A number of amendments have been received to this Bill, and I find that I have to rule some of them out of order for these reasons: No. 3 is out of order for the reason that it seeks to abolish the Dublin Port and Docks Board, which has a statutory existence and is outside the scope of this Bill.
Private Business. - Local Government (Dublin) Bill, 1929—Committee Stage.
The Seanad went into Committee.
Cathaoirleach
On that question, will it be competent to speak now?
Cathaoirleach
No, Senator, you cannot argue the question at this stage. There is another method of dealing with it. Nos. 12 and 16 seek to empower the City Corporation to appoint visiting justices to prisons. This matter is also the subject of a statute, viz., the Prisons (Visiting Committees) Act, 1925, Section 6 of which deprive municipal corporations of such a power. This matter is accordingly also outside the scope of the Bill. Nos. 36 and 37 deal with the law relating to intoxicating liquor, and I am clear that a matter of this kind is outside the scope of a measure which deals with local government.
As far as the amendments standing in my name are concerned, I am perfectly satisfied with the Bill as it stands, and I beg to withdraw these amendments.
SECTION 1.
Lines 45-51, page 5:—
the expression "the abolished bodies" means and includes the following bodies, that is to say:—
the respective councils of the several added urban districts;
the respective councils of the several coastal urban districts;
the Rathmines and Pembroke Joint Hospital Board;
the Rathmines and Pembroke Main Drainage Board;
the Blackrock and Kingstown Main Drainage Board.
On behalf of Senator Milroy I move:—
Section 1. Between lines 51 and 52 of page 5, to insert the words, "the persons who, immediately before the appointed day, are performing the duties of the Council of the Urban District of Dalkey."
The amendment is due to the fact the Dalkey Urban Council has disappeared, and has been replaced by a Commissioner.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, put and agreed to.
Section 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 3 (2).
On behalf of Senator Milroy I move:—
Section 3, sub-section (2). To insert before the sub-section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(2) The Dalkey Urban District Council (Dissolution) Order, 1930, whereby the Council of the urban district of Dalkey was dissolved under Section 72 of the Act of 1925 shall remain in force until the appointed day and shall then cease to have effect, and thereupon the said Council shall be and thenceforward continue to be dissolved by virtue of the foregoing sub-section of this section and the Borough Corporation shall become and be the successor of the persons who, immediately before the appointed day, are performing the duties of the said Council."
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, put and agreed to.
Sections 4 to 24, inclusive, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
I move:—
Section 25. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(3) When exercising its powers to make any grants referred to in this section, the City Corporation or the Borough Corporation shall treat such of its employees as were previously employed by the County Council, the Board of Health, a Rural District Council or an abolished body of which the Corporation is the successor not less favourably than if such employees had been employed by the Corporation previous to the passing of this Act."
This section deals with the employees of the abolished bodies and empowers the new Corporation to make grants to old employees in the same way as they might make grants to the employees of the old City Corporation. The amendment seeks to ensure that those employees who are taken over from the urban councils will not be treated in any worse fashion under the new Corporation than if they had been employees of the old City Corporation. It is, perhaps known that the City Corporation hitherto has had special powers to superannuate old servants. The benefit of that provision to the city is obvious when one realises the hesitancy with which public bodies get rid of old employees, even though those old employees are not able to do the amount of work that younger men would do. Hitherto the temptation has been to keep old men in employment whom they would be glad to superannuate if they had power to superannuate them. One of the difficulties brought about by the new régime has been that powers that were exercised in regard to superannuation of old employees by local councils—I have in mind in particular the Pembroke Urban Council—have been abolished by the new régime on the ground that it was outside the powers of the local body, Pembroke Council and other councils, who were giving superannuation on disemployment to their employees, to grant such superannuation. The superannuation has been stopped because it was declared and held that the local council had not power to make such a grant.
The new Bill gives power to the new Corporation to make such grants to old employees in cases where they had been employed by the old City Corporation or by one of the authorities in the added areas, but I think there is a danger that in view of the circumstances the new Corporation may say: "Well, these old employees of Rathmines and Pembroke" (or whichever place may be in question) "had no expectation in the past, whereas our Dublin Corporation employees had an expectation." The new Corporation may say: "Because of that we are not prepared to give the same consideration to the old employees of the Rathmines and Pembroke Council as we are to our own." My amendment seeks to ensure that in exercising such powers as they have they will make no differentiation between the employees of the old Corporation or the employees of the abolished councils.
I think this is a very useful and very wise amendment. In the changes which take place, the poor old man whose case is contemplated by this amendment is sometimes forgotten. Senator Johnson's amendment only seeks to have these working men treated not less favourably than such employees as have been employed by the Corporation previous to the passing of the Bill. These poor men will otherwise have a feeling of insecurity. This amendment will give them a feeling of security, and it will show them that the Seanad is anxious to look after their interests, not to give them more than they had before but to secure that they shall not get less. I think that is the least the Seanad should do in passing this measure.
I hope the Minister will accept the amendment. The Bill, as it stands, merely provides that the employees of the amalgamated or absorbed authorities shall become employees of the new City authorities, but it does not prevent the City authority from dispensing with their services afterwards should that be found necessary. In some cases, these men, being workmen in the ordinary course, might not be entitled to the full superannuation, but in such cases they would be retained in the service until such time as they were really incapable of work. When, however, they come under the new city authorities there will naturally be a certain amount of redundancy and the tendency will be, I am afraid, to dispense with the services of those men to whom the authority has least responsibility in respect to pensions. That would be bringing about a parliamentary measure for the public good at the cost of the individual.
We have found that most regrettable hardships and injustices are being inflicted on railwaymen who were employees of small railway companies under the Railways Act because of the same sort of legislation as is provided here. The lack of responsibility of the new authority, if it absorbs a man to give him at least as good treatment as he had under the old authority, makes for insecurity. As I have already stated, although he might not be entitled to a pension he would get a measure of personal consideration to which he would not be entitled when he becomes part of the greater body of employees. The simplest and fairest way is to give to these absorbed people taken over the same treatment as the great majority, who are the present employees of the Dublin City Corporation, and in that way avoid all the jealousies and bitterness, etc., that develop out of having a number of men doing the same type of work and getting reduced pay.
I think it will make for the success of the new borough if equal conditions of employment are, in a general way, provided for all servants, and, at all events, it will ensure that men who have given long service—many a lifetime of service—to their respective local bodies shall not suffer because the Oireachtas in its wisdom thinks that this amalgamation should take place, and because of it they are thrown on the roadside.
I find a difficulty about this amendment for the reason that the old Corporation was very much inclined to give two-thirds of the salary as a pension for different terms of service. In the Civil Service I understand that the pension depends largely on the number of years' service, whereas in the Corporation—I think I am right in this—officials with over 20 years' service got two-thirds of the salary. If the amendment means that that is to be the rule in future I do not think it will meet the point that the Senator wishes to meet. The taking over of officials on terms is right, but, in regard to pensions, I think the matter should be very carefully looked into before any decision is come to. The proposal seems loose, because there is nothing in it about the terms that are to be given, or the terms that the old Corporation was in the habit of giving to its officials. I see great difficulty in that respect.
I think Senator Mrs. Wyse Power and other Senators have missed the point that the amendment was intended to meet. The Corporation of Dublin under a special Act passed in the British Parliament some years ago got power to grant pensions to ordinary working people employed by it when they had given sufficient service to warrant a pension. The point in the amendment is that while employees of the Dublin Corporation will still be entitled to pensions in certain circumstances, after a certain number of years' service, those workpeople who will be taken over by the new Corporation from Pembroke and Rathmines and other districts, where there are certain non-pensionable employees, because these councils did not seek the powers the Corporation got, will be entitled to pensions when the time comes for them to retire. Senator Johnson's point is that there should be no differentiation between the present employees and those taken over. I think it is provided in the Bill that the previous service of employees is to be taken into consideration, and the object of the amendment is to make sure that in future there will be no quibble or difficulty about the matter.
It appears from this amendment that the borough of Dun Laoghaire will also have this power. How will that borough be affected by Senator Johnson's amendment, seeing that in that area at present the regulations affecting the Corporation of Dublin do not apply?
They will be treated the same.
Then you are giving something new in that area. I take it so that Dun Laoghaire Borough Council will also be empowered to give pensions to the working men.
It is putting them on the same footing.
The Council has not that power up to the present.
That is so.
Would it not be better to pass an Act giving that power all over the country?
It seems to me that this amendment is fair and reasonable, and I suggest to the Minister that he should favourably consider it. I am sure the Seanad will be unanimous about it, and if there is anything in what Senator Mrs. Wyse Power said it can be settled on the Report Stage.
Perhaps Senator Johnson would reply to the point raised by Senator Wilson?
Section 7 gives power to the City Corporation on the one hand, and to the Borough Corporation on the other, and the amendment seeks to ensure that in exercising that power the city or the borough shall not make any discrimination between its employees. For instance, the Dun Laoghaire Council may say that the employees of Blackrock are not to be treated in the same way as those in Dun Laoghaire. I regret that the drafting may be a little faulty, but the amendment is really directed towards the City Corporation, as it is the only body which has this power, with a view to ensuring that there shall not be any differentiation in the Borough Corporation or the City Corporation against the employees of the units brought in.
Senator Wilson seems to have tried to get at the sense of the amendment and the difference it will make in the Bill. I agree with Senator Farren that we should not make any difference. The amendment would mean that borough employes who had no rights previously are now to have pension rights conferred on them. I would ask Senator Johnson if the amendment is going to confer anything new on the borough employees when the time comes for retirement.
No.
As I read the amendment it gives them all the standing that they would have had if they had spent their time in the service of the Corporation. If we are going to put the two classes of employees together, and to give city treatment to the borough employees, that is going to change the Bill, and I would like the Seanad to think over the matter.
There is no intention to make any change in the Bill in respect to superannuation. The object of the amendment, which, I think, will need re-drafting, is simply to secure that the new corporation or the borough shall not make any differentiation between the employees owing to the fact that previously they were employed by one or other of the units, but that they shall be treated on equal terms.
Is not that in the Bill?
No. There is no assurance that in exercising the powers they have they will treat all employees as equals, and the amendment is seeking to ensure that that will be the case.
As I read the amendment, the employees of Pembroke and Rathmines Councils were ineligible for pensions. If the amendment proposed by Senator Johnson is passed they will be entitled to pensions on the Dublin Corporation scale, which would make a very great difference. I do not know if that is right or wrong. The matter is not a small one, and we would like to hear the Minister's view on it.
Section 25 (2) says:—
For the purposes of any enactment (including this Act) empowering the Borough Corporation to grant to any of its employees other than officers an allowance in respect of the loss of his employment, an employee of the Borough Corporation who was previously employed by an abolished body of which the Borough Corporation is the successor shall be entitled to reckon his employment by such abolished body as employment by the Borough Corporation.
Power is given the new borough to pension its employees subject to the condition that they have 20 years' service. The conditions under which the limits of pension are dealt with are defined in the Local Government Act of 1925. They can give up to two-thirds. The usual thing is for a body like the City Corporation to give pensions at the rate of one-sixtieth for every year of service. The amendment would seek to add to that. The Bill secures that all employees will be taken over automatically, and pension rights are secured to employees with over 20 years' service. The amendment suggests that as far as the Borough Corporation is concerned it shall pay the employees "previously employed by the County Council, the Board of Health, a Rural District Council or an abolished body of which the Corporation is the successor not less favourably than if such employees had been employed by the Corporation previous to the passing of this Act." There are no employees coming over from the County Council or the Board of Health. The employees of the four urban districts are being done away with. There is no reason in the amendment when applied to the borough. With regard to the position in the City, certain employees of the County Council, the Board of Health and the Rural District Council, such as will be agreed upon by the Minister and the different bodies, will become employees of the City Council, and will be entitled to reckon their employment under the other bodies that they served towards their pensionable period, under the code for granting gratuities to employees of county borough councils. The position with regard to employees is that they have a limit, and in the City it has been the practice to give one-sixtieth for each year's service, but the Council are in no way statutorily tied to give that. Each particular case is decided on its merits. It is absurd to suggest that under this Bill the employees of Rathmines and Pembroke are going to be treated differently to those in the City. What the Seanad is asked, is to put in a pious expression of opinion that there should not be any differentiation, and employees are going to be invited to seek the aid of the courts. The Act is absolutely explicit, as far as ordinary legislation could be, that when the employees of Rathmines and Pembroke become employees of the City they will be treated in the same way as if they were employees from the time they began their service. I think it would be undesirable to discriminate in respect to such employees, and as to the future of ex-Rathmines, ex-Pembroke, or ex-City men. Anything like that, if put into the Bill, would only be inviting discrimination.
I accept the views of the Minister regarding the effect of the amendment on the new borough. The amendment would require to be redrafted to have the effect I intend. I cannot accept his view though there is no necessity, or it is undesirable to give direction, for that is what it means, to the new corporation of the city in respect to the exercise of its powers in regard to superannuation. I think there is a considerable risk that the new corporation, whether the powers are exercised by the Manager, as I suppose in effect they will be, or by the council, the Council will in the main be a Dublin city elected body, and I think there will be a distinct danger that there will be a differentiation between the employees taken over from Rathmines and Pembroke as compared with the treatment assigned to the employees of the old Dublin Corporation. They may seek to satisfy their sense of justice by saying these men were employed hitherto for 18 years of their period by a body which had no powers to grant superannuation, and in settling their terms of employment that fact was taken into account, and it would be unjust to the city, they would argue, to treat these men on equal terms with the old employees of the city who had different expectations.
I think it is necessary that the Bill should indicate in one form or another that the intention of the legislature is that the employees of the new corporation who are taken over shall be treated on equal terms with the employees of the old corporation, and there must not be any differentiation because of the fact that they were employees of one of the added areas. I hope the House will agree with the purpose of this amendment, the wording of which it may be necessary to change on the Report Stage. I may say that the Bill which empowers the corporation to grant certain gratuities may make a limit—I suppose it does make a limit—to the amount of the gratuities, but it does not impose any obligation on the corporation to pay any particular sum according to any code. They may make a rule in respect of employees of the old Dublin Corporation that they will grant one-sixtieth, and in respect of the added areas one-eightieth, of the years of service, or something like that.
I would like to know if the employees of Rathmines and Pembroke Councils are entitled to pensions on retirement? If they are not now entitled to pensions the amendment, if passed, would mean that when taken over by the Corporation they will be entitled to pensions.
At present the Councils of Rathmines and Pembroke have no power to grant pensions to employees. When these employees are taken over the Dublin Council will have the power to give pensions according to service. It is provided for in the case of the Council in the city. At present they have that power, and the Council in the city have power of discrimination between different employees— that is, each particular case is dealt with on its merits. I do not know the effect of this amendment on the city, and whether the impossibility of discrimination between the employees of the added areas and the city employees is going to wipe out any discrimination the Corporation had to judge a particular case on its merits.
They can still exercise that power.
The amendment does not deal with employees individually, and the Corporation will still have power to make discrimination, but the amendment would prevent them making discrimination because of the authority which formerly employed a particular class of employee. It would prevent discrimination, because of the source from which an employee came into the new City Corporation, but it would still leave the Corporation power of discrimination as between individuals. I think the amendment would need to be redrafted because of the points raised. I suggest to Senator Johnson that he would ask leave to withdraw the amendment for re-drafting and bring it up on the Report Stage.
I ask leave to withdraw the amendment for the purpose of redrafting it and bringing it up again on the Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 25 to 30, inclusive, put and agreed to.
SECTION 31.
(1) The City Council shall consist of thirty-five members, of whom thirty (in this Act referred to as ordinary members) shall be elected in accordance with this Act by the persons for the time being registered on the register of local government electors and five (in this Act referred to as commercial members) shall be elected in accordance with this Act by the persons for the time being registered on the register of commercial electors.
(2) Twelve members of the City Council shall constitute a quorum.
I move:—
Section 31, sub-section (1). To delete the sub-section and to substitute therefor a new sub-section as follows:—
"(1) The City Council shall consist of thirty-five members, who shall be elected in accordance with this Act by the persons for the time being registered on the register of local government electors."
This amendment is intended to meet the case made on the Second Reading from various sides of the House against a new class of elected persons and a new class of voters. I stated on the last occasion my objection to this proposal, and I do not intend to repeat the whole case I made then, but I draw attention, first, to a point I made and which was not referred to by subsequent speakers, that one effect of this proposal will be, in my opinion, to defeat the alleged objects of the Minister and those who have supported him in this proposal, that is to say, it will not add to the number of commercial or business men who will be elected on the new City Council, but it will rather minimise the number of possible business men on that Council.
I think it is characteristic of human nature, and particularly of human nature in politics, that if you select a certain number of people who automatically and inevitably will represent a particular class of the community the remainder of the electorate, and particularly the parties who are organising an election campaign and making selections, will be inclined to say: "There is no need to put a member of that particular class on our list of candidates because that particular class is already sure of proper representation owing to the special provisions of the Act," and it will probably happen that the thirty candidates to be elected as ordinary members of the Council will be outside the business element, because of the likelihood that in making the selection of candidates electors will say: "We will leave the business end to the business community." You would, therefore, have a fewer number of business men on the Council under the scheme in the Bill than you would have in the ordinary course of an election. Under the ordinary process of election in the past the business men of the city have had ample representation. Up to 1898, I suppose, they had the entire representation, and since 1898 they have had a very big proportion elected because of their citizenship, or because of their interest in public affairs, and incidentally because of being business men. I want to ask those who are supporting the scheme in the Bill: "Do you imagine that in the administration of civic affairs men who have no interest in public affairs generally and have business interests are more likely to administer efficiently than men who have an interest in public affairs and who are also business men?"
I think it is a bad principle to put into the responsibility of public administration a certain type of men who have no interests in it. The purpose of the Bill is that they shall be elected by business men because of their business efficiency, let us say, and not because of their administrative knowledge in the realm of public affairs. The principle of proportional representation which is embodied in the Bill ensures that the business electors, if they desire to select candidates on account of their business abilities, will be able to obtain their due representation on that account alone. One of the arguments used—I might deal with it now, although it would also come in under a later amendment—is that what is sought is to ensure that a public corporation, a limited liability company, shall be treated as a person and have a vote or a number of votes. That is only a very small part of the scheme of this Bill, and that could be embodied in this Bill without any clause for business representatives. I hope Senators will not mix up the idea of a separate and selected group of business men with the other idea of giving public companies the franchise. I raised that point last week, and notwithstanding the suggestion of the Minister that it would be effected by a machinery Bill, I think it cannot be effected by a machinery Bill unless that Bill is going to amend and alter the Bill now before us. I pointed out that the scheme of the Bill was going to give this special franchise to a very large number of individuals who would not, in the ordinary course of conversation or discussion, be classed as business men or business women. It is going to be very difficult, as the Minister himself admitted, to draw a dividing line between what is a business man and what is not a business man, what class of premises he occupies partly for business purposes and what part he does not occupy for business purposes. I think it will be very difficult to make that distinction. I ask Senators to bear in mind that when you make this special franchise you are probably going to do two evil things. You are going to make your council as divided into non-business men to the number of thirty, and business men to the number of five. You are going to place great temptation in the way of a particular type of business man who will organise his forces and secure a majority of that particular type of business man to represent the business element.
It would be a desirable thing if the Minister would give us some information as to the numbers of the various types of business men and women that would be entitled to votes under the scheme of the Bill. I think he would find on examination that it will not be the large business men dealing in hundreds of thousands of pounds a year, or paying thousands of pounds in rates, but it is the gaimbín men of various types, as somebody would call them if they were in the country, that will have the vast majority of votes, and will organise and select that particular type of business man to represent the business men of Dublin in the Corporation.
I support this amendment. I think it is a wrong principle to create, from among the people, a privileged class, and that is what the commercial franchise proposed in this section seems to me to do. I think it is an extraordinary thing that a Government which claims to be the Government of the people, elected by the people, should introduce a section of this kind, creating amongst the people a privileged class in a country that suffered so much in the past from a privileged class. I must say I am amazed, though I ought not to be, at a Government which has done so many things to amaze me. I am further amazed that there should be people to support such measures, even though, to a certain extent, they must know they will be operative against themselves. I cannot think of anything more awful in its effect than the action indicated in this section of creating a privileged class of citizens in Dublin. There is always a danger in carrying such measures. A government gets very contemptuous towards the people that supports it when it is able to carry everything which it likes. My fear is that the principle of this Bill, which only affects Dublin, will eventually be applied to other things, such as the Parliamentary franchise, and that there will be created a still larger privileged class. There is no one who knows anything about the history of this country who does not know, judging by the experience of the past, what is likely to happen if such a privileged class is created. So far as the working out of this principle is concerned, I shall not touch upon that for a moment. I am opposed to the matter on principle, and I hope there are sufficient independent-minded people in this chamber to support the amendment which has been moved by Senator Johnson. There have been a number of arguments used against this Bill in the Dáil. I do not wish to repeat any of these arguments. The one great big thing I see in it is that this is an effort to create what I call a privileged class, and on those grounds alone I am opposed to it.
I support this amendment although, indeed, I think it may very well turn out that if the section were passed as it stands it would have the opposite effect to what is supposed, and would be much regretted by those who are so much in favour of it now. The particular class, elected on this privileged franchise will be only a small class—four or five in number— among the larger number elected representative of the people. People will say that these specially elected representatives speak only for the richer people and for the gaimbín men, and so on, and that will prove an incentive to those who are really representative of the people to vote against the privileged section. That is nearly always the case. It is the case even here—I do not know about the Dáil—and it will always be the case. I think, looking at the matter from the very opposite point of view of those who put it forward, that it is bad. If these business men were elected by the people in the ordinary way they would be infinitely more powerful and influential than if elected on this franchise and it is for that reason that I object to the section and will vote for this amendment.
I had no strong feeling upon this particular point but frankly I cannot see the evils predicted arising from it. In effect we know at the present time at elections that it is the organised body that return the representatives and not the electorate as individuals. What Senator Johnson has said against this commercial body might be said with equal force and truth against the Labour body and against any of the groups represented by political parties at this time. It would be better if men were elected on their merits as citizens rather than being the nominees and having the support of organised bodies of political people.
I have no strong opinion upon this. I think representatives of the commercial body in Dublin would be able to ensure comparatively fewer men and return a fewer number of candidates. I know what happened in Cork. There was no such clause in the Cork Act as there is in this Bill. When we wanted to get a man to stand for the city council, who lived outside the borough, and whose residence was outside the borough while all his business life and interest were in the city, we had to resort to all sorts of devices such as to let the managing director of a concern a stable to make him a tenant situated in the city, so as to enable him to be proposed as a representative. I know it is easy to put up a singularly strong case against this provision. It may be that it is undesirable on paper, but if you are forced to put it into a section plainly and to embody it in the Bill I think that is a better plan than adopting a subterfuge to get your candidate in. I would certainly prefer to have it plainly stated in the Bill.
I am in favour of this section and I am opposing the amendment. I have heard no argument so far why those ratepayers who pay rates upon £600,000 worth of property—probably half the valuation of the City of Dublin— should not have a voice in the management of the affairs of the Corporation. We know the American colonies broke away from England because they said: "No taxation without representation." No one suggests it is fair, to those who own hundreds of thousands of pounds' worth of property that they should not have representation on the City Council.
It is not denied them.
But on account of the law as it stands they cannot have it.
The law does not deny it to them.
The owner of property has practically no vote, and on that principle the owner of property is outside local government. I think it is not fair that people who have to pay on that very large valuation should be deprived of the right to administer the funds raised upon that property. Local government franchise is based upon the payment of rates. I cannot see where fair play is given in this amendment if the mover of it denies to those who pay rates the right to administer the affairs of the City. Last week, Senator Douglas quoted his own personal case. Under the Bill, he will have four votes, but he will be only able to vote for five on the panel. They can only elect five, one-seventh of the whole Council.
What about his ordinary vote?
His ordinary vote may be in Kildare, or he may live in Meath, but the property on which he is rated and upon which rates are paid is in the City of Dublin, and I contend that that particular property should have representation. This representation, as Senator Johnson said, is confined to five or half-a-dozen members of the Council of the City of Dublin. As Senator Johnson said, if the Minister was consistent, he would give them half the representation of the City of Dublin. Does Senator Johnson think it fair to give them no representation? I say the Bill only gives them partial representation—five out of thirty-five, and I think they are entitled to that, and the fact that they are paying rates on a huge amount of property entitles them to it.
I desire to support the amendment, and I trust the Seanad will help to justify its existence by passing it. The proposal in the Bill is a most reactionary one. There is neither necessity nor justification for it. It is an amazing proposal from a Government that owes its existence to a democratic revolution. I am more than surprised that Senator Dowdall, who belongs to an ultra-democratic party, should give his support to a measure of this kind. There might be some justification for giving special recognition to people of specialised educational attainments, to students of research in local government affairs or in science, to architects or people of that type, people with brains who would be able to contribute ideas as regards the management of the city; but I can find no justification whatever for singling out the shopkeepers of Dublin as shining examples of civic genius and civic virtue. Section 34 of the Bill is going to create a privileged register for shopkeepers. Everybody acquainted with Dublin knows that the shopkeepers will overwhelmingly dominate the whole situation if this section goes through in its present form. I have no objection to the shopkeepers of Dublin getting their full quota of representation on the Council provided they get it by fair means. I have no objection to their getting a majority if they are able to get it by putting forward the right men, but I certainly do object to giving them special facilities and special representation over and above the representation and facilities given to the people on whose money they live.
What is the shopkeeper? He is merely a distributor of the commodities that other people produce, whether by the labour of hand or brain. He stands behind his counter and in exchange for the money of the workers, earned by the labour of the hand or brain, he hands over to them certain commodities, such as food, clothing, beer, and so on.
Particularly beer.
Particularly beer, of course. At all events, he is merely a distributor. He lives absolutely on the work and earnings of others. If, at any time, the workers should have no money to spend, if through unemployment or for any other reason they are unable to provide cash to purchase their requirements, then the shopkeeper has simply to put up his shutters. He naturally handles more money than other people because of the means by which he makes his living. He handles more money than, say, the man who works for a salary or a wage. In order to do that he has to provide himself with a more expensive tool than other people. He has to have a shop. Consequently he pays a higher rate for that, but incidentally he makes bigger profits. But what on earth is the merit attaching to that particular type of service any more than that which attaches to the service rendered by the carpenter, the bricklayer, the lawyer, the doctor, or anybody else? The service that the shopkeeper renders does not call for the exercise of any great brain power. In fact, the absence of it sometimes seems to ensure success in that business. Yet, he is the type of man that we are asked to provide six votes for in order that we may have this city governed properly. The speeches that we have heard in support of the section are really a reversion to mid-Victorianism. Those who made them would try to impress one with the idea that this register is to be compiled of philanthropists, of unselfish manufacturers who are in business merely for the sake of giving employment and disseminating happiness amongst their fellow-men.
Whoever said that?
I am afraid the Senator has not read the glowing speeches that have been made in support of this resurrected Victorian principle. We are given visions of these great captains of industry gracing the City Council with their presence, and elevating it with their ideas. Now, according to the manner in which this register is going to be compiled, we are just as likely to have five hucksters coming in and representing the great business interests of this city in the new City Corporation. Already, under the ordinary register the facilities provided for electing the publican, the butcher, the tailor, the draper, the grocer, the tipster, and the bookmaker are quite sufficient. They can use infinitely more influence in regard to civic affairs than their numerical strength justifies. Therefore, I see no earthly reason why we should give them special facilities in order to increase that influence. With certain honourable exceptions, the businessmen of Dublin have shown no special civic genius or civic patriotism such as to merit special recognition at the hands of the Oireachtas. With certain honourable exceptions, one's experience has been largely the reverse.
One might say that some of the principal business people in Dublin to-day are a standing example of incurable reaction, not only in civic but in business affairs. Some of them by that reaction are actually a menace to the community. Let me take one example to illustrate that. For many years it has been a well-recognised principle for employers to meet the trade union representatives of their employees—the trades union of their choice—to discuss such questions as hours, wages, and other matters of mutual interest. That has been the practice in almost every civilised land, including our own. Yet, we have had the position during the past three or four weeks that the road transport facilities over the greater part of this State have been completely dislocated, with conditions existing that border almost on anarchy. That situation has been allowed to develop because four or five business magnates of this city, representing the banks, railways and commerce—some of them, at least, sent here previously as representatives of an enlightened business community—refuse to observe the generations-old principle of meeting representatives of the men's trade union. These are the people for whom we are to prepare this special register, in order that they may have a greater influence in the management of the city's affairs.
The Minister for Justice has to supply armed escorts to accompany their empty buses through the country. The Minister for Finance has to find the money to pay the escort, while it is reported that the Minister for Industry and Commerce was told to mind his own business when he asked these people to see reason and act as civilised citizens, but the Minister for Local Government and Public Health comes along and says this is the type of person we want to see for certain on the new City Council, this enlightened type of business man who has already received high honour and recognition at the hands of the Dublin business community.
I do not believe in conferring more power and privilege on these burlesque Mussolinis, and that is what this Bill proposes to do. Even with their pre-war mentality they are not competent to solve post-war problems. I fail to see any principle or any justification whatever for giving a particular class more power in order that they may be able to regulate the affairs and the lives of others simply because they have large bank balances. There is not a single argument that was used in support of this measure but could have been used with equal force in allowing large taxpayers, such as Messrs. Guinness, the railways, and the banks, plural voting for the purpose of electing representatives to the Oireachtas. Surely to goodness they are as much influenced in their everyday lives, business, and otherwise, by the laws passed by the Oireachtas as any great business man or any mere huckster in the City is by the laws and regulations made by a local authority. Yet, no Government would dare come along in these days and suggest that the firms and corporations to which I have referred should have plural voting in the case of election to the Oireachtas, or that they should have special representation, although as things are developing it is quite on the cards that such a proposition may be brought along later.
At any rate, this is a proposal that should be fought now at the beginning. No case has been made for the proposal set out in the Bill. There is no justification for it. Any suggestion to the effect that the new City Council may set out on a sort of rake's progress and embark on unwise expenditure, causing bankruptcy to the business community, is amply safeguarded by the appointment of the City Manager. There are all the safeguards necessary in any intelligent democracy. Nothing short of playing up to the gaimbín man and to the subscribers to parliamentary funds could justify the proposals in this Bill. I hope that the Seanad will have a sufficient sense of self-respect as well as respect for the Nation to turn down this proposal in the Bill.
I hope that this amendment will be carried. This Bill with its City Manager and special group of high commercial men may, I think, be taken as a proclamation by the Minister of his conviction that democracy has failed, because undoubtedly this is the most undemocratic section that has appeared in the legislation of this country, or in the legislation of any European country, including Italy, during the last ten or fifteen years. Although they have a Mussolini in Italy their decrees and their laws seem to be framed in a democratic spirit. Senator Dowdall, I think, has given an indication of what is the object of this section. He says that the big men, the gentlemen-ratepayers, will in the ordinary election for the thirty members probably get a considerable number of their nominees elected. Probably they will get twelve or thirteen elected, and therefore with the additional five they will probably have seventeen or eighteen. That will give them control of the City Council. The Minister stated on the Second Reading of the Bill that the franchise for local government purposes is not a manhood or womanhood franchise. It is a property qualification, a ratepayer's qualification. So it is, but not for the past 30 years has there been any distinction made between the classes of ratepayers.
You have in this Bill a distinction made between classes of ratepayers. You have the gentleman-ratepayer, the man of £20 and upwards. He will have the right to elect five men who will be really standing on the balance and capable of tipping it to one side or the other. The gentleman-ratepayer will do that. He will also come in with the common ratepayers in the election of the thirty members. I think it is unwise of the Minister to introduce any classes amongst ratepayers, to introduce a special property qualification of this description in a measure dealing with the City of Dublin. In my opinion, and in this, I think, I agree with Senator Dowdall, the effect of the section will be to place the City of Dublin under the control of the wealthier classes of the community. It will also have the indirect effect of causing considerable class consciousness in this city. I might mention to the House that one of the great functions which the Dublin Corporation possessed in ancient times when we had a large trade with every European country was the control of its port. That was taken away from it more than 100 years ago. It is now under the control of the greatest oligarchy in the world. I say that because you cannot now become an ordinary member of the port of Dublin unless you have an income from freehold land of £150 a year, unless you are rated for £60 a year, or unless you have £3,000 in your pocket.
That is how it is controlled. The city has now to be controlled in the same way. I do not know whether the Minister fully appreciates the effect of his franchise and his Manager. I think that he is able enough to appreciate it. I have no illusion as to his ability. I think he is able enough to penetrate the full consequences of this measure. But it will not be passed without our expressing our views as to what one, at least, of the results will be. I have no objection to big business men in the Corporation of Dublin, in the Dáil or in the Seanad. From what I can see of them, from what I can see of the men we have here—and I say it with great respect—they are an ornament to this body and would be worthy men in any institution. I say that when these men come before the people, the people will have respect for them and they will get elected under the ordinary franchise; their views would be expressed from a broader outlook and their influence would increase from day to day as a result of that.
I really think it is not in the interests of the city that there should be special qualifications for selected groups of men. I expressed it, I think, perhaps rather bluntly when I said that there should not be a gentleman class of ratepayers and a common class of ratepayers. The sooner that these distinctions are abolished, and that the country moves on as one people without distinction or class the better for the country and the better for the City of Dublin.
I stated briefly on the Second Stage of this Bill the reason why I intended to vote for the section, and why I will vote against the amendment. I do not know whether I can hope or claim to have reached that extensive success as a business man where a certain quality of brains referred to by Senator O'Farrell comes in evidence. I do not claim in any sense to compete with him. What I do suggest is that most of these irrelevancies which have been introduced have no bearing whatever on the actual matters that we are now considering. And my friend, Senator O'Farrell, who is usually clever and very amusing, knows that with regard to quite a number of subjects which he introduced. It is most interesting to find that you have Senator Johnson using, with considerable force, arguments against the section on the grounds that the commercial interests which he would like to see represented in the new City Council would be confined entirely to five members, as they would if this is passed, whereas they would be sure to get five, and possibly more, if you had not this section. Senator Comyn disagreed with Senator Johnson and prophesied that you would have so many commercial representatives under the ordinary section of the Bill that the five will prove the balance of power, and that you will have commercial control. We also have the statement which seems to be at the bottom of a certain amount of opposition to the section, and that is that this section is setting up a privileged class. I can say quite sincerely that if I believed that you were setting up a privileged class I would be opposed to the section. But I do not believe anything of the kind. I do not believe that by giving a vote on a valuation of £20 or upwards and deciding that you will have a commercial register, the voters on which will have the power to elect five members in the Corporation, you are thus creating a privileged class. The setting up of this register may be unwise. It may be a bad thing to do, possibly, to take a certain section and have representation of that kind, but to pretend that that is giving control to a class which thereby will become a privileged class is, to my mind, absurd, and I do not believe it for one moment.
Personally I am not at all impressed by the references to so-called democracy. I suppose I will be told that it is going too far ahead, but personally I would go very much further. I would like to have seen the whole of such a body as the Dublin Council elected by a kind of vocational representation, and not elected in the wide sense that the Dáil is elected. There would be a great deal to be said instead of having one class of voters to have five or six classes of voters, who would elect the council by a sort of a vocational register.
Do you suggest a vocational election?
If something of the kind can be got it would be desirable. Under all the circumstances I see nothing wrong in taking a commercial class and saying that of 35 members you will say that five of them will represent the commercial register so as to induce members of this class to seek representation in the City Council. I can quite recognise that the idea may not appeal to certain people. When I first read the Bill I was somewhat doubtful of this provision myself, but what I mean to say is that there is nothing necessarily undemocratic in providing representation in the way that the section provides it. I do suggest—and Senator Johnson in his speech did not make it clear at all that if the section were defeated he would proceed to bring forward an amendment that would meet the difficulty—that if Senator Johnson and his friends really were against the principle involved here, that what they should do is to provide an amendment that would alter the whole basis, or bring in a Bill themselves outside the scope of this Bill, that would alter the whole basis of election to the City Corporation and other local bodies—a system that would provide for one man one vote, as for the Dáil. Then they would be dealing with the whole basis of the principle of election, but that has not been done.
The Minister, in considering this Bill, had to face the fact that one of the reasons why there is an increasing reluctance on the part of businessmen to seek election to local bodies is because these men have not the voting power to which they are entitled. I do not think what I am saying about the disinclination of businessmen to seek election will be taken as a reflection upon them. We have heard a good deal about democracy and about a privileged class. But seemingly it does not matter that people who pay rates have no votes. When they had partnerships they were entitled to vote out of their property, but as soon as they became limited companies they ceased to have these votes.
Senators who have spoken do not think it is democratic at all to deprive ratepayers of votes. I suggest that the present system is undemocratic, and this Bill is remedying that. To my mind, it is a very interesting experiment. I do not know whether it will fail or succeed. Possibly the prophecies of Senator Comyn may be proved true. I do not think they will. Possibly Senator Johnson's prophecies may be found to be true. The Bill is, to me, a very interesting experiment, and it is an attempt to try and get an interest on the part of ratepayers in the efficient government of this city, a matter in which we are all concerned, no matter to what class in the community we belong. If this experiment is found to succeed it may be carried further. I am not advocating it, but I would not consider it undemocratic if you had five Labour representatives specifically arranged for by some system of election elected on the City Council. I would not oppose such a proposal on principle. I think the House would make a great mistake if it were simply to delete this section, which is what has been asked for. Senator Johnson has an amendment to take out a section which provides for this franchise.
There is one thing that I would like to refer to in conclusion. I am sorry to hear Senator O'Farrell using this clap-trap phrase which has been used in connection with this section—that is, that it is people with big bank balances who will get these extra votes. I think Senator O'Farrell knows perfectly well that many of the shopkeepers to whom he refers and many limited companies have their bank balances on the wrong side and that this is not at all a question of bank balances. I suggest that that is a red herring drawn across the whole question in order to prevent this matter being considered on its merits. This is not giving extra votes to people with money. Whether the experiment would be successful or not I do not know, but I do say that it is an effort to try and meet a situation by which firms who had four and five votes in the past through partnerships have now no votes. It is an effort to give individuals who pay a great deal of the rates of the city a say in the election to the Corporation, an effort by which I believe they will take an increased interest in the city. I am not speaking of myself personally, but I am speaking of people who lost four or five votes owing to their businesses having become limited companies. I see nothing in this Bill undemocratic, and I will vote for this section.
In the course of the discussions at the Greater Dublin Commissions during our sitting, the extraordinary anomaly came under our notice that many of the larger premises in the City gave no votes to the owners. The Committee of the Greater Dublin Commission recommended that the Government should take up the question and provide that these people would have the voting capacity to which they were entitled. With that I think everybody agrees. But I stop there. At all events I never realised that such a proposition would be taken in the way in which it has been taken in this Bill. If you pay rates I think you ought to have a vote and I do think that there should be some other arrangement by which large ratepayers should have votes in the City of Dublin and should be put upon the register and vote as ordinary people. There is no objection to that. That could easily have been done. But I do not think that the present arrangement is a good one. I think it is most unreasonable to spoon-feed, so to say, these people in the matter of their postage votes and that they should not be asked to go to the poll, and yet they are to be put into the postage vote class and be enabled to elect five members to the corporation, five people who are to help in the management of the City. I think that is a great defect in this Bill. That defect could have been avoided by giving those people votes where they have property. There will be no difficulty in that. I also think if these people have been given votes out of rated property and if their dwellings were in the same area they should have only one vote. Now the University franchise has done that. But first the voter will have to decide whether he will vote as a University voter or in the constituency to which he belongs. The register has been very carefully compiled on these lines. The voter has to decide where he is to vote.
University graduates, I think, deserve a certain amount of consideration. They are educated and above ordinary people. Yet those graduates are denied the privilege of plural voting. They certainly have the privilege of postal voting, but in their case that system is necessary, because many of the graduates are away in the country and many more are out of the country. That is the only system of postal voting of which we have experience, but postal voting for electors within the confines of this small city is an anomaly and we should not tolerate it.
I desire to speak against the amendment and I wish to assure the movers of it that I do so in the spirit of the most complete independence. The object of the section which the amendment seeks to remove is that the City Council shall have a certain quota of men of business experience. Nobody can say that that would be a bad thing for the City Council or for the City. Nobody in fact has said that and I think that the joint movers' reasons for wishing to delete the section are to some small extent contradictory. Senator Johnson said that he thought that the members of that class of the community from whom these commercial members are likely to come, are not interested in the administration of public affairs. Well, I suppose there is no class in the community in which you would not find large numbers of people who are not interested in the administration of public affairs. I should say, taken as a class, business communities probably show more interest than any other class in public affairs. If for no other reason than the big commercial stake which they have, they have a greater reason than any other class for desiring to see the city economically governed. A good deal has been said about privileges but to my mind it is merely a phrase used in connection with this section. I do not see where the privilege comes in. No commercial man of any ability is likely to look upon it as a great privilege to spend his time sitting at meetings of the City Council. Therefore, the men who would be likely to go there will be the type of men we want, the men who will sit there from a sense of civic duty.
Another reason which I might give for voting against this amendment in the form in which it stands, is that this Bill has been introduced by a Government against many of whose measures I have frequently voted and spoken here, but it is a Government which brought about a change in the administration of the affairs of this city in no uncertain way with very remarkable results, and in my opinion, with admirable results. In introducing this Bill they must have had in mind the object of continuing and preserving that state of affairs, and I look upon them as men who would likely be very good judges as to how that state of affairs can best be maintained. I think they have not inserted this section without good reason, and I shall therefore vote against the amendment.
I am placed more or less in a quandary by the speech of Senator O'Farrell. I think he was, perhaps, a little too hard on business people in the city. Perhaps my reason for saying so is that I happen to be one of those unfortunate individuals myself, and "one touch of nature makes the whole world kin." I am inclined to agree with Senator Douglas that it is unfair and unwise that directors of large companies should not have votes, and that merchants and business men throughout the city should be deprived of the franchise. I always accept and look for guidance in matters of this sort to old members of the Corporation, and I think that Senator Mrs. Wyse Power put her finger on the spot when she said that these people should have one ordinary vote. I am in entire agreement with her. I do not know whether I would be right in suggesting to Deputy Johnson that he should withdraw his amendment. Then I would be prepared to put down an amendment providing that such people as I have mentioned should have one vote each, but not more than one vote. They should not have a privileged franchise, but one vote like any ordinary citizen.
The Minister last week said, and he repeated it with great emphasis to-day, that local government is based on the payment of rates. The suggestion there is that the payment of rates is the justification for the plurality of the franchise. If that be so and if representation is to continue along these lines, it is only logical to expect that you should next have a register of income tax-payers for parliamentary purposes.
And of smokers, and of people who drink.
Yes, but certainly there is a parallel between income taxpayers and people who pay rates. The people who pay rates and who pay income tax, however, get value for the money. They already get value for their money.
A good deal more.
They certainly get the protection of the community, and the more they pay the more protection is necessary. They get their fair share at any rate. It seems to me that this innovation is quite uncalled for, except for one reason only, and that is to curry favour with business people, to hold out the suggestion that this Government is inclined to give them special privileges in order to capture their votes. In fact that is almost admitted by Senator Douglas. He did not suggest that that was the reason, but he did suggest, as far as my recollection goes, that the logical consequences might be something like that in regard to having a special register. I shall certainly vote for the amendment because the reasons urged against it have not been in any way convincing.
A lot has been said about the creation of a privileged class of voters. In that connection it has been suggested it would be sufficient if companies had votes. Senator Johnson asked me if I had any figures showing the total number of people whom this section would affect. I said that as far as my knowledge went, the total number of people, taken on the basis of the old City area, would be about 4,500. I also said that we were dependent on the information available from the operation of the Port and Docks Board Act. Taking the Port and Docks Board, we find that there was an electorate of 4,083 persons. If we take them in groups we find that those who had one vote numbered 2,162, those with two votes 1,011, those with three votes 321, those with four votes 167, those with five votes 106, and those with six votes 316. That makes up a total of 4,083 persons. If we take them on the basis of valuation, we find that they were responsible for a valuation of £628,807 out of a total city valuation of £1,227,683. In number they would compare with the total number of voters of 180,914, based on the local government franchise in the old City of Dublin. Even if you assume that a large number of these 4,000 had votes under the local government franchise as well, or that you gave the whole of them votes for their business premises, you would have the payers of rates on approximately half the city valuation electing one representative out of every 28 on the City Council, if you simply take the amount of rates as the criterion.
We felt when we examined the situation that it was not just to give these people only the ordinary local government vote. If you take the question as giving representation to property, many of the people who are paying high rents for the premises they occupy also pay rates or, as Senator Douglas said, the question of property is only a red herring dragged across the discussion as some other things were dragged across it. The question of a privileged class does not arise, good, bad or indifferent. It was said that there was no discrimination between classes in the old days. In fact there was a terrible discrimination inasmuch as while it was admitted that the foundation of the local government vote was the occupation of premises, and therefore the payment of rates, there was a discrimination between those who paid rates in respect of business premises and those who paid rates because they occupied houses in the ordinary way. In the proposals before the House we are getting rid of all that discrimination. We are giving necessary representation to companies, giving greater interest and drawing closer to the affairs of the Council of the City the big business people who are managers on the commercial and manufacturing side, people who at any rate provide the fabric of capital and material upon which the City sustains itself. I think there was no answer to our proposal here in respect to its fairness.
A lot of play has been made on the question of plural voting. The range of difference, the amount of rates paid in respect of the ordinary residential property is not so great as is the difference in the amount of rates paid in respect of business property. For that reason the scheme of votes, numbering from 1 to 6, is introduced in the Bill. I think it is another red herring to talk of plural voting in this connection and to attempt to represent it as the old form of plural voting which was regarded as anti-democratic and simply as a machine for holding and crushing down the people and preventing them from being heard. To call the proposal here plural voting of that kind is absurd. It is simply giving the necessary representation to a particular class of persons who occupy property for the purpose of carrying on business.
I think it would be very unwise for us to attempt to belittle the distributing side of our commerce as against the manufacturing side, because our manufacturers depend to a very large extent for the success of their industries on having a satisfactory distributing machine. It may be that the distributing machine is more inflated than it should be, but that is a different point. The manufacturing arm of industry certainly cannot hope to achieve all that it sets out to achieve without the help of the distributing arm.
Senator Johnson on the Second Reading referred to the weakness in the Bill as it stands in that it might be difficult to decide between persons really entitled to go on the register, and a person who, say, uses one room in a dwelling for the purpose of carrying on a sewing industry of one kind or another. I agree that that would be contrary to the spirit of the proposal here. Under the Electoral Act of 1923 a person not a resident in an electoral area can become an elector in that area in respect to the occupation of business premises. The business premises can be either the whole building or part of it, and in respect of that particular business qualification for a vote in the Dáil there is a £10 valuation. I would propose, in order to make the situation from that point of view more satisfactory, to ask the Seanad on the Report Stage to accept an amendment that would restrict this business franchise to purely business premises, which might be part of or the whole of a building, and where a business premises is made the basis of a claim for this special franchise and where the business premises or part of the building is not separately valued by the Valuation Office, make an arrangement by which, as under the 1923 Act, the registration officer is made the responsible authority to allocate the proper amount of the valuation of the premises claimed as business premises.
That would put us in the position that a vote may be claimed by anyone in any business, trade, profession or commercial or industrial pursuit, but we will get clear down to the business premises of a particular valuation, and we will climinate what in certain cases, as the Bill stands, would be created. Provision will be made for a definite class. It is not intended for persons who might plan to qualify for this vote, although really not entitled to it. If we tie down the vote to definite business premises I think we will overcome the weakness which Senator Johnson pointed out.
I think it will make the position worse from our standpoint if the Minister is going to take steps on the Report Stage to alter the section so as to provide for only a certain type of business people.
Oh no.
It would be quite a different proposition. Speaking for myself. I think it would be even more objectionable than the Bill is at present. As far as I understand it this section means that every business premises of £20 valuation or over will be entitled to a vote, or to votes in proportion to the valuation. As a matter of fact there may be from one to six votes. In addition to a vote for a special commercial register the same type of people will have the ordinary vote, except in the case of persons who have business premises in which they do not reside, such as public companies. Take the large number of business premises we have in Dublin— licensed premises, the provision trade, butchers, small drapery houses, and thousands of other small business houses valued over £20.
Houses and all.
All these people will be entitled to a vote on the commercial register in addition to the ordinary vote. As far as that goes it is very objectionable, but according to the Minister's suggestion it will be still more objectionable because whatever chance there would be of a certain type being elected under the existing provisions, that would be tightened up for a certain privileged class to be elected under the new suggestion. Candidly nobody objects to business representation on all these councils, but within my recollection there was never a time in the history of the Dublin Corporation, or of kindred bodies, when there was not ample representation for the business community. Prior to the extension of the local government franchise in 1898, when craftsmen and people of that kind got a vote, the Corporation was in the main composed of what was termed the business community, with the exception of a lawyer or two thrown in, who I expect would come under the heading of the business community.
Why not?
Senator Comyn is in favour of a special register for lawyers. I am opposed to a special register. From 1898 down to 1918 two-thirds of the Dublin Corporation was composed of business men. In 1920 an election was fought on a very special issue, and there were not so many business men returned. On that occasion it was thought desirable in the National interests that the splendid men and women of no property were the proper people to send into the Corporation. There were not so many business representatives at that election, but there was a number.
Ten.
Ten, and some of them very big business men. I think one man was a director of at least twelve companies, but I go so far as to say that the directorship of all these companies did not mean that he was the best corporator. I am not throwing mud at anyone, but I want to point out that the setting up of a special register does not mean that you are going to get the special type of representative that is required for civic administration. I am perfectly satisfied that if there was an election for 35 members of the Corporation to-morrow the majority returned on the existing register would be business men or women. There is no necessity to have this special register to give them representation. This provision did not apply to the Cork Act, and it does not apply to the new brought that is to be set up. What happened in Cork? At the first election that took place the vast majority of those elected to the municipal council were business men. The business people elected seven representatives and the two big contending political parties put forward candidates who were business men and got them elected. It does not matter, in my opinion, when the question of civic administration comes along, whether a man belongs to a political party or not. If he is a business man he is supported. That is my experience. It is objectionable at this stage to introduce this old system of setting up a privileged body. I am not attacking the business community. I met representatives of the business community who were the best of citizens, and who gave as good service as any other class. I think they are entitled to representation, but I think they will get it in the ordinary course of events.
If a scrutiny were made of the burgess roll in Dublin during elections that took place from 1898 the public would be astonished at the number of people who had votes and who refused to register them. As a matter of fact that class were so careless about registering their votes that we had to register them for them. It had to be done, because they showed such want of citizenship that other people had to go to the poll to record their votes for them. I am afraid Senator Wilson did not understand the proposal in the amendment. He talked about a class of people who paid rates on a valuation of £600,000 but who have no votes. Surely he has not studied the question or he would not make a statement of that kind. No sane man would get up and say that people with a rateable valuation of £600,000 in Dublin have no votes. A certain section that pays rates has no votes.
A big section.
Not a considerable section when you examine the matter.
Take Dame Street.
Dame Street or any other street you like. If you examine the premises valued over £20 and tot up the amount you will find that £600,000 valuation is far off the mark. I would like to ask another question. A large number of these premises in Dublin are not paying full rates; they are only paying one-third of the amount that they should pay. I refer to premises erected since 1920. I understand it is only in 1932 that they will pay full rates.
Does the Senator object to the remission of rates?
Yes, if you put them into a privileged position regarding votes when they are not paying the full rates, I object, especially when I am paying more than my share.
Surely the Senator admits that the remission of partial rates for five years is simply in order to encourage the building of premises?
It is a small point, I admit, but it is not right to give these people votes when they are not paying the full rates.
The rates are remitted on buildings that had already been put up.
Senator Douglas talked on the question of setting up a privileged class but, if he likes to put it another way, I should say it is conferring a privilege on a certain class which we believe they are not entitled to receive. I am prepared to admit that people who pay rates are entitled to a vote and to have a voice in the decision as to how the Corporation will spend money. I am prepared to give them a vote for that, but I am not prepared to give one man six or seven votes as against another man's one.
Are you prepared to give a company of six six votes as they used to have if they were resident?
I am prepared to do what is fair by everybody, but I am not prepared to confer a privilege on any one. The question of public companies has been raised here under this Bill. Certain public companies I know of in this city are so patriotic that they would never register their offices in the country, and still these people are going to get six votes. As I read the Bill, certain Irish companies, whose business is wholly or mainly conducted in the country, will have six votes.
They must be manufacturing companies.
Yes. They are so patriotic that they would not register their offices in this country, and still they are going to get votes. I could name one or two distinguished firms, the largest we have, and the other a big financial house. The National Bank is one and Guinness is the other. This section is drafted to give special facilities to these people who are so patriotic that they have their registered offices outside the country. I am not prepared to grant them those special facilities.
A challenge has been made by implication by one or two speakers that I am prepared to take up at once. There is an issue underlying the proposal in the Bill, and underlying my amendment, and that is as to whether the local government franchise is rightly conferred on account of rates paid as distinct from conferring the right of that franchise on account of personality, on account of a human interest in civic affairs. I would call the attention of the House, and particularly of the Minister, to the fact that there has been for a very long time a distinct movement in local government franchise as distinct from the parliamentary franchise, away from conferring the franchise on men because of their property qualifications and in favour of conferring such a privilege on men because of their citizenship.
My fundamental objection to this scheme is that it is a reversal of the tendency of modern legislation. It is going back to the older system of conferring franchise rights on men because of property qualification. We are not altering the local government franchise in this Bill. Implicitly we are building a new government of Dublin scheme on the existing franchise of the local government vote, dependent upon rateable qualifications, but because we accept that for the purpose of the Bill we are asked to retrace our steps and go a considerable distance back to the old system of franchise, because of property qualifications and double and treble the franchise because of that qualification. The only case that is made of any validity at all for this section of the Bill is that large ratepayers should, and on the principle of the local government franchise ought to, be entitled to a vote on their rateable valuation. and are deprived of the privilege of voting because of transferring their business from being individually owned to be a limited company. The Bill does confer on a corporate body of that kind the franchise, but it is because it does so much more than that that I am seeking to have this section radically amended.
I think the Bill only confers it in regard to this special section.
Certainly it confers it in regard to the special section. It is designed to ensure, though I do not think it will, that that particular section of the community will have a particular kind of representation and who need not seek representation because of their regard for the health or sanitation of the city, but whose primary purpose avowedly according to the Bill is to save the rates. There is I think a distinct cleavage between my point of view and that of Senator Douglas in so far as he represents the point of view of the backers of the section. A council does not establish itself for the purpose of saving rates. Too many people imagine that the whole purpose of a council is to save rates and to prevent an extension of responsibilities and functions. While it is very necessary to get the most economical use out of the rates the services to be provided from the rates is of much greater importance. I say that the particular type of representative suggested by this section is not a better judge of the services required for a civic corporation than the average elector.
Taking the figures the Minister read out and the amount of injustice that is alleged under the present system, how many people are suffering from this injustice? The Minister gave it to us that on the Port and Docks Board register there were 580 persons or registered companies —assuming they are all deprived of the franchise on a rateable value of over £200—that is the extent of the injustice in respect of the people with a valuation of over £200. If we are to take the figures given by the Minister as a guide, they mean that 422 people are to have as many votes under the new system as 2,000 people under the £50 valuation. The thing in itself is creating a new injustice. With regard to the suggestion made by Senator O'Neill, if I could get any intimation from those who are particularly interested in company representation that they would be satisfied with company representation and they would be prepared to throw over the scheme for a separate franchise and a separate method of voting for a special group of representatives, then I think we could come to a very easy agreement, but in the absence of any intimation of that kind I do not think there should be any withdrawal of the amendment, as there has been no suggestion from any supporters of the scheme that they would be satisfied with company representation. I want to point out the effect, and I think the intentional effect, of this scheme, and Senator Wilson more or less made clear what is in his mind. A shopkeeper, presumably, in the great majority of cases will live on the premises or within the city, and he will have his citizenship interest in the city and will be interested in sanitation, water supply, public health and many other things that affect the daily lives of the people. As regards the men who live away from the city and who are not concerned with the sanitation and general amenities of the city—and this is clear from what Senator Wilson said—the Bill as drafted will confer franchise rights on them. That, I think, is entirely reactionary and obnoxious to any fair-minded citizen. The Minister has indicated his desire and intention to try and recover some of the privileges for the narrower class as distinct from the class who are actually covered by the Bill as drafted. We will see the effect of his amendment. I am not sure whether one should support him in his intention to narrow the number of persons to be given those special privileges or whether we should not stick to the intention of the Bill by letting the number be as large as possible.
I rather took it from Senator Johnson that he thought I had admitted that the commercial class were only interested in the reduction of rates, and only concerned themselves as regards civic affairs from the point of view of £ s. d. I do not want anything I said to be construed in that way, as I believe the commercial classes are as much interested in the matter of sanitation, clean streets and public health and so on, as any other class of the community.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 12; Níl, 23.
Tá
- Caitlín Bean Uí Chléirigh.
- Michael Comyn, K.C.
- William Cummins.
- Thomas Farren.
- P.J. Hooper.
- Thomas Johnson.
- Colonel Moore.
- Joseph O'Doherty.
- John T. O'Farrell.
- L. O'Neill.
- Siobhán Bean an Phaoraigh.
- Séumas Robinson.
Níl
- John Bagwell.
- William Barrington.
- Samuel L. Brown, K.C.
- Miss Kathleen Browne.
- R.A. Butler.
- Alfred Byrne.
- Mrs. Costello.
- John C. Counihan.
- The Countess of Desart.
- James Dillon.
- James G. Douglas.
- J.C. Dowdall.
- Sir Thomas Grattan Esmonde.
- Michael Fanning.
- Henry S. Guinness.
- Right Hon. Andrew Jameson.
- Cornelius Kennedy.
- James MacKean.
- Joseph O'Connor.
- M.F. O'Hanlon.
- Bernard O'Rourke.
- Thomas Toal.
- Richard Wilson.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 31 agreed to.
SECTION 32.
Question proposed: "That Section 32 stand part of the Bill."
On this section I would like if the Minister would give the House an indication of what the intentions are regarding the holding of elections. Sub-section (1) of the section provides that "a city election shall be held in the year 1930 and in every third year thereafter and in no other year." That seems to imply that the elections will take place in Dublin during the winter months. While one might overlook that for one year, one would not like to have it established that during every third year an election would be held during the winter months. I would like to have some assurance from the Minister that there is a provision in the Bill—I cannot find it myself—making sure that the election shall take place in the good weather months rather than in the bad weather months.
So far as the first election is concerned we hope to be able to arrange that it will take place as early as we can conveniently arrange this year, perhaps in September or October. As regards the elections held in subsequent years they will come under the ordinary scheme of legislation and should ordinarily take place some time in June or July.
I would again call the attention of the Minister to the wording of sub-section (1) of the section. Is it quite clear that the election will be in Anno Domini 1933 rather than three years after October or November, 1930?
The elections will not be held three calendar years after the date of the first election. The first election to be held in 1930 will be held on a fixed date, but in subsequent years the elections will come under the ordinary law for elections.
Sections 32 and 33 agreed to.
SECTION 34. (2)
(2) There shall be registered in the register of commercial electors every individual, partnership, unincorporated association, and corporate body who or which resides in Saorstát Eireann and is for the time being the rated occupier of any premises which—
(a) are valued under the Valuation Acts at not less than twenty pounds, and
(b) are situate in the City or (until the appointed day) in an added urban district or (until the 1st day of April, 1931) in the added rural area, and
I move:—
Amendment 6.—Section 34. To delete the section.
Cathaoirleach
As the House has already decided to have this particular form of franchise, surely it must provide the machinery for the purpose of carrying that out? The Senator's amendment, if carried, would defeat that object.
As a matter of order, I think we can delete as many sections as we like. I understand quite well that the House agreed to Section 31, but I want the House to declare itself against Section 34. I am not going to argue the case over again.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move:—
Amendment 7—Section 34, Sub-section (2). To delete in line 28 the word "twenty" and to substitue therefor the word "ten."
In bringing forward this amendment I am not introducing it for reasons that some Senators might consider are democratic. I do not know that democracy is good always. Democracy has often produced the most extreme dictators, but I am not going to talk on that matter now. I move this amendment in order that the business men who get elected will, when elected, have a stronger and a bigger foundation for their position than if the electorate were confined to people with a business premises valuation of £20. As I said before the people who have the largest backing will have the greatest influence. It is with the object of giving these business men more power and influence that I move this amendment—so that they shall have a larger electorate to vote for them than if the figure "twenty" were retained in the Bill. I think that is good sound logic, and I accordingly move the amendment.
I ask the Seanad to accept this amendment. If you are going to have a qualification dependent on property, then I think you ought to have some regard to the limitations which have been observed in the legislation of this country in the past. I do not know where the Minister got his £20 as the limit. Wherever there was the intention that property should be specially represented the amount was £10 in the old Franchise Acts. I can find this limitation of £20 nowhere except in the Port and Docks Act which the Minister apparently has very carefully studied and which, to my mind, is a most reactionary measure. Senator Moore, in one sentence, has explained and, I think, very forcibly, the reasons for the amendment. If these commercial men are supposed to be in any sense representative men, then the basis upon which they rest ought to be reasonably wide. No doubt the Minister has the exact figures, but I would imagine that lowering the special franchise from £20 to £10 would at least double the number of electors. I think that is a good thing. As the House has decided on having the unique system of a commercial franchise, then I think the House ought to make it as much in accord with democratic principles as it is possible to do. The House ought to let these people who will have a deciding influence in the government of the city have at least a sense of support from reasonably wide classes of the community. The people who carry on business in houses with a £10 rateable valuation are commercial people in the true sense of the word. They are useful commercial people. They are reasonable men, and I should say they are as conservative as there is any need for at the present time.
What about the £5 men?
If I had my way I would go back to the 40/- freeholder. This amendment is introduced as a sort of a compromise. It has not any destructive object at all. Its object is to give the people who will be elected on that franchise a really representative character. I am sure the Minister has figures as to the number of electors who will be on the franchise with a £20 rateable valuation, and the number of the electors there would be with a £10 rateable qualification. I am sure that if the House had these figures before it it would accept the amendment.
I think the House is bound to vote for this amendment, as it has already confirmed by its vote the proposition contained in the Bill that a special franchise based on valuation shall be established. The commercial mind, as the Minister pointed out, as well as Senator Douglas, is specially seen in the mind of the shopkeeper. Is the Seanad going to say that it is only the shopkeeper with premises of a £20 valuation and upwards that has a commercial mind? The interest of the shopkeeper as shopkeeper is just as great if the valuation of his premises is only £10 instead of £20. I think there is no logical argument that can be adduced except the one that says it is only the wealthier business men, not business men as business men, but the wealthier business men as such that shall be entitled to this franchise. The Minister interjected why not £5. If he can say there is any considerable number of business premises at £5 valuation, then I say the amendment may be altered on the Report Stage to meet those cases. Where business premises are to be enfranchised under a special franchise there should be no limitation of the amount they pay. It is the business element that is being enfranchised, not the rateable value. I ask is it the rateable value or the business element that is being enfranchised, and if it is the business element, is it only to be the richer business element that is to be enfranchised? I would like the Minister to explain what is his mind on this matter; whether it is business as such, or rateable value as such, that is being enfranchised under the Bill? I think the House is bound, having declared itself as it has done already, to vote for this amendment.
If the Minister intends to reply, and if he has the figures with him, will he state how many limited liability companies there are with a valuation of £5 or £10?
The objection I have to this amendment is that it gives two votes to the residential shopkeeper because the valuation of £10 will mean that the person who has that business will live over the shop. The intention of the Bill is to give a vote to premises where there is no residence at the moment. It cuts right across the principle introduced into this Bill to give representation where there was no vote heretofore. The £10 valuation man in that case would be getting a double vote. I am opposed to that. I am democratic enough to say that the business premises which is non-residential, which is owned by a limited corporation, should be given a vote, and that it is not the intention of the Bill to give the small shopkeeper who has already a vote another vote.
I shall vote against this amendment and I shall do so on perfectly logical grounds. The object of these commercial members is that you shall get into the City Council some good business men. On the whole the higher the valuation the better the brains because the greater the amount of success.
I wish to say I cannot accept what Senator Johnson said, that those who voted for his former amendment are bound to vote for this amendment also. I voted for the other amendment because I am in opposition to the whole system of a commercial register, and for that reason, also, I shall vote against this amendment.
The Seanad is dealing with the problem here in a one-sided aspect. Senator Farren refers to the National Bank as getting a vote. The National Bank will not have a vote because it is not a manufacturing business, and neither should the house with £10 valuation in which there is a person resident and part of which is used for the carrying on of business have a second vote. What the Seanad has to do is to find the point at which you could say, "Here is a point in valuation and past that point in valuation we will give certain votes in respect of the occupancy of those premises."
I quite agree that perhaps £20 is too low. As I said, I accepted £20 because it was in the Port and Docks Act, and the only Act that I could remember that deals with anything like it and passed through the Oireachtas was the Act dealing with the Dundalk Harbour control, and for that reason I put the figure of £20 into this Bill for discussion. I quite agree that £20 is on the low side. If you bring the valuation anything below £20 you certainly would do what the Senator intended to do, I suppose, in supporting originally Senator Johnson's amendment, and that is destroy the purpose of the commercial register.
Will the Minister say how many voters of £20 valuation there are?
On the register as at present made up in respect of the Port and Docks Board there are 4,081 voters. There will be a bigger number in respect of the City because of the wider area and the additional classes, and you may arrive at a figure as it stands at present of about 8,000.
"Trade and manufacture" are the words used in the Port and Docks Act.
We have extended that to include the word "professional" as well.
The Minister opposes the amendment because it applies to persons who are resident in the City. Does he suggest for a moment that all people, or even a majority of the people, having shops of £20 valuation are living outside the City? I have heard nothing more extraordinary than that argument. In 99 cases out of 100 people living in houses of £20 valuation, and even £30 valuation, live in their shops in the City. I cannot understand the Minister's views in this matter. He is certainly not talking according to the book. He knows as well as I do that it is people with only a high valuation of £100 on their business premises in town that are living in the country.
I did not suggest in any way that no person was to be put on the commercial register who had not already got a residential vote, because our intention in the matter is quite clear. But you have people occupying extensive premises of very much higher valuation than they normally would occupy, and paying rates on that very high valuation, simply for the reason that they are engaged in these premises for business as well, and it is because of the occupancy on the additional valuation in respect of business and the importance of business in the City that we do not exclude people from the business franchise because they have the ordinary residential vote.
Amendment put, and, on a show of hands, declared lost.
Question proposed: "That Section 34 stand part of the Bill."
May I ask the Minister, as he proposes sending out by post ballot papers to those people on the commercial register, would it not be possible for him to consider the question of creating a postal register for voters on the ordinary register? What I have in mind is, would the Minister not consider the advisability of creating for sailors, soldiers, and firemen who may be away from home a postal register which would enable them to vote at elections? I simply put forward the suggestion in the hope that the Minister would give it consideration. An election might take place at a period when sailors, for example, might be away from home, and these men should not be disfranchised because of their occupation.
All I can say is that our desire would be to make voting a matter of as great convenience as possible, and to secure that it would be as widely availed of as possible by all people on the register.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 35.
I move amendment 8, to delete the section.
This section is complimentary to those that have gone before, and I think the House ought to oppose it, so that I formally move the amendment.
Amendment put and negatived.
Could I get from the Minister now some assurance that the matter which I have just raised will be considered?
An Cathaoirleach
It does not really arise on this section. The Senator could bring up the matter on Report Stage.
Section 35 agreed to.
SECTION 36.
(2) The first commercial member of the City Council elected at a city election shall be an alderman...
I move amendment 9—To delete sub-section (2). This amendment contains the same principle. I formally move the deletion of the sub-section.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 36 agreed to.
Section 37 agreed to.
SECTION 38.
(1) The City Council shall, at their first meeting and at the quarterly meeting held next after every 1st day of July, elect one of their members to be the Lord Mayor.
On behalf of Senator Milroy, I move:
Section 38, sub-section (1). To delete in line 8 the figure and words "1st day of July" and to substitute therefor the figures and words "22nd day of June."
The Minister will explain the object of the amendment.
I would like to know if the Senator is proposing this on behalf of the Minister?
It is merely a drafting amendment, to ensure that it is the council that will come in that will elect the Lord Mayor, and not the council that will go out.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Sections 38 and 39, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 40.
(1) So much of any statute or of any order made under any statute as requires that a person elected or nominated to be a member of a public body by the council of a county borough or by the council of an urban district or in particular by the council of the county borough of Dublin or by the council of either of the added urban districts shall be a member of the council by whom he is elected or nominated shall not apply in respect of any person elected or nominated on or after the appointed day by the City Council to be a member of a public body, and in lieu thereof it is hereby enacted that any person who is on or after the appointed day elected or nominated by the City Council to be a member of a public body and who but for this section would be required to be a member of the City Council or of the council of the county borough of Dublin or the council of an added urban district shall be such person willing to act, whether a member or not a member of the City Council, as the City Council considers to be best fitted, by reason of his special knowledge or practical experience of the matters administered by such public body, for membership thereof...
I beg to move:—
To add at the end of the sub-section the words "provided that where two or more persons are to be so elected or nominated by the City Council not more than one half the number shall be persons who are not members of the Council."
The section makes provision for the appointment of persons to other public bodies. As the section stands it is open to the council to appoint as representatives on other public bodies members outside the council itself. I am not sure what public bodies there may be included and what public bodies will be no longer included within the provisions of this Bill. Hitherto it has been the practice for the council to appoint representatives on the Port and Docks, on the Joint Hospital boards and so on. Some of these will continue. Then there are other voluntary bodies such as child welfare committees. Quite a number of public bodies exist to which the council appoints representatives. Some of these public bodies undertake duties which involve finance and expenditure. I think it is right that it should be provided in the Bill that at least half of those who are appointed on such boards should be members of the council. As the Bill stands such members may be from outside the council. They will have no representative character of any kind and it is, I think, unwise to allow that power to the council. Perhaps the Minister would give us some indication of the number of public bodies that will remain after this Bill is passed to which the council by statute or otherwise are expected to send representatives. I think some of these bodies still remain and in making appointments of representatives of the council on those bodies 50 per cent. at least of these appointments should be members of the council.
As far as the main spending bodies to which the council will send representatives are concerned, I think the position is well secured already. The Grangegorman Mental Hospital is one of these. When we come to deal with the matter of home assistance we will do the same thing, and this applies also to the other spending departments. As the Bill stands at present, it proposes that the council, which is a fully elected body, will either nominate to these outside bodies its own members or persons otherwise responsible. The type of bodies to which the council will nominate will be such bodies as the Port and Docks Board. As far as that is concerned, you will probably be dealing with legislation before long in connection with harbours. The other bodies deal with general technical education, school attendance committees, the Royal Academy, the Commissioners of Irish Lights, the various hospitals to which the Corporation makes grants, and old age pensions committees. I think it is quite satisfactory to leave the council, which is a responsible body, full discretion in these matters. To suggest that persons who are elected because of their special ability and their knowledge of the work of these outside bodies are persons of no representative authority is going very far indeed. The general experience has been that for the greater part, when the local bodies nominate people outside their own bodies, it is because none of their own members is anxious to be elected. I think that the tendency will be rather to err on the side of not appointing specially qualified people than to err in leaving the council absolutely unrepresented on these bodies. For that reason I feel that the Senator's amendment is not required.
My opinion is quite contrary to the Minister's. I leave the matter at that. I am not going to press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 40 agreed to.
Sections 41 to 45, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 46.
(1) The Borough Council shall at their first meeting and at their quarterly meeting held next after every 1st day of July elect one of their members to be the Chairman.
I move amendment 13:—
To add at the end of sub-section (1) the words "which office shall be honorary and unpaid."
[Mr. Counihan took the Chair.]
When this Bill was before the Seanad last week I ventured to suggest, judging from the opinions that were held by the people throughout the country, that the question as to whether this Bill is going to be a success or failure, will be determined by the test as to whether the Bill will effect economies or not. Under this section the Bill proposes to create a new office of chairman of the coastal borough, and it proposes in addition that that chairman shall be paid a salary. I propose to add at the end of the section the words "which office shall be honorary and unpaid." If power is given under this Bill to pay the chairman of this local body a new precedent will be established and, in my opinion and in the opinion of most people throughout the country, that will be a most fatal precedent to establish. If you are going to pay the Chairman of the Commissioners, or whatever you are going to call them, of the coastal borough, what reason can be urged against paying the chairman of every county council in the country? Why should not the chairmen of the different urban councils throughout the country be paid? There is no question about it. I do not want to suggest that the Minister is in any way short of information but I say that there is no question about it, that the question of taxation is one of the most urgent matters that can arise in the country. I do not know whether the Minister saw in yesterday's paper the report of a case which came before the law courts here. The case is headed "Where shops are cheap.""Fermoy not what it was." It goes on to show that property which was worth between £3,000 and £4,000 has to be surrendered for whatever can be got for it in order to get rid of the liability for rates. A gentleman, whom most of us know and for whose opinion everybody has the greatest respect, Mr. Anthony Carroll, said in the course of the hearing of the case that he could not imagine any sort of business started at present in these premises with any prospect of success. The report further goes on to show that for some other premises, which had cost £3,300, an offer could be got of only £450.
With these things staring one in the face it is perfectly plain that the establishment of a new office is an unwise proceeding, and I submit that the proposal to pay the chairman of an urban council a salary is in effect creating a new salaried office. If you pay the chairman of a borough council you will be unable to resist the claim to pay the chairmen of county and urban councils throughout the country. There is no question about it, the people do not desire such an appointment. Taxation is absolutely killing local industry and preventing the possibility of the start of further industries. At the moment, there is a bye-election in progress in the country. Each of the principal parties in the Oireachtas has a candidate, and I have been reading the speeches at that election with very great care. In not one of these speeches has there ever been a suggestion that the candidate is going to do anything but to cut down expenditure and extravagance. It passes my comprehension what a peculiar change comes over a man from the time he is a candidate until he becomes a Deputy; because when he comes up here he falls under the malign influence of Party and he is prepared to support any scheme put forward by his Party, no matter whether that scheme involves expense or not. All these candidates are promising economy. If they did not do so they know very well that their candidature would be futile. Under these circumstances it seems to me that it is perfectly absurd to propose to pay a gentleman who will be the chairman of the borough council or whatever the coastal borough will be called.
There are several objections to the amendment moved by Senator Barrington. The Senator seems to me to have confused or misunderstood what the meaning of the section is. As the section stands it is open to the council to give remuneration to the Mayor or the Chairman. The amendment takes away the right of the council to decide whether any remuneration should be given. After all, the council ought to know their own business better than any Senator here would know it. I cannot see why anybody should deny the right of the council to decide that matter for themselves. Should the council feel that it would be necessary to pay the chairman, then that is a matter for the council and for the ratepayers themselves. Under the new condition of things more onerous duties will fall on the chairman of the coastal boroughs and——
On a point of order, I want to point out that there would be a manager appointed to perform these duties. He will be paid according to his duties.
Has this amendment been seconded?
Acting Chairman
There is no necessity to second an amendment in Committee.
Under the conditions that will prevail and the new social obligations that will fall upon the Mayor or the Chairman, it should be open to the council to make its own choice in the matter. The council should not be prevented from paying the chairman if they saw that the business of the council was taking up most of his time.
I just want to say one or two words on this particular amendment. On the Second Reading Stage of this Bill last week Senator Barrington, who is responsible for this amendment, made a special reference to something that I said on another occasion with regard to a similar amendment of his. I am not going to go over the ground that he and I covered already. The Senator poses as a strong advocate of economy, he does not believe in paying salaries to anybody who does not do useful work. I want to remind the Senator that he voted against the reduction of Senators' salaries when the matter was before the House. When the Senator is such a great advocate of economy, I think he ought to be more consistent.
I have no recollection of that. I would ask Senator Farren to point out when what he alleges now took place.
If the records of the House are searched I have no doubt it will be found that the Senator voted against the reduction of Senators' salaries.
When the records of the House are searched I am quite sure they will not show that I voted against the reduction.
Be that as it may, all I want to say is that this Bill has not definitely laid down that the person who will occupy the position of Mayor or Chairman, or whatever title the new borough Chairman will have, shall be paid a salary, but it does say that if the members of the Council who are elected by the ratepayers decide that the duties attaching to the position of Mayor are such that the occupant of that office will be required to devote a considerable amount of his time to the performance of these duties, then they are entitled, if they wish, to say that he shall be paid a certain salary, their decision being subject to the sanction of the Minister for Local Government. I think that is sufficient. The Senator says that the ratepayers do not want it, but that is a matter that can be put to the test. If the ratepayers do not want it they will elect at the first election people who will be pledged to vote against a salary for the Mayor. I think if we accept the section as it stands we will allow the ratepayers themselves to decide. Surely it is not undemocratic to suggest that the ratepayers should have the power to decide whether the person who fills this position should be entitled to a salary? If this amendment is accepted we shall refuse the ratepayers the right to have a voice in this matter. The Bill provides that they shall have that right and after all the people who pay the piper should have the right to call the tune. If the ratepayers think that the duties which devolve on the Mayor are of such a nature that he will have to devote a considerable amount of time to them, they have the right under the Bill to say that he shall be paid a reasonable salary subject to the sanction of the Minister. I oppose the amendment.
I am of opinion that the question whether the Mayor should be paid a salary or not should be left optional in the Bill. I think that if the members of the council are of opinion that the person whom they appoint to the position of Mayor is entitled to a salary, we should not debar them paying a salary.
Amendment put and negatived.
Amendments 14 and 15, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 46 to 50, inclusive, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
[An Cathaoirleach resumed the Chair.]
SECTION 51 (6).
(6) No order made by the Minister under this section shall extend or apply to any power, function, or duty conferred or imposed on the Manager by or under this Act in relation to the officers and servants of the Corporation or the control, supervision, service, remuneration, privileges, or superannuation of such officers and servants or any of them.
I move:—
To delete the sub-section.
Section 51 defines the reserved functions and sub-section 7 defines the expression "reserved functions." It states "in this Act the expression ‘reserved functions' means the powers, functions and duties of the Corporation which are for the time being required by this section or by an order made under this section to be exercised and performed by the council directly." Sub-section 2 states that "the Minister may subject to the provisions of this section require that the powers, functions and duties of the Corporation in relation to any matter shall be exercised and performed by the Council." Sub-section (4) states that "the Minister shall not make or revoke an order under the section, save upon the application of the Council made to the Minister in pursuance of a resolution passed by the Council." Sub-section (6), with which my amendment deals, precludes the Minister making or revoking any order under the section in respect of salaries, remunerations, services, privileges or superannuation of officers of the Council. The purpose of the amendment is to give the Minister the right to make or revoke any orders in that connection as well as in any other respect, and I ask the House to accept it.
Section 30 (1), in dealing with the appointment of the City Manager, declares "on and after the appointed day a person appointed for the purpose by or under this Act who shall be called and known as the Dublin City Manager and Town Clerk, shall exercise and perform for and on behalf of the City Corporation the powers, functions and duties of the City Corporation in relation to the appointment and removal of officers and servants of the City Corporation (other than the City Manager)." The principle there defined is that the Manager shall be in complete control of the staff and that he shall carry out powers, duties and functions other than the reserved functions. The section which we are now discussing makes an arrangement by which on the passing of a particular class of resolution and after inquiry the Minister may issue an order adding to the reserved functions. The provision which is put in here is safeguarding the position in Section 21 and making it clear that nothing by way of resolution extending the reserved functions shall cut in on the Manager's control of the staff, subject to whatever laws are in operation, giving a certain amount of control to the Minister.
This amendment of Senator O'Doherty's is intended to remove, if possible, the provision whereby no order shall be issued so extending the reserved functions as to give the Council the right of interference with the Manager in his control of the staff. It is fundamental to the whole position regarding the City Manager that the Manager shall be in complete disciplinary control of the machine in carrying on the administration of the city either in respect to the functions reserved in the Bill or directly on behalf of the Corporation. I submit to the Seanad that the Manager must be left in complete control over the staff subject to whatever laws or regulations may be in operation from time to time which give control of certain matters to the Minister.
In view of what the Minister has said, I would like to know what interpretation is put on the word "service" in line 54—"Or the control, supervision, service, remuneration, privileges or superannuation."
The general conditions of service. It would apply to the number of years a man would have served before he becomes entitled to superannuation. It would perhaps deal with holidays and with office hours—the general conditions under which a man would serve, the hours, general privileges or the extent of service entitling him to superannuation.
If in the event of a servant applying for superannuation to the Council, and the Council and the Minister were agreed as to the computation of the service of the man, would the City Manager under the section be enabled to flout both the Minister and the Council in regard to the service?
No, the Manager would not. The Council do not come into this question; it is the Minister who would be concerned.
I think the sub-section is too inclusive. It debars the Minister too completely. No doubt the scheme of the Bill is to give the Manager absolute powers over the staff and all connected with the staff except in so far as he is subject to the limitations of the law. From the beginning, since the Cork Bill was introduced, the Minister for Local Government has been speaking of it as experimental. This Bill is also an experimental Bill. People state that the Cork Bill is still an experimental Bill. I think it is very likely that in the course of time the Minister will want to make changes and to hand over greater powers to the Council. If the Minister now debars himself in this Bill from making any order enlarging the powers of the Council in respect of anything affecting the staffs of the Council, I think he is depriving himself of certain powers which he should have. For instance, there is the question of the superannuation of the servants of the Council. He is debarred from touching the principle of superannuation or anything touching the powers and functions of the Manager in the matter of control, etc. Practically in everything affecting the staff and the service the Minister is debarring himself from exercising any powers to extend the authority of the Council over these matters. I think the sub-section is too wide in its scope, and I am inclined to think that, at least, it should be amended. I do not think it will be any harm to delete it altogether, because it is always left to the Minister to accept or reject any suggestion, or to enlarge the scope of the powers of the Council.
I think this amendment ought to be accepted. As the Bill stands with sub-section (6), the Manager has complete control over the servants, and not merely over the servants in the course of their work, but also in relation to their remuneration. That is a tremendous power to give. I quite agree that a Manager, in order to be able to conduct the work of the Corporation satisfactorily, should have a general control over the officials, but this sub-section gives him exclusive control, and deprives the Council and the Minister of all control, not merely over the servants of the Corporation in their work, but over the determination of their remuneration and of their superannuation. The Minister deprives the Council and himself combined——
Oh, no.
Yes. If there is a different construction to be put on it I would like to have an explanation from the Minister. The Council has certain reserved functions. It will be competent for the Council by a resolution to ask the Minister for further functions, and if the Minister consented these other functions would be forthcoming. It is a very extraordinary power to give a Manager; it is a very extraordinary deprivation of power on the part of the Minister and Council combined. I think what Senator Johnson said was reasonable. Certainly questions will arise as to superannuation and service which perhaps a manager, no matter how efficient, is not competent to deal with. He is not the best person to decide the privileges of the servants. That might be another question in which the Minister and the Council would have an interest. Take the question of remuneration. It is a very curious thing if the Council and the Minister, representing the Government, would have nothing to say as to what the servants should be paid by the Corporation, and, if the Manager is to have complete control, the only way in case of a deadlock by which the matter could be set right would be by dismissing him. You are giving the Manager too much autocratic authority in respect to matters that do not come within the daily work of the Council, and I think the Minister ought to reconsider this matter and either accept the amendment proposed by Senator O'Doherty or modify the sub-section in such a way as to make it really workable.
I am thoroughly in favour of a Manager. The suggestion I offer to the Minister is founded on experience, and I trust he will consider it worthy of attention. Under this Bill I think the Manager is getting too much power. In fact he is getting so much power that, in my opinion, it is an injustice to him, as I believe it will be utterly impossible for him to carry out the many powers placed on his shoulders. It is not fair to the Manager that he should have full control of the staff. From my experience I think that that would only cause a tremendous lot of friction. The Minister has, to a certain extent, spiked our guns as far as the Manager is concerned by the man who I understand is going to be Manager. If he combed Ireland not once but ten times he could not get a man better fitted for the position than the one selected, the present Town Clerk of the City of Dublin. To expect one man to have control of so many officials as there are in the Corporation would be humanly impossible, and I am satisfied that most of his time would be spent in settling friction amongst the officials. I do not suggest that the Council as a whole should deal with matters of that sort, but from within the Council they might appoint an appeals committee consisting of the Lord Mayor for the time being, a member of the Council, and the Manager. That committee would be able to deal with any little differences that arose amongst the officials. I understand that under the Bill the Manager has full control of contracts. As I stated already I am in a rather delicate position in speaking on this matter owing to the man about to be appointed. I think it is a tremendous power and a temptation to give any singe man full control to deal with contracts.
Cathaoirleach
This section does not deal with contracts.
I will content myself by throwing out that suggestion to the Minister. I have not the figures but according to the statement which the Minister made when introducing the Bill in the Dáil, the Manager has power to deal with tremendous sums. That work alone would be sufficient and important enough, dealing with the finances of the corporation, without throwing on his shoulders the wearying responsibility of dealing with the staff. I suggest to the Minister that the easier, the better, and the more justifiable method would be to have an appeals committee consisting of the Lord Mayor, a member of the Council and the Manager, to deal with any little friction that might arise amongst the officials.
I think Senator Comyn was quite unintentionally misleading in some suggestions he made with regard to the Minister's want of control. This asks that no order made by the Minister shall extend or apply to any power conferred on the Manager in respect of the control of the staff, where the Manager is expected to have full and complete control over the staff, in so far as control and supervision of the servants goes. Is it suggested that control and supervision, and dealing with details concerning the services of the staff should be in any one else's hands but those of the Manager, if he is to carry on his business properly?
Subject to the Minister?
Senator O'Neill's suggestion is that, instead of the Manager taking up his time settling friction between the staff, the Lord Mayor and a member of the Council should be brought in. I suggest that if any member of the Council is going to be brought in to deal with the Manager's power of control over the staff, that is only going to invite the little bits of friction that the Senator speaks of, and to weaken the soundness of the machine for doing any work. No one should be brought in except in so far as the Council sense generally how the work of the city is being carried on, or if by want of proper control and supervision over the staff the Manager was failing to keep a proper machine in being. That will show itself in the general character of the work, and the Council could then come in, in a general way, and would have a conception of the lack of decent results. The Council has that power. As far as remuneration goes, the Minister has power if necessary to step in and increase or reduce the remuneration of officers. In anything the Manager handles in the matter of scale of pay over the staff, or in general conditions, the Minister can come in. Whatever privileges may mean, such as annual leave or conditions of service, certainly the Council ought not be brought into these matters, or there would be appeals to different sections of the Council as a whole from the staff regarding conditions. As far as superannuation goes, the Minister has full control. We are simply restricting power of interference by the Council with the Manager over the control of the staff. I think the Seanad is aware that in the matter of superannuation of local officers the Department has full control, and so far as remuneration goes, the Department exercises full control, and is anxious to bring about a standard of reasonable conditions for officers.
Am I to understand that the Minister can interfere on the question of remuneration or superannuation?
Yes.
Because that alters the situation.
I am not convinced that the deletion of this sub-section would take away from the Manager the control of the functions referred to. I am of the same opinion as Senator Johnson that this big change in local administration is a huge experiment, and my amendment is to delete this sub-section. I feel that the responsible Minister should have the right in law to interfere on the advice of the Council if he thinks fit. It seems to me that the sub-section takes away that right from the Minister. He can still exercise his control with that section deleted, and, if necessary, the Minister would be empowered to interfere in any question relative to these functions on the advice of the Council.
Is it not apparent that the section simply prevents the Minister transferring the powers of the Manager to the Council?
Even though after five years' experiment it is found desirable to have such a transfer the Minister is debarred from making it.
The section is giving the Manager complete control over the staff. If, after five years, anything has to be changed in respect of that it would be more satisfactory to introduce legislation than to start off with a flabby machine and have the Council interfering with the Manager.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 51 put and agreed to.
SECTION 52.
(1) The Council may, if and whenever it thinks fit, make regulations prescribing the procedure to be followed in regard to the reception and examination of all or any particular class or classes of tenders for the supply of goods, the execution of works, or any other thing for which the Corporation may lawfully have invited the submission of tenders.
I move:—
Section 52, sub-section (1). To delete in line 61 the word "may" and to substitute therefore the word "shall".
This is a mere verbal change. I wish to make it obligatory on the Council to prepare such regulations. I think that should be agreed to.
The Council may permit regulations dealing with the reception of tenders to meet the objection as regards giving the Manager complete control over the acceptance of contracts. I am still convinced that the complete control of the acceptance of contracts should be in the Manager's hands, for he is to be responsible to the Council for the general success of his work, and his responsibility ought not to be divided with the Council in the matter of the acceptance of contracts. This amendment was put in so that if the Council desire it they could completely control the conditions under which tenders were sought and dealt with before a contract was entered into. They are given power to introduce any regulations that will safeguard the proper dealing with tenders, so that the contract will be accepted so far as the regulations can do it without any underhand work previously, but I do not believe that the Council in actual operation will want to frame these regulations. I believe that with a Manager in whom the Council have confidence if regulations have to be framed the Council would be satisfied to let the Manager frame them. I do not want to constrain the Council to have them to put down on paper certain regulations with regard to the acceptance of tenders, because in the Council's opinion they may be satisfied that the Manager is competent to do that, but I do not think they should be put under a statutory obligation to deal with tenders.
Under the section, the Council have power to do a certain thing. I foresee that under certain circumstances it is not advisable the Manager should have to wait for a committee meeting to deal with matters. In the Corporation owing to red-tape routine we were often held up in dealing with work that required to be immediately attended to. The Council have power to make regulations. The power to do a thing is sufficient and it is not necessary to make the doing of it obligatory. Emergencies may arise when the Manager would have to take action without summoning a meeting. Provided that the Council have power to do these things, if necessary, that meets the case.
I think Senator Farren's argument goes a little too far. Surely there ought to be a general regulation governing contracts for large sums—contracts for the business of the Dublin Corporation? Every class of official, no matter how high he is, has his general public conduct ruled by general regulations, and the object is to provide that things shall not go very far wrong. In answer to Senator Farren, I say these regulations, which may be approved by the Minister, should include a rule that where a state of affairs arose which was not expressly dealt with by the regulations the Manager should have power to deal with it at his own discretion.
I think the weakness of that argument is that if the Council have any power to make regulations, and are compelled to make regulations, it will make them as mild as possible. The fact that the obligation is there does not ensure that the regulation will be of the kind which they ought to make. If they have the power they will not make regulations which will secure the ends the Senator seeks.
The Minister could take that power away from the Council if it was not exercised properly. It will be necessary to make general regulations that apply to contracts only once, and it will not be necessary for the Council to have to meet every time a contract comes before them. I do not see any reason why the Corporation should not be compelled to make these general regulations governing contracts.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 52 put and agreed to.
SECTION 53.
(1) Gerald Jarlath Sherlock, Town Clerk of the City of Dublin, shall be and is hereby appointed to be the City Manager as on and from the appointed day.
(5) The Manager shall not be removed without the sanction of the Minister and shall not be either suspended or removed by the Council save by a resolution passed by the Council for the purpose of such suspension or such removal (as the case may be) and for the passing of which not less than two-thirds of the members of the Council voted and which was so passed after not less than seven days' notice of the intention to propose such resolution had been given to every member of the Council.
(6) There shall be paid by the Corporation to the Manager such remuneration as the Minister shall from time to time determine.
(7) The Manager may do all such matters and things, including the making of contracts for and on behalf of the Corporation and the affixing of the official seal of the Corporation to documents, as may be necessary for or incidental to the exercise or performance of any of the powers, functions and duties of the Corporation which are by this Act required to be exercised or performed by the Manager.
I move amendment 19:—
Section 53, sub-section (1). To delete the sub-section and to substitute therefor a new sub-section as follows:—
"(1) Before the appointed day the appointment of a person to be the City Manager shall be made by the Minister."
I put this amendment down on general principle. I take it, from the very fact that the name "Gerald Jarlath Sherlock" appears in the Bill, that if the duty were imposed on the Minister he would appoint Gerald Jarlath Sherlock to be City Manager, so the question of the person does not enter into the discussion. What does enter into the discussion is that the Oireachtas is not an administrative body and this is an administrative act. The Minister has insisted right through this Bill that he wants to focus responsibility on an individual. He is shirking the responsibility in this case and imposing it on the Oireachtas. What do we know about Gerald Jarlath Sherlock and his capabilities? We know he is Town Clerk, but even the residents of Dublin are not very familiar with him, for he has not been very long Town Clerk. Those who have been in the Council all agree that he is a very competent man, and I am not disputing that for a moment, but it is contrary to the spirit of parliament that this purely administrative act in respect of a person in local government should be imposed upon us.
I think we should decline the responsibility, or if we are to have responsibility we should appoint a committee to examine the qualifications of the person concerned. We ought to throw the responsibility on the Minister himself and to let him appoint Gerald Jarlath Sherlock, and in future let appointments be made by the Minister on the recommendation of the Appointments Commissioners. The principle involved is, I think, a bad one. The Dáil consists of 153 members, of whom 15 are supposed to be concerned with the City of Dublin and 8 others with the county, part of which is included in the area, and the 130 remaining members of the Dáil have no particular interest in the City of Dublin, so that they could know nothing of the particular qualifications of the individual named in the Bill, and the same may be said to apply to the Seanad. This is not a responsibility that should be placed upon a legislative authority. It is not a Private Bill. It is a Local Government Bill dealing with the city. I say that this is an administrative act that should be left to the Minister to deal with and not the Legislature.
Senator Johnson, like myself, is very hard to please. When the question of management was mooted first, the great charge against the Minister was: "Oh, you want to put in one of your own." I do not claim that Mr. Sherlock is an expert, but I claim for him, as the Town Clerk of Dublin, that he is thoroughly competent. I think the Minister has gone a good way to ease the minds of a great many of us. I think it was a brave act of the Minister to put into this Bill the name of the man who was going to be appointed Manager instead of reserving the right to himself, and leaving it to be said that he was leaving it open for an expert or a crony.
I do not think there is anything of substance in Senator Johnson's point, whether the Minister should have power to appoint, or whether we should do so on the advice of the Minister.
It appears to me that the reason why the present Town Clerk of Dublin is named in the Bill as the first City Manager is to obviate the necessity of having the appointment of City Manager made by the Appointments Commissioners. The same practice was followed in the case of the Cork Act, the person who had been acting there as City Manager being nominated as the first City Manager. I agree that it is undesirable that any person should be named in a Bill going through the Oireachtas for a particular position. I take it the reason for doing it here is to emphasise the fact that it is the present Town Clerk of Dublin who is to be the first City Manager, and that for the future the person occupying the position of Town Clerk will also be City Manager. In the future the dual position of Town Clerk and City Manager will be held by the one person. I always advocated that if there was to be a City Manager, then that person should be the Town Clerk. There seems to be general agreement on that point now. The person at present occupying the position of Town Clerk is the obvious person to be City Manager. I am sure the Minister would not have put his name in the Bill if he was not satisfied that he was a proper person for the position. The only point of difference between us is whether it is good policy to put a person's name in the Bill going to the Oireachtas. Personally I do not see anything in that point.
I quite appreciate there are Senators who do not see anything in the point, but the Oireachtas has to decide whether it is going to intervene in purely administrative matters. I feel that, as far as the Oireachtas is concerned, it would be quite sufficient and quite satisfactory if those who feel as Senator O'Neill does and want to be re-assured in respect of the person to be appointed as City Manager, that we had a statement by the Minister that he intends, when the Bill becomes law, to appoint Mr. Sherlock as City Manager. That would be accepted by everyone. But I want to make this clear: it is the Minister who introduced the Bill, but it is the Dáil and Seanad who pass it, and therefore it is the Dáil and the Seanad that must take the responsibility for appointing Mr. Sherlock and not the Minister. The Minister should take the responsibility, but he prefers to throw it on the Oireachtas.
He is throwing the responsibility of the whole thing on the Oireachtas.
Amendment put and, on a show of hands, declared lost.
I move amendment 20:
Section 53, sub-section (5), After the word "council" in line 30 to insert the words "present at the meeting at which such resolution is proposed."
This amendment deals with the question of the removal of the Manager. Under the section the Manager has a position of very great security. The sub-section provides that the Manager shall not be removed "without the sanction of the Minister and shall not be either suspended or removed by the Council save by resolution passed by the Council for the purpose of such suspension or such removal (as the case may be) and for the passing of which not less than two-thirds of the members of the Council voted and which was so passed after not less than seven days' notice of the intention to propose such resolution had been given to every member of the Council."
My amendment proposes to insert after the word "Council" the words "present at the meeting at which such resolution is proposed." That is to say that if the Manager is not acting to the satisfaction of the Council, or of the Government, it shall be competent for the Council, at any meeting of which seven days' notice shall have been given, to resolve by a two-thirds majority that the Manager be either suspended or dismissed. That would not take effect unless it had received the sanction of the Minister. The meaning of the amendment is that it shall be competent for the Council to act, not on a two-thirds majority of the 35 members of the Council, but on a two-thirds majority of the members present, provided the sanction of the Minister is received.
Does the Senator mean that if three members of the Council attend a meeting and you have a majority of two to one, the City Manager can be suspended or dismissed?
The amendment provides that seven days' notice of the meeting at which a decision is taken must be given to all the members of the Council.
The quorum of the Council is to be 12. Surely the Senator does not mean that eight members shall be empowered to make an important decision involving the suspension of the Manager.
The intention of the Bill is that no matter what notice is served 24 members of the Council must vote for the suspension of the Manager, and that decision of the 24 is of no effect unless it receives the sanction of the Minister. The meaning of my amendment is that the 35 members of the Council should receive seven days' notice of the resolution to be moved, and that then the assembled members of the Council should be capable of recommending, by a two-thirds majority, the Manager's suspension. Even then the Manager cannot be suspended unless the Minister consents.
The effect of the amendment would be to weaken somewhat the position of the Manager. For my part, I think that if the 24 members of the Council are not prepared to vote for his removal then he ought not to be removed.
As the Manager is an official of a local body, the Minister has the power to suspend him without the intervention of the Council if the duties for which he is responsible are not being discharged satisfactorily, and the Minister thinks that is the proper course to take. But if it is a question of disagreement between the Council and the Manager, as to the way the Manager is carrying out his business, and there is disagreement to the extent that a section of the Council think that they ought to go so far as to suspend the Manager, then of course a very serious situation would have arisen. If the person occupying the very important position of Manager is to be suspended, then I suggest that question ought to be the subject of a full-dress debate. I certainly think that two-thirds of a Council of 35 members ought to be convinced that his suspension is called for before such action is taken. Otherwise you might have this position that a number of the members of the Council who are publicly charged with a very serious responsibility may not be prepared to exercise the responsibility thrown on them and rather than say that they think the Manager's conduct of affairs is unsatisfactory will remain away from the meeting and allow a comparatively small party in the Corporation to bring about a situation from which it would appear that the Council had, by a majority, decided that the Manager should be suspended.
I think it is most desirable that if you had a situation in which any fair proportion of the Council were of the opinion that the Manager is so near being unsatisfactory that he ought to be suspended then a situation exists which ought to get the consideration of the full Council. I think it would be undesirable to have a situation such as might be brought about under the amendment. The situation will be such that the Minister can always intervene if he thinks that the circumstances are such that he ought to intervene.
Amendment put and declared lost.
On behalf of Senator Colonel Moore, I beg to move amendment 21:—
Section 53, sub-section (6). To delete in line 34 the words "Minister shall" and to substitute therefor the words "Council shall with the sanction of the Minister."
Sub-section (6) says: "There shall be paid by the Corporation to the Manager such remuneration as the Minister shall from time to time determine." The object of the amendment is to provide that there shall be paid such remuneration as the Council shall, with the sanction of the Minister, from time to time, determine. I think the amendment follows the practice that has been adopted in local government matters ever since the Poor Law Acts were passed. The fixing of the salaries of public officials was always the function of the elected bodies, subject, of course, to the approval of the Minister, who generally secured that the employee of the Council or local body got a reasonable rate of pay. I think there is no reason why the case of the City Manager should be differentiated from the case of other officials of public bodies. The fixing of the salary in the first instance ought to be left to the people who pay the salary, subject, of course, to the sanction of the Minister.
I support this amendment. Senators will realise that most of the arguments at the early stage of these debates were to the effect that the people who paid the money should have a voice, at least, in the government of the city, and so, too, they should have a voice as to the sum that ought to be paid to the Manager. In the case set out in the Bill the Corporation must pay what the Minister says, and the Corporation will have nothing further to say in the matter. The amendment, at least, provides that the Council shall name the figure, and if that figure has the sanction of the Minister that it shall be the sum determined upon. It seems to me to be the right and proper thing that a body which is nominally the administrative authority over the city, and which is responsible for the raising of the rates should, at least, have something to say in regard to the salary to be paid to the Manager.
That is one of the small things which are very important in the actual working out. My attitude in regard to this matter is that, in the first place, the Minister is in a more satisfactory position to decide the remuneration that the higher type of officials ought to receive. In the case of the City Manager we particularly want to avoid that kind of dependence on the Council, on the part of the City Manager, that arises where the City Manager looks to the Council for increases in salary and which, in one way or another, involves canvassing. It is important that that particular type of dependence should be eliminated. That kind of dependence, also, involves disputes when different sections of the Council take up different attitudes. This is a question of having one definite authority to decide what the Manager should get and to remove it completely from the realm of discussion either by the Council or of anybody else. Neither the Council nor the Manager could suffer in any way from that.
What the Minister has stated is an example of what I said earlier in the day in regard to democracy, that it sometimes encourages despotism. Ministers, in this case, are making themselves into despots. Ministers are for ruling Ireland, and this is for ruling Dublin. The Council of Dublin stands in the same position with regard to Dublin as Ministers do in regard to the whole country. The Minister wants to avoid asking anybody to allow him to do anything. That is the real fact. He wants that the Minister should rule in this particular matter—I am not referring to the present Minister—instead of allowing the people to do so. It is contrary to all precedence to take such an important matter out of the hands of the Council. I do not see why it should not be done.
Amendment put and, on a show of hands, declared carried.
I called for a division before the show of hands was taken.
Is not this a matter of enough importance to be decided on a division?
Cathaoirleach
A division has been called for by Senator Miss Browne.
Why go back on the decision already taken?
Cathaoirleach
Because a division has been demanded.
On a point of procedure, may I ask whether a division could be called for after a show of hands was called for and taken?
Cathaoirleach
The position is that I was not able to decide from the voices what the opinion of the House was on the amendment, and so a show of hands was asked for for my guidance; but Senator Miss Browne asked for a division.
Before the show of hands was taken I asked for a division.
If Senator Miss Browne says so I cannot question it.
Cathaoirleach
Quite irrespective of a call for a show of hands, a division must be taken if demanded.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 10; Níl, 8.
Tá
- Alfred Byrne.
- Caitlín Bean Uí Chléirigh.
- Michael Comyn, K.C.
- J.C. Dowdall.
- Thomas Johnson.
- Colonel Moore.
- Joseph O'Doherty.
- John T. O'Farrell.
- Siobhán Bean an Phaoraigh.
- Séumas Robinson.
Níl
- Miss Kathleen Browne.
- Mrs. Costello.
- The Countess of Desart.
- Henry S. Guinness.
- Right Hon. Andrew Jameson.
- James MacKean.
- Joseph O'Connor.
- Thomas Toal.
Amendment declared carried.
Amendment 22 not moved.
Section 53, as amended, agreed to and added to the Bill.
The Seanad resumed; Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-morrow.
The Seanad adjourned at 7 p.m. to 3 p.m. to-morrow (Thursday), June 5th, 1930.