Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Jun 1931

Vol. 14 No. 20

Local Elections and Meetings (Postponement) Bill, 1931—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Normally, the elections for county councils, urban district councils and town commissioners would take place some time between the 23rd June and the 1st July if they were to take place this year. The county councils elected would be the third of the new bodies elected since the passing of the 1925 Act when the county council machinery was remodelled, under which you have had boards of health carrying out the work of sanitary authorities and public assistance work that before the change was done by district councils and boards of guardians. The Minister for Finance, in making his Budget speech this year, stated, as Senators will remember, that the Government propose to introduce proposals that will materially modify the machinery of county councils. If an election were to take place this year the council elected would not run its normal life as a county council. In these circumstances, it is considered that there is a very strong case for not holding the elections this year but rather allowing the present bodies to carry on until they are changed subsequent to the passing of the new legislation which will modify the machinery of county councils. Urban district council elections take place at the same time as county council elections so that the decision not to have these elections held this year will result in economy of effort and expense.

To some extent, the changes that will take place in county council elections will react directly perhaps in some cases and to a large extent indirectly on urban districts. For that reason it is considered not desirable to carry out urban district council elections this year or elections for town commissioners. The only elections that it is proposed should take place this year are those for county boroughs where such elections are due this year. They are due in Limerick county borough and in Waterford county borough, while in Cork one-third of the council is due to be elected this year.

I hope the Seanad will reject this Bill because, so far as my experience goes, it is the worst Bill that has been brought before the Dáil or Seanad in the last three years. It is bad from every point of view. It is the kind of Bill which is always introduced after civil turmoil. It is the kind of Bill introduced by gentlemen with either revolutionary or autocratic minds. I go back in history and I find occasions upon which representative institutions have prolonged their existence. I find them all to be occasions such as I have described. I find that the men who introduced measures of that character were men of the description that I have referred to. These county councils, when they were first instituted, were supposed to be for three years' duration. The object of that was to secure that the elected members should submit themselves every three years for the approval of their constituents. That is representative government, and this Bill is an attempt to interfere with representative government.

It is a most dangerous example in legislation. This measure for extending the life of representative institutions, so far as local government is concerned, can be used as a precedent for extending the life of the supreme legislative institution in this State just as it has occurred in other States before now. I am sure that the Minister must know of the examples that I refer to and of the disastrous results which have followed from attempts unconstitutionally to prolong the life of representative institutions.

Various excuses have been given why this measure should be passed. One is that it is expensive to hold elections, I agree that it is. It is expensive to hold elections for the Dáil and Seanad. Still, so long as you have government by the people in the interests of the people that expense must be incurred. It is an expense that is well worth incurring. The excuse that an election is an expensive thing is the excuse which has always been given by people with autocratic minds who want to govern without the will of the people. Another excuse given for the postponement of these elections is that changes have been made as regards the moneys voted for local purposes.

A grant of £750,000 has been made in aid of the rates. The Government say that because of that they wish in some way to modify the system of local government. That is no reason why the holding of these elections should be postponed. A grant of £750,000 has been given this year in aid of the rates to the rural population, to the farmers and farm labourers, as a temporary measure, but I hold that three times £750,000 have been taken from them in the last three or four years as a result of the legislation passed through this House. In the last six months I have seen Bills passed through the Dáil and the Seanad which have legalised an increase in the rates of 1s. 1½d. in the pound. I say there is no necessity whatever for altering the system of local government in this country unless there are some persons who desire to interfere with representative government and to shake the foundations of representative institutions. For that reason I am opposed to this measure and I hope it will be rejected by the Seanad.

There are several reasons why I think this Bill should be passed. First of all it will mean a saving of £30,000. I do not think that elections generally are wanted in the country at the present time. A request was sent by the Minister to the various county councils to give their opinions on the 1925 Act. With one accord the councils reported through the General Council of County Councils that the term of office for county councils should be at least five years. In that way I think this Bill rather fits in with the will of the people by extending the life of the present county councils. I welcome the remarks made by the Minister on the changes it is proposed to make. I believe that the present administration is not the best that we could get for the people of the country. I hope that when the measure referred to by the Minister comes before the House it will get exhaustive consideration. Incidentally I hope that the question of forming a federation of counties in administrative groups will be considered. That may seem a very long step forward, but as a matter of fact it would only be a logical sequence to the amalgamations carried out under the 1925 Act. I realise that there are many technical and real difficulties in the way, and that there would be a large body of rapidly-formed, ill-considered opinion which would treat it as an innovation, an innovation to be deprecated. Nevertheless I think that a good scheme of that kind would have very many advantages. For one thing it would help to adjust the parochial idea which still keeps us divided into twenty-six parts, and to my mind it would make for economy.

Under a system of mergers we would, I believe, be able to do with less than the 29,000 county council officials whom we have to pay at the present time. Let me give an example. In one county at the present time, with a population of 287,000, they are able to do with one council, while in three neighbouring counties, with a total population of 191,000, there is a council for each county. I believe that those three councils could be merged into one with great advantage to the ratepayers' purse. Another advantage that a system of mergers would have would be to spread the incidence of local taxation more fairly over the richer and poorer parts of the country.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am afraid the Senator is now getting rather far away from the provisions of the Bill before the House.

I am only elaborating my reasons in favour of the Bill, and I have only a few more words to say. Such a change would also help in a great way to alter the political atmosphere of the councils. My final word is—it is probably a reasonable assumption—that in due course sensible people in other parts of this island who see large areas in this State administered soundly and economically would be brought to realise that they are unduly burthened with what I may call overhead charges. I have been told that the proposal is premature. But I maintain that it is not. It is a subject for discussion and consideration before fresh legislation is brought in. I hope that the delay which this Bill affords will be utilised to allow this question to be carefully examined.

I am somewhat disappointed to find that the Minister does not give any comprehensive reason for this Bill of postponement. It is generally felt that the tendency in the Executive and in the Local Government Department is towards bureaucratic control, and that they have really no use for the public mind of the country as evidenced in district councils, county councils, and other local bodies. We had the extraordinary description by a very eminent and responsible Minister of county councils and people engaged in local bodies as "windbags."

That is not so.

He was so reported.

Does the Senator suggest that there was a description by a Minister of county councillors as "windbags?"

Members of county councils and public bodies.

It is very different from describing county councillors as "windbags" to say that these councils are not without "windbags."

To me, that is a distinction without an appreciable difference. I think that one member of this House had occassion to express dissatisfaction with the said Minister in making that charge against men engaged in the administration of local affairs. However, to come to the main point, there has been a great deal of criticism as regards the competence and efficiency of persons operating on the local councils. If we have such a low opinion of those operating on local councils what good opinion can we be expected to have with regard to representation either in the Dáil or in the Seanad? Are these people not, shall we say, as symptomatic of the intelligence and mentality of the people as the members of this House or the other House? Moreover, the members elected to this House are not nearly so responsive to public opinion as are the people operating in local areas. Public opinion in those areas will force men to go straight, while it does not necessarily force others to go straight —even in the Executive. I suggest that the recruiting ground for the Oireachtas might be expected to be the local bodies. Unless we are to create a college of politicians or pseudo-statesmen, we are to go to the country and expect people without any experience in government activity, local or otherwise, to be drafted up here for four, five or six years either to the Dáil or Seanad. These people will be without any experience of public affairs whatever. It is quite clear that the Minister aims at autocratic and bureaucratic control, that he is intolerant of local bodies and does not want them. Throughout the country, his activities have been such as to make it clear that local government, as in County Mayo, County Sligo, and other places, is to be administered from the Local Government offices in the Custom House. I do not think that the Minister is justified in asking us to pass this Bill. He has given us no definite reason for the Bill nor has he indicated in any way what tendency we may expect in local administration.

Senator The McGillycuddy referred to the fact that £30,000 would be required for the election. Is he serious in making that statement? If that argument is sound fundamentally, then what we want in this country is a dictator. Perhaps the Minister for Local Government and Public Health would act in that capacity and eliminate not only the expense of elections but the expense of carrying on this House and the other House, with the printing bill involved by the publication of the debates carried on here. I think that £30,000 is not an extravagant amount to pay for local elections every three or four years. It is well that we should encourage both the civic and the county spirit and I think the only check in local administration is when local people know the individuals concerned, and know how they act on these councils. The tendency towards bureaucratic control ought to be stopped and the Seanad ought to register its protest by throwing out this Bill at this stage.

I entirely agree with Senator The McGillycuddy, and I think that this Bill ought to be accepted. There are many good reasons for its acceptance. I can assure those Senators who are so anxious about the will of the people that there is no desire for local elections.

How do you know?

I know as well as anybody. I am not greatly impressed by the wonderful concern for the will of the people manifested by certain Senators who were not so enthusiastic about the will of the people a few years ago. I agree with Senator The McGillycuddy in practically all that he says, and I agree with him particularly on the question of economy. I trust that the Seanad will pass the Bill.

I am opposed to the extension of the life of any public body unless there is very grave reason for such extension. The Minister has, I think, in this case, given a fairly good reason—that a Bill is to be brought in to reorganise local government. That is a very good reason, but I think that it is hardly fair to the public bodies that the Minister should have the power to prolong their life until July, 1934. The extension of the life of a public body means deterioration. I have had experience of public bodies, and I know that after a public body reaches the limit of its legal existence, as it was at the time of election, it does not improve. Those who served on public bodies whose life was extended during the time of the war will agree with me in that. I do not think that the prolongation of the life of these bodies by three years is fair to the people. While the measure is passing through this House, I hope the Minister will be able to fix some earlier date for the reorganisation and election of the bodies concerned. As regards the money consideration, I think it is foolish to talk about money at all in this connection. That is not to say that we can afford to lose money or throw money away. But if an election is necessary, the money has to be spent. There is no use in saying that you must not have an election because you are required to spend money on it. If an election is to be held the money has to be spent, and talking about the money involved in this connection is a waste of time.

I am inclined to agree that the local elections should not be postponed for so long a period as is contemplated under this Bill. Civic responsibility and civic duty should, in my opinion, be fostered. As far as I am able to judge, that has not been the case in recent years, taking into account the interference that has taken place with some of the local authorities. I agree with some of the speakers that it is not right to postpone these elections without giving very substantial reason. There is a tremendous amount of apathy and indifference throughout the country and a great lack of civic spirit. I am not going to assign any reason for that, but I think it would be desirable if we could create a civic spirit and a sense of public responsibility. In my opinion, there has been no case made for postponing these elections. This is one of the ways for ascertaining public opinion on matters of public policy and practice, and I think it should not be interfered with, even in a small way. At all events, I am not satisfied that there has been a case made for interfering with the elections for so long a period as three years.

Objection has been taken to the long period of postponement—three years. I would remind Senators who take that view that it is not likely that the Bill the Minister promises could be brought into effect in less than three years. As Senator The McGillycuddy has pointed out, it is a measure that will require a great deal of consideration. The Minister is responsible for promising a number of other Bills that require a great deal of consideration. These Bills have not yet been presented to either House. If the Minister is to give the consideration to this proposed reform of local government that Senator The McGillycuddy suggests is necessary and that we all believe is necessary, it is not likely that the Bill which he is to introduce will become law in a lesser period than three years, if the other Bills for which the Minister is responsible are also to become law. We might as well accept the view of the Minister, as expressed in this Bill, and expect the life of these councils to be extended for a period of three years from now.

I think the essence of the case lies in what Senator Mrs. Wyse Power has said regarding the effect on the competence and interest of a council when its life is extended to any considerable extent. The Minister is aware that, in many instances, councils in these circumstances have become careless and lackadaisical and have allowed the whole business to be done by the officials, subject to the check of the Minister. Perhaps that is what he wants. Members of councils whose life was extended became quite careless, loose in their attendance, more acquiescent in whatever was suggested by one or two persons and generally ineffective as a competent council. The extension proposed in this Bill will, undoubtedly, have that effect on councils throughout the country. But let us look at the matter from the point of view of parliamentary procedure. Let us have regard to the general, constitutional aspect. The Minister gives us a hint or promise that he will bring in a Bill to reform the present system of local government. He does not tell us what the terms of that Bill will be. He assumes that that Bill will be carried. He does not know whether the present parliament will deal with it or a succeeding parliament, but in the hope and expectation that the Bill will become law, he proposes to postpone the election for the existing councils. I think that is putting the cart before the horse. The Minister ought to have got a Second Reading for his new Bill before he brought in this Bill. We ought not to accept the proposition that because something may happen in the future, the life of existing councils should be extended. We do not know anything about the new Bill. We do not know whether it is a Bill which ought to pass or not. Because of that ignorance of the Minister's proposals, not to speak of the view of the legislature on them, we ought not to extend the life of these councils without some very serious and grave reason. I have not heard any reason for the postponement except that which Senator McGillycuddy and others seemed to think quite sufficient—that the cost of the elections would be saved. If that is the view of Senators, then there can be a great deal of money saved.

It is the view of the county councils themselves.

If that be a sufficient explanation, there need not be any elections at all, as Senator Connolly has pointed out. The fact that we have adopted a system of public representation by election inevitably involves expense and it is a very thin reason for postponing elections that you are going to save for a year or two a certain amount of money. A few Senators—Senator The McGillycuddy particularly—spoke as if this Bill were one extending the normal life of publicly-elected local governing bodies. It is not. It extends the life of existing local government bodies and it says nothing as to what the life of future local government bodies will be. It is not satisfactory to say that because the General Council of County Councils have expressed the view that the life of local government bodies should be five years instead of three, therefore, by this casual method, we should adopt the view of the General Council in respect of this particular set of councils. That is no sound reason for postponing the election of these councils. The only reason that remains is that given by the Minister —that the elections should be postponed for three years to give him time to prepare and pass through the Oireachtas a certain measure which he has not told us about, but which he hopes to formulate and which the Oireachtas may refuse to pass. On the possibility of some new legislation in the future, we are to pass this measure now. I think the reason given is entirely inadequate and that the Seanad ought not to pass this Bill.

It has been stated that the period of postponement is too long. After all, the reform contemplated is a very big one. It may take a great deal of work before you get a measure to achieve satisfactorily this reform, so that the period sought does not appear excessive. As regards the suggestion that members of public bodies are only energetic if they have been quite recently elected, that argument does not appeal very much to me. The council which has just been elected may play the part of the new broom, but the longer it is elected the more it knows about its business. We all know that in every body and association the really useful work is done by a smallish proportion of the members. Under this Bill, some of the members of these councils would be fairly old hands and, consequently, would know more about the business than newly elected members. This Bill is an exceptional measure to meet a special case. I do not think that much harm will be done by missing one election. The interests of the country will not suffer much, and there will be some money saved.

The reform which has been promised is no recent discovery. There has been no explanation to justify the long delay in producing a measure to bring about the reform. The Poor Law Commission covered a great deal of the ground and reported five or six years ago. Nothing was done on their report. Now three years are required in which to incubate or materialise these reforms. I suggest that the Department is somewhat to blame for the delay, and that this Bill should not be required. As the position is, I see no alternative to passing the Bill. I hope that when the reforms do come, they will be scrutinised with great care, because some of the suggestions which have been made are distinctly alarming.

I think that we ought to approach this matter from a business point of view, rather than to try to introduce into it a political tinge. I regard this as a business question. I think the Minister has given very good reasons, from a business point of view, why an election should not be rushed at present. He has told us clearly that it is the intention of his Department to make some changes in local government, and to make them as soon as possible. He does not say that it will take three or four years to effect these changes. I think we must all realise that changes will be necessary owing to the demand made recently for de-rating. Perhaps we shall reach another stage on that question of de-rating before the Bill which the Minister has promised is passed into law. At any rate, a step has been taken, and I think most of us who were elected to local bodies realise very clearly that councils could be considerably reduced.

I am very strongly against interfering too much with local government or with the will of the people. I am very strongly in favour of local government being continued and of the people having a voice in the control of their local affairs. I have a great deal of experience of local government, and I am quite satisfied that it would be to the advantage of local government to have smaller and more business-like councils. We would be able to get through the work in a more business-like manner than we are at present. If we were to force an election now, what class of representatives would we have? Everybody would know before going forward for election that the Local Government Act was to be considerably amended. Would that be an encouragement for new men to go forward and to spend their money, because to go forward and seek election to county councils necessitates the expenditure of money?

It has been said that the elections would involve the expenditure of £30,000. That would be expenditure which would fall on the ratepayers of the rural districts and it would mean almost 1d. in the £ on the rates of the rural districts in the Twenty-Six Counties. Candidates who would go forward would also be involved in personal expense. What class of candidate would go forward, knowing fairly well that their term of office might expire in twelve or eighteen months? That is quite possible, because we may have this new Bill passed into law before two years. I do not think that any man who had other interests to attend to would go forward for election for a term of one or two years knowing that the Act which he was to administer would be amended. If an election did take place, there would be very few new candidates to go forward under the present circumstances and you would have an expenditure of £30,000.

If this Bill becomes law, the old councillors will continue in office and I think that their experience should be useful to the Minister for Local Government. I do not think that he is above taking advice from them. He is not such a Mussolini that they will not be able to make some impression on him. A number of Senators may not understand all the machinery that would be interfered with if we had an election in a few months. Not alone would we have an election for the county councils, but asylum committees, boards of health, vocational committees and agricultural committees would have to be reconstituted. I think that that would involve a great waste of time. I am satisfied with the Ministerial undertaking given that it is not the intention of the Local Government Department to do away with local government or to stifle the will of the people. I am satisfied that the Minister will introduce a Bill that will give general satisfaction. On those grounds, I think it is necessary, from a business point of view, that this Bill should pass. It would be a waste of public money and a waste of energy to hold elections in the present circumstances. It might satisfy politicians and give them an opportunity of ventilating their political views, but they can bide their time and in a year or two we shall all have an opportunity of giving expression to our political opinions. I think we should pass this Bill.

I should like to ask through the Leas-Chathaoirleach how long the Minister thinks it will be necessary to prolong the life of the councils if this Bill passes. The Minister knows what period is likely to elapse before the new Bill becomes law. When speaking before, I was under the impression that the new Bill did not await consideration in the future—that the Minister and his department had it well in hands. I should like to know how long the Minister thinks it will be necessary to wait until the new Bill is introduced. We would then know how long the life of the present councils was likely to be extended.

As we have been assured by the Minister that serious amendment of the present Local Government Act is in contemplation, and, I take it, in practically immediate contemplation, by the Government, I think this is a case in which we should pass the Second Reading. I would like to suggest to the Minister that in working out the contemplated amendment of local government he should very seriously take into consideration the suggestion made by Senator. The McGillycuddy of the Reeks about the application of the principle of federation to the counties.

Following on some remarks of Senator Johnson, I think I might say that if you give me this Bill at all you ought to give it to me for the period that is in it. Senator Mrs. Wyse Power wants to know when the legislation will be introduced. It is a fact, as she suggests, that we have given a very considerable amount of thought to this matter, and the general lines upon which reorganisation will proceed is pretty well crystallised in our minds. To a certain extent that has been touched upon, and I may touch upon it again. The matter is a very important one. I do not think I will ever rely solely on my words alone to persuade Senator Connolly that I am not out to wipe out local government or to do everything that has to be done in this country in a bureaucratic or autocratic spirit. I think that with the few words I may say on the matter I shall have to associate deeds in order to be in any way convincing. I think that is the most satisfactory way to proceed.

I do not think the Senator really understands the position of a local governor or he would not speak as he did about the future. We are told that if the people can elect a Senator they ought to be able to elect a representative on a local body. Let me point out that the functions are entirely different, and it is because the functions are entirely different that we are anxious, in order that the local governor may satisfactorily discharge his duty, to put the most perfect machinery possible into his hands. It is our anxiety to give him the very best machinery so that he may satisfactorily carry out the work he has to do.

The Bill that we will introduce will aim at securing for the country whatever benefits can be obtained by getting the locals to do all the local work under the most favourable circumstances possible. I do not think either Senators or Deputies really believe what they suggest when they say that the Department of Local Government wants to run the country, wants to get local things done in the way it wants them done. The whole effort of the Department is directed towards giving the local bodies the very best machinery available so that they can work on proper lines when carrying out, of their own volition, the things they want to do in order to improve their local circumstances. If Senators will look upon the new Bill as a Bill rather for perpetuating local government, they will really discuss the legislation that will be placed before them, as well as take a decision on this Bill, in a much more constructive spirit. If they approach any Bill that I lay before them, accepting that it is a Bill for continuing and perpetuating and improving local government, it will be very hard for me to drag out of the Dáil or the Oireachtas as a whole a Bill that will exactly do the other thing. I suggest that, looking at the matter in that frame of mind, there can be created for me very serious difficulties if my approach to it is autocratic, bureaucratic, or any other kind of "atic" that may be called to aid in time of need.

It is an important measure, and I certainly propose to introduce it at the earliest possible moment. I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that we are approaching a general election some time within the comparatively near future. I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that, if we do find ourselves in the vortex of a general election, no person with any regard for the subject with which he is dealing would put an important measure before the House at such a time. It is essential that such a measure should be discussed on its merits. I cannot prophesy how long it will take. If the proposals were fully formulated now I would be prepared to introduce them, and I think I would be introducing them in accordance with a general appreciation in the country of the fact that improved machinery in the hands of county councils is wanted. Senator Mrs. Wyse Power says that to continue a local body in office will bring about a tendency to neglect things, to become careless and to leave the work to the officials.

A tendency to deteriorate.

You have two alternatives, if you want the work well done. You can get the local work done by a new council facing a comparatively short period of office or you can face the doing of the work by a council that is seasoned by its work during the last three years and that will, I suggest, take a riper interest and, perhaps, a more placid interest in the proposals that will be passing before the Oireachtas for the purpose of remodelling the county councils, than if they were members of a new body without the experience of three years. I do not mean to say that present bodies would be entirely changed. I think I would feel on stronger grounds discussing matters with the present councillors continued in office than with new councillors who would be put into office now.

Such discussions as we have with local bodies will have to be begun pretty early. On the other hand, one of the reasons for introducing this measure is that the people giving service to local government at the present moment are doing it at a very considerable inconvenience, an inconvenience largely created by the awkwardness of the machinery they are using. It would be unreasonable to ask these men to incur the additional inconvenience of having to face elections at this time and for a short period of office. I feel that many of them who are valuable workers in local government would not face an election if it were held this year. I feel they would be prepared to criticise and make recommendations with regard to the measure that is being brought before us, but they would not be prepared to stay in with the present unwieldy machinery and give another year or one and a half years' service with local bodies. Knowing the work that many men do in connection with local government in the country, I very much sympathise with them.

As regards future legislation, if I am not out of order, I would like to say that our minds are pretty clear that the present system by which the board of health is entirely separated from the county council, although handling a very large part of the most important work of local government, and is a separate statutory body as regards finance, free entirely from the county council, is not satisfactory. Such a council as you will have in the future should be a council controlling all local government work. You have had in different counties experience of the county medical officers of health. In other counties you have had the development of the county surveyor as a county engineer, in many places not only giving his services to the county as a whole in all engineering matters, but also being made available for the urban districts.

Senator The McGillycuddy of the Reeks referred to the great overhead cost of local government in some areas. Our urban districts do require a type of person, both on the engineering side and on the medical side, of a calibre that they are not, from their own resources, able to afford. Just as the urban district gets the county medical officer of health to look after the medical work for the urban district, I look forward to the time when the urban districts, in so far as they are unable to provide from their own resources for first-class engineering advice, will have the county engineer giving his first-class engineering advice and the machinery under the county engineer securing for the urban districts that their very important engineering work will be done on thoroughly satisfactory lines. We do want as well that the secretary of a county council or some officer in that position will be given certain managerial powers, co-ordinating powers, over all officers of local bodies. In that way, the county council will have a fully co-ordinated, responsible and efficient machine to carry out whatever instructions the council may give in accordance with its policy.

There are many difficulties in the way. If we take a mental hospital committee, where there is not a joint body we have to consider to what extent the county council might not entirely replace the mental hospital committee. We have to consider whether committees working under a county council might be set up for special purposes and have co-opted members. We have very valuable material very often there to do public work and it is a question if we utilise election machinery, particularly where election machinery is liable to be tarnished by the introduction of Party politics, whether the services of these people may not be entirely lost to local government.

The de-urbanising of certain urban districts may very well be considered in the interests of economy and efficiency. A more satisfactory provision for the extending of an area under an urban authority may very well need to be considered, too. All these matters are very important matters and I think public opinion, particularly among those engaged in local government work, is very ripe for facing and considering all these things and getting another step along the road to wards improved local government, and the provision of satisfactory machinery that will stir up and make effective the capacity that is in the country for local government, and that we must retain in the country if we are going to build it up on proper lines.

Senator Comyn asked Senator Miss Browne who told her that the people did not want elections. Without perhaps, introducing the Party note into the discussion, I suggest to Senator Comyn that the secretary of the National Executive of the Fianna Fáil organisation said, at a very big convention in Navan a few weeks ago, that they would not be afflicted this year with local elections.

Did he really?

He was, apparently, ahead of the Minister.

Question:—"That the Bill be now read a Second Time"—put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 11.

  • John Bagwell.
  • William Barrington.
  • Sir Edward Coey Bigger.
  • Samuel L. Brown, K.C.
  • Miss Kathleen Browne.
  • Mrs. Costello.
  • John C. Counihan.
  • The Countess of Desart.
  • James G. Douglas.
  • Michael Fanning.
  • Sir John Purser Griffith.
  • Cornelius Kennedy.
  • The McGillycuddy of the Reeks.
  • James MacKean.
  • John MacLoughlin.
  • James Moran.
  • M.F. O'Hanlon.
  • L. O'Neill.
  • Dr. William O'Sullivan.
  • Michael Staines.
  • Thomas Toal.
  • A.R. Vincent.
  • Richard Wilson.

Níl

  • Michael Comyn, K.C.
  • Joseph Connolly.
  • J.C. Dowdall.
  • Michael Duffy.
  • Thomas Farren.
  • Thomas Johnson.
  • Seán E. MacEllin.
  • Colonel Moore.
  • Joseph O'Connor.
  • Siobhán Bean an Phaoraigh.
  • Séumas Robinson.
Tellers:—Tá, Senators The McGillycuddy of the Reeks and Toal; Níl, Senators Comyn and Johnson.
Question declared carried.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 10th June.
Top
Share