.

The sentence meted out to both the Bray and Dublin councils was for five years and, apparently, there is to be no remission of that sentence by any period of time. We are asking that the people now, in retrospect, will look at the situation and say that both of these areas have suffered enough from the lack of democracy. Indeed, we have heard a great deal of talk about Dublin Corporation, in particular. This obviously is so since there are so many people in this House who are returned for the Dublin Corporation area. There is nobody from the Bray urban area in this House so I intend to dwell a little longer on the problems confronting the people in Bray because of a lack of democracy in that area.

Anybody who has been in Bray recently knows that you have the greatest difficulty in getting up or down the main street because of the chaotic situation there. In the past two years attempts were made to provide traffic lights at one busy intersection. Because of lack of consultation with the local people and local representatives, the lights were set up but they were never switched on. It was quite obvious that they could not operate because of the way they were fixed. The town of Bray was held up to ridicule in a television programme because these lights which were erected at something like £2,000 were never switched on. They were removed some time later and the chaos still remains.

Last year during the height of the summer, during a particularly warm spell, raw sewage spewed up from the sewers in a street near the sea front for a full week without any action being taken. Had there been 12 elected councillors, action would have been taken on the day the problem arose. Many people in the area make their living in the tourist industry. Yet, the offence to eyes and nose was allowed to continue for a week, despite the protests of former public representatives and the protests of ratepayers to the Town Hall. How could any elected councillor permit that situation to continue if he had to face an electorate?

How can a man who closes the door at 5 o'clock and goes off to somewhere in County Dublin and forgets about the problems and the worries of the people of Bray have the same interest as councillors who represent the community in Bray? Two months ago I had to protest to the Bray town clerk because one morning word was sent out that the water would be turned off in Bray for 48 hours. Three hours notice were given that there would be no water in Bray for two days. I protested that had there been a fire there would have been a serious hazard to life and property. People had not time to fill containers. They had not time to do the washing early in the week and make other arrangements. In one area where there is a water problem they had to go outside the urban area altogether for water.

These are the type of problems that any councillor faces every day of the week and brings to the Town Hall. Another problem is that Bray is the fastest growing town in the country. It is growing at a faster rate than parts of Dublin. The housing situation is serious. Overcrowding is a huge problem. Flats are commanding fantastic rents. Yet the people are not being represented adequately.

These two amendments propose that the Minister should allow local elections to be held in July. We are sure that local elections will be held next year anyway. There is no reason to deprive the people of Dublin and Bray of councillors for a further 12 months. In the White Paper on local government reorganisation, if it is carried through in its present form, it is intended to abolish the two urban councils in Wicklow which are working to reinstate the council which is not operating. We are faced with a ridiculous situation in County Wicklow. Even if we get back the Bray Urban Council the two other councils will probably be abolished. Let us at least have the Bray Urban Council back before the other two are abolished.

In the amendments we ask for the elections in July. People who mentioned the history of Dublin Corporation, which has absolutely nothing to do with these amendments, and who profess to believe in democracy, are once again getting an opportunity to put their profession of belief in democracy into effect. If the Parliamentary Secretary persists in not allowing the elections to be held in July, he is doing a grave disservice to the people of this city and also to the people of Bray.

Mr. Clinton

I had great sympathy for the obvious embarrassment of the Parliamentary Secretary here this evening. One could sense it when he tried to explain away or talk away the Minister's attitude to this whole problem. The history of the abolition of the corporation has been gone over and over. The Ceann Comhairle has rightly said that it is really quite irrelevant to the amendments. They are not concerned with history but with the present time and with the serious situation that has existed for far too long.

It is necessary to restate the fact that the members at the corporation at the time were driven to take the action they took because of the frustration they felt. They saw the transfer of more and more taxation onto the backs of the ratepayers. They were fighting this helplessly, and getting no results. They were not being listened to and they felt they had to sacrifice themselves in order to focus full attention on the situation which they opposed so strongly and so helplessly, unfortunately.

The Parliamentary Secretary has stated rightly that the Minister has the power to right the situation, but he is not doing it. Why? Because the Government are not interested in democracy. They are interested in dictatorship. That is why they are not exercising the power and authority they have to cause the elections to be held at any time between this and 1974. When will the members of the corporation—if they say they have done wrong—have purged themselves of their guilt in the eyes of the Government? Surely it is not a capital sin to try to make a case for overburdened ratepayers, which they were trying to do at the time. They were also trying to make a case, for a more equitable distribution of taxation.

The Minister says: "They have not yet purged themselves. We have the power to do it and we will keep them out." He said there was no point in bringing back the corporation while the White Paper on the reorganisation of local government was being prepared. If there was ever a time to ensure that we had a corporation surely it was when drastic changes in local government were being contemplated —the most drastic changes that have even been thought of in the history of this country, changes with which most of us who have been in local government for a long number of years oppose very strongly.

As far as one can gather, the idea is to draw a big circle around Dublin city and county and to have people representing a segment of that area from the centre to the perimeter. It is crazy. The elected representatives are not to be allowed to have any say in this and the Minister knows that if they were allowed it would never happen. They want simply to have a yes man representing the corporation instead of the 45 members who had a voice, who could express the opinions of the people strongly. They know there would be opposition created through the views of the people being expressed by those representatives.

But the Government are not interested in democracy. They could not care less about the concerns of the people. They talk freely about the devolution of authority and we have had the Minister for Health talking about this devolution of authority. All the provisions in the 1970 Health Act, now fully explained, indicate a concentration of more and more power in the Government and in bureaucracy.

This is a deplorable time in which to have the citizens of Dublin not represented by elected representatives. There was nothing whatever, as the Parliamentary Secretary admits, to prohibit the Government from having an election at any time from the date on which the corporation were abolished, but in the Government's eyes the citizens have not yet purged themselves. If the Government are afraid to face the electorate—it is quite obvious they do not want an election of any description, national or local— I have suggested in the House a means by which the citizens of Dublin could have a sort of representation without an election. I have suggested that instead of one commissioner the Minister would put in 45 commissioners— let the 45 members back into their seats and let them talk for the citizens. If he can employ one commissioner, surely he could employ 45.

Various population figures have been mentioned but it cannot be contradicted that at the moment there is no local government for a quarter of the Irish people. There has not been since 1969 in an area where there is more rapid development than in any other area in the country, because of enormous planning changes and because of transportation studies, all carried out by bureaucrats without the possibility of any comment from elected representatives of the people. There was never a time when it was more important to have the citizens of Dublin represented by those elected to speak for them. Of course, if that situation obtained the Government could not carry on their dictatorship, their bureaucracy. They could not any longer carry on telling the people what they think is good for them, in spite of the people.

Since I came into the Dáil I have represented quite large slices of Dublin city. I represented Ballyfermot for eight years and I now have the honour to represent a large area of Ballymun. For as long as I have been in public life I have never known the housing situation to be worse. You write to the corporation about a case of six people living in one room and you will be lucky if you get a reply in two or three months telling you that there are larger families due for consideration and that the case you represented may be considered at some future time. It is a deplorable situation and is it any wonder that we have violence starting throughout this city and undemocratic movements getting up all over the place? When people see there is no fair play or any democratic way for them to have their grievances aired and attended to—that they are simply being sat on by bureaucrats who have not to face them—the people are driven into acts they would never otherwise contemplate. There is frustration and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary appreciates this.

It beats me how in the face of what amounts to lawlessness the Government cannot see the wisdom of bringing back into existence democratic representation for those people. One had only to listen to Deputy Maurice Dockrell, one of the finest Lord Mayors the city has had, to appreciate the sincerity with which the people of Dublin whom he represents feel this loss of democratic representation, and the embarrassment they feel at having no lord mayor to speak for and to represent their city. It must also be an embarrassment to the Department of Foreign Affairs and to the Government when other cities get in touch with them and ask to have the lord mayor visit them on some occasion or another.

No good or sound explanation can be offered. That is obvious because when Fianna Fáil speakers rise in the House they have nothing to fall back on but a history of squabble in which they took part. They cannot make any case why the corporation should be kept out of existence. They have made the foolish statement that there is no point in bringing them back as long as this serious White Paper is under consideration. If they wanted to they could not make a better case for bringing back the corporation.

I do not know how those Deputies can go out and face the people in the constituencies they represent and tell them: "We voted and argued against amendments the effect of which would be to bring back the corporation in July." What will the news media have to say who condemned this from the start and who always wanted the people to be represented democratically? They will expose those public representatives for what they are, people who will back the Government regardless, who will troop into the lobby even though they know they have a responsibility to their people.

I have never listened to more irresponsible utterances than those by Deputies Dowling and Moore, the latter a former lord mayor, and Timmons. They came in here to say they will vote against these amendments because they think the corporation should not be brought back into existence now, because they can see no case for it. Their reason is, of course, that they cannot contemplate the Government carrying out their dictatorial activities, telling the people what is good for them in the matter of reorganising local government in the region, if the corporation were in existence. How they can come here and say it and face the people afterwards beats me.

That is the deplorable situation that exists and that is what is driving the people of this city to resort to what amounts to lawlessness in an attempt to get justice for the people from the Government. It is because of these injustices that they act in this manner. We would not have trouble about rents if there were reasonable, democratically elected members who would talk to the people. On one occasion I went to a meeting in an area I represent and I was appalled that people did not know about their entitlements. There was a breakdown in public relations and there was no contact with the City Hall. It was only a question of talking to them for an hour and convincing them that there was another way out besides parading and upsetting others. This would not have arisen if the people had local representatives doing their job for them.

There are irresponsible Fianna Fáil Deputies who say that they do not want a city council, that the city can do without a council until the Minister for Local Government decides that the council that was in existence have purged themselves of the great guilt of fighting against local taxation. It is the attitude of these irresponsible people that the citizens of Dublin cannot be trusted to elect the right people and that is a dreadful thing to say to the citizens. It is a horrible thing for a public representative to say this in an effort to make a case against these two reasonable amendments.

Deputy Belton made the case that at the moment a commissioner and a city manager are doing the entire job of the city council and that millions of pounds are being spent in the name of the citizens. The Deputy said that the Minister for Local Government can sack either of these men and the remark was made that this would not be any trouble for a Fianna Fáil Minister— in fact, one succeeded in sacking himself. The people who are acting are under the Minister's thumb and they recognise that fact. They are not speaking on behalf of the citizens, there is nobody to come between the citizens and the bureaucrats, and this is a serious situation.

As a local representative for many years, I have had the experience of intervening between officials in the local authority and citizens who were deprived of services. Sometimes it was due to misunderstanding, carelessness or inefficiency but a public representative had the right to intervene. It is the job of a public representative to know about local matters; very often people are unable to make a case for themselves but they can explain their grievances to the public representative. Citizens cannot get to the people in the local authorities; this drives them to acts of lawlessness and it is a major factor in a situation which is getting ugly in Dublin city. It is a situation about which the Minister for Local Government should be concerned and anxious to rectify at the earliest possible moment.

The Minister has had that opportunity since 1969. The Parliamentary Secretary admits he can take this action at any time he likes but he will not because there are major changes which the Government wish to make in a dictatorial fashion without consulting the people. It suits the Government not to have public representatives in the Dublin city area in order that they may impose their will on the people, as they have done in so many instances.

Mr. Cunningham

Deputy Clinton has introduced a new aspect, namely, the appointment of 45 commissioners. This is possible and it could be done but I could not accept the suggestion. First, I presume he would follow this up by saying that the 45 commissioners should be people who held office previously——

Mr. Clinton

I have said that.

Mr. Cunningham

In this matter a couple of points come to mind. First, of the number who were members of the corporation and who abolished themselves, some of them subsequently offered themselves for election by the people of Dublin and they were defeated in a general election. It is no coincidence that the corporation abolished themselves on 6th June and a general election was held on 18th June. Were the two parties opposite playing party politics with the welfare and well-being of the citizens of this city? Is this a logical conclusion to draw from the action they took? They took this action after a public inquiry was held, an inquiry which advised the Minister that the rate struck was inadequate; such an inquiry would have advised any Minister for Local Government in any other country on the same lines. The Deputies opposite are complaining about the services provided under a rate with which they violently disagreed and which they say would not be the rate for the city if the members of the corporation were in action.

Deputy Clinton has suggested the appointment of 45 ex-councillors as commissioners without any statement from them that they would or would not operate under the present rate. If they would not operate under the present rate, would they reduce it?

Mr. Clinton

I am only trying to save the Government the embarrassment of having to face the people.

Mr. Cunningham

If they would reduce it, would they indicate what service they would cut, whether they would put the brake on housing progress, what water supplies would be cut? Will they state what services they would abolish? Is that not a fair question?

Mr. Treacy

It is not.

Mr. Cunningham

I should like the answer. I am talking now about Deputy Clinton's contribution and about a suggestion which he made, one that is possible. I have not yet roamed over a very wide field.

Mr. Carter

Surely he is not talking about 45 commissioners to do one man's work.

Mr. Clinton

One dictator's work.

Mr. Cunningham

If 45 commissioners were appointed I am not suggesting that by any means they would be 45 dictators. To carry that to its logical conclusion, is it right to suggest that one commissioner is a dictator? It is all right to make the bald statement that there should be 45 commissioners but one might ask if they should be appointed to operate in the present circumstances, to have available to them——

Mr. Clinton

To try and take this city out of the mess it is in.

Mr. Cunningham

——certain sums of money that have been contributed by ratepayers or would they seek to reduce this and not to impose present rates? Would they abolish themselves again? Would they carry out some other action that would cause their abolition as happened before? I heard only the end of Deputy Kavanagh's contribution. He mentioned the cutting off of water supplies in the Bray area. I do not know how this made sense in the present context. The cutting off of water supplies is an exercise that is carried out by all local authorities at various times.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): On notice.

Mr. Cunningham

If there is a shortage of water, a break in the pipeline or if there is an emergency, water is cut off. Sometimes there may be time to give notice but that is not always the case. Even if there were hundreds of councillors, the cutting off of water supplies would be necessary on some occasions. Deputy Kavanagh mentioned the question of fire. How does one give notice of a fire?

Mr. Treacy

The Deputy was talking of fires as a consequence of cutting off water supplies and he spoke of the desirability of giving adequate notice which is the usual courtesy extended by members of local authorities.

Mr. Cunningham

The reorganisation of local authorities is a matter that will be discussed in this House. We are very anxious that members of local authorities, members of the public generally and members of development committees and of various organisations throughout the country are asked and encouraged to express their views on what shape local government organisations should take. However, they will not be asked to take decisions on the matter. This House will pass any legislation that will give effect to local government reorganisation proposals. Those proposals will be put before the House and it will be for the members of Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann to decide what will be the future of local government. Therefore, the ex-members of Dublin Corporation will be free to give their views and those views will be assessed in the same way as they would be assessed if the members were existing members of the corporation.

Deputy T.J. Fitzpatrick (Cavan) rose.

Mr. Carter

I thought debate revolved in the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

Was the Deputy expecting to be called after the Parliamentary Secretary?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): One would not know what some of the Deputies on that side of the House would expect. In moving this amendment before 6 o'clock this evening I pointed out that in my opinion the cause of the making of the sealed order to dissolve Dublin Corporation was not relevant. I admitted that we could have had a very interesting discussion on that and that I was convinced that if we had such discussion, this side of the House would come out on top. I pointed out that for the purposes of this amendment, the causes which led to the abolition of the corporation and of Bray UDC are not relevant. Since then we have had a couple of contributions from the Parliamentary Secretary and we have had contributions from a number of Fianna Fáil Deputies who represent Dublin city. Every one of these contributions took the form of an inquest into the cause of the sealed order. There was no attempt by any of these people to justify the attitude of the Government in continuing to deprive the citizens of Dublin of their council and their Lord Mayor.

This is not an amendment which seeks to condemn the then Minister for Local Government for having abolished the corporation. It is not an amendment which seeks to justify the members of a dissolved council in refusing to strike the rate. It is an amendment which calls on the Government to restore Dublin Corporation and Bray UDC so that this capital city can have a city council and a lord mayor whereby in this age of protest, of street politics, of violence and at this time when people are only too anxious to take to the streets to put across their views, we may have in this city a safety valve in the form of a corporation at meetings of which the duly elected representatives of the citizens can speak and be reported in the mass media so as to ensure that the citizens in general and the younger generation in particular will not be forced into acts of violence in order to get across their point. This is not an amendment to restore the 45 members who were sacked by the Minister although the Parliamentary Secretary was very keen to grasp at that straw. This is an amendment which seeks to give to the citizens of Dublin and Bray the right to elect members of their own choice whom they think are best fitted to represent them. What is wrong with that? From listening to the contributions of the Parliamentary Secretary and of the Fianna Fáil Deputies one would think that, by continuing to deprive this city of a representative body and a ceremonial head, in some way the 45 members who were sacked were being punished or chastised. Such is not the case.

It is the three-quarters of a million citizens, or thereabouts, of this city whom he is punishing. There is far too much of this attitude in the debate that has gone on here, that these people misbehaved themselves and must be punished. You are not punishing them; you are not casting a reflection on them; but you are saying to the citizens of this city that you do not trust them to elect a council. I am convinced that this debate spells out one message clearly, that is, that the Fianna Fáil representatives in this House have no confidence in their capacity to get the majority of the citizens of Dublin city to vote in their favour. That message is spelled out clearly and beyond any doubt because if they had that confidence in themselves or in their party they would hold the elections now. On radio on one occasion the Parliamentary Secretary opened the bag—I do not know whether he let the cat out—when he said that one of the reasons for postponing the local elections was that a reorganisation of local government was necessary, that the boundaries had to be arranged and that sort of thing.

Mr. Cunningham

The Deputy knows well that it was reorganisation of local government that was under discussion.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I will tell what the Parliamentary Secretary said. He referred to a rearrangement of the boundaries and when I took him up on it——

Mr. Cunningham

Reorganisation of local government.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan):——I admit that he mended his hand but the cat let a squeak out—it nearly got out. Is that what Deputy Timmons means when he says he wants a responsible council, that he wants local government reorganised so that we may get a proper council? Is that another name for gerrymandering this city into certain wards which Fianna Fáil think will suit them to get a majority on the corporation which they have not enjoyed since the foundation of the State, I believe. We hear enough talk in this House, and especially from the Fianna Fáil side, deprecating the lack of democracy in Northern Ireland and we have a lot of bellyaching, of double talk and double thinking from the Fianna Fáil benches about this. What sort of an example is it to the rest of the country to abolish two important elected bodies here and take no steps to replace them?

The Parliamentary Secretary rightly says that neither of these amendments is necessary and we admit that they are not necessary. If the Minister were prepared to discharge his duties, to act in a democratic manner, he could at any time since he made the sealed order in June, 1969, have held elections by making another order. He must do it in five years, not later than 1974, but if somebody on the Gallery were to listen to Deputy Moore today, he would think that 1974 was the earliest it could be done. It is the latest.

Mr. Cunningham

It is not actually the latest.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): It is the latest without some understanding, the normal time without some understanding. I agree that these amendments would not be necessary if the Government were to behave reasonably and hold the elections. We are drifting, as I have said on previous occasions, dangerously towards bureaucracy in this country and I believe that this Government lean towards democracy. They talk in terms of community councils. The Minister yesterday suggested that I did not believe in community councils. They talk democracy, but given every opportunity, they act in a bureaucratic manner and against the principles of democracy. I want to bring this debate back to reality if I can and to bring the House back to the substance of these amendments. I did not open up and inquest on the abolition of the corporation or the urban council of Bray. I repeat that it is not necessary.

Mr. Carter

You would like to forget about it.

Mr. Cunningham

He did not do it: his friends did.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): There is one party in this House who should keep away from history, the Fianna Fáil Party, because we could go back and have a discussion on the British market being gone and gone forever and about every ship being blasted to the bottom of the sea. If you want that sort of discussion, you can have it, but I want any speakers who speak from the Fianna Fáil benches before the debate concludes to put the arguments against restoring the city council, giving this city its ceremonial head, a lord mayor, and restoring the urban district council of Bray and doing that now. What is the argument against that? I have not heard it. The proposal is not to restore the 45 members with whom the former Minister for Local Government disagreed. The proposal is to give the citizens of this city their democratic right to elect freely a council of 45 members who will elect from among their number a lord mayor so that the citizens of the city will have somebody to stand between them and the establishment, to stand between them and the Custom House, because I have always believed that if local democracy as we understand it is to work, it can work only if you have a smooth operation between the Custom House, the city manager and the elected representatives.

What have we here now? We have the Custom House on the top; we have the city manager in the centre; and we have the Custom House on the bottom, replacing the corporation, because the commissioner appointed by the Minister is a man who has served in the Custom House practically all his life, a man who has been secretary of the Department of Local Government for many years and a man who can only see the working of local government through Custom House eyes. That is not good for the administration of this city, but that is what we have and that is the situation which this amendment proposes to remedy. I venture to suggest that if local elections were being held this year, the citizens would have been allowed to elect a new corporation and it is because the local elections are being postponed that I think this amendment should be accepted and that the Minister should proceed to hold elections for the city of Dublin and Bray Urban Council. I concede that the amendment is not necessary and if I get an asurance from the Minister, through his Parliamentary Secretary, that he will proceed to hold elections in this city and for Bray Urban District Council next month or early in August, I will withdraw the amendment because I will then have achieved what I set out to achieve, the restoration of local democracy in Dublin and Bray. It must be extraordinary for Americans and Europeans to come here and find out that in this city of Dublin we have no lord mayor. I wonder what reasonable explanation will be given to people from the European Community when they ask: "Why have you not got a lord mayor in Dublin?"

Mr. Timmons

The Fine Gael and Labour Party dissolved the council.

Mr. P. Belton

You put up the health charges contrary to what you promised.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I do not think so. I think the appropriate explanation at the moment is that the Government of the country will not trust the citizens of Dublin to elect a council and a lord mayor.

Mr. Timmons

They failed in their responsibility.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): It is a reflection on Deputy Timmons and he is so blinded by political bias that he cannot see it. It is a reflection on the citizens of Dublin, one of whom is Deputy Timmons. The only explanation that can be given is that the Minister for Local Government will not trust one third of the people of Ireland to exercise the democratic franchise. What a reflection on this city. What a reflection on the people of this city. And it is not true. The people of this city are well able to elect representatives and can be relied upon to elect representatives.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The truthful answer is that until Deputy Timmons, the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Dowling, Deputy Moore, Deputy Tunney and the other Deputies from this city have an opportunity of reorganising local government, as they call it, until they have an opportunity behind closed doors of gerrymandering the wards in this city, of carving them up in a way that will give them a majority on Dublin Corporation, they will seek to deprive the citizens of this city of a city council and a first citizen. Those are the facts and let us hear no more of the irrelevant inquest, as the Ceann Comhairle so rightly called it. Deputy Timmons is entitled to speak again. He is entitled to stand up and address this House again. Let him stand up if he wants to and make the case against giving the people an opportunity of electing a council in 1972, having been deprived of one since 1969.

Mr. Carter

Tell that to the marines.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Fitzpatrick. Deputy Fitzpatrick is in possession.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I would like to hear what Deputy Carter is saying but I cannot.

Mr. Carter

I said that despite Deputy Fitzpatrick's panegyric none of the chief mourners shed a tear.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Who are the chief mourners?

Mr. Carter

The members of the electorate.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The people of Dublin city about whom Deputy Carter does not care, are shedding tears by taking to the streets, by holding protests.

Mr. Carter

That is what the Deputy would like to see.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): They are shedding tears by holding protest marches.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot have ordered debate in the House if there is all this interruption.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): This party never believed in street politics, this party never believed in democracy other than through the ballot box. That is more than Deputy Carter can say for his party.

I want to conclude by appealing to the Fianna Fáil Deputies to make a case, if a case can be made, for continuing to deprive the citizens of this city of a city council and a lord mayor and for continuing to run the risk of driving the people on to the streets in order to get their message across to the Government. That is the appalling risk we are running. It is a risk we have run for too long because we have these explosions in the form of strikes. I know that a detailed discussion on the rent strike would be irrelevant and I do not propose to go into it, but surely there is nothing more calculated to lead to a rent strike than the absence of public representatives to discuss with the tenants the problems of the day, the major one of which at the moment is differential rents. Can anybody deny that?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot discuss that.

Mr. Carter

We will discuss it later on, at the appropriate time.

Dr. Byrne

When the people are evicted, as happened in Coolock last Friday.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There will be no discussion on that facet at all.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Deputy Carter is not in the Chair.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Fitzpatrick is in possession and other Deputies must await their turn.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I do not seek to discuss the merits or demerits of the rent strike but I do say there should be a city council there to meet them, to discuss it with them and to act as a buffer between the tenants and the establishment. That is my case and that is one of the reasons why I say the city council should be restored.

I know Fianna Fáil are very good at sending in here people like Deputy Dowling who can be very serious sometimes when he has a good case to make, who is a great man at raising red herrings and being amusing when he has a bad case to make. He adopted the latter role this evening. Deputy Moore, who is usually serious, came in here and made no effort to justify the continuance of depriving the people of this city of a city council. Deputy Timmons was more eloquent yesterday when this was not on the agenda at all. I expected him to come in today and make an unanswerable case for the attitude of the Government in continuing to deprive the city of a council and a lord mayor, but we have not heard him.

Mr. Carter

It is not the first occasion on which Deputy Fitzpatrick has raised the question of the Dublin Corporation. I suspect now that he is taking the opportunity on this Bill, which is a Bill primarily designed to postpone the local elections for one year, to insert what he hopes will be a controversial amendment. He has an ulterior motive for that, of course. No Deputy on this side of the House wants to deprive any area of local elections.

Dr. Byrne

But they will vote against the amendment.

Mr. Carter

We are faced here with quite a different matter. The Deputy is very concerned to chastise those of us who, he would infer, make statements which are not strictly within the scope, as he deems it, of the amendment. I suspect that Deputy Fitzpatrick and others want to give the impression that they are the ultra-democrats in this House and they want to get top treatment for Dublin city and neglect the rest of the country.

Dr. Byrne

That is ridiculous.

Mr. Carter

We are proposing the postponement of local elections for one year, and for very good reasons. Deputy Fitzpatrick wants elections to be held for Dublin and the urban district of Bray in July of this year.

Mr. Cunningham

But not for the rest of the country.

Mr. Carter

He wants to leave the rest of the country uncovered. The Minister did not deprive the city of Dublin of its elected local representatives. They did that themselves.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Whoever else did it, certainly the citizens of Dublin did not do it.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Carter.

Mr. Carter

Secondly, the Minister has no intention of depriving the electorate of Dublin city and Bray urban district of full local government franchise at a later date. Deputy Fitzpatrick and others, for their own good reasons, would like us to do something which we cannot possibly agree to doing. He argues that we should hold elections next month to facilitate two areas and leave the rest of the country completely uncovered.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Deputy Carter does himself less than justice.

Mr. Carter

Is Deputy Fitzpatrick not trying to make a mountain out of a molehill? He talks about public comment. He talks about administrations and so forth. Local authority members have certain rights and certain duties. Those of us who are members of local authorities do not renege on our responsibilities and then come back to this House asking for special treatment. If I, as a member of a local authority, refused to provide essential services for the people, I would then wait my turn and seek re-election in the normal way and I would not be beholden to Deputy Fitzpatrick or any other Deputy coming in here and seeking to insert an amendment in a Bill designed to postpone local elections for one year, an amendment designed to procure special treatment.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): If the Deputy were a citizen without representation what would he do?

Mr. Carter

The fact is the citizens did not create the fuss the Deputy thought they would. That is the point.

Dr. Byrne

What about all the evictions?

Mr. Carter

The citizens are not penalised.

Dr. Byrne

The Deputy should visit Hollyfield Buildings or Ballymun.

Mr. Carter

Deputy Dr. Byrne knows quite well that the citizens are not penalised. Dublin Corporation is responsible for much more than merely the city of Dublin. Under local government legislation Dublin Corporation performs work which applies to the whole country and not merely to the city of Dublin. The ramifications of the administration of the city council are as important as the ramifications of any Government Department. It is a local government department. The functions it performs extend all over the country. I refer to public health and so forth. It is not fair for the Deputy to insinuate that the Minister and the Fianna Fáil Party are preventing any local authority from operating. This argument demonstrates the splitting of hairs which occurs so often on the benches opposite. You have one Deputy advocating the replacement of the commissioner by 45 corporation members and another arguing that we should have an election next month.

Mr. Clinton

I suggested that only as a way out for the Government which did not want to suffer the embarrassment of facing the people.

Mr. Carter

I suggest that the anxiety portrayed by the Opposition is a simulated anxiety. The point I am making is that——

Dr. Byrne

Hollyfield Buildings do not exist.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Carter.

Mr. Carter

The Minister has said on numerous ocasions that under the terms of this Bill special consideration would be given to this whole matter in June, 1973. It is my submission that this should be enough for those who argue otherwise. The second question is this: Would it be worth the trouble of trying to hold elections in those two areas now when we are going to have elections this time 12 months?

Mr. Clinton

A year is nothing in the life of a quarter of the population.

Mr. Carter

Not very much, because in the past year I have not heard very much from this quarter of which the Deputy speaks.

Mr. Clinton

If the Deputy represented the area he would know a lot about it.

Mr. Carter

The Deputy is vexed because the services were carried on, because the money necessary for the services was provided——

Mr. Clinton

Extracted from the people.

Mr. Carter

——and because the people at present, recognising the extent of the services performed by the corporation, need that service and know that if they depended on a fickle corporation to provide those services they would be left so dependent. It is no gratification to any Minister to have to take the action the then Minister for Local Government took, and he duly took the action following two inquiries into the case. It was a matter of members elected saying in effect: "I refuse to serve." What would my constituents say if I, elected as a Member of the Dáil, said to them: "I refuse to serve"? I know the summary decision the electorate would give in such a case. My submission is that the Bill is fair enough. The amendment seeks to do something in the Bill which in present circumstances should not be done, as there will be a time and place to accomplish the aims expressed in this amendment.

Mr. McMahon

I have listened to inquest after inquest here this evening on how the people of the city of Dublin were denied the right of having their voice heard. Although I have waited here some considerable time to get in on this debate, I was glad that Deputy Fitzpatrick made some attempt to bring sense into the debate. Despite your efforts, Sir, we have heard from the Fianna Fáil benches many a story, indeed, many a conflicting story, as to how the Dublin Corporation went out of existence. However, the Parliamentary Secretary said earlier—and he is probably right—that these two amendments are not really necessary. I would say they should not be necessary because the Minister has the power— he could do it in the morning at his own desk—to make an order whereby the people of the city of Dublin would once more be given a voice at local level. I have listened with interest to the remarks of Deputy Carter. I do not know for what part of the country he is elected, but I can safely say it is far removed from the city of Dublin.

Mr. Tunney

So is Deputy Fitzpatrick.

Mr. McMahon

I do not think it is looking for any special treatment if the people of the city of Dublin are now crying out for an election and the bringing back of their local council. I do not think they are overstepping their democratic right, after an election in 1967, to expect another in 1972. I am quite sure that the people whom Deputy Carter represents are every bit as anxious for an election as the people of the city of Dublin, although they have less reason to look for it because they have their local authority and their local representatives.

The voice of the city of Dublin has been silenced since June, 1969. As a public representative representing an area adjacent to the city, which runs into the city, I have found ever-increasing frustration, and I believe that where this exists the ballot box can be a safety valve. I would hate to think that the situation was allowed to deteriorate to the extent that we would learn this lesson in the city of Dublin; and I would hate to think that any words of any Member of this House would bring nearer the day when the people could no longer hold back their frustration.

I had the experience only last week of being host to quite a large body of foreign visitors. These people were anxious to visit many worthwhile centres in this city and to meet the people whom they would expect to meet. I was quite embarrassed when I had to tell these people that we had no lord mayor. They had come a long way and the news had not reached their land that our lord mayor had been sacked. I am quite sure that the Government have at times been embarrassed when invitations arrive at the Mansion House addressed to the Lord Mayor of Dublin, as undoubtedly happens, and there is no one to open them. It must also be embarrassing to the Government at this time when we are entering the EEC and when we have coming to our capital city visitors from Europe. It is embarrassing for them to find there is no city council and no lord mayor in a society that is supposed to be on the side of democracy and at a time when we should be showing a good example to our Northern brethren.

Deputy Carter said not a tear was shed. I can tell him that tears were shed at my doorstep. I am sorry that Deputy Dowling and Deputy Moore were not present to hear Deputy Carter say that because they, too, know the reaction of the people of the city of Dublin to the abolition of the corporation.

The Minister for Local Government has boasted recently that in his efforts to reorganise local government he has gone out of his way to meet representatives of the people. He is forgetting about the most important and largest section that should be represented by a local authority, the citizens of Dublin, who have no local representatives to meet the Minister. Increasing numbers of citizens come to me as their public representative. If I make representations on behalf of applicants for housing or for other amenities I find that it is not unusual to have to wait three months for a reply. I am particularly concerned in cases where I have made representations on behalf of persons working in the new industrial estate at Tallaght and who live on the other side of the city and who want a transfer of tenancy. I have waited up to three months for a reply to these representations only to be told that there are others on the housing list in far greater need of a transfer.

Mr. Cunningham

How would the corporation members have dealt with that problem?

Mr. McMahon

If the corporation were in existence I am sure the problem would not be brought to me, in the first place. The point I am making is that the citizens of Dublin have nowhere to turn. Even though they have representation at national level, they believe that a member of the local authority can be of greater assistance to them, and they may be right.

Local organisations, tenants associations and residents associations come to me with their problems. I have told Deputy Carter that many a tear is shed. We are now treading on dangerous ground. To leave a large number of persons without representation at local level for any period longer than is necessary is a dangerous thing.

The suggestion made by Deputy Clinton that 45 commissioners could replace the 45 public representatives and might give a better measure of democracy is worthy of consideration. Deputy Clinton made this suggestion, not for the first time, this evening. I remember his making it a long time ago and I was surprised to hear him saying this evening that it has not been replied to by the Government.

I do not think the citizens are looking for 45 commissioners; I believe they are looking for 45 councillors and they do not have to be members of the Dublin City Council that was abolished by the former Minister for Local Government. All that is asked for in the amendments is that local elections be held. Any democratic party worthy of the name should not be afraid to face the electorate and to allow them their democratic right to elect a new city council.

Mr. Tunney

It is not my intention to speak at great length in connection with the amendments before us but I would like to avail of the opportunity to make one or two points. When Deputy McMahon commenced to speak I thought he was making the case for the restoration of Dublin Corporation. In his concluding remarks he made a new proposition, that there should be a local election. If there is any merit in either suggestion it is in the suggestion that the people of Dublin should be given an opportunity to elect a new council.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Hear, hear. That is what we have been advocating since 6 p.m.

Mr. Tunney

If there is any merit, I say, in either of the suggestions, it is in that one. I am sure that Deputy McMahon did not intend to reflect on the right of Deputy Carter to speak on matters pertaining to Dublin city. If he did, I am sure he would extend to me the same right to challenge the right of Deputy Fitzpatrick to speak on similar matters.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Surely Deputy Tunney understands parliamentary democracy? Surely he understands that parties have spokesmen, that Deputy Treacy is spokesman on local government for the Labour Party and that I am spokesman on local government for the Fine Gael Party, and that is the way parliamentary democracy operates?

Mr. Cunningham

Both of you would do the very same thing as the Minister here is doing.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Cunningham, is entitled to speak about Dublin and so is the Minister, Deputy Bobby Molloy, by virtue of his office.

Mr. Tunney

I do not challenge the right of Deputy Fitzpatrick but inasmuch as the last speaker seemed to me to have challenged somewhat the right of Deputy Carter, I make this point in defence of what I think.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I did not challenge the right to speak. I freely admit that Deputy Carter is entitled to speak. He is a very good man to put up an argument but I have never heard him worse than he was this evening.

Mr. McMahon

That is the point I was making. I did not challenge the right to speak.

Mr. Cunningham

What can you expect when you have a superfluous amendment which is absolutely useless?

Mr. McMahon

Give us an election, then.

Mr. Tunney

Deputy McMahon and Deputy Fitzpatrick made the point that they were gravely concerned about the dangers that exist in the present situation. They talked about people taking to the streets and people indulging in certain dangerous activities. The fact is that since the dissolution of the corporation the incidence of such behaviour has been much less than it was during the existence of the corporation.

Mr. Cunningham

Hear, hear.

Mr. Tunney

Deputy Fitzpatrick would also insinuate that the Minister had some sinister reason for dissolving the corporation because it was not a Fianna Fáil corporation. I concede readily that it was a coalition corporation on which the Fine Gael and Labour Parties had a majority.

Mr. Cunningham

They ran away a second time.

Dr. O'Donovan

It had to be abolished.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): It was the Minister who ran away, or was he chased?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Tunney is in possession.

Mr. Tunney

During my short term as a member of that corporation dominated by the coalition parties, there were two meetings and the citizens were so agitated that they forced their way into the corporation chamber and required the then Lord Mayor to finish the meetings.

Dr. O'Donovan

Will the Deputy tell us what they were annoyed about?

Mr. Tunney

They were so annoyed with the coalition corporation that they forced their way into the meetings.

Dr. O'Donovan

What were they annoyed about?

Mr. Cunningham

Wait for it.

Mr. Tunney

They would not allow us to proceed with the business.

Mr. Treacy

The Deputy should elaborate on that and tell us precisely what the people were objecting to.

Mr. Tunney

I shall elaborate on it presently. If conscience makes cowards of us all please do not try to busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels. I will tell the Deputy why. They were dissatisfied with the members of the corporation. Apparently they had not sufficient confidence in this coalition corporation.

Mr. Treacy

That is a global smear. Come clean. Come to the point. What precisely were they objecting to in the alleged coalition corporation?

Mr. Cunningham

The Deputy will be facing that word quite often in the future.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Tunney is in possession.

Mr. Treacy

That was a global smear. We will not tolerate a global smear.

Mr. Cunningham

The Deputy may not like the word but he will have to get used to it.

Mr. Tunney

I should not like to have the reputation of indulging in any form of smearing.

Mr. Treacy

The Deputy should substantiate his allegation if he can.

Mr. Tunney

Would the Deputy remain silent and I shall do that? I shall probably introduce him to aspects of matters connected with the corporation which are concerned to some extent with his own party who contributed to the circumstances which led to the corporation inviting the Minister to dissolve it. I was about to show that the lack of confidence which the citizens of Dublin had in the corporation was subsequently confirmed when the same members, although they had agreed at committee level and in private——

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The best way of demonstrating their lack of confidence is to give them an opportunity to elect a new corporation and see what they will do.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Tunney.

Mr. Tunney

I did not interrupt Deputy Fitzpatrick when he was speaking.

Mr. Moore

He cannot help it.

Mr. Tunney

The members of the corporation were not prepared to do in public what they had done in private.

Mr. Moore

Hear, hear.

Mr. Tunney

They had agreed to certain expenditure in private at meetings at which no gentlemen from the Press were allowed to attend. When those gentlemen were present—and knowing that nobody is anxious to pay out money and that there is a natural reluctance on the part of everybody to paying out money—when it came to striking a rate which took into account all the expenditure which had been agreed upon in private they refused to face up to their responsibilities.

Dr. O'Donovan

Surely the citizens of Dublin knew nothing about this.

Mr. Cunningham

They did.

Mr. Tunney

I hope Deputies will bear with me until I conclude my point.

Mr. Clinton

We are not interested in history.

Mr. Tunney

As proof of the fact that the citizens of Dublin were disappointed, when in the month of June of that year the members of the Dublin Corporation offered themselves to the people of Dublin——

Mr. Cunningham

Twelve days afterwards.

Mr. Tunney

It is worthy of note that when an election was held Councillor Dowling and Councillor Tunney who had proposed and seconded the striking of the rate were successful in that parliamentary election and other councillors who had taken the popular but irresponsible line in the matter of the striking of the rate were not successful. It is manifest that the citizens of Dublin want a responsible corporation and want members of the corporation who will not do the popular thing but the right thing in all circumstances.

Mr. Clinton

Why not give them a chance?

Mr. Tunney

That opportunity was given to them and they did not avail of it. I do not think the citizens of Dublin are anxious to have a corporation restored who did not face up to their responsibilities.

Dr. O'Donovan

What about the two occasions when the citizens went into the council chamber? The Deputy promised to tell us about that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Tunney.

Mr. Tunney

I thought that I had described the situation.

Dr. O'Donovan

The Deputy promised to tell us about the two occasions when the citizens went into the council chamber. Why?

Mr. Tunney

Apparently they were so dissatisfied with the coalition corporation that they went in to break up the meetings.

Dr. O'Donovan

Why?

Mr. Cunningham

Because you were fiddling.

Dr. Byrne

That is a shocking thing to say.

Mr. Tunney

I regret as much as anybody else in Dublin that we have not got a Lord Mayor. I regret that the term of office of the then Lord Mayor, Deputy Cluskey, was brought to a rather sudden and premature end. I regret that the gentlemen who was spoken of as his successor, Councillor Fred Mullen, did not have the opportunity and the honour, which I thought he deserved, of serving as Lord Mayor.

Dr. Byrne

A real gentlemen the same man.

Mr. Tunney

I can express these regrets honestly and wholesomely because I as a member of that corporation had no hand, act or part in having Deputy Cluskey removed from that honour or in having the honour kept from Councillor Fred Mullen. I do not want to continue this inquest but I think it is fairly well known that at that time domestic politics in the two parties contributed as much as and possibly more than the actual matter of the rates to the situation that arose.

Mr. Clinton

Will the Deputy tell us why he still opposes the election of a corporation many years after?

Mr. Tunney

I was about to do that when the Deputy interrupted me. Dublin is entitled to its corporation. It is entitled to a new election, but supposing we had this election tomorrow.

Mr. L'Estrange

You would have a very small membership.

Mr. Tunney

We never had a majority in the corporation and that is why the position is as it is. However, if we had that election tomorrow it would be an election in isolation, a local election in Dublin. Does Deputy Clinton or any other Deputy think that we would have the excitement, the atmosphere and the attraction that we would have in circumstances in which local elections are being held all over the country?

Dr. Byrne

There are one million people concerned here.

Mr. Clinton

I cannot accept that Deputy Tunney is so out of touch with the feelings of the Dublin people.

Mr. Tunney

I know the feelings of the people about there being no corporation but I was surprised at what Deputy McMahon said. In short, he told me that the Fine Gael members of the corporation that does not exist did not accept the invitation of the city manager at the point of dissolution to every one of us to continue to make representations, to continue to enjoy the rights he would give us in the matter of negotiating on behalf of our constituents. I would say, and I am sure this can be said for other former councillors, that apart from the fact that I do not attend meetings I continue to be as active in local matters as I was when the corporation were in existence.

Mr. Clinton

But in a much less effective way.

Mr. Tunney

Scarcely a week goes by when I have not deputations on local matters and I am sure Deputies Gogan, Byrne and others appreciate this.

Mr. Cunningham

Deputy Byrne was not a member.

Mr. Tunney

Deputy Byrne is entitled to talk——

Dr. Byrne

The next Lord Mayor.

Mr. Cunningham

Mea culpa.

Mr. Tunney

The point I am trying to make is that any councillor who is anxious for work is entitled to operate as diligently and with the same industry as he did when the corporation were in existence and it is only an excuse to say differently. As far as I am concerned it is a lie to say that apart from disability to express himself at public meetings any former member of the corporation is in any way stopped or inhibited from working on behalf of his constituents in local matters.

I am hoping that when Deputy Clinton speaks again he will be able to convince me that if we were to have a local election tomorrow, confined to the city of Dublin, we would be able to generate sufficient interest and enthusiasm in it to bring to the polls a sufficient number of people to elect a representative Dublin Corporation. If the election were to be held and the circumstances were accepted that Fianna Fáil have a better organisation, perhaps, than other political parties——

Mr. Clinton

Why does not Deputy Tunney want a corporation now? It is to that that the people want an answer.

Mr. Tunney

I am making the point that if the elections were held now the Deputy and other people speaking here would be seen to have been speaking with their tongues in their cheeks. I know there are many Deputies here who are very happy there is not to be a local election in Dublin.

Mr. L'Estrange

Yes, in Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Clinton

It was not good enough of Fianna Fáil to put Deputy Tunney in this embarrassing situation.

Mr. Tunney

It is no embarrassment to me. Whenever I face the people whom I represent I have no need to be embarrassed.

Mr. L'Estrange

Why not let them have representation now?

Mr. Tunney

The Deputy should ask members of his party why they arranged it that coming up to the last general election they would remove the platform from councillors who were aspiring to greater heights and who would be a danger to them.

Mr. L'Estrange

He is speaking again of his own party.

Mr. Tunney

I have been elected as a councillor and a Deputy. As sure as I am standing here I know Deputies over there who in their hearts are pleased——

Dr. Byrne

That is not the truth.

Mr. Tunney

——That Paddy McDonnell and Liam Hayes will not be given an early opportunity of challenging Deputy Byrne in the next election.

Dr. Byrne

That is completely wrong.

Mr. Tunney

He is not saying here what he feels and I would dearly like to see Councillor Liam Hayes, who served so faithfully as a member of the corporation, and people like Paddy McDonnell——

Dr. Byrne

A fine man.

Mr. Tunney

——given the opportunity they deserve.

Dr. Byrne

In view of the urgency of the situation may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether there is any possibility of recognising NATO as a negotiating body——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It has nothing to do with the amendments before the House.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.