Local Elections Bill, 1973: Second Stage.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Tully)

I move: "That the Bill be read a Second Time."

On 4th April I issued a statement indicating that the Government had decided to seek leave to introduce legislation postponing the local elections due to be held next month. The decision to postpone the elections was taken having regard to the number of elections that have already taken place during the past year and to the proximity of the Presidential election.

If the Bill is enacted the elections will be held in June, 1974, and every fifth year thereafter. The Bill extends the terms of office of existing members of local authorities accordingly and makes minor consequential arrangements in relation to appointment of school attendance committees and the meetings of vocational education committees. These are purely technical matters and the provisions in this regard are identical with those contained in the Local Elections Act, 1972.

This is the fourth occasion on which local elections have been postponed in the past eight years (the 15th occasion since 1919), special legislation being introduced each time. Deputies will note that it is now proposed under section 2 of the Bill to empower the Minister for Local Government to effect any future postponement of local elections by order, subject to the limitation that such an order will not have effect unless and until it has been approved by a resolution passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. The substance of the change now proposed is that the postponement instrument will be an order, not an Act. The final effective decision on whether local elections should be postponed will continue to rest with the two Houses of the Oireachtas, following full and open debate.

The simplified procedure now proposed will be less wasteful of parliamentary time. Again I would stress that the specific approval of the Oireachtas will still be required before an order made under section 2 can come into operation.

The provisions of the Bill have been dealt with in the explanatory memorandum and I do not think it necessary for me to say any more on it. I recommend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Molloy

I recognise the Minister's provision in this matter and I am aware, of course, that there are precedents to which he can point and to which he has, indeed, pointed in his opening speech but, having said that. this is. I think, a matter on which I should express the feelings of the community in regard to a further postponement of the local elections. In the structure of Government which we have local authorities play a very important role. They are responsible for the provision and maintenance of major services and the efficiency or inefficiency of the authorities determines to a very large extent the quality of life enjoyed by our citizens. It is important that people should recognise the vital role local authorities play in Irish life and it is also important that everything possible should be done to foster respect for the elected members of local authorities.

The law lays it down that there shall be local elections held every five years. The law also gives power to the Minister, if the Oireachtas so decides, to extend the period but, to accept the continuous postponement of local elections as a kind of normal situation, will in the long run tend to diminish the respect of the community for such important institutions as local authorities and greatly weaken the influence of these bodies in community affairs. These results are, of course, highly undesirable, particularly in present day circumstances when there is a need to expand the role of the local councillor and increase his influence in shaping the environment in which he and his fellow-citizens must live.

During my period in office as Minister for Local Government I had set about a greater devolution of authority and decision-making from central Government down to local authority level. I had taken quite a number of practical steps to achieve this object. One step was the expanded role of local authorities in carrying out their own housing programmes. I initiated that and I am pleased to see that the present Minister has, in fact, approved of it and will continue it. Another step was the amended grants scheme introduced by me, a scheme which allows local authorities themselves to make the decision on each individual allocation.

I made other efforts to increase local authority involvement in the administration of group water schemes. These I considered very necessary and I hope the Minister will continue my efforts in that direction. I believe he shares sentiments similar to mine in this matter and, indeed, in other matters in relation to devolution. Above all, I indicated my desire to apply in a practical way all my plans for the strengthening of local government. Strengthening it for what purpose?

My purpose in setting about the strengthening and reorganisation of local authorities was to allow for devolution on a massive scale, a scale which would remove departmental control from many areas in which it is presently exercised and in which it creates delays and frustrations. To play down the role of the local authority in our democracy is not a good thing and I suggest the further postponement of local elections is, in fact, doing just this. It is regrettable that the Minister should feel it incumbent on him to do this.

The Minister will be aware of the fact that I was not in favour of the further postponement of local elections; I was, in fact, proceeding expeditiously with the preparation of a reorganisation Bill. That Bill could have been dealt with in two parts, if that were thought desirable, and I had hoped to come before the Dáil shortly after the Christmas Recess with the Bill. I also hoped to hold the local elections this year following on the passage of my reorganisation proposals by both Houses. I accept that the timetable I had set myself could not be followed by my successor because of delays caused by intervening events.

I would accept, in fairness to the Minister, that he would expect to have a look at the reorganisation plans and to make his own decisions on them. For these reasons and to be fair to the Minister, my party have decided that we shall not call for a vote on this occasion to record our disagreement with the Minister's decision in relation to the postponement of the local elections until June, 1974.

Postponement at this stage indicates to me that the Minister is giving serious consideration to the need for reorganisation. This must be the main reason for the postponement. It is important that the House should be told if this is so, because the only data we have to go on in seeking the Minister's opinion in relation to reorganisation are the statements which have been made by the Minister and by Deputies of this Government and by their parties, when indicating what they would do.

In looking at some of the statements that have been made I would like to put on record the opinions of Members of the Fine Gael and Labour Parties. That is the only way in which I can seek to find out the intentions of this Government. I am going back to their policy statements. I wish to put on record the Fine Gael policy documents Winning through to a Just Society which was published before the 1969 election and quote from that document, which said:

Fine Gael believes that our present system of local government urgently needs reform.

It also states:

Fine Gael believes that there should be a fundamental review of the functions and form of local authorities. The present structure of local government is entirely unsatisfactory.

According to Press reports of 20th June, 1967, which was quoted in The Irish Times, Irish Independent, The Irish Press and The Cork Examiner it was stated:

Fine Gael proposed to change the structure of local government by the establishment of regional councils. These might consist of 15-20 members, the majority of whom would be elected by the county councils within the region and the rest could either be co-opted or nominated. The functions to be undertaken by these councils would be those which at present attract a high proportion of grants from central funds. These councils could continue to obtain the bulk of their income from this source so that the need for statutory demands by them on local rates would be minimised....

This, they believed, would have had the effect of increasing the financial economy of county councils. We can take it that that statement is vague. It is fairly definite in proposing the introduction of a new level of local authority. This is the regional council to which they refer.

Another source from which I have been trying to find information on the intentions of the Government in relation to reorganisation was a statement made by Deputy T.J. Fitzpatrick (Cavan), spokesman on local government, quoted in the Irish Independent of 11th February, 1971. The Deputy said:

Towns have outgrown the urban areas. It is difficult for small towns to carry on a service without increasing rates astronomically.

One could reasonably assume from that statement that major changes were envisaged by Fine Gael when they were in Opposition.

In an article in The Irish Times on 16th April, 1969, Deputy Garret FitzGerald, now the Minister for Foreign Affairs, said:

It has become evident in recent years that the existing pattern of local government is unsuited to modern needs. The existence of over 80 planning and housing authorities in a small county of this size is clearly absurd and while our existing system of local government is sufficiently flexible to cope with this situation by the delegation of authority for housing and planning work from smaller authorities to larger and better-equipped bodies, such as county councils, this delegation process serves only to emphasise how unrealistic our present structure is.

Even the county as a unit of administration is now too small for many purposes.

He went on to say:

Our counties vary enormously in size and population—Cork is nine times as large as Carlow, and Dublin has 24 times Carlow's population— but even the largest county is not big enough to constitute in its own right a natural region for such purposes as hospital services, colleges of technology or tourism, or for the kind of physical planning studies referred to earlier.

The Deputy further stated:

It has been evident for some time past that a regional administrative structure is now required to coordinate the regional activities which have sprung up throughout the country in response to modern demands that cannot be fitted within a county structure devised in a period when the horse was the most efficient form of communication.

These are some interesting thoughts from leading Members of the Fine Gael Party in relation to reorganisation.

Mr. Begley

Could the Deputy tell us when the Minister said that?

Mr. Molloy

I have already given the reference.

Mr. Begley

The Minister was in the Seanad then.

Mr. Molloy

The Labour Party, the other half of the partnership, dealt with local government reorganisation in the policy document published by the Labour Party and approved at their annual conference in 1969, which contains the following:

The present system of local government is an English creation.

County boundaries have not been drawn from any predetermined plan.

Some of the county units are too small and others are too poor.

A new tier in the local government structure should be created which will group numbers of county councils.

The regional authorities will administer some central government services together with planning and development, water and sewerage and roads, and will also have functions in relation to amenities, housing and conservation.

Regional councils will be directly elected and will have their own staff.

Just before the 1969 local elections a statement of local government policy was issued by the Labour Party. Among the points made was this one:

The entire local government system is untidy and tends to be inefficient. Labour proposes that it be streamlined and modernised...

We have a Minister for Local Government who is a Member of the Labour Party. The country, and the elected representatives in particular, are anxious to know what form the streamlining and the modernising will take.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair is not ruling on the matter at all.

Mr. Molloy

I am sure the Ceann Comhairle would love to hear me repeating his words on that occasion. They were:

Alderman Seán Treacy said he was very conscious of the feelings of loss in the minds of public representatives who served so well and for so long with no recompense whatsoever the people in their respective areas. They did naturally resent the suggestion that their local authorities should be abolished, but then again, a very compelling case could be made for the merging of these bodies with a major one like the county council. This council had recently to come to the rescue of Cashel Urban Council already in the matter of housing and he hoped, as a result, to see a joint scheme there soon to relieve the acute housing problem there.

There again, is the intention being expressed by a leading member of the Labour Party. In trying to find out what the Minister's thinking is in relation to it I have had to do some research into the statements of intention which had been made by members of Fine Gael and of Labour before they assumed office.

Another comment which I should like to put on record here was made by Deputy Maurice Dockrell in a radio interview on the day the Dáil convened. I think it was Liam Nolan's programme. The Deputy said his new Government would create a greater Dublin Council and would not hold elections to reconstitute Dublin Corporation and that they would abolish Dublin County Council, Dún Laoghaire Urban District Council and the Balbriggan Town Commissioners. He said the new authority which they would create would include the area of all these authorities that I have mentioned and also parts of County Meath and County Wicklow. There is a rather sweeping change, something far more extensive than I had ever envisaged and I should like some clarification from the Minister as to whether or not his intentions in relation to the future structure of local government in Dublin would go that far.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am wondering how many more quotations the Deputy has in mind. Quotations are in order but long quotations of the kind we have heard would not be either desirable or necessary.

Mr. Molloy

I think I have quoted sufficiently to indicate to the House that the Labour and Fine Gael idea is to create regional councils. If this is the intention of this new Government I should like the House to be told what will happen to the existing county councils. Are we to take it from the Bill, seeking the postponement of the local elections that county council elections will never again be held?

Is it the Minister's intention in bringing this Bill before the House to give himself a further 12 months period in which to carry out the reorganisation, in order to prepare legislation which will, in effect, abolish county councils and establish regional councils as suggested in the policy documents and in the statements from which I have quoted from members of both parties now forming the Government? These are questions that every county council is anxious to have answered. Indeed the entire community is anxiously awaiting an indication of the Government's intention with regard to reorganisation.

Mr. Begley

What about the urban councils?

Mr. Molloy

I trust that when he is replying the Minister will give us some indication as to when it is hoped he can publish the Government's intentions either by way of a White Paper or Green Paper or Bill. Having initiated the discussion and the debate on this subject and having the approval of the other parties and the agreement on the need for major changes, it would be only fair to the country that he should give some indication fairly soon as to what his intentions are.

There is one other point that I should like to make to the Minister. He will remember that while I was in the office he now occupies I was happy to grant votes to the youth of Ireland, to those aged 18 and over.

Mr. Begley

You did and all.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Molloy

In introducing the Bill and causing the referendum to be held and in accepting the decision of the people in the referendum, I had promised in advance, should the people approve of the move, that I would extend the vote to those aged 18 and over——

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Molloy

——to enable them to vote also at local elections and other elections, Presidential and otherwise. The youth of Ireland have a very keen interest in local affairs, in local administration, probably a keener interest in those matters than in seeking election to Dáil Éireann or participating in Dáil elections although they do have a very keen interest in Dáil elections. By the postponement by the National Coalition of the local elections the youth are being deprived of the opportunity to vote next June in the local elections.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Molloy

That is a point that the Minister may have overlooked. It is one that is worthy of consideration. However, in view of the circumstances and the situation in which the Minister finds himself, as I have indicated, we do not intend to register our disapproval of this move by way of a vote. At the same time, I wanted to sound the warning that I have sounded. I hope to receive some information from the Minister as to what is happening in regard to reorganisation.

Mr. Kavanagh

When we in the Labour Party opposed the postponement of the local elections last year we did so because the then Minister was once again asking the Dáil to postpone the granting of democracy and the reconstitution of democracy in the Bray Urban District Council and Dublin Corporation. On that occasion the then Minister made no provision to restore councils to either of those areas. Before introducing the Bill now before the House the Minister restored democracy to both of these areas and he can be assured that that is very welcome. I speak from a certain amount of local knowledge, particularly of the Bray area where the lack of public representatives for a number of years highlighted the need for local representation. Services were not available which should and would have been provided if there had been 12 good councillors agitating for them.

The Minister has restored the councils to Dublin and Bray and at the same time has provided that persons aged 18 may stand for election. When the previous speaker referred to the youth of Ireland one could only smile because not only did he deprive the youth of the vote at general elections but he was also prepared to deprive them of participation as candidates in local elections. The Minister has amended that and young persons in the local elections next year will be allowed to stand for election to every council. They have a year in which to prepare themselves and to make themselves known in their respective areas.

The previous Deputy spoke about the quality of life being enhanced by local authorities. When one considers that he was prepared to abolish dozens of urban councils and town commissioners it is difficult to understand how he can make that point. In my area a council was abolished, one of the three urban areas, and under his White Paper the other two urban councils were due to be abolished. I cannot understand how the quality of life would be improved by the abolition of small urban councils and by depriving the people of a say in running their own communities at that level.

The change proposed by the Minister in the Bill before the House will restore local democracy in all urban councils. I do not see anything in the Bill that suggests there is any change in the structure at the moment. There is no hint given anywhere that changes are needed for regional councils and there are no such proposals.

I welcome what the Minister is doing. However, I would ask that Deputies be given a chance to debate section 2 if the Minister proposes to postpone elections in the future. A period of seven years is long enough to have the councils in office. However, in view of the number of elections and referenda recently there might be a certain apathy on the part of the public if the local elections were held in 1973. We know that in Great Britain only 2 per cent or 23 per cent of the electorate vote in local elections. While I do not think that is likely to happen here, it could come about if we had a proliferation of referenda and elections around the same time, and particularly if the local elections took place after the other elections.

It would be a mistake to hold the local elections on the same day as the Presidential election and I am glad the Minister has not done this. The people can make up their minds on the important issue of the Presidential election without having to cope with the long list of local candidates in the local elections.

When the elections take place next year, young people will have had an opportunity to make up their minds about putting their names forward. They will have had a year's notice in which they can have made themselves known in their communities. In addition, the election register will be up-to-date. Preparation of the last register was so rushed that the names of thousands of young people were omitted and every Deputy is aware of that fact. We know that rate collectors did not have time to do a thorough job on the preparation of the last register but now young people who are eligible will have an opportunity to get their names on the new register. Some of them may be deprived of the vote in the Presidential election because of the small quotas that were involved in local elections, particularly in urban areas. However, when the names of the young people are included in the register next year this will mean that we will have a more true result. With regard to postponement of the local elections, I do not think the public want more elections this year.

Mr. Moore

The postponement of the local elections this year is disappointing, particularly after the clamour we have had since 1969 about the restoration of the Dublin city council and the Bray Urban Council. I agree with Deputy Molloy that postponement of the local elections does nothing for the status of the local authorities. In the past 50 years elections have been postponed on 15 occasions and these postponements may create an impression in the public mind that we do not think much of the local authorities, although I agree that postponements in the early part of the century may have been for different reasons than apply today.

The year's postponement will give the Minister an opportunity of examining his party's policy on local government and on whatever defects we have seen in the present set-up. Perhaps in future legislation the Minister would consider a suggestion of embodying in some Bill a proviso that local elections might be postponed if they occur in the same year as a Presidential or general election. At least this would let people know why the local elections were being postponed and it would put the local authority in the mainstream of political events. In most cases local elections have been postponed at short notice and people who were prepared to serve on the local authority were denied an opportunity of doing this; this has added to the frustration of civic-minded people.

In his reply to this debate I should like the Minister to tell us his attitude towards the White Paper on Local Government issued by the former Government. There are proposals in his party's manifesto on local authorities that have some similarity with the suggestions in the White Paper. Perhaps the Minister would tell us if he intends to abolish or to amend the Management Act. This has been criticised by his party in previous years but the people in Dublin city would like the Minister to spell out the future pattern of local government in the Greater Dublin area. Will we have a Dublin city council, a county council and a Dún Laoghaire Borough Corporation or will we have a Greater Dublin Council?

The Minister will be compelled to make some move towards rationalisation of the Dublin scene. At the moment some absurd things happen; for instance the corporation purchase land in the county area and allocate this land to builders: they must apply to the county council for planning permission but the matter is even more absurd when one realises the chief planning officer covers the entire area. The city manager is also the county manager and here we have a case of a public body applying for planning permission to another public body but in the end one man, with jurisdiction over both bodies, makes the decision. There are many other anachronisms in the local authority organisations and I think the Minister could spend his time in a worthwhile way in examining this situation.

In the Bill before the House there is no guarantee that the local elections will be held next year. The Minister has promised a comprehensive Bill dealing with local government. It is said that it will contain measures which will save parliamentary time because we will not have to enact a new Bill annually if there are postponements of the local elections. While these new proposals may save time there is no guarantee being given now that we will have the local elections next year.

Positive steps will have to be taken in order to raise the status of local authorities in the minds of the general public. A Dublin newspaper some time ago carried out a survey of public opinion on the absence of the Dublin City Council. The number of people who were aware that there had been a city council was very small. All those interviewed in that survey were aware that Dublin did not have a lord mayor. The most serious point, however, was the small number of people who were anxious that the city council should be reconstituted.

The Minister, or his predecessor, or the general public are not to blame for this. It is the result of the manner in which during the past 54 years local authorities have had to carry on while the elections were being postponed. The postponing of local elections has caused the view in the minds of the public that local authorities are not necessary, particularly when there are excellent officials to carry on. Officials in Dublin, and I presume in Bray, have carried on in the absence of the councils and I am not aware of any great mistakes made by these officials. They carried on the housing programmes at much the same rate as the councils would have if they had been functioning. These officials also carried on other aspects of the local programme.

When he introduces his comprehensive Bill I hope the Minister will give local authorities the greatest shot in the arm that they have ever been given by bestowing more executive powers on them. Having served on a local authority for many years one finds that apart from section 4 of the Local Government Act a member has very little power otherwise. The Minister, having served on a local authority, is well aware of the weaknesses of the general set-up. His experience and his desire to improve matters will help him in this regard. He should always bear in mind the fact that (a), his own party have issued a manifesto on local government and that (b), the Fianna Fáil Government, in a most impressive and comprehensive and far-seeking document on all aspects of local government, have given him a really progressive piece of legislation on local government.

I shall wait, impatiently perhaps, for the introduction of that Bill which I hope will be introduced before the next local elections. I hope that the local elections will not have to be postponed again next year because the new organisation, or reorganisation, of the local government scheme will not be ready.

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

My comments on this Bill will be very brief but I think it is only right and proper that the record should be set straight for everyone to read. as far as the Fine Gael and Labour Parties—the National Coalition—are concerned. Listening to Deputy Molloy, the previous Minister, shedding crocodile tears for our youth being deprived the right to vote again one can only come to the conclusion that this must be taken with a grain of salt. The Deputy, when he was Minister, had a great opportunity if he had postponed the general election for six weeks to have given the youth of Ireland an opportunity of feeling that they were participating in the creation of a new Ireland by using their vote for the first time. They would have had that opportunity if the general election had been held sometime after April 14. I am sure the youth of Ireland will judge the former Minister and his remarks, which I am sure will not be taken seriously by them.

At the time of the dissolution of the 19th Dáil, two Bills were in the course of preparation. The first one, which was ready for introduction, provided for the dissolution of town commissioners, the dissolution of 44 of the 56 urban district councils, including boroughs, and the setting up of area and other committees of local authorities. The second Bill, which was at an advanced drafting stage, dealt mainly with local government in county boroughs. It provided, inter alia, for a merger of the existing authorities in both Dublin and Cork, district committees of large unified authorities and joint management of both city and county in Limerick and Waterford.

It is very interesting to record and to stitch into the record, as Deputy Molloy was so anxious to stitch the Fine Gael policy into the record, the town commissioners that were to be abolished. They were: Ardee, Balbriggan, Ballybay, Ballyshannon, Bandon, Bantry, Belturbet, Boyle, Cootehill, Droichead Nua, Edenderry, Gorey, Granard, Kilkee, Lismore, Loughrea, Mountmellick, Muinebeag, Mullingar, Passage West, Portlaoise, Tramore and Tuam. All these town commissioners were to go if Deputy Molloy were still a Minister.

The following boroughs and urban districts were to get the hatchet if Deputy Molloy were still Minister: An Uaimh, Arklow, Athy, Ballina, Ballinasloe, Birr, Buncrana, Bundoran, Carrickmacross, Carrick-onSuit, Cashel, Castlebar, Castleblayney, Cavan, Ceanannus Mór, Clonakilty, Clones, Clonmel, Cobh, Dungarvan, Enniscorthy, Fermoy, Killarney, Kilrush, Kinsale, Letterkenny, Listowel, Longford, Macroom, Mallow, Midleton, Monaghan, Naas, Nenagh, New Ross, Skibbereen, Templemore, Thurles, Tipperary, Trim, Tullamore, Westport, Wicklow and Youghal.

It is very arrogant for a former Minister to say that he was interested in local authorities and that he wanted to give more powers to local authorities when, with a clean stroke of the pen, he would do away with so many town commissioners and urban districts. It is only right and proper that the public should be made aware of what Deputy Molloy had in store for them so that they could thank their lucky stars he did not get a chance to put them into operation.

Mr. Molloy

The public were well aware of my plans. Those plans were made public. The Parliamentary Secretary's own spokesman indicated that they were to make similar changes.

Mr. Dowling

I am possibly one of the few people in this House who could not care less if the local elections were postponed every year for the next five years. In expressing this view I would be hopeful that the end product would be something substantial. No hasty decision should be arrived at in relation to the structuring of local authorities on a different basis. Every consideration must be given to this matter in order to ensure that the country has the best possible local authority set-up in any new legislation that will follow. It is important that there should not be confusion in the future and that the problems that have arisen in the past and are arising on a day-to-day basis in Dublin city and county are adequately dealt with.

Very big problems are arising in this area because of perimeter development and the other developments mentioned by Deputy Moore. There is the confusion between Dublin County Council, Dublin Corporation and Dún Laoghaire Borough Council. This confusion occurs not alone at public representative level but at official level also. It is well known that officials dig in against one another with the result that serious problems arise for the community as a whole. It is well known that during the years when one set of officials did not pull with the other, substantial developments bogged down for a period. It is undesirable that there should be a situation, as exists in Dublin city and county, where there are three authorities with consequent substantial overlapping. There is no comprehensive plan for sewerage development, water supply or, indeed, housing development.

If two years are necessary, then the Minister should use that time to ensure that there is a proper set-up which will function effectively and efficiently in Dublin where one-third of the population is located. In this city there is one manager, Mr. Macken, who is also responsible for Dublin county. At city council meetings the city manager is instructed to write to the county manager to ask him if he is in a position to carry out certain functions. He writes back and tells himself that he cannot do it and he writes again to himself asking that the decision be reconsidered and that he be allowed to do so. This farcical situation has been in operation for a number of years and the sooner it is cleared up the better, so that we will have some definite line of authority in Dublin city and county which can make a binding and lasting decision without writing to himself. In addition to being confusing for the city manager, it is confusing for public representatives and, indeed, for the official, and it is sometimes easy to understand how agitated some officials become when they see three sets of public representatives, with three sets of ideas and no comprehensive approach, from the same three parties in this House on three different councils, having nothing in common with one another, in the city, the county and Dún Laoghaire Borough.

I ask the Minister to pay special attention to the Dublin situation, to see to it that whatever type of structure evolves, it will give a new image to the local authorities because the local authorities in Dublin and throughout the country have not that good an image. Some of them have, but in the main they are looked on as a colossal joke, as talking places where certain individuals seek publicity and those of us who have served for a considerable period on Dublin City Council know full well that there are people who monopolised the proceedings for the one purpose of personal publicity without any regard whatever for the needs and problems of the residents. It is important that when the new structure emerges, the responsibilities of public representatives as a whole be clearly defined, with possibly the additional powers, which are little enough, sought by them and that they no longer engage in double talk in the form of supporting rent strikes when in opposition and not supporting them when on the other side.

This applies to all parties. I do not blame any party or individuals but we feel that this artificial situation must be abolished and we must have a new responsibility and ensure that the elected representatives have responsibilities and measure up to them. In the past, it is unfortunate that some representatives did not measure up in this way. I have heard the question of the abolition of Dublin City Council and Bray Urban Council mentioned here and I feel as I did on that earlier occasion that if public representatives in Dublin City Council had measured up fully to their responsibilities, the council would never have been abolished. It cil would never have been abolished the council—it was the council itself—and I am quite certain that if a serious situation developed in any council or corporation, if it was felt that the public representatives were not playing their part in full, were impeding progress by adopting a negative attitude in failing to play their part, the present Minister may on some future occasion have to consider abolition. If he does it for just reasons. I will not disagree, any more than I disagreed with the previous Minister when he abolished Dublin City Council.

The questions of planning, of housing and services development in the city and county are matters to which the Minister must give serious attention even before any new structure emerges in order to ensure that the three councils can operate more effectively and efficiently for the benefit of the community. I am not terribly concerned with what type of structure evolves as long as it is a commonsense structure which will eliminate many of the defects that exist.

Deputy Begley mentioned the matter of people being deprived of their votes. It is unfortunate at any time that persons entitled to vote should not have a vote at a particular time, but if he is telling us that a general election will not be called at any time other than when a new register is available, that is fair enough, but the situation must be looked at in terms of its being the prerogative of the Taoiseach to call an election when he thinks fit, at what from his point of view is the best possible moment or when he is forced into it. When the register comes into operation is not the thought in the mind of the Taoiseach at that time, whether it be the previous Taoiseach, the present Taoiseach or the next Taoiseach, and I think it is cheap publicity on the Deputy's part to seek to indicate that a general election was called to deprive people of their votes. People have been deprived of votes every time an election has been held over the years before the introduction of the new register but not deliberately.

Mr. Begley

We had a referendum to give the votes. Why not give them?

Mr. Dowling

I am as fairminded as anyone in relation to the rights of individuals but it is cheap publicity to keep indicating that this was a definite decision designed to deprive people of votes. That is not so and it has not been and is never a factor in the decision, as I am sure it will not be a factor in future. These people have their opportunity in the Presidential elections and in all elections in future. This is the way the register is compiled but if we get an understanding now that no election will be called in future, except on the basis of a new register, we can look at the situation in a very different light but I do not think any Government will give that guarantee. If a question is put down to the leader of the present Government asking if he supports Deputy Begley's point of view and that of other Members, that any future elections will take place only on the new register to ensure that nobody will be deprived because the people who will be deprived of a vote in future, if not fought on a new register, will be the 18-year-olds who are coming into entitlement to vote within a few months of the register becoming effective——

Mr. Begley

Do you believe what you are saying?

Mr. Dowling

I believe it is the prerogative of the Taoiseach and he will call an election any time it suits him and that this will not be a factor. This is a hobby horse and if the Deputy wants to ride this hobby horse, fair enough, but I believe the people have sufficient common sense to understand that this does not happen. It was just unfortunate on the last occasion that this situation developed.

Deputy Kavanagh shed crocodile tears about Bray Urban Council and Dublin Corporation. I do not suppose he cares two hoots about them but I am as concerned about local democracy as he or anyone else but if local representatives fail to play their part in full, if they fail to measure up to their responsibilities and if a council is abolished purely because of political gimmickry, as in the case of the last council, these people had a right to lose their places. I am glad to see Dublin Corporation restored even in its present form but I would not have been sorry if an election had been held and new representatives elected. It does give this voice to the local community and local representatives, a voice which has been missing for some time, but in the meantime I believe that the affairs of the city were conducted in a fairly impartial manner by the commissioner.

However long it takes, I hope the Minister will make sure that we will have the type of structure that will be best for the common good of the citizens of the country, and for the common good of the citizens of Dublin city, who comprise one third of the population and deserve special attention. I am not too fussy as to whether he holds it this year, next year or the year after.

Mr. Reynolds

I was rather interested in listening to Deputy Dowling speaking about the last general election and what brought it about. He said it was the job of the Taoiseach to call the election. We are all with him on that. But a number of people were about to reach the age of 18 years and would be entitled to vote for the first time. He omitted to say that. If one looks back on the record of elections one finds that there were more general elections, more local elections and more Presidential elections in the month of June than in any other months. It is quite obvious that the quick decision to hold the election was made to deprive those people of their votes. If that was not the reason, nobody is stopping Deputy Dowling or any other Fianna Fáil Deputy from telling the House exactly what the reason was. To me and to everybody else that was the reason.

I congratulate the Minister on postponing the elections. He is quite justified in doing that for a number of reasons. One of the reasons is that people aged 18 years are now entitled to vote in local government elections, in a Presidential election, and a Dáil election. They are not allowed to offer themselves as candidates in local elections. I do not think the Minister would be doing justice to these people —knowing his thinking and knowing the thinking of every Deputy on this side of the House that they are entitled to the opportunity of offering themselves as candidates in local elections or general elections. That is another reason why I think he is right.

Some people referred to the White Paper issued by the Previous Government. I hope the Minister will succeed in scrapping it immediately. Listening to the people on the opposite benches, you would think that it was we on this side of the House who introduced the Managerial Act. Far from it. It was not we who took the powers from the local authorities. It was the people on that side of the House who did it. Listening to Deputy Molloy, Deputy Dowling and other speakers, you would think that it was we who did it. These people can switch things around in their own minds to suit themselves.

I hope that, when the Minister scraps the White Paper issued by the previous Government, he will produce something which will not do away with the urban councils or the district councils which Deputy Begley, the Parliamentary Secretary, mentioned. It would be a desperate situation if local government were to be stemmed to that extent. The whole thinking would be done here, in the Custom House, and in O'Connell Bridge House. As Deputy Dowling said, members of local authorities would become a laughing stock. I doubt that you would get people to offer themselves as candidates if that were the situation. Like other Deputies, I have the experience of being a member of a local authority for 35 years. I never saw any disrespect shown to a member of a local authority unless he created that situation for himself, and there are very few people who did that. I should like to pay tribute to members of local authorities who spent their time and money looking after the interests of the people of their county or district.

There are about three areas where a manager is operating two counties. I suggest that there should be one manager in one county. If a county is too small and it is not economic for a manager to operate it, the secretary of the local authority should act as manager. I am casting no reflection on the manager for Sligo and Leitrim where this is the case. It cannot work and it does not work. I hope the Minister will reduce the powers of these people and give much more to the local authorities.

Mr. Cunningham

Having listened to Deputy Reynolds, could I ask the Minister for clarification on one point. Has the Bill giving the right to people of 18 years and over to stand for local elections been passed fully? Has it gone through the Seanad? Is it the law at the moment?

Mr. Tully

The Deputy knows the answer to that himself.

Mr. Molloy

That is a smart answer.

Mr. Tully

It is intended to be a smart answer.

I know that the former Minister, Deputy Molloy, said during the debate this time last year that the local elections would be held this year. The present Government, then in Opposition, spent quite a time debating this and putting forward all sorts of arguments and an assurance was given, which was not changed, that the local elections would be held in June of this year. We are having a Presidential election at the end of this month and it would have been ideal to hold both elections, which has happened on a number of occasions before, on the same day. It was already decided to hold the Presidential election on the 30th of this month so no valid reason has been put forward for not holding both elections on the same day.

The Minister stated that he is only a short time in charge of the Department of Local Government so perhaps he had not time to get down to this work and wanted to kick for touch. This is such a serious matter that I think he made a major mistake in coming before the House with this legislation which deprives those between the ages of 18 and 21 years, who are now on the register since the 14th April, of the opportunity of selecting and electing their local authority representatives, whether they be county councillors, corporation officials, urban councillors or town commissioners. This, among other things, is what the Minister is doing by this legislation.

I disagree entirely with this legislation because I know that the various local authority representatives, county councillors and the various political organisations all over the country had made arrangements for the county council elections. In some cases county council candidates were selected in preparation for a June election. We had the postponement of local elections and other elections over the years but I believe this is only the second time when the local authorities have been seven years in office.

How many councillors elected seven years ago feel like serving now? How many of them after such a long period do not wish to get out and leave it to younger people. There are many valid reasons why a double postponement of local elections should not take place. We heard many reasons by members of the present Government why the local elections should not have been postponed but now, a year later, the present Minister for Local Government comes before us without any explanation, without any good reason, without any excuse and very flippantly says that he is postponing the local elections for another year. The people do not want this and certainly those over 18 do not want it. We must remember it was the previous Government who introduced the legislation giving votes to people of 18 years of age.

Mr. Tully

As a matter of fact it was not.

Mr. Molloy

Who did?

Mr. Tully

I did.

Mr. Cunningham

Those people will not thank the Minister for Local Government for depriving them of exercising that newly given right for a full year.

Mr. O'Brien

I would like, first of all, to thank the Minister for appointing me a Commissioner of Dublin Corporation. We hear a lot of weeping and wailing from the Opposition regarding the postponement of the local elections but for the last four years Dublin city has been without local government. The previous Government showed very little concern about taking that right away from the people. The present Minister was only in office a month when he reconstituted Dublin Corporation by appointing commissioners. This shows his concern for local government.

I regret, as I know the Minister does, that the local elections have to be postponed for another year but there are obvious reasons why they have to be postponed. We had no local government in Dublin; changes were taking place; we had the White Paper on Greater Dublin and we had to look at those in the context as we saw them in Government.

With regard to the Greater Dublin Council I believe this is coming because Dublin is expanding out into the county and when the corporation require serviced land they have to go into the country. We have one manager now operating between both authorities, so obviously this is coming. One must be careful before one comes to a decision as to whether one will have a vast council within the Greater Dublin area. I believe we shall need a Greater Dublin Council but not solely in that form: within that greater council I see smaller units of say 100,000 so as to give real, meaningful amenities and services in their own areas. They would send councillors to the Greater Dublin Council. This would be a useful exercise.

I believe the greater council will also have to expand its concern to consider clear water areas. Local authorities may have to look beyond their own boundaries and have regional councils for matters such as water, enviornment and pollution. One local authority may be very diligent in regard to pollution while another may not and as a result there will be no progress. Regionalisation on water, enviornment and pollution would mean an approach to a situation which is very desirable.

One smiles at references to people being deprived of votes at 18 when one remembers that they were so deprived on February 28th when a delay of six weeks would have given them votes at 18 not only on a local but on a national level. To cry about this now seems to me to be shedding crocodile tears. Votes at 18 were proposed at the Fine Gael Ard Fheis and adopted. Since then we have been constantly bringing the matter to the notice of the Government so that they might introduce votes at 18 but it was eight or nine years afterwards before this was done. Therefore they should be rather slow to criticise this side of the House on the matter.

I see the overall development of local authorities as something requiring a complete overhaul because of changing times. The Minister is quite right to postpone the elections for one year to give us time so that we shall not hastily rush into electing councils for another five years. By waiting a year we can draw up comprehensive plans to suit the country's needs today, put them into operation and elect local government representatives on this basis. In that way we shall get real local government. I support the postponement because I believe it is in the best interests of local government.

Mr. Briscoe

I agree with much of what Deputy O'Brien said, but I should like to say first to the Minister that when I speak here I do so honestly. If I am destructive, I hope it will be in a constructive sense. Deputy O'Brien realises the difference between being in power and being in Opposition and if he were in Opposition his speech would be somewhat different in regard to supporting the postponement of local elections. I daresay the Minister himself would have been somewhat critical of such a decision. Make no apologies for that: that is politics. I hope I do not sound cynical; I do not intend to do so.

If there is an attempt to get the 18-year-old voters on the side of the Government by suggesting that we called the election when we did because we were fearful of 18-year-old votes, that is unfair because——

Mr. Molloy

It is untrue.

Mr. Briscoe

We know this. But, as the Minister himself will find out in the course of time—in fact he is aware of it already—he does not know when the Leader of the Coalition will call an election and the Leader of the Coalition will, I am sure call an election at the time he thinks best suits the needs of the country, as did our leader. I say to members of the Government: do not underestimate the intelligence of 18-year-olds. They are not foolish and it would be a very weak effort to try to give the impression that we held the general election when we did so as to deprive them of votes and that therefore they are forever indebted to the National Coalition and must always vote for them. That would be trying to put the 18 to 21 year old voters in a false position. They are not foolish. The majority of them are aware that Fianna Fáil introduced the necessary legislation. Deputy O'Brien told us that Fine Gael advocated this as far back as 1963, but it is only in recent years that other countries have given votes at 18, America and Britain and many others. Many European countries, as far as I know, have not yet given votes at 18; in some cases the votes are given at 19 and possibly 20 in others. I agree with what Deputy O'Brien said regarding the establishment of the Greater Dublin Council. I favour the setting up of smaller units because if the area covered by a council is too large the council will tend to become remote from the people. In my own constituency there are many areas such as Rathgar and Rathmines which could have a local council to serve the needs of those communities. There is also the Kimmage-Crumlin area where there is a high density of population. I would favour thought being given to the establishment of local councils to perform certain functions in their own areas where they could keep a closer eye on developments.

Much has been made of the dissolution of Dublin Corporation. That was not the first time a council has been dissolved. Dublin County Council was dissolved in 1924 for six years by the then Cumann na nGeadhael Government. If there is so much revulsion now against the power of a Minister to dissolve a council I would like to ask the Minister will he consider abolishing that power which he now has and when he is replying I should like to have his views on that. Will this be another section 31? Does he think that this power which is so revolting should remain? Will he abolish it and so make local councils completely independent so that, if they refuse to strike an adequate rate, that is their affair? What does he intend to do about that.

Reference has been made to the compilation of the electoral register. We are all agreed that there is a great deal to be desired in the compilation of this register. Perhaps it would be possible to drop into letter boxes some kind of communication exhorting householders and others eligible to check the register and ensure that their names appear on the register. I am sure forms, no matter how carefully filled in, can get lost. They may fall off the table accidentally and finish up in a wastepaper basket. We know that large numbers find themselves unregistered when an election comes. This may result in their losing their votes in, perhaps, two or three elections in a year. There is something wrong. The system is falling down somewhere. I hope the Minister will give special attention to this. It has been adverted to on both sides of the House.

I am very glad that young people of 18 to 21 will be able to stand in local elections. I would particularly like to see those young people engaged in youth work putting themselves forward for election. It is very important that their voices should be heard at local authority level. In the Dublin area I am sure we could get quite a few young people elected to Dublin Corporation and I would say to them that now is the time to start selecting their spokesmen either through their own organisation or through political parties; there is nothing wrong with political parties. They simply must become involved because it is only by making their voices heard at this level that we will get anything done.

I hope the Minister will tell us whether he intends to produce a White Paper in the near future on the re-organisation of local authorities. The time is certainly ripe for such a paper and the more discussion there is the better it will be. I would like to emphasise again Deputy O'Brien's point about smaller units. Smaller units would give the people a bigger voice locally. Big units tend to become too remote.

Mr. J. Ryan

As a member of an urban authority and a member of the county council for some years and having attended many conferences on the White Paper on Local Government, I was indeed amazed at the about face on the part of Deputy Molloy in his attitude to local authorities. If my memory serves me correctly, he listened to us but, at the same time, he had his mind made up. Perhaps I should say he pretended to listen to us.

As the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Begley, pointed out, prior to the dissolution the chips were down in the case of urban authorities and town commissioners because the Minister and the central authority did not deem them of sufficient importance to continue them in existence. That attitude, of course, was quite typical of the arrogance of the Minister and the central authority. The people were there to be heard but no attention was paid to what they had to say.

I compliment the Minister for postponing the local elections. I am prepared to wait until such time as a Bill is enacted which will give people power locally. The Minister had many years service in a local authority and he appreciates the appalling frustration suffered over the years in practically every aspect of local government, from housing grants to road estimates and small housing schemes. Everything had to go to the Department of Local Government. Power will have to be concentrated in the local authorities and I appeal to the Minister to ensure that powers are entrusted to the local representatives. They are the people's representatives. They are accepted by the people as suitable representatives, conscious of the needs of the people. They also protect the people from the central authority. If the Minister gives powers locally, particularly with regard to housing and planning appeals, he will do no more than justice and any delay in the meantime will be worthwhile.

Mr. Timmons

Like the previous speaker, I believe there is a compelling case for the postponement of the local elections for at least another year. However, I have a certain reservation because, looking through the Minister's speech, I see that he can make further postponements; he can, for example, come in on 29th June next and say he wants to postpone the elections for another year. I do not think that is right. That is something of which I would not approve. However, the Minister is new in his office and he should be given an opportunity of studying in depth the full implications of a new local government code. That can only be done in the light of mature experience.

Last year the elections were postponed on the grounds that the study of the re-organisation was continuing and the Minister for Local Government of the day addressed himself very seriously to that study. He visited practically every local centre and obtained the views of those involved and assessed the situation. There must be a vast amount of material available now in the Department which will help the new Minister in formulating proposals for improved local government services. It is generally recognised, particularly in the larger urban areas, that the present system is outmoded. That applies not only in Dublin city and county but in the major cities and towns throughout the country. There is a need to place greater responsibility on local authorities in these areas. I hope responsibility will be given back to the local people elected to whatever organisation the Minister has in mind.

I was disappointed that the local elections did not take place this year at the same time as the Presidential Election. Many people were anxious that these elections should take place. The Government have decided that they should not take place, and we must put up with that decision. I hope that the Minister will be in a position shortly to bring in a measure concerning the general reorganisation of local government. I know that the Minister has been very busy since he took office, although the Dáil only met on about eight occasions. We have had a long holiday. The Minister had to deal with the Rates Bill.

Mr. Kavanagh

The Minister did not have a long holiday. He was working hard during the break.

Mr. Timmons

I wondered when we would be recalled to deal with the legislation. I appreciate that this is a complex measure. The reorganisation of such an important service is very difficult. I am prepared to give the Minister reasonable time to bring his proposals before us. Other speakers mentioned the serious overlapping and anomalies in administration, particularly in the Dublin region, the duplication of officers and officials—all of which are very costly and contribute to the burden of rates which the people have to pay. I look forward to the time when the Minister will be in a position, perhaps even during this session of the Dáil, to inform us of his proposals for the general reorganisation of the local government services.

Mr. Bermingham

I wish to congratulate the Minister for postponing the elections this year, and for having a down-to-earth attitude to local government problems generally. The local government elections should be postponed until next year. I am not qualified to say whether local government should be reorganised. No matter how small a local authority may be, it arouses thought at local level. A small local authority may bring many advantages to the people at local level. We should not rush the legislation which would abolish these small councils or town commissions. I do not believe that the previous Minister could have had this type of legislation ready even if there had not been a general election. It would have been at least this time of the year before he would have been able to have had such legislation dealt with in the House. It would have been this time of the year before the persons who would have been facing the electorate in June would have known the kind of authority they were going to have and to which they would be standing for election. I ask the Minister to be careful and to make sure that he is doing the right thing.

There has been discussion about the young people of 18 not having votes this year. The Minister has not deprived these young people of their votes; they will have them in time for the next local elections. They were deprived of their votes in the general election. The young people should become familiar with the situation.

The Minister should look carefully at how local authorities could be revised. Some small councils may not be able to raise sufficient money. The financing of local authorities needs thought. In any change in local administration at present the Minister should consider giving power back to the people to whom it really belongs, the ordinary representatives of the people.

I have been a member of a county council for many years. I have never known that council to announce an irresponsible decision. People on such councils are capable of using power given to them. I am far more impressed by the speeches of the people in the council of which I have the honour to be a member than I am by the contributions in this House.

There have been complaints that an overall scheme for big centres like Dublin is necessary. I am not qualified to give an opinion on that. Mention has been made of difficulties in relation to planning permission. It has been said that planning permission has to be got from one council or another even where the corporation are taking land in a county council area. I am also a member of a regional planning authority covering not only all of greater Dublin but also County Wicklow, County Meath and County Kildare. Public representatives attend meetings of that authority in an advisory capacity only. These people, if they were doing their jobs properly, would bring before the regional council all the planning they had in mind, and the problems could be ironed out in a manner which would ensure that one council would know the plans of another council. That does not mean that any of these councils should be abolished.

People in the 18-year-old group should be given sufficient time to help them to decide what kind of authority they would elect. The Minister should give back to the local authorities some of the powers that have been taken away from them over the years. At a seminar on one occasion I was told that the council make the policy but that the county manager is the executive officer who carries it out. I have not found that that was how it worked out in practice.

This is not the first time that local elections have been postponed twice in succession. I have been on a council for six years. The previous council had been in office for seven years. In my own capacity as a councillor I have seen schemes coming to fruition. I am proud of the fact that I initiated some of these schemes. This has only happened because of the postponement of the elections. Had my term of office as a councillor been over, I would not have seen the fruits of my work.

I believe in democracy. People should have advice as often as possible. The Minister should look at the possibility of having a term of office of seven years for councils. That might solve many of our problems. Councillors might then start programmes knowing that they could see them through during their term of office. This would apply if members of councils had greater power than they have now. I would conclude by saying that the Bill should be passed. I congratulate the Minister on introducing it.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Tully)

First, I should like to thank the Deputies who took part in the debate for the manner in which they dealt with the Bill. I disagreed with quite a number of things that some Deputies said. They disagreed with me. Fair is fair. Some of the arguments put forward were quite reasonable; some were ridiculous. Deputy Molloy deplored the postponement of the local elections. He seemed to forget that there were three other postponements in the last eight years—not a bad record—and the fact that two of them were carried out by the Government of which he was then a member.

The postponement in this case was necessary because of the proximity of the Presidential election and because of the many elections held in the last six or eight months. Anyone who thinks that the general public like elections or that the ratepayer, who is responsible for paying for the elections, wants frequent elections, should consider the facts. The election will cost about £200,000. We could not have another election this year. Some people ask why did we not have the local elections with the Presidential election. Out of the mouth of one of the Deputies who suggested that we should do that, let me give the explanation. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government in the former Government, Deputy Cunningham, said in the debate last year— Volume 261, column 1044 of the Official Report:

As I indicated at the outset, the Government's decision to seek authority to postpone the local elections was based on two considerations. In the first place, legislative proposals relating to changes in the structure of local government arising from the White Paper on Local Government Reorganisation are being prepared and it would not have been possible to have this legislation dealt with before June. Secondly, it was considered undesirable that the local elections and the referendum in relation to the accession to the European Communities should be held so close to one another. The desirability of postponing the elections in these circumstances has not been called seriously into question.

We had a referendum in December and a general election in February and will have a Presidential election in May. I do not know how the Deputy could suggest, in these circumstances, that we should proceed to hold the local elections in June or have them on the same day as the Presidential election.

On the last occasion that a Presidential election and local elections were held on the same day there were a great number of complaints because there were two ballot papers and where urban councils were being elected there were three ballot papers and there was a lot of confusion. I agreed that the objection was warranted.

With regard to the question of whether they would guarantee when the election would be held, Deputy Cunningham said—at column 1045:

Doubts were raised as to whether it would be possible to have the legislation on local government reform enacted and implemented within the next 12 months. I do not know the precise circumstances which will prevail in 12 months' time. All that can be said at this stage is that the intention is to hold the next local elections in June, 1973, and it is intended to proceed with proposals for local government reform as quickly as possible.

I could not say it better. Deputy Ben Briscoe suggested that when one moves across the House one changes one's ideas. Here is the best example that could be obtained of a person crossing the House and changing his ideas to such an extent that I can quote what he said, as being the best argument that I could make.

I hope that the next local elections will be held in June, 1974. While it is true that Deputy Molloy, as Minister, and his Government, produced a White Paper, I do not agree with the White Paper. Neither do my Government. Therefore we propose to have a good hard look at it. Deputy Timmons, Deputy Dowling and Deputy Moore are correct in saying that the thing must be done properly. It is unreasonable to suggest that in a period of a month or so priority should be given to this, because it would not have been possible. I want to say categorically that I believe there was no intention on the part of Deputy Molloy to hold local elections in June, 1973 because, if there had been, the legislation to have the changes made in the areas should have been passed before that. It is only right that this matter should be clarified. These are the facts. I do not want to follow the hare that was raised about votes at 18 but, just for the record, let me say that the previous Government did hold a referendum in December at which the people, with the encouragement of the three parties, decided that there should be votes at 18 but no legislation was introduced to give them the vote at 18 and that legislation had to be passed before they could have the vote. It fell to my lot, and I am happy that it was my first legislative act in this House, to introduce a Bill to give the vote at 18 and also to allow persons of 18 years to be members of local authorities.

Whether or not the vote at 18 was an issue when the general election was called is a matter on which I would not be competent to decide. It looked very suspicious but I would accept the assurance of colleagues in the Fianna Fáil Party that there were other far more serious matters which caused the general election to be called and I can guess one or two of them.

Deputy Molloy said that, of course, I would want to have a look at local government reorganisation. That is quite ture. I do want to have local Government reorganisation. I am quite sure that Deputies, particularly in Dublin, will be prepared to agree with me that the county electoral areas which were drawn up in 1942 in most cases have not been revised since. In many counties significant changes have occurred in the distribution of population which have not been reflected in the allocation of county seats. Talk about gerrymandering—artificial gerrymandering has occurred so that a person would need 4,000 or 5,000 votes to get elected in one area whereas a person can be elected in another area with 300, 400 or 500 votes. That is entirely wrong. While it is not as important, it is almost as important as the issue of the constituencies with regard to Dáil seats. Therefore I propose to get local authorities interested in having this matter rectified as quickly as possible. While the last word remains with the Minister and while I could as of now notify local authorities as to how they should draw their areas and the number of representatives they should have in an area, because this is not laid down in legislation, I hope to get the assistance of local authorities in having a fair system of drawing up the new electoral areas so that there will be something like unanimity between them and myself with regard to how it should be done and so that there will be a fairer system and fair representation. Everybody in the House would be prepared to agree with that and that this should be done before the next local elections.

Deputy Molloy asked me if it is my intention to abolish county councils. Let me state categorically that I have no intention now or at any other time of abolishing county councils.

Deputy Kavanagh wanted a chance to debate the postponement. This brings in also what Deputy Cunningham said. I do not know whether other Deputies agreed with me or not—perhaps my sense of humour differs from theirs—I felt in the case of Deputy Reynolds and Deputy Cunningham it was the pot calling the kettle black. While Deputy Cunningham was accusing Deputy Reynolds of not knowing that the votes at 18 Bill had been passed and signed, Deputy Cunningham did not know what the Bill now before the House does. He did not know that it contains, not a proposal that by order the Minister should have authority to change the date of the elections from one year to another or postpone them, but a provision which means, if passed, as I expect it will be, that the Minister can introduce a motion before the House which will not be effective unless debated and passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. In view of that it is unfair that Deputy Cunningham should try to give the impression that I want to do what many of my predecessors did—they just made an order and wiped out anything they wished because they had authority to do so. I do not propose to take that authority. I think that would be wrong.

If the Houses of the Oireachtas in future years decide for good reason to agree to the postponement of elections, then the postponement takes place; if they do not agree, the postponement does not take place. I might add I have no intention of postponing the elections beyond next year. I want to make it clear that the right to postpone will remain with the Oireachtas, the same as applies to a Bill, but it will save a lot of parliamentary time. We have had a useful debate today; now we have the ideas and anyone who has something special to say will have the right to say it when the matter comes before the House. Deputy Kavanagh and others who are interested know it is proposed to hold the elections in 1974 and if we have to postpone them they will have an opportunity to discuss the matter in the House.

Deputy Moore wanted to know the position with regard to the Greater Dublin area. As I have stated already, I intend to have a thorough review of the present organisation of local government and this includes Dublin. It is only fair that I should be given a fairly good time to have a look at the matter. I have been doing quite a lot of other work in the past few months and it is only fair that I be given a reasonable length of time to study the matter.

The future shape of local government will have to be decided for many years to come and I propose to do this as quickly as possible. However, I do not want to give a definite date because that would be unfair. Deputy Molloy and Deputy Moore were anxious to get detailed information on my views on the structure of local government.

Deputy Molloy completed his study of the local government system and published his findings in a White Paper in February, 1971. By the time he left office two years later he had not made up his mind on what he wanted to do with regard to this matter because he did not introduce here the necessary legislation to change the system. Therefore, he is drawing the long bow in this when he suggests I should have been able to make up my mind between the general election and the present time.

Mr. Moore

He was meeting the local authorities.

Mr. Tully

I believe he met all the local authorities in the country but the peculiar thing is that practically every local authority, including those where Fianna Fáil had a majority, were opposed to the idea. The municipal authorities at their conference unanithin mously decided not to agree with the propos he put forward but, despite that, the Deputy tells us he had legislation almost ready to do what he wanted—not what the elected representatives wanted. I do not propose to do that. I am not going to steamroll members of local authorities because I have the greatest respect for these people. They do a lot of work for which they do not get paid. Many people criticise county councillors, commissioners and urban councillors; all of these people work very hard, they do not get paid, and I wonder frequently why they do it. They have a dedication to public service it is nearly impossible to comprehend.

Because someone did not like the present system it was decided that a list of local authorities which my Parliamentary Secretary read out would be wiped out without giving any opportunity to explain why they should be retained. The small local authorities are doing a good job and the only thing wrong is that the system of financing some of their schemes must be reconsidered. I have met many of the local authority members during the years and I am satisfied it would be most unfair to wipe them out with a stroke of the pen, as was suggested. However, it was only suggested. Legislation was never brought before the House to do this; it was held over their heads like a sword. I do not know why this was so. I am satisfied that if Deputy Molloy were Minister for Local Government he could not have the local elections this year unless he carried them out on the same terms as the last election.

With regard to Dublin and Bray, I reconstituted those two bodies and I think it was the right thing to do. In fact, it was something we had to do because the issue on which they refused to strike the rate was the matter of the health charges. As we decided to do something about taking the health charges off the rates it was only right to reinstate the authorities which were abolished because they were not prepared to strike a rate which they thought unfair. It does not matter what party the members of the local authority belonged to or, indeed, if they belonged to any political party.

The Deputy would have to set out, in detail, exactly what he is referring to before I could reply adequately. He has asked me a question which I do not propose to answer at this stage. I should like to say, however, that if this Government had been in power the Dublin City Council would not have been abolished. Furthermore, if this Government had been elected any time in the last couple of years, the council would have been reinstated immediately this Government came into being because we do not believe that the people of the capital city of Ireland should have representing them one man paid by the State. I am not decrying Mr. Garvin's efforts as a person but nobody will claim that it is not dictatorship to have one person appointed by a Government, controlling the entire city with no citizen being permitted to say that anything is wrong.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 15 May 1973

Local Elections Bill, 1973: Second Stage.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 15 May 1973