Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Jun 1931

Vol. 14 No. 23

Local Government Bill, 1931—Second Stage.

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

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (General Mulcahy)

The Local Government Act of 1925 provided that whenever the Minister made an order under Section 72 of that Act dissolving a local authority he might appoint such and so many persons as he should think fit to perform the duties of such local authority. That is the provision in sub-section (3). It is provided in sub-section (6) that the Minister may, from time to time, by Order do all such things and make all such regulations as in his opinion are necessary for giving full effect to any Order made by him under Section 72. When in May, 1924, the Dublin County Borough Council was dissolved certain subsidiary bodies had to be carried on. One was the Grangegorman Mental Hospital Joint Committee consisting of 29 representatives of the Dublin Corporation and a number of representatives from County Louth, County Wicklow and County Dublin. By statute it was necessary that three-fourths of the 29 representatives from the City of Dublin should be members of the County Borough Council. The Minister's Order dissolving the Council provided that the representatives appointed by the old city council on the Grangegorman Joint Committee would continue to act as representatives of the city on that Joint Committee. In fact they did not attend the meetings. About July, 1925, it was clear that a more satisfactory representation of the city was required on the committee. The Minister then, by Order, removed the 29 representatives who had been on the Joint Committee and appointed, as representing Dublin on it, the three Commissioners at the time in charge of Dublin City.

Arising out of a law case in connection with the reduction made by the Committee formed after July, 1925— Woods and others against the Dublin Corporation — a decision of the Supreme Court was given. The decision, in effect, was that the Joint Committee so constituted by the Order of July, 1925, was not legally constituted, and that therefore all its subsequent acts were invalid. The judgment makes it clear I think, that, if we could not put on sub-section (6) of Section 72 of the Act of 1925 the interpretation that was put on it when the Committee was so set up by order of the Minister, the Joint Committee for Grangegorman Mental Hospital could not be set up at all.

In addition, there is the position that the decision of the Supreme Court leaves in very considerable doubt whether even the Order of the Minister dated 20th May, 1924, whereby he made provision for the representation of Dublin City on the Grangegorman Joint Mental Hospital Committee by leaving the nominees of the old Dublin Council on, made that a legally constituted body. Generally, it raises the question whether when a county council is dissolved it is possible under the present law to put on sub-section (6) of Section 72 of the 1925 Act the interpretation that has been put on it up to the present. The question arises as to whether it is possible to have such bodies as boards of health, vocational education committees or a mental hospital committee, whether it is a joint mental hospital committee or not, functioning.

The present Bill does not make provision for giving any powers to the Minister additional to what it was understood he was getting under the 1925 Act or to what is actually necessary for the work of the subsidiary bodies under a county council if that work is to be carried on at all, but makes explicit the powers which it is necessary the Minister should have if a deadlock is not to be created by the abolition of a county council, or if the law in the matter is not going to be left in an uncertain state. The Bill, therefore, provides for giving the additional powers that are necessary and for validating, in so far as any validation is necessary, the powers that have been exercised in the past in order to carry out the work that was necessary. Among other matters, the general acts of the Grangegorman Joint Mental Hospital Committee are being validated in this Bill. The Bill proposes in Section 6 to preserve the steps which have been taken by the present Joint Committee, appointed subsequent to the reconstitution of the Dublin City Council, and to give effect to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Woods case already referred to as regards the salaries and wages of officers and servants. The steps which the Joint Committee at present in existence have taken to pay the moneys to officers and servants arising out of the judgment in the Woods case are being validated. Unless we took steps to validate the action that has been taken in the making of these payments the making of them would be left invalid.

Mr. Connolly

I do not propose to discuss this measure at any great length. I merely want to point out that this Bill is to validate certain steps taken by the Minister during recent years. In the course of his speech he stated that the Bill did not give him any additional powers, but a moment or two later he said that if necessary it did give him additional powers. These two statements seem contradictory. The situation, I think, is simply this; that certain things were done, or were attempted to be done, by the Local Government Department which were not legal. The judgment of the Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the Department. This Bill is now necessary to validate or legalise these actions. I think comment would be superfluous on the Bill, or on the position that we find to-day. It is only a few weeks since we discussed these matters here. I think this Bill confirms all that I said at that time, namely that we have autocratic and bureaucratic control, and apparently from Bills like this we need not expect otherwise.

Mr. Comyn

I am opposed to this measure. I hope to oppose as strongly as I can every measure of the same character that comes before this House. I expect it is not the last measure of the kind that will be promoted by the Minister for the purpose of depriving representative institutions of all power.

Dr. Gogarty

Lunatic asylums.

Mr. Comyn

My friend says lunatic asylums. Committees of lunatic asylums are entitled, if they are elected bodies, to control the institutions which they pay for. I wish they would exercise a little more control over medical men sometimes. The Minister said this Bill provides for nothing more than was intended by the Act of 1925. What was intended by the Act of 1925 is a matter of record. It is contained in the statute itself, but perhaps that statute does not fit in with the developed opinions of the Minister for Local Government in the line of policy, the fatal line of policy I would say, which he is pursuing.

What does this Bill do? It provides most efficient machinery for the easy destruction of the power of local bodies. That machinery was not provided in the Act of 1925, because it was not intended by the Dáil or the Seanad in 1925. At least I give Senators credit for this, that it was not intended by them that the power, influence and authority of local bodies should be over-ridden by any individual at his whim or pleasure.

This Bill, in three or four of its sections, beautifully drafted for the purpose for which they are intended, provides that once the Minister declares a local body dissolved all the other machinery can be put into execution as easily and as beautifully as if the whole thing were a perfectly oiled machine. That is the meaning of Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5. When I read them I said: "It is a strategic encirclement of popularly elected bodies." That may be very good as a piece of strategy, but it is very bad as a sound national policy, and if my words have any weight I would warn the Minister that he is not strong enough to overthrow the popularly elected institutions of this country. I hope that no man in Ireland will ever be strong enough to accomplish that detestable object.

The Minister has said that in Section 6 he does not propose to override the decision arrived at by the courts of justice. That is a great concession on his part, and I suppose we are to be thankful for small mercies. He makes it a virtue in himself that he is not to override the decisions of the courts of justice. I am glad that he limits himself to that extent. I am opposed to this Bill, and will always be opposed to Bills of the same character from whatever source they emanate. I am opposed to it in the interests of the people and in the best interests of the Minister himself. This Bill is wholly unnecessary. The destruction of popularly elected bodies has become a habit now. It was a matter of very rare occurrence in former times, but it has become a habit in recent times, a bad habit which I hope will be amended in the near future.

Mr. Johnson

I would like to express just one view on this Bill. I do not know whether Senator Connolly or Senator Comyn can conceive the possibility that the central authority ought to have power in given circumstances to supersede a local authority. My view is that it ought to have that power, to be exercised very, very seldom and only in very grave circumstances indeed. I think it is always a possibility that a local authority is so negligent of its duties and so outrageous in its opposition to the general well-being that it ought to be superseded. If that is a possibility then it is no use to make provision for the succession of that local authority unless you make provision for the carrying on of its work. As far as I understand this Bill that is what it does.

We are not now discussing the question of the rights of the Minister to supersede and overthrow a local authority. That issue was discussed and fought out on previous Bills in 1923 and 1925. But once the power is given to the Minister it seems to me inevitable that we must ensure that the work of the local authority is carried on. As we are not discussing—I am very glad that we are not—the administration of the Principal Act and as, therefore, no expression of opinion on the merits of this Bill itself can be held to be an expression of opinion on the ministerial acts of the Minister, I am prepared to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill.

Colonel Moore

My friend Senator Comyn has stated that the Minister would find it very difficult, perhaps impossible, to carry his way in the direction that he is trying in this Bill. I think we have a very good example of that in the County Mayo. The Minister in that county, a county that, if I may use the expression, was notoriously well-managed, dissolved the county council. The finances of the county were in extremely good order. Reports to that effect were made by the Minister's own inspectors. Merely because the people of Mayo did not want a particular person that was sent down to them—a person who was not entitled to be sent there as she was not a speaker of the Irish language and was not properly suited for the place according to the statute—the Minister by order dissolved the Mayo County Council. The result of that has been that books have been returned from 116 centres in that county. The work is still dragging on in, I think, about four centres. The position, therefore, is that an Act that was passed with the object of providing good literature for the people of that county has been rendered useless by the ridiculous attitude taken up by the Minister. I do not know that it is necessary to say anything more on this Bill except to express the hope that most of the arbitrary acts which the Minister has undertaken will very soon be altered.

Mr. O'Neill

Senator Comyn has told us that in his opinion this Bill is unnecessary. In my opinion the Bill is absolutely necessary on the assumption that what the Minister has told us is correct. In plain words, the Minister told us that this Bill is brought in to straighten out mistakes that have been made and to define and extend the power of the Minister in certain matters. The Bill also gives the Minister power to carry out the decision of the Supreme Court in the case that has been referred to. In view of all that, why should there be any hesitancy in passing the Bill? I take up precisely the attitude adopted by Senator Johnson, and I propose to vote for the Bill. I regret that Senator Colonel Moore dragged in certain things that have happened in his part of the country. I congratulate the Minister personally on his fearlessness and in showing no favour—in showing, to use the old-fashioned phrase, that what was good enough for the Dublin gander is good enough for the Mayo goose. Certain aspersions, if I may put it that way, have been cast on the Minister for bringing in this Bill. It has even been suggested that a revolution has given him a taste to be an autocrat and a dictator. I can say, and nobody knows it better, that in the days of revolution, when courage was needed, Richard Mulcahy was always there. Undoubtedly revolutions make changes. That is what a revolution means. The backwash of revolutions in every country very often brings very peculiar individuals to the surface, and undoubtedly we have a few in this country.

Question put and declared carried.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 1st July.