I have decided to withhold any comments I intended to make on this and to reserve them for the Committee Stage. I have sent word to the Minister for Local Government to that effect.
LOCAL AUTHORITIES (COMBINED PURCHASING) BILL. - SECOND STAGE.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I understand you to say that you informed the Minister for Local Government that you are withholding your comments, but I am not sure that there are not other Senators who wish to speak on this Bill. Therefore, that does not dispose of the Second Reading Stage. Perhaps Mr. O'Higgins could get a message sent to the Minister for Local Government.
I am prepared to remain for the discussion on this Bill, and to put the point of view of the Executive Council on it.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The motion is: That the Local Authorities (Combined Purchasing) Bill, 1925, be read a second time.
I think the interest in this Bill arises not from what it does or does not propose to do, but from the indication that it gives as to the policy of the Government in regard to local administration. In my judgment, it reveals a steady and continuous tendency towards central control and regulation. That tendency is finding its way largely into recent legislation in the State. We have had very strong evidence of it in the Dairy Produce Bill, and in the Live Stock Breeding Bill, and we have got it here again. This is an attitude of regulating and controlling, instead of trusting the people to work out their own salvation. We must give every credit to the Government in their intention to effect a positive saving by this, but one is doubtful if positive saving would be effected, but if it is going to be so, every credit should be given. This Bill fails to show a clear grasp of the meaning and purpose of democracies and democratic control. It looks as if, in a way, the Government are afraid of trusting their own offspring, and while on special occasions, on the public hustings, vehement lip is given to these democratic principles, when it comes into action by their policy they largely nullify these professions.
Many of us had grave misgivings as to the operations of these locally elected bodies for the purposes of administration, but surely the day has gone by when we can look at it in that light? For better or for worse, this policy of autonomy in Local Government has been set up. It has been on trial now for many years, and until the Government declare it as their policy to sweep it away, it seems to me that we have to let it take its natural course. We will have to let it continue until the Government come to us and say that this thing has to be scrapped and that they propose to deal with the whole matter of local administration by a system of managers. If the Government were to declare in favour of doing that, I think they would find a considerable measure of support in certain quarters. I personally would give them my support in a matter of that kind, but at present that does not seem to be practical polities. Therefore, so long as this popular election continues to be a part of our Local Government system, we must try rather to develop such virtues as it claims to possess. One way to do that would be to educate the people by putting responsibility upon them, by trusting them and letting them learn by experience. Unless you give a very considerable measure of latitude to these local authorities, how will they ever learn? If you nip in the bud any sort of tendency on their part to display initiative, how are you ever going to develop a civic sense amongst the people and that high character as regards local affairs that we all hope to see as the outcome of such experience? I think this measure is short-sighted in that it checks and attempts to stereotype local authorities in their action in this important matter of local purchasing. It seems to show a lack of imagination, and a failure to realise that you can only learn and educate by a process of making mistakes, and thereby gaining experience in that way.
I do not think this is a Bill that we should throw out, but at the same time I do not believe that it is going to effect very much positive good. I fear that it may do a certain amount of indirect and positive harm by unduly curtailing the free play of local elected bodies. As regards the details of the measure, I may have some amendments to move on the Committee Stage. From my reading of the Bill it seems unreasonable that the official contractor should be the contractor for all local authorities or none. It would seem reasonable that an official contractor could be appointed for one or more local authorities, and that he should serve in the district of which he has a knowledge, but it does seem wrong to me that a positive attempt should be made to stereotype quality.
Simply to say that a shovel is a shovel and that a shirt is a shirt is not sufficient. You should have definite and distinct samples available of the different articles that are in question, and if the Government are going to insist on people buying through the Central Authority, the people should be sure of what they are buying. If they can buy locally an article which is something better than what the official contractor proposes to supply, and one that answers more to their requirements, I think they should be allowed to do so.
I have a great deal of sympathy with what Senator Sir John Keane has said about this attempt on the part of Ministers—we have seen it in every department— trying to usurp power to do what they like in this country. It is a thing that I object to. I do not object to it very much in this case, because it may be necessary, but I do object, speaking generally, to the policy of Ministers in this matter. I know the case of a Minister who actually refused to carry out an Act of Parliament because he did not see that it was desirable. I am not going to go into that question now.
I think that the Senator ought to go into that question now, having mentioned it.
If I am pressed in that way, I am quite willing to do it, but it will lead to a vast subject that the Seanad is not now discussing.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
It was a very strong statement to make. Of course, you made it on your own responsibility. I did not stop you, but the Minister has now challenged it, and has suggested that you should name the Minister. It is a matter entirely for yourself whether you will do that or not.
If I am challenged I am perfectly willing to do so. The Minister for Industry and Commerce——
As the Minister whose name has been mentioned is not here, I do not think that this matter should be gone into now.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
It is not quite reasonable that the Senator should make a statement of that kind about a Minister who is not here and who cannot answer it.
He ought to be here.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I certainly could not prevent the Minister for Justice from asking to have the name of the Minister stated. The Minister will learn that this charge has been made and he can deal with it himself.
I am perfectly willing to go into the matter now, but I am entirely in the hands of the House and your hands as to whether I should do so or not.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
It is more a matter for yourself than it is for me. It is a matter of taste.
The Minister concerned is not present.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
You have stated what is a very grave matter with regard to a Minister of the Government, who is also a member of the Executive Council, that he deliberately said that he would not carry out a certain law. It is for yourself to say whether you will follow that up, because otherwise the Minister will have no opportunity of replying.
Does the Minister for Justice wish me to do it?
The statement cannot just be left there. You had better state who the Minister is and what the action was, and then it will be open to the Minister to follow it up.
The action I was referring to was that of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. There is a statute dealing with canals, and by that statute the Royal Canal is obliged to be kept in a proper condition. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has refused me personally in several letters to carry that out, and he made no bones about it. Perhaps the thing may lead to further developments later on, but I have got correspondence which I can show. Passing away from that, and coming back to the Bill under discussion, there may be a great deal of extravagance by some local bodies in the purchase of articles. I would not like to go so far as this Bill proposes, but on the general principles I would agree to it.
I rise to support the principle of this Bill. Looking at it generally, I think it is a desirable measure. As far as I can see from it, it is open to everyone in Ireland to contract for the articles required and to get their names on the official list. I cannot see that it will inflict a hardship on anyone. If, under this measure, local authorities can get their supplies at a more favourable rate than they can be got otherwise, I think that is quite right and proper. I would like, however, to have some assurances as to the number of persons who may be appointed on the central authority which will have so much to say to the purchasing of supplies. The only fear I have is, that too many people may be appointed on that body and that it may become cumbersome. Three or four sections in the Bill deal with the powers to be vested in inspectors, with the number of persons to be appointed and the remuneration that is to be paid. There may be a danger that a future Ministry may become somewhat extravagant, and may appoint too many persons to these positions. That is a matter that will have to be looked into, because it would be highly undesirable if an excessive number of persons were appointed to administer this measure when it becomes law. With that reservation, I desire to support the Bill.
Question: "That the Bill be read a second time"—put, and agreed to.