Local Government (Extension of Franchise) Bill, 1933—Second Stage.

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

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. O'Kelly)

In explaining the purpose of the Local Government (Extension of Franchise) Bill, 1933, I desire briefly to refer to the existing franchise when the present Local Government Register of Electors was prepared. The qualifications are to be found in the Representation of the People Act, 1918, and, except for an alteration in the qualifying date, there has been no change in the law in respect of this franchise. The Electoral Bill of 1923, as introduced, contained provisions in effect to re-enact the franchise qualifications in the Act of 1918, but these clauses were not moved in Committee. At the time the Minister said there were anomalies in the law as it stood, that changes were necessary, and that it was as well not to ask the Dáil to re-enact the faulty law. He intended, if the Dáil agreed, that the law in this matter should stand but, as that law certainly urgently required consideration and amendment, the Dáil should not be asked to re-enact it as part of the Electoral Bill, 1923. A member of the House criticised the proposed Local Government franchise in the following terms:—

"To discriminate on the score of age is inequitable, and there has yet to be found a satisfactory test of an educational character; and certainly the property qualification is not acceptable to anybody in these days."

From this it will be seen that the Oireachtas has given no positive approval to the present Local Government franchise, and has, in fact, expressed an opinion that it requires reconsideration. This Bill affords a long delayed opportunity of considering what should be the qualifications for a Local Government elector.

Sir John Keane

We cannot hear what the Minister is saying down here.

Cathaoirleach

I am sorry. Perhaps the Minister will raise his voice a little.

Mr. O'Kelly

I will try. It is difficult to find a true basis for the existing franchise. The main requirement is that a person over 21 years of age shall have occupied as owner or tenant land or premises for a period of six months but nothing was said as to the size or valuation of the property. The feeling of the House was that you could not know the part of the house occupied separately as a dwelling house. The difficulties of applying this provision were obvious in 1918, because a special provision was inserted to deal with lodgers and joint occupiers. A lodger is only regarded as occupying a room if it is let to him in an unfurnished state. The amount of rent paid or the valuation of the room is quite immaterial. In fact a dwelling house means any part of a house where that part is occupied separately as a dwelling house. Now it may be said that a person paying rent for an unfurnished room contributes in some remote way to the rates. Following out the same theory it could be held that a person to whom an unfurnished room is let as a lodger does in the same way contribute to the rates. The mere fact that there may be furniture in the room as let does not indicate that no contribution is made to the rates and that disposes at once of the suggestion that the present franchise has in fact no reference to the rate book.

Further I hold that the question of who pays rates is not the sole consideration here. The expenditure of local authorities is made at least 50 per cent. out of grants made by the Oireachtas, and that in itself constitutes a fair reason for an extension of the franchise. Secondly we have to consider the status of local authorities. In many ways the activities of county and town councils are more intimately concerned with the welfare of a people at large than the Oireachtas. The work they carry out is done under authority directly delegated to them by the Oireachtas, and we should consider what franchise will be likely to secure membership of these councils, such as will most efficiently carry out the statutory duties for which they were created. Clearly the theory that only persons occupying four bare walls are fit to elect councillors, and that married women under 30 years of age, although they may vote at a Dáil election, are not competent to vote at a local government election, will not stand. I would prefer to extend the franchise sufficiently to give every opportunity for any competent person to come forward as a member of a local authority on this extended franchise rather than exclude such a person by adhering to an archaic theory.

The Bill extends local government franchise to every person who is a citizen of Saorstát Eireann, who has attained the age of 21 years, and is not subject to legal incapacity. Such person will be registered in the area in which he was ordinarily registered on the 15th November, but it is not proposed to discontinue the existing right of any one to be registered in respect of premises of which he is a non-resident occupier.

It will not be possible to designate in the register in force at the passing of this Bill the persons who are local government electors. That cannot be done until the first register which is prepared after the Bill is passed. A special provision was inserted in Section 3 whereby the existing Dáil electors will be treated as local government electors, if they are not already registered as such.

Mr. MacLoughlin

For most of the controversial legislation introduced since Fianna Fáil took office the Government claimed that they had a mandate. They can make no such claim for the present Bill. They have neither a mandate for it, nor is there any popular demand for it whatever. Adult suffrage for local government elections was never a plank on the Fianna Fáil platform. There was not a word about it at the last general election, although for months previous to that election it was known that the local government elections would take place this year. It was only in the month of April, when the elections were due to take place and the Government got afraid that their nominees would be defeated, that they were seized with this sudden zeal for extensive and expensive democracy. It then seems to have dawned on them that the more staid and sensible electors, having recovered from the stampede of the general election, were beginning to get their eyes opened to the value of Fianna Fáil promises and the folly of Fianna Fáil policy. So, in order to avert defeat, the Government decided to postpone the elections until they could enfranchise the flappers and their immature male friends, as they knew that it was only on the young and unthinking elements of the community they could rely for support. Indeed, the innocence of youth and the irresponsibility of old age are about the only excuses that could now be put forward for belief in Fianna Fáil.

Another reason perhaps why this Bill was so suddenly launched, and why the elections which were to have been held last spring were postponed until it could become law, was that an extended franchise would give a better chance for the employment of Fianna Fáil's favourite election-winning weapon of personation. We have it on official record that one of the most prominent members of the Fianna Fáil Party preached the scandalous doctrine from the Government Benches in the Dáil—unreproved by a single Minister or colleague—that personation was perfectly legitimate. Although the law declares that personation merits several months' imprisonment, this Fianna Fáil exponent of election ethics declared that no moral responsibility or culpability attached to it. In his opinion, personation is merely a "good turn." That is to say, the stealing of one's neighbour's vote is not alone not heinous but is a praiseworthy act. And, of course, voting for the dead is what I may describe as an act of vicarious post mortem philanthropy. According to this political moralist it is no harm whatever to poll on behalf of a dead elector. Democracy extends even to the city cemeteries. So that our new democrats are to depend not only on the votes of the living, who will have to suffer for a time under their machinations if they are returned, but also on the votes of the dead, who are happily beyond their power. This is the new code of Fianna Fáil morality, in relation to elections, as authoritatively expounded by one of their most prominent members.

Accordingly, nobody need wonder that the Fianna Fáil idea of improving the administration of the local councils, of increasing their efficiency, of spending the money of the ratepayers wisely and economically—is to swamp the responsible and ratepaying portion of the community by the youthful innocents and irresponsibles who, no doubt, regard the Minister for Local Government as a Robert Emmet, but who do not contribute one farthing to the rates. Of course, the inevitable result of this policy will be to make the local councils the cockpit of politics. Instead of attending to the humdrum business of roads and pumps, and providing for the wants of the poor, the local councils will have their time wasted discussing all sorts of extraneous matters. The high sounding political resolutions which we read in the Press as emanating from Fianna Fáil clubs will, henceforth, adorn the agenda of the local councils. Everything will be reviewed from China to Peru.

It is only a short time ago since a Fianna Fáil Club in a remote district of Donegal passed the following portentous resolution:—

"We condemn the action of the Japanese Government in violating the sanctity of the League of Nations, of which the Irish Free State is a member, and we urge the Government to use all its resources to bring about a cessation of hostilities in the Far East."

"Using all its resources" would mean I suppose, the Government dispatching the "Muirchu" to Tokio. This is the type of resolution which will in future be submitted to the county councils, so that instead of minding the business of Downings and the Rosses, we in Donegal will have our eye on Manchuria—to the great discomfiture, I am sure, of the Japs. Does the Minister think that the introduction of this kind of nonsense, and the swamping of local councils with those responsible for it, is going to reduce taxation? To reduce taxation was the principal mandate sought by Fianna Fáil at the last two elections. I am, of course, aware that the view has been put forward that those who have not the responsibility of paying rates would be more careful in spending them than those who have to foot the bill. In other words, that the heads of families are more likely to engage in spendthrift schemes than their children. That is a reversal of all human experience— but it is a typical Fianna Fáil argument. We know from other countries where non-ratepayers have the power of choosing representatives on the local councils, that the community is invariably committed to unlimited expenditure. The scandals which have periodically occurred in the public administration of great American cities like New York and Chicago are examples of the evil of a system which enables astute politicians to swamp the votes of responsible ratepayers with thousands of irresponsible non-ratepayers.

On a previous occasion I said that Tammany Hall methods were being introduced here. I am afraid that this Bill portends a condition of things which will be even worse than Tammany Hall was ever responsible for. It is an attempt, by a political party, not only to secure control of the local councils, but to ensure that nobody will get the meanest job under the councils who is not a supporter of Fianna Fáil. It is another step on the road to a dictatorship and to establish here a condition of things similar to that obtaining in Russia, Italy and Germany, where one political party controls the whole life of the State, and ruthlessly suppresses any attempt at opposition or legitimate criticism. I hope the Seanad will have no hesitation in rejecting this Bill, which can only result in reducing local government to a farce, and in creating scandals which must eventually lead to the sweeping away of local councils.

Mr. Wilson

In my criticism of this Bill I propose to take a different line from that pursued by my friend Senator MacLoughlin. The introduction of 700,000 electors on the Local Government register will, in effect, give these new 700,000 electors command of the local councils through the Free State. Anyone who has studied the growth of expenditure and the system in operation since the setting up of the county councils in 1898 knows that heretofore there were two parties generally on these bodies: one the ratepaying public, and the other, representatives of labour who, naturally enough, endeavoured to increase expenditure, even though sometimes it was unnecessary, in order that they might get for their followers employment, and a greater clientele for themselves in their own particular sphere as labour leaders than they otherwise would have got. They used their positions on the local councils for the purpose of getting adherents. Now we have this new doctrine preached by the Minister for Local Government that the county councils should have politics. What is to prevent the Minister for Local Government, on the eve of an election, by means of Government grants, getting adherents and using such grants as a loadstone to carry his way in an area where his influence up to then was not sufficiently strong? Everyone knows that even under the last Government a considerable amount of money was given out on the eve of elections under the title of unemployment grants. If politics are introduced into the local councils—the Minister for Local Government says it is the right thing to do —when everybody knows that these councils are engaged in the work of relieving the poor, that will leave a loophole for the use of what I consider to be wrong methods. Politics will be introduced and Government money will be used for the purpose of gaining adherents and support.

In 1897 half the expenditure in this country for local government services was represented by less than £600,000. To-day, notwithstanding the register that is in existence, the Government grant this year, although it has been reduced by £448,000, is practically three times what it was in 1897. The estimate for Government grants this year is £1,750,000. Now it is claimed that those persons who are not property holders and who are not on the present local government franchise are, in fact, ratepayers because of the contributions made through Government grants. After all, a Government grant consists mainly as to one-half of road taxes collected from motorists, and as to about £900,000 a year that the Government contributes from ordinary taxation. If the Government wish to have the local government register the same as the Dáil register, I suggest to them that the proper thing to do is to abolish all ratings, and give the money to the popularly elected councils to dispose of to carry on the local utility services efficiently and well under the Government's direction. The county councils have power to collect money on property but not on persons. A man in a room, in a house, or on a farm is rated by the local authorities carrying on local government services, but under this Bill you will have this extraordinary position: that those who will not be rated will be placed in a position to strike a rate for those who will have to pay. The result will be that there will be no such thing as a brake on expenditure. The only buffer between the local bodies and the Government will be the Minister for Local Government. I suggest to the Minister that he should derate everybody, collect more taxes and send them down to the various county councils to spend, as he is anxious that all those young people should have responsibility. Give these young people the responsibility of carrying on those services, but do not let them have the opportunity of dealing with the moneys of hardworking people; the people who will not have an opportunity of spending the money that they themselves contribute.

A few years ago there was a great agitation for derating. In Great Britain the productive element in that country was derated. The Government in Northern Ireland followed the example given on the other side. The farmers in the Free State, naturally, asked to be placed in the same position. The then Minister for Finance said that if the Government were to agree to a derating scheme here and that the local councils had not, as they have at present, to find the money to carry on local services, then the Government would have to reorganise the whole system in connection with the carrying on of local services. Under this Bill you are not derating, but you are giving to people who pay no rates the right to spend the money contributed by those who do pay rates. For the sake of argument, let us say that these 700,000 electors contribute to the rates through Government taxes. After all, their contribution would be only a proportionate part of the amount supplied by the Government. I calculate that their contribution towards the expenses of local councils would be about one-eighth. It has to be remembered that the present ratepayers are taxpayers also and the principal part of the revenue coming from the Government is really rates, because it is collected from motorists, through the local councils, and paid out afterwards. I suggest to the Minister that if he gives these 700,000 persons votes, he should also give the present people on the register, votes as taxpayers and then he will equalise the matter. That is no new principle. I happened to own property at one time in one of the colonies. It was a new country and, when the local election came round, I was surprised to find myself with three votes. I made inquiries about the matter and I found that if a person held property of the rateable value of £100, he had three votes. That was a new country and a country where progress was much greater than it is here. The amenities of the city were greater than they are here. Music was provided in the City Hall at 2d per seat and a lot of other facilities were provided that are not provided here. That would be supposed to be against the principle of democracy, but the results in that city were far greater than we have had under the democratic system which has obtained here. An occupier of a room in the slums of Dublin has as much right to a vote as the resident of a castle. There is only one vote for property, no matter how extensive, and if a person is rated for four or five different properties, he has only one vote, so that we have democratic rule in operation at present. I agree with the Minister that there are certain anomalies. These could be rectified without giving a large mass of voters an opportunity of running amok with the moneys which will have to be provided by the rated occupiers.

As I said, there has been a considerable growth of expenditure. The three main sources of expense are roads, asylums and relief of the poor. When I was a boy, relief of the poor consisted in giving 2/6 a week. I do not say that that was right, but at that time the price of agricultural produce was higher than it is to-day. At that time agricultural prices were 100 as compared to 87 to-day and relief was given to the extent of 2/6 a week.

Mr. Johnson

Were you a boy in 1914?

Mr. Wilson

No. A person is only as old as he feels and I do not feel a bit old. In 1923 the then Government introduced the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Bill. That introduced a system of poor relief for the ablebodied, which had never been the case before. Fianna Fáil in every election campaign proclaimed that they would give everyone work or, failing work, maintenance. What way did they do it? They handed them over to the ratepayers. Two years ago, they passed an Act placing the ratepayers of the City of Dublin in the same position in which the ratepayers of the country had been since 1923. The rates in the City of Dublin have gone up by 2/8 or 3/- as a result of the Government of the day passing on to the ratepayers the burden which they took upon themselves. They have left the ratepayers to carry the baby. If you are going to give this unlimited franchise, I say, "give it but at the same time find the money." Release the ratepayers from that responsibility. Find the money and subject these protégés of yours, on whom you want to place responsibility, to supervision, so that the moneys supplied by taxing everybody equally will be properly expended.

Mr. Johnson

The two speeches we have heard recalled many other speeches in past generations whenever a proposal was brought forward to extend the franchise. Always, it has been alleged that power was being put into the hands of irresponsible people and that chaos, or something approaching chaos, would be the result.

Mr. Brown

Is the result.

Mr. Johnson

This is a Bill for the extension of the franchise. Senator MacLoughlin says it is another step on the way to a dictatorship. To extend the franchise is a roundabout way of arriving at a dictatorship. It may be that Senator MacLoughlin had in mind the United States of America. He may think that, having had a very wide franchise there, they have arrived at dictatorship, but I do not know whether that is exactly what he wants to convey to the House. Senator Wilson takes another line and draws attention to the existence of parties in local councils—speaking particularly of county councils—representing the ratepayers, mainly farmers, on the one hand, who were prepared to conserve the resources of the council and, on the other hand, representing Labour who were prepared to spend. I suggest to the Senator that if he is really convinced of that, it is a very good reason for supporting this Bill. I find that the total number of wage-labourers employed in agriculture is 127,000. The total number of relatives of farmers assisting on the farms is 264,000. If the relatives of the farmers are going to act as one would naturally expect, in accordance with family tradition and family interest——

Mr. Wilson

May I point out that that does not include towns like Bray, but covers only people in the country? They are all rated together.

Mr. Johnson

Even if one takes a town like Bray, with representatives on the county council, the Senator will find, if he examines the census returns, that a larger number of the sons of merchants, professional men, shopkeepers and what the Senator calls "the larger ratepayers," will gain the benefit of the vote by this extension of the franchise than the number of sons and daughters of wage-earners or working class people. Either way, the Senator is coerced, on his argument, into supporting this extension of the franchise.

I take entirely different ground. I refuse to accept the view that a local government franchise, any more than a State franchise, should be based upon mere property interests. Local government is not an institution for the conservation of the rates. The functions of a local authority are to conduct certain public services for the benefit of the people, and "the people" include those who do not occupy houses or own property. This notion that the purpose of a local authority is to prevent the expenditure of money and to conserve the rates as far as possible is entirely wrong and fallacious as a basis of argument on a Franchise Bill. Undoubtedly, the members of a local authority are bound to have regard to the capacities of the locality, but they have a primary duty—to maintain the poor, to house the people and to conserve the public health. Whatever is necessary for those purposes has to be carried out by the local authority. The individual who is a citizen and who is not a rated occupier is just as likely to be caught by an infectious disease as the person who is a rated occupier. If he is unemployed and in distress, he is just as likely to require assistance of the board of health as the man who happens to be the owner of a house. If there is a question of sanitation involved, the adult who is not a rated occupier is just as much concerned with the administration of that service as the person who is a rated occupier. These are the factors which seem to me to make it necessary that those people should have a voice in the management of the affairs of the locality.

One hears talk about developing a sense of responsibility. Surely you are not developing a sense of responsibility in these people if you deprive them of a voice in the management of affairs. If one looks at the history of franchise extension, one will find that in nine out of ten cases extension has come as the result, more or less, of violent agitation. Complaint was made here to-day that there is no violent agitation for this extension of the franchise, that there is no "public demand," as it is called. Is it suggested that some of us should go out and foment a public demand —that there should be a violent agitation and that an extension of the local government franchise should inevitably follow upon that violent agitation? I think that it is entirely to the credit of the Government that they have forestalled such an agitation——

Mr. Wilson

Find the money.

Mr. Johnson

That they should come along and say to the people. "We are not going to wait until you force us to extend the franchise; we are not going to wait until the Legislature is compelled by outside influence to extend the franchise to these people." We are going to prevent the necessity for agitation and to do an act of justice to people who are concerned with the administration of local public services. Senator MacLoughlin, following the line taken by other members of his Party, sought to attribute a particular motive for this Bill. I have noticed that a motive is sought for in respect of legislation as if one were in a criminal court.

If one is dealing with motive, and opposes a Bill of this kind because of an alleged evil or sinister motive, one can just as legitimately retort that the only reason for the objection is a counter-motive of a similar kind. In one case it is said that the purpose of this extension of the franchise to younger people—those who in the main would be younger people, not wholly so, of course—is to secure a majority for a particular Party. One may retort to that that the reason for objecting to it is that the deprivation of these people of the vote will deprive that other political Party of the majority. The immediate advantage or disadvantage to a political Party at the moment is a very minor consideration. Once the question is raised, no one who has any regard for public life, representative government or the administration of affairs by popular councils, should hestitate for a moment to agree to this extension. I think the Government is to be commended for having introduced this Bill. It having been introduced, there should be no hesitation on the part of anyone who wants to see public control of public affairs in voting for this Bill.

Mr. O'Rourke

I have been a member of public bodies since the Local Government Act of 1898 was passed, and from my experience of them I would say that this new Bill will be disastrous experiment for the Government. There is no real demand for it from anybody as far as I know. Any of the people I have met, to whom it is supposed to extend this franchise, never said that they wanted it. The position in the city, of course, is very different to that in the country. I am speaking from the point of view of the county councils. The majority of the members of county councils are farmers, and it is the farmers who provide the money for these councils. The Minister for Local Government states that the central authority provides money, too, but that is a very small amount as compared with the amount collected from the ratepayers. The amount contributed by the Central Government is also a fixed amount, and any extravagance or any excessive expenditure that arises in the council has to be borne by the farmers. The position of the farmers at the present time is very bad. In my own county we are faced this year with an increased rate of 1/6 in the £ more than last year, while the income of the farmers is only half what it was. Yet, on top of all that, you are going to ask them, if you pass this Bill, to meet an expenditure that will be increased considerably more than the present increase of 1/6 in the £.

There is no doubt that if you extend the franchise, the bodies elected under the new franchise will have as their principal aim the spending of money. They will merely collect it from the ratepayers and scatter it about. That is my view and I have 30 years' experience of public life. The members who will get elected under this system of franchise will not have as their aim the keeping down of rates, but the spending of more money. That may be an excellent thing from the point of view of labour, but the farmers, who will have to provide the money for the next two or three years, will not be able to pay the rates even at the present figure, not to speak of increased rates.

You will have less efficiency as the result of the passing of the Bill than you have at present. There is no doubt that county councils and committees under county councils have done their business up to the present, taken as a whole, very well. These committees and councils are composed of farmers and ratepayers. Most of the members have to travel 20 or 30 miles to meetings. They travel there perhaps once a week to attend not alone meetings of the county council but meetings of the board of health, asylum committees and other bodies. They have to devote at least a day once a week to that work. The present members of the county council are satisfied to devote all that time to look after the interests of the poor and the insane and to supervise the maintenance of the roads, but if you have an extended franchise these men will come forward no longer. You will have a different type of public representative. The impression that will be created amongst the present members will be that there will be no use in going forward since efficiency will be no longer the aim. The aim of the new council will be to scatter money everywhere. These are the views I heard expressed by county councillors of any responsibility in my county. They will not go on again; they say "Let the young men run the councils."

I am quite satisfied that some changes are necessary in the procedure. I can say from my experience that 20 years ago there was comparatively little to be done at meetings of these councils. One meeting in a month was sufficient to transact all the business, but at the present time, owing to the great increase in social services, members are obliged to devote at least one or perhaps two days a week to attending to the work of the council and the various committees. I think that the Government would be much better advised if they curtailed the work of the county councils and handed over the greater part of it to a commission. The county council could then meet say once a quarter to review the work of the commission. Such a system would make for much more efficiency and result in better work for the ratepayers.

We can only take it that at the present time the Government want to introduce politics into every county council, board of health and the various committees. We shall have these bodies passing resolutions about Japan and other matters of that kind, that I am sure are very important in their own place, but nobody wants to know anything about them here. On the Monaghan County Council, under the chairmanship of Senator Total, we carry on our business without introducing politics. Fianna Fáil is in the majority on that Council but we have no political discussions. We have no particular objection to the present Minister for Local Government. Everything has gone on all right and we do not want to introduce politics. I do not see what good a council that is controlled by Fianna Fáil can do as distinct from a county council that is non-political. We have discussions on all questions, from the provision of parish pumps to the building of labourers' cottages and we can discuss these matters without bringing in politics. Once you bring in politics to the council chamber you bring in inefficiency.

I believe that if this Bill comes into force it will mean that in about 12 months time, you will have another Bill to abolish county councils altogether. Instead of bringing in this Bill, I think the Government should have brought in a Bill to abolish the county councils altogether and let the central authority pay for the roads, the asylums and the various other services. It would be better than to start fiddling with the problem in this way. The county councils at present are overburdened with work. If you extend the franchise and get a less responsible type of councillor returned, they will cease looking after the ordinary work of the councils and devote their whole time to politics. The result will be that it will be the officials and the inspectors of the Local Government Department that will be running these bodies. I think it would be better to allow these officials and inspectors run the councils in future than to have councils under the proposed system.

The McGillycuddy

There are a few points which have arisen in this debate on which I should like to express an opinion. There is a great deal in what Senator Johnson said in regard to the actual qualification for voting. There is a good deal also in what Senator O'Rourke said on the method of election. If you accept the principle that by reason of indirect taxation a person of 21 has the right to select members of the Dáil, it is extremely difficult to argue, in the first place, that the same individual is unfitted to select the members of a county council or of a local board. Really the responsibility of members of such bodies is very much less that the responsibility of members of the Dáil. Their spending powers are automatically curtailed when they get to a certain point by the Minister for Local Government. The young Dáil voter gets his right to vote by reason of buying a packet of cigarettes, possibly no more. Whereas the farmer's son who gets his vote—he has not got it at present but he will get it under this Bill—it may be argued, has a perfect right to that vote because he pays portion of his father's rates with the labour of his hands, and has in consequence a much closer interest in expenditure. He pays portion of the rates, if he is working on his father's farm or working on a neighbouring farm and taking money to his father to help him to pay rates. That is ostensibly the reason for the Bill before the House.

Personally I must say—I may be a reactionary—that I entirely disagree with the principle of manhood suffrage. I go so far as to say that until a man is 26 he is not mentally fitted for the responsibility of voting and that a woman is not so fitted until she is 30 or has two children and realises the responsibility of feeding them. The human brain, from a medical point of view, I think takes a good deal more than 20 years agrowing. Though there are notable exceptions such as Pitt, the average individual has not a fully developed sense of responsibility at 21. Some people never reach that standard of responsibility at all. Like Senator O'Rourke I have been always an advocate of the manager-commissioner system; wherever it has been introduced it has worked extremely well. I think that there should be no extension of the franchise until such time as some new type of administration on those lines has been brought in. Possibly under those circumstances the Bill might be a success. At present I do not think it can. It is because I disagree with the present system of universal suffrage, at this low age of 21, and because I think that this measure would tend to accentuate the influence of politics in local bodies, that I cannot support this measure.

In regard to this question, I find myself entirely at variance with the Minister. Like some other people in the Seanad, I have some years of practical experience of active service on a county council to guide me and I can say, with knowledge and conviction, that whenever politics have been introduced into the deliberations of such bodies—I do not mean higher politics as to whether we form part of the Commonwealth or anything of that kind, but the lower side of politics, Party politics—they have operated to cause inefficiency, waste of money generally and injustice to somebody or other. It does not matter what Party brought them in the result has been always the same.

I regret the recent controlling of the Dublin Corporation Committees, as has been reported in the Press, by the Cumann na nGaedheal Party with which, no doubt, the Minister will heartily agree, just as much as I do, for the last few years—except during the regime when the Council was dissolved and a Commissioner was put in—the complete control of every single board by Fianna Fáil in my own county. I regret one as much as the other. The result has been hardship to some people and injustice to the others. In our case it led to the complete disfranchisement of a great many people on the Dingle peninsula—7,000 ratepayers. That is not right, but it is the result of purely party politics and nothing else. If I thought for one moment that by the extension of the franchise we would get a more responsible type of Councillor than we have at present—and I think even Senator Toal and Senator O'Rourke will agree that the majority of members of the county councils are not quite all that we would like—I would vote for the measure, but I am convinced that to give additional power to these mentally immature boys and girls, will only lead to waste and inefficiency. Incidentally, to give them this additional power, would be to give them control of their fathers and mothers to whom, at the age of 21, they still owe everything. I do not think that such a proposal is in the interests of the State or in the interests of these young people themselves.

Mr. Garahan

In my opinion, the essential factors in good administration of local public affairs are efficiency, reasonable economy and the elimination of politics. The principal services with which local bodies have to deal are the care of the destitute and sick poor, sanitation, assistance to education, including agricultural and technical instruction, maintenance of roads, payments for children committed to industrial schools, mental hospitals and the management of labourers' cottages. With regard to the care of the destitute and sick poor, the question of economy does not come in and the necessary cost must be procured to deal efficiently and well with the sick and destitute poor. The same applies to patients in mental hospitals, but when we come to consider most of the other services, I feel that one must cut one's cloth according to one's measure. One must have some consideration for the taxable capacity of the ratepayer. If he is overtaxed, the result will be that he will cease, to some extent, to be a ratepayer because he will be unable to pay and, when he is taxed up to the limit of his capacity, I think he cannot be expected to do more. Take, for instance, the upkeep of roads. If one spends too much on roads there is a chance that more necessary services may be neglected to some extent. Having some 30 years' experience of the administration of local public affairs, I think that, lately, too much money is being expended in that department. A great deal of it has been done through grants given by the Government, but I would suggest that it could be spent in other departments as a relief grant and would, perhaps, be more remunerative than what I regard as the excessive amount of money spent on roads at present. Drainage work, for instance, can be used equally well for the relief of unemployment, and I think that it has been neglected very much recently.

I am referring to these services, and the discrimination that must be observed in dealing with them because I think it is pertinent to this Bill which is designed to give votes to young people who are not paying any rates. The assessment in respect of the money to pay for the public services which local bodies have to administer is calculated on a valuation basis and it is now proposed to add to the electorate a number of people who have no valuation qualification. I do not think that is wise. They will not, I think, take any interest, generally speaking, in the services with which their representatives have to deal except, perhaps, the spending side and they will very probably vote for the candidate who promises to spend most money. Naturally, they will want money spent if they want to relieve unemployment and if there is too much money spent on one department another is very likely to suffer. It would be most regrettable if the care of the sick poor or the patients in mental hospitals did not receive the amount of attention and treatment they require because too much money is spent otherwise.

I greatly fear that the inclusion, as this Bill proposes, of these young people, male and female, who have no qualifications but the fact that they are citizens of the State, is not a wise proceeding. Their citizenship is, I think, fairly well recognised inasmuch as they have got the franchise in respect of Parliamentary elections and that is what citizenship means. The matter of county affairs is more or less a vested matter. Each county's affairs are confined to its own administration and I think that the people concerned, the people who have to pay the costs and who have the sense of responsibility necessary to deal with those matters, should have the appointment of their representatives.

It is all very well to say that you will educate young people into a sense of responsibility and wisdom and all that sort of thing by allowing them to take part in the administration of those local services. I think it would be a very expensive way to educate them. They will be educated naturally by what is going on and they will have the tradition of those who go before them and, when their time comes to take their part as men and women in life's battle, they should be quite fit to take part in public administration. Trial and error is a very expensive way of becoming educated and I do not think it would be well to have these young people trying experiments. I greatly fear that we, and perhaps other countries, are too fond of experiments at the present time. I do not see any necessity for this or any other change. I think that local and public administration is being well carried out at present and I think the most fault that has been found with the public local administration in this country has been found in Government circles, both in respect of the previous and the present Government. They have, generally speaking, said that there was too much extravagance on the part of local administrators. In my experience—a small experience as regards area, I am connected with two counties and I have some knowledge of other adjoining counties—I have not seen this woeful extravagance. In some places, there are officials who are too highly paid but, in others, they are not too highly paid and I think it would be much wiser to carry on as at present and, so far as we reasonably can, to inculcate ideas of proper economy with full efficiency of administration. I think we should see to it that, so far as we are able to prevent it, politics will not be allowed in the local bodies. I myself was connected with a county council which, for years, never entertained any political matter but, quite recently, there has been a change. What was a minority has turned into a majority and politics were introduced. Real efficiency was, to some slight extent, lost sight of with a resultant loss to the county in the administration of its affairs.

I very much fear that, at the bottom of this suggested change, is a certain amount of endeavour to make capital out of local elections. There was no reason that one could see why the local elections should not have taken place in the ordinary way, and no reason has been adduced as to why it was necessary to postpone them in order to change the electorate. There is behind it only a desire to have this change in the electorate materialising before the elections take place. The feeling in the country at the time these local elections should have taken place was that, in respect of the personnel of the bodies, much the same as had previously taken place would take place following the elections, but, apparently, that did not meet with the approval of the powers that be and hence this suggested change. I think it is not wise or judicious and the Government, in endeavouring to achieve their ends by this method of postponing elections for that purpose only, are, I think, cutting a rod to beat themselves. I think they should have been satisfied with the way local bodies were carrying on. I do not see what they have to complain of. The only reason they adduce for making this change is that they want to educate young people into taking part in civic affairs, but I think it is going too far to carry out that educational process. I am most decidedly opposed to this Bill and I am opposed to the franchise suggested, now or any other time, in regard to administration of local public affairs. I would advise any person, no matter what his politics may be, who has had experience of local public affairs, and most Senators here have had some, to vote against this Bill if they think it will be injurious to the country in the future. Local administration is a very important factor in the success or otherwise of a State. We are not in very good circumstances at present, and it will require the best efforts of all the citizens if the country is to pull through in the troubled times we are in. I hope that sanity and wisdom will guide the ruling powers to do what is best for the country in this matter as well as in others. If that is not done I fear, from the economic point of view, this State is on the downward trend, and that the brake should be put on if we are ever to recover, even the position that lately we were not satisfied with. If we are to make for progress it requires the combined wisdom of all citizens. There should be reasonable efforts towards unity in the administration of affairs, in order to push forward the best interests of the country. I do not like to say anything that might appear to express Party feeling. That feeling does not actuate me very much, in my opinions or actions. I am speaking against this Bill because I think it is not in the best interests of the country. If I thought it was, I would support it.

Mr. O'Neill

I can understand the mentality of some Senators who have spoken when they refer to the irresponsibilities of old age. Senator MacLoughlin is a monument for the remarks he made in that respect. I can understand the mentality of most members in their indecent insults to what I might call perhaps the lowly people of this country, because Senators have not to face these lowly people when they are coming into this House. But I find it difficult to understand the attacks made on these people in the Dáil. According to the Official Debates, these people were called "irresponsibles," the "mob" and the "proletariat." One would imagine that Deputies were sent to the Dáil by the votes of those in the House of Lords. When these Deputies go before the electorate you will find that the first thing they do is to send out photographs, perhaps 20 years old, showing their hair nicely parted at the side or in the centre. Some of them have it brushed off their brows. Then we find them at the street corners, at the cross-roads and outside church doors on Sundays asking "the mob,""the proletariat" and "these irresponsibles": "For God's sake, return me, or the country is lost. Give me your No. 1 vote and—as a great concession—then vote according to your choice." It reminds me of an election in an American State where an orator started off in this way: "My fellow-countrymen, you are the greatest people on God's earth. You have kind hearts. Your outlook in life is pure and your intelligence is renowned throughout America. If you show that intelligence by voting for me you will have done a good day's work for your country." On the day of the election, when our friend is elected, and when there is the usual speech about a jolly good fellow, he says to them: "You may all go to hell. You are only a mob. You are only irresponsibles, and I do not want to see your faces again until the next election." With all respect, I think that hits off the situation of the Deputies who have gone out of their way to belittle the people.

If the arguments which have been used from time to time by many Deputies, and by many Senators, in reference to the commercial register, the dissolving of public boards, and the re-establishment of these public boards with curtailed powers, are correct, then, in my opinion, an unanswerable case has been made, perhaps unwittingly, in favour of this Bill. I wish to make my position perfectly clear. I do not agree with these arguments. Neither did I agree with the policy of the ex-Minister for Local Government in relation to the three matters I have mentioned. I will let the policy of the ex-Minister for Local Government pass, with the remark that the bad things that men do live after them, but their good deeds are very soon forgotten. The majority of the members of the Dáil and Seanad supported the policy of the ex-Minister for Local Government when he extended the franchise in one direction. The majority of the present Dáil supported the policy of the present Minister when he wished to extend the franchise in another direction. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that they are two evils, the extension of the franchise by the late Minister, and the extension of the franchise by the present Minister. Which is the greater? Is it an extension of the franchise, resurrecting class distinction in this country, by money, giving many men six votes, or the franchise proposed by the present Minister, giving an extended voice to the people in their affairs? With many examples before me, some of them taken from history, as to the cause of revolutions in France, Spain, Austria and in Russia, all of which were brought about by the overbearing arrogance of the classes, in my opinion, it is far less dangerous to pass the Bill which was brought here to-day by the present Minister, than the proposals that were passed by this House, two or three years ago, proposals which were dangerous and insidious in their character, and which gave a lever to Communism.

We heard a great deal about the public boards. Senator O'Rourke put the case fairly. The county councils have done their business very well. The majority in the Dáil and Seanad supported the ex-Minister for Local Government and his policy in reference to the dissolving of public boards. According to extracts that I have taken from the Official Debates the main arguments used for dissolving the public boards were that they were corrupt; that in some cases all the water in the river running close by this building would not whitewash some people. When these arguments are followed to their logical conclusion. If they mean anything, they mean that the ex-Minister for Local Government, with the support of the Dáil and the Seanad, would not trust members elected by the local franchise. Which of the two evils is the worst? According to the records of the Dáil and Seanad the local bodies had to be dissolved because they were corrupt. When the ex-Minister re-established these local bodies he curtailed their powers because he considered the members were dishonest. Which franchise does this House consider the worst, the other system, or what this Bill is endeavouring to do, to introduce clean, young, unpolluted blood into the affairs of this country? Senators will have to consider whether they are going to adopt this franchise and bring in clean, young and unpolluted blood, or whether they are going to leave to chance, as has been portrayed by members of the Dáil and Seanad, the policy of the ex-Minister and let corruption remain on public boards. In May, 1922, when a last desperate effort was made to prevent civil strife in this country, at a meeting held in the Mansion House over which the present Archbishop of Dublin, the Most Reverend Dr. Byrne, presided, a proposal was made that a measure of adult suffrage should be passed for this country. Therefore, the Minister who is with us here to-day is not before his time. This proposal, to which I have referred, was adopted by Eamonn de Valera, Arthur Griffith, Michael Collins and Cathal Brugha but, for reasons which future historians will relate, it did not materialise. The fact remains that three of the four men I have mentioned have passed away. I am satisfied that the two remaining with myself, the present Archbishop of Dublin and Eamonn de Valera, will bear me out in the statement that I have just made.

Mr. Johnson

And one or two others.

Mr. O'Neill

Senator Johnson has reminded me of one or two others. Yes, but not at this particular meeting. There were two others at another meeing, Senator Johnson and, I think, Mr. William O'Brien who supported, and vigorously supported-no two men could do more than the two I have mentioned—the effort to stave off the dreadful struggle that took place between our people. Now it is distasteful to me, as it must be distasteful to the Seanad, to go into these matters concerning public boards, but one cannot help thinking that there is a tremendous lot of hypocrisy spoken, and spoken here to-day, when public boards are held up to odium. Only a few short years ago the traducers to-day of public boards took those public boards to their bosoms. What a wonderful elasticity some people have? The public boards are great now. We are told to-day that the men on them are men of money, that they pay rates, that they will see that the rates are well and trulyand profitably spent, though a few years ago we were told that these public boards were corrupt and the members of them dishonest. We are asked why not let well enough alone, why not leave the franchise as it is, have we not men on these public boards who will carry out the law, although in many instances they have defied the law? We are asked to leave men on public boards who have attempted to defy the law, to stop the public services of this country, or, perhaps, to get a little political kudos for the political Party they are attached to. We are told: leave the public boards as they are, leave the franchise as it is, and asked, why should you put flappers and their immature male friends and the irresponsibility of old age on these public boards? Why would you hand over the country to those who care not for the country's needs, either materially or patriotically?

Well for my part, and I am a fairly long time in public life now, candidly I am a little tired of this dangling of the money bags. I have had a rather long and varied experience on public boards. I think that the present Minister for Local Government was on many a public board with me, and after all it is experience that teaches. I found on public boards that men who had no money, when they were inclined to be bad, they were bad; but, on the other hand, I found men on public boards who had money and, when they were inclined to be bad, they were very, very bad. They promenaded their wealth, and they used their wealth to their own advantage when they were on public boards. Now let me get away as quickly as I can——

Senators

Hear, hear!

Mr. O'Neill

Senators may not say "hear, hear," when they have heard what I have to say. There is the old saying that it is a very dangerous thing to take a leap in the dark. Let me get away as quickly as I can from the nauseousness of the commercial register. Let me get away from the dissolved public boards which, we were told were dissolved because they were corrupt. Let me get away from the re-establishment of these public boards because, we were told, the members were dishonest, and let me get away from the attack, made generally on public morals, that was launched close on nine years ago by the Minister for Local Government then in office. Perhaps, in passing, it is only fair I should state that General Mulcahy was not the Minister for Local Government then. He carried out the policy of his predecessor willingly, no doubt. Let me come now to a higher plane which, to a certain extent, has been sneered at here to-day; the plane of democracy, a principle for which so much blood was shed to establish. One of the main arguments used to gull—I use the word "gull" advisedly—the young people of this country to fight for the Allies in the European War was "to make the world safe for democracy." Looking up in the dictionary the meaning of the word "democracy" I find that it is "a from of Government in which the supreme power is directly or indirectly lodged in the hands of the people?." I find that I must go back over a considerable time in the world's history to find a definition of "democracy" which satisfies me. I am sure this will appeal to a man for whom I have the most wonderful respect— Senator Douglas:

"Early in March, 1677, the Quaker proprietors completed and published a body of laws under the singular title of ‘concessions,' but the name was significant for everything was accorded to the people. The first simple code enacted by the Friends in America rivalled the Charter of Connecticut in the liberality and purity of its principles. The doctrines of the concessions were reaffirmed. Men of all races and of all religions were declared to be equal before the law. No superiority was conceded to rank or title, to wealth or royal birth."

Democracy has certainly not increased in this part of Ireland which, for the moment, is unhappily called the Irish Free State. Class distinction has continued. It is a pity the members of the Dáil and Seanad who supported that policy of class distinction were not of the calibre of the Quakers in America so far back as 1677—256 years ago. Democracy is a much-abused and ill-used word. It does not follow that if a man is rich, bearing titles which he never earned, but which he inherited that he cannot be a democrat. It does not follow that if a man of the calibre of our late respected and lamented colleague, Senator Ryan, is a democrat in his youth and, by years of hard work and legitimate trading becomes rich, he ceases to be a democrat. It does not follow that a banker cannot be as good a democrat as a man living on his week's wages or occupying a lowly position. It does not follow that a soldier who earns distinction and promotion for his bravery cannot be as good a democrat as a civilian. It is all a question of a man's outlook on human affairs. Whether a man is a democrat or not is not to be judged by his class, his wealth, or his poverty, but by his worth. Perhaps I may quote a few hackneyed lines which Senators have heard from time to time:—

"Honour and shame from no condition rise,

Act well your part; there all the honour lies."

I support this Bill not on Party gambling, but on the broad principles which have been sneered at to-day and may be sneered at again—equality and democracy, a fair field and no favour in public affairs—democracy: one man, one vote.

Sir John Keane

As we have come to quotations, one entered my head while listening to the last speaker. It is not so ornate as that of Senator O'Neill, but it is nevertheless apt:—

"For forms of Government let fools contest,

Whate'er is best administered is best."

I think that that is very applicable when we hear all these specious arguments by which it is sought to justify the extension of the Parliamentary franchise to a totally different institution. In a measure so revolutionary as this is, I was hoping to hear some reasoned and argumentative statement from the Minister. He seems to take for granted that this innovation is right and long overdue, that it is a most innocent proceeding, not likely to hurt anybody, and extending tardy justice to a certain section of our people. Surely, the Minister with his experience of local affairs, cannot really believe that. Whether it is right or wrong, it is a very bold and revolutionary step. It is certainly an item of major Government policy, and I do not think that the Minister did justice to the House in the very short, exiguous statement with which he introduced this measure. The real justification of this measure is, of course, pure political expediency. The Government wishes at all costs to get their hands on all the services in the country. Irrespective of the consequences —whether they are likely to be dangerous or otherwise—Government power must prevail.

I suggest that the justification for giving everybody the franchise for Parliamentary purposes is totally and entirely inapplicable in respect of the limited sphere of local administration. One has only to examine the fundamental difference which lies between rates and taxes to be convinced of that. Nobody in the more humble strata of life—the people immediately concerned with this Bill—need directly pay any taxes unless he wishes. The labouring man pays no income tax. He need not smoke unless he likes, and he need not drink unless he likes. If we had a rather more liberal fiscal system, he need not pay any hidden taxes such as the taxes which are wrapped up in a protective system. There is an element of complete elasticity in taxes. Rates are an absolutely direct tax on land, which has to be paid whether earned or not. For that reason I suggest that there is every justification for confining the control of rates to those who pay rates. The taxpayer can avoid paying taxes by his frugality, but the ratepayer cannot avoid paying rates. If he does not pay, he has to abandon his property—probably a farm which has been in his family for generations and on which he has spent his savings. Rates and taxes stand in totally different categories. When this question of local government was originally introduced, the difference was acknowledged. Local government, in its origin, was merely local administration in a restricted sphere, deriving funds from one source only, with a very direct connection between the ratepayer and the source from which taxation was derived. Deliberately and rightly, the vote was, speaking generally, restricted to those who paid rates. Merely because the State has come in and made a contribution to local services owing to the extension of those services and in mitigation of the heavy burden for social services placed upon the rates, does not in any respect alter the principle. The same reasons for restricting the franchise, roughly speaking, to the ratepayer in 1898 still apply.

To hear some Senators talk one would think that there was no regard whatever for the democratic principle in the rating franchise. Of course that is not the case. The labourer occupying a small cottage and paying only a few shillings in rates has just the same voting power as a farmer contributing several hundred pounds in rates. Do not let it be said that the present rating system is undemocratic. It is tors to examine this matter from the point of view of their own experience. Let us cut out all these airy generalities. Most of us have had contact with local authorities. We have served on them and we know the sort of thing that goes on. It is only with the greatest difficulty you can exclude a lot of extraneous discussion. If you are going to swamp the present representation with a lot of young people— the most they will have to handle, perhaps, is a little pocket money and, due to their misfortune rather than their fault, they will probably be idle —full of the zeal of youth and irresponsibility, you are going to get all kinds of general talk about politics and every conceivable subject and there will be less regard to business. It is one of the bright spots of local administration that, generally speaking, control lies with those who pay rates. They may be parsimonious. Sometimes they do things that a business man would not do. I remember a county council in the early days—I sat on a county council for many years —which would not give their surveyor a typewriter. Nobody would commend that but even that parsimony is preferable to what will happen if you flood these county councils with a lot of young people who have no responsibility, no idea of money and who will not have to foot the bill. They will be in a position to indulge all kinds of wild and sentimental ideas.

There is a further danger. We are shortly to deal with a measure permitting county councils to go directly into trade. I am not going to deal with that now; we shall have another opportunity of discussing it. We are to give county councils power to retail seeds and manures. Once that is begun it may easily be extended. Added to the considerably extended and growing obligations of local bodies, I see, in that, a great danger of setting up, if things get much worse, 26 little Soviets all over the country. You are giving a handle to the very worst form of administration—little local centres, independent to a large extent and indulging all kinds of fanciful ideas beyond the means of the district.

I will admit it would be very nice to have up-to-date drains and sewerage in all these country towns, to have old houses remodelled, to have all the benefits of modern hygiene, but the thing must be conditioned by the resources of the people to pay. If the local services cannot pay, I think we should cut our coat according to our cloth. I see a further very grave danger in this system, the danger of encouraging the avarice, the cupidity and the envy of those who have no real stake in the country. I see even a very great danger of forcing the distribution of land by the easy method of making the rates so heavy that the farmers cannot pay. Then you will have a situation when the central authority might have to come to the assistance of the local authority to relieve those heavily-burdened farmers, or else you will have to allow these farms to be divided up and further encourage the spirit of avarice and cupidity which we all know exists among certain classes in the country.

The Minister surely must view this measure with a certain amount of apprehension. He and his officials every day have to deal with irregularities by local authorities—how they are not budgeting to cover their expenses, how they are on the verge of collapse owing to having exhausted their borrowing powers, and how all that situation leads more and more to conflict with the central authority. Surely the Minister does not want to encourage a system of that kind. Surely he must admit that if you have an increasing number of irresponsibles in the country voting for local councils, you will get more and more friction between them and the central authority. It is either a matter of curbing these people, who have no intelligent appreciation of matters, or of bringing the whole services down into collapse. It seems to me that at the present moment the real danger point is these local services. You can carry on for a long time while your credit lasts with an unsound system of finance in the centre. You cannot do that with your local services, and at the present moment the system of our local finances is near breaking point. You have got but one source of taxation on which you have to rely. If the farmers cannot pay the whole thing breaks down completely.

It does not require anything more than the most rudimentary knowledge to know that if you are going to let in 700,000 more young people who pay no rates, who have no sense of responsibility, you will bring much nearer the day of collapse. I regard this as a very dangerous measure from every point of view—financial, social and economic— and I think the House would not be doing its duty if it did not reject it at Second Reading. There is no mandate for it. I never heard it mentioned at the last election. It is entirely revolutionary in character. To my mind it is inspired and prompted by a reckless and irresponsible spirit, by the desire of the Party in power to extend its power at any cost. If this House has ever had a responsibility, this is the occasion on which it should use it.

Mr. Crosbie

I am sure you will not be surprised to hear that at my time of life I mistrust youth. I am entirely with Senator The McGillycuddy in his contention that the vote should not be given to either sex under the age at least of 25. In fact, I find myself more reactionary than Senator Sir John Keane because I would make that age limit extend even to the Parliamentary franchise. The Minister has not really given us any reason for this measure. He cannot point out how in any way the administration of local bodies would be improved by adding this vast number of new voters to the register. What we want to get the Irish public to understand is that the vote is a valuable possession and that it is something that they ought to make some little effort to get. I am with Senator Johnson in that I do not think the qualification for voting should be merely property, but I think there should be some little indication, which I take it should be the passage of years, to show that a person is competent to cast a vote. Why should we take 21 as the age? After all, we are told that children come to the use of reason at the age of seven. Why disfranchise people between the ages of seven and 21? On the same principle as a vote is given to those who have reached the age of 21, I really believe it should be extended to those who have arrived at the use of reason.

Mr. Douglas

Wait until after the next election.

Mr. Crosbie

Take Senator Johnson's view. He says that the things which count in local administration are sanitation and a variety of other very prosy matters. I suggest that the youth of this country, at least until they are 25 years of age, take very little interest in these things. They are very much given to following football and other amusements, but they really have not time to consider what I should call these very prosaic things. Another reflection for us is that, until they are 25 years of age, most of our youths are casting around as to what end of the earth they will fetch up at. They are really not determined to chance life in Ireland. Most of them, and I am sure all of you will bear me out in this, are considering what corner of the globe offers them the attraction that the Motherland does not. While these things affect the youth of the country it is impossible for them to sit down and to make a deliberate judgment as to what is the best course either local or national.

Just one word more and I shall conclude. I said before that it is very necessary that it should be a difficult thing to get a vote, that it should be regarded as a valuable possession. We all know, whether you take the votes for the Dáil or the votes for the local elections, that they are got in the most slipshod way. I believe that if the registers that are in existence were examined, it would be found that a very large number of names are on that are not entitled to be on. We have heard complaints about personation, but I think I am not far wrong when I say that something much worse than personation exists with regard to our present registers, that there are really names on the register and that these are name of people who do not exist. That is a great scandal which should be exposed.

Mr. Milroy

I would be inclined to vote for this Bill if another section were added to this effect:—"No provision in this Act shall apply to Saorstát Eireann." I presume that if this Bill is rejected to-day, that the action of the Seanad in so doing will be cited by the propagandists of Fianna Fáil and the daily organ of that Party as another instance of the Seanad obstructing the will of the people. I think we may take it that that is on the cards. Probably the leading article in the Irish Press is already written and ready for publication. Before, however, that kind of propaganda is indulged in, it would be just as well for those who sponsor this proposal to indicate where, when and how, the will of the people has been in any way vocal in demanding any such Bill as this. The only will that we are opposing if we reject this Bill is the will o' the wisp that seems to be leading the Fianna Fáil Party and the Executive Council into a quagmire, from the disastrous effects of which to the country there is no escape except the disappearance of the Government. Senator O'Neill, with voice trembling with pathos and sorrow, made a most dramatic attempt to make our flesh creep.

Mr. O'Neill

It would take a lot to make your flesh creep.

[The Leas-Chathaoirleach took the Chair.]

Mr. Milroy

I am very much afraid that instead of producing any tendency in that direction, the pathos of the Senator rather tended to impose a very considerable strain on the risible faculties of Senators present. He drew what might appear to some to be a parallel between what he called the extension of the franchise by the last Minister for Local Government in one direction, and the proposed extension under the present Bill. Senator O'Neill must know that the extension of the franchise by the late Minister for Local Government to which he referred was an extension of the franchise to certain ratepayers, while this proposal is an extension of the franchise to non-ratepayers. That is the difference he should have indicated before he proceeded to point his moral. I am not a defender of that proposal of the commercial register on principle. It was introduced and it was defended simply and solely on the grounds of being a useful experiment. The usefulness or the non-usefulness of that experiment has not yet been demonstrated. At any rate, the people upon whom the responsibility for expenditure and administration was placed by the extension of the franchise, whom Senator O'Neill indicts, were people with a sense of responsibility and a sense of experience or people who should be expected to possess such qualities. The people whom it is proposed to enfranchise by this measure are people who in the main have no experience and who can hardly be expected, as yet, to have acquired that wisdom that comes with years. Sometimes, however, when I look at the benches opposite, I am inclined to think that it is not always true that wisdom comes with years. The Minister is not here and I am sorry, but, on the chance of his returning, I shall defer what I have to say in reference to his opening remarks.

I should like to refer to Senator Johnson's observations. He followed Senator Wilson and I think that Senator Wilson's speech was an unusually shrewd one. Senator Wilson frequently makes excellent contributions to the discussions here, but there are occasions when these contributions do not rise to the high level of his average. To-day, however, his contribution was, I think, an excellent exposition of what the issue is and a putting into their true setting and perspective of the problems that are raised by this Bill. He made one or two suggestions which, perhaps, might be considered novel but certain aspects of which certainly merit consideration.

Senator Johnson followed, and never since I have come into this House or during the time I have been a member of the Oireachtas have I listened to a more superficial piece of special pleading than that which Senator Johnson delivered himself of to-day. It was the kind of speech that one would expect to hear in a juvenile debating society where one speaks without any sense of responsibility as to the consequences that may hinge on what one is saying, but for the sake of making debating points to counteract some argument that has gone before. I say that the speech of Senator Johnson was unworthy of him. He has, on more than one occasion, shown here a profound sense of responsibility and of his duties as a member of the Oireachtas, but he was to-day in marked contrast to his previous performances. He was reproaching certain members for having imputed political motives to those who were sponsoring this Bill, and he would have us believe that, so far as those who are behind this Bill are concerned, the last thing that ever came into their minds was the possibility of the political consequences that might accrue to them if this Bill became law. He said, so far as I could note it:

"Local government bodies are set up to conduct services for the people, and, no matter whether a person is a ratepayer or a non-ratepayer, he is entitled to the benefit of that service."

That is so, and that in no way diminishes the force of the argument that has been put forward that the people who have to pay for these services are entitled to have the major say as to how those services are going to be administered. To say that the Government is to be commended for anticipating a popular demand for this extension of franchise is surely an absurd way of meeting the practical, commonsense arguments that preceded Senator Johnson's speech. Listening to Senator Johnson's speech and to Senator O'Neill's speech to-day, one would think that the people of this State were ground down under the iron heel of some form of autocracy that was trying to destroy the last shred of popular liberty. We know that that is absolutely foreign to the realities of the situation, and the people who have to conjure up these visions of non-realities must be bankrupt of argument or reasoning in their efforts to defend this proposal.

With reference to the Minister's opening speech, I do not intend to make a very close scrutiny of what he said, but there are one or two points to which I wish to refer. He referred to the period when the Electoral Bill, 1923, was going through the Dáil and he said that a member of the House—he did not disclose who the member was— criticised the proposed local government franchise in the following terms:

That is the one quotation he produced, and the gentleman responsible for that is now Senator Johnson.

Mr. Johnson

It sounds sense, at any rate.

Mr. Milroy

Purely doctrinaire reasoning, and the Minister deduces from this pronouncement of the then Deputy Johnson:

"From this it will be clear that the Oireachtas has given no positive approval to the present local government franchise and has, in fact, expressed an opinion that it requires reconsideration."

In other words, he confuses Senator Johnson with the Oireachtas.

Mr. Comyn

He was the Oireachtas at that time.

Mr. Milroy

Apparently, he still is, in the estimation of the Minister for Local Government. The Minister argues that, because of what Deputy Johnson, as he then was, said, that the Oireachtas has given no positive approval to the present local government franchise, it must, therefore, have given positive disapproval to that local government franchise. That is the implication of the whole trend of his argument in so far as there is an argument. The Minister added:

"Further I hold that the question of who pays rates is not the sole consideration here. The expenditure of local authorities is made at least 50 per cent. out of grants made by the Oireachtas, and that in itself constitutes a fair reason for the extension of the franchise."

That 50 per cent. of contribution from the Central Fund to the local bodies is supervised by the Minister who is responsible to the Oireachtas, and the representatives of the people in the Dáil are there to criticise that expenditure and to safeguard it, so far as they have power to do so in the Dáil, so that so far from being an argument for the proposals in this Bill, it simply, when one considers it, reveals that there is no ground whatever on which an argument such as that put forward by the Minister could rest. Someone has already said to-day that, in the statement read by the Minister, he has put forward no reason to show that he, as head of the Local Government Department, has found any grounds of complaint against these local government bodies because of the nature of the franchise upon which they were elected. That is so. It is a purely pedantic doctrinaire kind of reasoning which is entirely divorced from the realties of life, and very grave and stern those realities are at the present time. Neither did he attempt to show that the personnel or the efficiency of these bodies would be in the remotest degree improved by this proposal. He did not attempt to show that there was a lack of a sense of responsibility in these bodies and that this proposal would serve to produce the responsibility that should be there. I think there will be a general consensus of opinion, no matter how it may be argued, as to the consequences of this measure and that it is just in the nature of things that this extension of the franchise must tend, at least, in the beginning, to an increase in irresponsibility in the elements that constitute the local boards. I do not think you can argue against that unless you want to argue that the human nature of those who are going to be thus brought within the franchise can change from that of the same type of people who lived at some age in the previous generation.

As I said before, there was some reasoned argument which might be put up in support of the last Bill which we had here, and which we rejected, in connection with the commercial register. On theory and precedent, a reasoned argument might have been made because it was, as I have already said, purely an experiment, but there is not one iota of reasoned argument that has yet been put forward or can be put forward in support of this proposal. It is a transparent, glaring attempt on the part of the Party in power at the moment to secure control of these local bodies and to use them for Party purposes. That is as clear as daylight and I venture to say that, if anyone who is vehemently behind this Bill in the Government ranks will state his mind clearly and definitely, he will admit that that is the objective of this Bill and the only reason for its introduction. It has not been introduced here to raise a discussion of the personnel or control or administration of local government bodies on their merits.

In the same way the Bill which we had before us yesterday raised an issue, but it did not do so on its merits. As long as there is a persistent effort on the part of the Government to introduce measures that vitally affect the life of the State, not on their merits, not dealing with the practical issues which they raised, but with some ulterior Party or political motive or interest, as long as that dominates general and political tendencies and activities on the part of the present Government, so long will the atmosphere of uncertainty, apprehension and insecurity prevail in this State, and so long will it hover on the brink of bankruptcy, both politically and financially, never knowing when it will be given to destruction. I am opposed to this Bill and I trust it will be rejected by an emphatic vote in this House.

Mr. Foran

In my opinion it is unfortunate that every measure brought in here is viewed with political bias. I am more than ever convinced of that after listening to the speakers this evening. The Seanad should set a headline. We are talking about having no politics on public boards, yet here, everything that is done is viewed with suspicion, and with the object of getting political kudos out of measures that are going vitally to affect the future of the country. The Bill before the House provides for the enfranchisement of certain people who are now disqualified. I may say that I am one of those irresponsible young people going to get the advantage of a vote under this Bill, and I am grateful for that honour. Listening to the speakers one would imagine that public boards were an example; that they carried out their business on a very high level. I have very considerable experience of public boards, and their activities in and around this city, and I must say that I do not see anything under the Bill that would worsen administration. I never see a full board, or anything approaching a full board, unless there was a job going. Everybody feels that it is his duty to turn up on that occasion.

Mr. Wilson

There are no jobs now.

Mr. Foran

I am talking of the action of the present boards, which the last Administration found so bad. Although these bodies were not elected by irresponsibles, it was found necessary to appoint commissioners. It was not the young people, the irresponsible people, or the people who were not mentally capable, elected these boards. Yet there is criticism when an opportunity is given to the young people to branch out in a new direction, where in the past it was felt necessary, in the interests of public decency, to appoint commissioners in some of the principal cities. The State itself is built up by the activities of youth. We are in this House to-day thanks to the activities of the young people of this country. Do not forget that men made history and did big things in the world, although they were under 21 years of age. There are bigger things to the credit of young people than to people 87 years old. One would imagine that Fianna Fáil had all the people of 21 years of age roped in, and that they would indulge in squandermania. I would like to point out one way in which people who are arguing against this measure are really arguing in its favour. Taking the average farmer's family, where there are three or four sons, some of them over 21 years, they have no votes, while the labourer, who is employed by the farmer, has a vote. Is it suggested, because these young men are going to get votes now that they are going to squander money in future, that they are going to wreck public administration and to ruin the country? The farmers' sons are going to get votes now and the increased voting power will naturally increase their fathers' influence. I think we ought to give youth, not immature youth, an opportunity to do something, because many of us are satisfied they could not worsen the position of the public boards.

Mr. Milroy

On a point of procedure, could we adjourn the discussion, because in the absence of the Minister the discussion seems futile?

Leas-Chathaoirleach

I do not think so.

Mr. Quirke

The whole trend of the arguments against the Bill seem to be based on the supposition that the section of the community, so lightly referred to by Senators and by Deputies, as "the irresponsible multitude" will, as a result of this legislation, manage to get into local bodies and to have a say in the conduct of their affairs. It has been stated that if this Bill passes, the local bodies will get into the hands of young people who, we are led to believe, are "an irresponsible multitude." With all the speeches we have had, I am surprised that it did not occur to some Senator that, perhaps, one man might make better use of money than another man. I am sure Senators will agree that in many cases a young man or a young woman can claim to make £1 go farther than an older person. I have met men who, time and again claimed on behalf of their wives, and wives who claimed on their own behalf, that they could make £1 go farther than any other woman. That may or may not be right in individual cases. Even if such a terrible disaster as is feared by the Opposition should occur and if young men get into local bodies, it does not by any means follow that the rates will be increased or that expenditure will be greater.

[The Cathaoirleach resumed the Chair.]

Did it occur to the Opposition that a young man or young woman might be more capable of spending money than people of more mature years? I dare say the motives behind a good deal of the opposition to this Bill is that, possibly, there will be increased activity in local bodies, possibly that greater relief of unemployment will result, should the predicted change come about. That may or may not be the case, but granting that it could happen, I say very definitely that far more unemployment can be relieved, and far more efficiency can be expected by an infusion of new blood into local bodies. I was surprised that nobody suggested as an excuse for the present inefficiency of local bodies that perhaps they were not representative of the people. Some people may not agree with that statement. I ask Senators to look at the results of the recent elections in Dublin and Cork. We find roughly that fifty per cent of the people on the register voted in Dublin, and in Cork something like 45 per cent. On that result it could hardly be claimed that the local bodies are as representative as they ought to be. With the extension of the franchise, I suggest that that state of affairs could no longer exist, that the people who will get votes under this Bill will feel that they have a greater responsibility than the people whose names are at present on the register.

I believe that, with the extended franchise, the percentage of those who vote at elections for local bodies will not be as low as it was in the recent elections. Senator Sir John Keane referred to this as a revolutionary measure. I suggest that it would tend very much more towards revolution if the Bill proposed to take away votes from a number of people, instead of to extend the franchise. It has been pretty generally admitted that the present system has been a failure. Local bodies have proved inefficient in every part of the country, not alone under the present Administration, but under the previous Administration.

Mr. Wilson

Name the inefficient local bodies.

Mr. Quirke

I might have to take too much time if I started to name them. I am sorry I cannot oblige the Senator now. They are too numerous. The former Government realised, apparently, that the system was not operating satisfactorily. As has been pointed out by previous speakers, they substituted the Commissioner system. They found that that system did not work: at least that it did not work satisfactorily. Now no other suggestion has been put up so far as I know.

Senator Wilson came along to-day with some sort of a scheme, but why did not the Senator bring forward that suggestion years ago? Why did he wait until this hour of the day to bring forth a solution for the wrongs of the country? It is an extraordinary state of affairs that a man can be elected as a member of the Dáil where he has to take part in the expenditure of public moneys voted for everyone of the 26 counties, and yet he is not eligible for election to a local body in his own county, nor has he a vote in that election. Such a state of affairs exists in many counties. I approached a certain T.D. in my county to ascertain if he were prepared to be a candidate at the county council elections. I was amazed when he told me that he was not eligible to stand. I do not claim that because a man can be elected as a member of the Dáil that he is, therefore, above suspicion as regards his capabilities to act on local bodies. I realise that we have members of the Dáil, who are also members of local bodies, whose conduct on those local bodies is anything but commendable. We have T.D.s on local bodies who tried by every means in their power to disrupt local administration; who had no hesitation in spending recklessly the money in the hands of the local authorities and who, when it came to a test as to their sincerity in the action they had taken, backed down from that responsibility. I do not say that it follows at all that because a man happens to get elected as a T.D. that he should be competent to act on a local body, but what I do say is that it is a most peculiar state of affairs that while a man can be elected to the Dáil to take part in the expenditure of the public moneys voted in connection with everyone of the 26 counties, that he is still not eligible to have a say in the expenditure of funds of the local body in his own county.

I support the Bill in the firm belief that it will bring about a most desirable change in our local bodies. I believe that it will make for cleaner administration, for more effective administration, and that it is long overdue. It is only natural to expect that old men who are, say, 70 years of age or thereabouts, will not take freely to new methods. I am not very old, and perhaps I am not very young either, but several times I have been called in to a neighbour's or to a friend's house to try and persuade the old man there to give his consent to the carrying out of some improvements: knocking out a window, say, in the gable end to let in more light and air, but I have had considerable difficulty on many occasions in getting those old men to agree. Is it not reasonable to expect that a man who is so impossible to deal with in the carrying out of a desirable improvement of that kind in his own home will, if he is a member of a local body, resist the adoption of some modern advance that is proposed? That is one reason why I am in favour of having young men on local bodies.

I think it was Senator Sir John Keane who pursued a line of argument in regard to developments of a hygienic kind that, while he did not say they were unnecessary, he did say they were at all events undesirable under present conditions. I was surprised that he should have made such a statement. Was he there following out the old theory that what was good enough for our forefathers is good enough for us? Is that the line that he follows in the conduct of his own business? I say that it is not. We cannot hang behind while the rest of the world advances. We cannot sit back and look on while other nations march forward. If we are to make the advance which is so desirable, we certainly must have our local bodies up and doing if we are to derive any benefit from the various schemes put at the disposal of the people for the advancement of the nation. We must have this position existing in the case of our local bodies: that each county and each local body will, so to speak, be jealous of its neighbour: that is to say, we must have competition between local bodies and between counties as to who is going to derive the most benefit from the schemes put at their disposal by the Government, and for the moneys made available by the Government for such schemes.

Mr. Wilson

Oh, oh.

Mr. Quirke

What is the "Oh, oh" about?

Mr. Wilson

If schemes are provided for competition we are not objecting.

Mr. Quirke

I wish the Senator would repeat what he said earlier. I am sure it was very wise.

Mr. Wilson

The Senator said that he would like to see young men on public boards administering schemes provided by the Government. Now our objection to young men is that they would have the right "to rate" other people and to pay nothing themselves, but if the Government provides the money for all these schemes, then we are not objecting.

Mr. Quirke

I have already proved to my own satisfaction, and I think to the satisfaction of many other members of the House, that I am firmly convinced that young men are capable of spending money——

Mr. O'Hanlon

Spending?

Mr. Quirke

Utilising public funds if you like—more wisely than people of, perhaps, more advanced years. It has been proved time and again. I am sure that Senator O'Hanlon would probably claim for himself that if he were, say, handed £20 to relieve unemployment or distress, or to do anything else with it, that he would spend it to greater advantage than many men twice his age.

Mr. O'Hanlon

I would spend it all right.

Cathaoirleach

I do not think that it is desirable to have this sort of personal argument.

Mr. Quirke

As a matter of fact, many of the Senators who have spoken in opposition to this Bill do not believe one word of the arguments they put up against the measure. Senator Milroy—I am sorry that he is not here——

Mr. Milroy

He is here all right.

Mr. Quirke

Very good, set forward. Senator Milroy went to great rounds to rake up, as he always does, the embers; to look up various statements made by, as he described it, the then Deputy Johnson. But if we compare the statements made by the present Senator Seán Milroy and the one-time Deputy Milroy for County Cavan, we will find something far more interesting than anything that was unearthed by Senator Milroy in his speech.

Mr. Milroy

May I correct the Senator? It was the Minister for Local Government who unearthed the speech that I quoted.

Mr. Quirke

If the Senator was not guilty of unearthing the speech he was certainly guilty of aiding and abetting. During one of the many political migrations of the present Senator Seán Milroy and the once Deputy Milroy representing County Cavan, he found it necessary to make certain statements, probably in defence of his attitude. I propose quoting an extract from The Nation of the 4th December, 1923.

Mr. Wilson

Is this relevant to the Bill?

Mr. Quirke

It is, of course. I am trying to prove that, though Senator Milroy and various other Senators have spoken against the Bill, they really do not believe in the arguments that they used against the measure. I do not propose to go into the whole of this document, but I will read enough to convince Senator Milroy that I am not trying to misrepresent him in any way whatever. He said:

"These matters, to my mind, are not suited to the tactics of Party manoeuvring. They are too serious for that. They affect to the very core the well-being and stability of the nation, which is above the interests of any party or any set of politicians. When we speak of policies of any party or the Government of the Saorstát there are certain standards by which these policies may be judged.

"(1) Is there to be abhorrence to or a break with the traditions of administration created by the British regime? Is there going to be a serious effort to make the objective of each service in the Saorstát an Irish Ireland one?

"(2) Is the working of the Saorstát to be under the control and direction of those who ran these services in hostility to Ireland during the British regime on the assumption that those who stood for, and struggled for, freedom from British control are incompetent to control such services?"

I ask Senator Milroy whom he had in mind when he made that statement?

Mr. Milroy

May I point out——

Cathaoirleach

I stated before that we cannot have this sort of personal argument across the floor of the House.

Mr. Quirke

I ask the Senator whom he had in mind when he wrote these words. I suggest that he had in mind the young men of the country who, as he says, stood for and struggled for freedom from British control. He had in mind, at that period, the extension of the franchise by the very method suggested by this Bill.

Mr. Milroy

No.

Mr. Quirke

I say definitely that he must have had. If he had not, he must have been rambling, as he often is.

Cathaoirleach

To say that a Senator was "rambling as he often is" is hardly a proper remark to make.

Mr. Quirke

I am sorry if you, a Chathaoirligh, misunderstood the meaning of my statement. When I used the word "rambling" I was thinking of the various trips the Senator has taken not exactly, as you thought, from one political party to another but from one country to another and from one continent to another. I continue the quotation:—

"(3) Is the Saorstát Government going to make any really serious effort to produce an economic policy which will solve or materially reduce unemployment within the State, increase its industrial and commercial vitality, relieve the burden of taxation and justify the predictions that an Ireland free from British rule would be more progressive and prosperous than an Ireland dominated politically from London and economically from Manchester?"

I refer to these extracts just to prove that Senator Milroy is not sincere in his opposition to this Bill and for no other reason. I, myself, am perfectly convinced that this Bill represents the only method by which this country can get out of the rut. It has been admitted by practically every Senator who spoke in opposition to this Bill that the local bodies elected under the present system have been a failure. If they have been a failure under the present system, it is only reasonable to suggest that there ought to be a change. This Bill will, in my opinion, bring about that change and, for that reason, I support it. People may be old-fashioned; they may be inclined to hang on to the old ways of doing things, but I am one of those who think that "The old order changeth, yielding place to the new," and no man and no section in this country can withstand the tide.

Mr. Bagwell

Assuming that this Bill has a direct, creditable objective, that objective must be to improve the quality of the county councils and to increase their efficiency so as to bring about a wiser spending of public money, more efficient relief for the sick poor, less waste of time, less jobbery and less corruption. Whatever the defects of county councils, as at present constituted, may be as regards their personnel and their work, this Bill is not calculated, in my opinion, to improve them. Rather will it make them worse. The great bulk of the work of county councils is quite well done, but in some respects it is defective and, now and then, examples crop up showing where there is room for improvement. The actual change proposed to improve the county councils is to eliminate the property qualification for electors and to make electoral conditions the same as for the Dáil. That, in my opinion, is a great mistake and is likely to do great national harm. There is a greater need for the property qualification in the case of elections to county councils than in the case of elections to the Dáil. For that statement, I propose to give certain reasons.

The work of county councils, as compared with the work of a House like this, or like the Dáil, is local, personal and intimate. County councils control the expenditure of public money, in a sense, in a more personally interesting manner to the electors than do members of the Dáil in Dublin. Candidates for county councils are known to the electors much more intimately than are candidates for the Dáil known to their electors. The electors to the county councils—or some of them—are closely interested in the decisions of the county councils in matters of local expenditure, tenders for supplies, contracts, wages and relief. County councillors live and work among their electors. They are in close touch with them and much more accessible to them and much more exposed to pressure, whether legitimate or illegitimate, than are members of the Dáil. What are the safeguards against waste, favouritism, and corruption on county councils? They are a sense of public duty, a sense of strict public honesty and a sense of fairness, regardless of all ulterior considerations. Human nature being what it is, there are a great many people who are not adequately endowed with these qualities and characteristics but, so long as the electors are ratepayers, there is a definite, material safeguard because waste and high rates would detrimentally affect the pockets of the electors.

The property qualification, goodness knows, is not excessive. A ratepayer has a vote for a county council even though the amount of rates he pays is very small—perhaps only a few shillings a year. It is quite democratic, and yet there is an element of responsibility about it which, in the circumstances, appears to be highly necessary. To eliminate the property qualification and to let everybody vote for the county councils will not result in better county councils but will tend to make them much worse. It will tend to reckless waste. To sum up, I desire to say that, in my opinion, and in view of what we all know about the works and responsibilities of county councils and of the weaknesses of certain county councils, as at present constituted, in discharging their responsibilities, I look upon this as the most cynical piece of legislation that has come before this House since I became a member—that is to say, since the inception of this Chamber.

Mr. Cummins

It is very easy to paint an alarming picture of the results of this measure, but the painting of imaginary pictures and the getting of definite proofs of the probability of the occurrences which are forecasted are two different matters. A great deal of play has been made with the right of the ratepayers to put forward representatives on those bodies. Can anybody for a moment sustain the argument that a ratepayer who pays a few shillings in rates in 12 months is better qualified to cast a vote for a member of a county council than an intelligent young man or young woman who is compelled by circumstances to live in lodgings and who is deprived of a vote in consequence? I think that nobody could argue that. The modern young man and the modern young woman take a very special interest in the progress of affairs—political, social and economic. Perhaps they take a greater interest in public affairs than those who are burdened with the upkeep of the home because they have more time at their disposal to indulge their interest. Is it to be suggested that those young people—the sons and daughters of the present ratepayers— are possessed of such an extravagant and reckless outlook that they are going to do things which will create the chaos that is depicted by the opponents of this Bill?

It is well known that people vote in groups. The heads of the family are very often the regulating factors. The manner in which they vote very often governs the manner in which the family vote is cast. The family generally takes counsel on these matters, and those of the family who have votes will, in the great majority of cases, vote with their parents. It is not likely, therefore, that such a revolution as is spoken of will be caused. The Bill will, however, do one thing and, for the doing of this one thing, I think it is worth while bringing it into force. It will create a definite interest in the power of the voter. Nobody can claim that as a result of the elections held in the Free State during the last eight or nine years, those who were returned to public boards really represent the wishes of the people, for the reason that, in many cases, not 50 per cent. of the voters came out to exercise the franchise. Once it is known that the younger people are going to the poll, 90 per cent. of those who have votes will make a point of coming out, thus preventing what, to the minds of some people, might be the return of candidates who would bring about the frightful condition of affairs referred to by opponents of the Bill. If there is one argument in support of the Bill which should command support, it is that. I believe that the effect of the Bill will be as I have described and that will be all to the good.

The arguments advanced by some of the speakers as against the measure were really arguments in favour of it. Candidates for the county councils, said Senator Bagwell, were well known to the electorate—better known than candidates at the Parliamentary elections. It is quite true that candidates at county council elections are well known in their locality. Is it likely, therefore, with so much interest being displayed in local and public affairs, that a candidate who is a spendthrift or a waster will have any chance of success in these elections? I think that the Parliamentary franchise is calculated to produce types of a more extravagant nature than will the exercise of the local franchise for the simple reason that candidates for the local elections will be well known in their districts. It is reasonable to expect that if their reputation is of such a nature as would impair their efficiency as public representatives, they will not have the remotest chance of election.

I have some little experience of public boards. I have dealt with young and with aged people on those boards and on various committees. I must say that while those of long experience were careful in expenditure, and watchful of the moneys at their disposal, I often found that they were not progressive, that they viewed every new movement as a departure from the tradition which was pursued on those boards for 25 or 30 years. They viewed that departure from the traditional procedure in the local administration with suspicion and distrust. While there might be good arguments which they could advance against the proposed measures——

Mr. Wilson

To save expense.

Mr. Cummins

I should say that the question of expense is pretty well controlled. We have various Acts and various bye-laws which govern expenditure. The 50 per cent. contributed by the Central Fund is certainly well controlled and it is almost impossible for a local body to outstep the regulations laid down by the central authority. As regards any tendency towards wastefulness in expenditure, every sum which it was proposed to expend had by some direct or indirect process to get the sanction of the central authority. I have known cases where a new board was placed in charge of administration and where even the permanent staff of the old board adopted a conservative attitude, the same conservative attitude towards progress that was adopted by the members of the old board. Time after time it has been put up to new boards, when proposals making for progress were brought forward, by even the permanent officials of the boards: "That is not the way the old board would do it." The old board was quoted as a model of judicious progress whereas I know that the old board had various opportunities at hand and neglected them. They were in charge of local administration at a time when the country was financially at its peak point.

I know these old boards had many opportunities of improving the amenities of the localities and did not avail of them. I know towns which have been grossly neglected in the matter of sanitation, housing and clearance of the slums owing to the want of progressiveness exhibited by some members of some of those boards and through self-interest. It is said that the present system is a model of efficiency, but I have known cases in which there were 20 or 25 members of a board—they are exceptional cases, I am glad to say—and in which three or four members of that board were obliged to carry out the work. The minority are carrying out the work week after week and month after month. I know cases where there are 20 or 27 members of a council and the majority of those members do not attend unless there is a job on. These members are not seen at the meetings except when they come to do a good turn for a friend. These responsible people, large ratepayers, people in very high social positions, leave the actual administration to three or four members and they only appear at meetings when there is some axe to be ground or when some favour has to be done for some of their friends. There is no use in saying that the old boards were perfect as a form of local government. Everybody knows that they were not. I believe we can be no worse off under the new conditions. I believe the new boards will be much more progressive by the fact that you will have introduced into them youth and imagination and the desire to make for progress.

If we take the question of housing alone, I certainly say that the self-interest of slum owners was in a great measure responsible for the position that has arisen and which has been aggravated for the last 30 years. These very slum owners were the public representative in every town. We had them even in the country villages. The tenants put them in office. The unfortunate slum dwellers put them in just because they were their landlords. They put them in to legislate for them on public boards. There was no such thing as ousting these men, their influence in the locality was so great. They had under their control those to whom they gave employment, such as it might be, and these people dare not vote against them. The secret of the franchise undoubtedly existed but if a man disappeared from the public boards he could point at the locality which was responsible for his failure. I do not know why political capital should be made out of this Bill. As is said in common parlance, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I do not see that there is any justification for the opposition to the measure except it be a justification of a political kind. I believe the Opposition will benefit as much by this measure as those who are bringing in the Bill. There has not been a single argument to my mind advanced against the Bill.

Mr. Toal

I oppose the Bill. I do so because I am convinced it is a bad Bill and that it will have very injurious effects both on the financial standing of this country and our social services as well. I hold that there has been no case made out for the Bill, or no sound reason advanced as to why this change should take place. I do not hold that the present councils are perfect. Very few things are perfect in this world. The present councils have their drawbacks, but I do hold that the suggested change is not going to be of advantage to the State. I know very well that there are very undesirable members on every public board but, taking the public boards of the Saorstát as a whole, I feel that they have not been a failure. I, as one of the oldest members of a public board in this country, am proud of the record and the action public boards have taken. From their very inception down to the present day, they have taken a manly, determined, and national part in our fight for freedom and also in discharging their duties in an honourable way to the people who elected them.

The argument is advanced by some members of the Executive Council that the public boards in this country have not a national outlook. I dispute that and I hold that that statement is wrong. From the very inception of these boards, when the English Parliament was forced to give some form of Government in this country, and when the public boards were manned by inexperienced men—men who had no training, men who had been all their lives struggling for freedom—the manner in which they fulfilled their duties even brought praise from a hostile Government. The way these boards conducted their business paved the way and was the forerunner of the agitation for the Home Rule movement. We are asked again, why not entrust the local government of this country to young men such as those who defeated the Black and Tans, who defeated conscription, and who did their part manfully in the fight for freedom? I hold that the public boards of this country did their part in the fight for national freedom just as well as the men who had guns in their hands. We were asked to take up the fight with the English Local Government Board and defeat it by every means in our power, to defeat that Board and to carry on local government in this country at the same time. Some of us, I admit, never fired a shot in the fight for freedom, but I hold that we stood in more danger than the men who had guns in their hands and could defend themselves.

I, as chairman of the county council of my native county, never failed to attend a meeting of that council during the whole time of the agitation and I hold that I stood in more danger than the man who had a gun in his hand and could defend himself. I never shirked my duty from the day instructions were received to carry on the fight and by every means in our power to defeat the powers arrayed against us. At the time when the fight came on with the Black and Tans we did our part. We stood and defended the rights of our citizens. I hold that this Government are taking a very serious step. Local government is a very important matter in the country. I well remember the time when we were in difficulties and when we were faced with a situation in which it was nearly impossible to carry on the finances of our county. We were forced to come here to Dublin to seek advice and if possible assistance. When we approached the then Minister for Local Government, the late Mr. Kevin O'Higgins, he said: "Local government must be carried on. It is the backbone of the whole movement, therefore it must be carried on." We realised that and we made renewed efforts to carry on that government and we succeeded. The same thing applies to-day, that it is very important for the present Government that local government should be carried on and carried on successfully.

I have no fault to find with the young people of this country; all credit to them. They are a fine trustworthy body but I hold that local government requires experience, training and a sense of responsibility. We are told that the young people are quite competent to take up local government and exercise its functions. I do not agree. I hold that it takes experience and commonsense and long years of training to carry on a system of local government which will be successful. Agriculture is in a very serious position in this country at the present time. Local government also is in a very serious position. Agriculture can bear a certain amount of expenditure but once you exceed that amount the whole thing, to my mind, will collapse. The council I represent has been at the very head of local government bodies in the State in the matter of the collection of rates during this period. Why does it stand at the head? Simply because the members of the county council weighed up the situation and they took into account all the local services they were bound to provide for.

We struck our rate accordingly, and we were able to collect our rate and we have had the highest percentage of rate collection in the State. We never shirked our responsibilities. We recognised that we had a duty to perform to the people we represented and that we were bound to keep the social services of the State running and we also recognised our responsibilities to the poor and the unemployed of the district. I, for one, will certainly never forget the services that Labour performed for us when we were fighting for freedom. The services of Labour, from the days of the Land League down to the present day, have been on behalf of agriculture and they deserve our everlasting gratitude and I certainly will always recognise that and will do what I possibly can to relieve unemployment and to assist the suffering people of this country. We are now about to give the franchise to all the young people of this country. I hold that that is not right. I think that, after all, property has its proper rights. I hold no brief for the people here on my left. I have fought them when fighting was to be done, but I do hold that they have certain rights in this country and that they should have a certain say in the government of this country. They pay 50 per cent of the rates of my county and, up to the passing of this Act, they have had about 20 or 25 per cent. of representation. Under the new proposal, they will have 15 per cent. and I think that is not fair. They pay 50 per cent. of the rates and they employ a large amount of labour and I, therefore, think that that is not a fair percentage. I certainly would not like to see the policy that our friends on the other side advocated when we were fighting against them put into operation and I would be sorry to see practised what other people practised before us and to see them denied their rights in this country. I say that they are entitled to those rights and, so long as they are faithful servants of this State, I should like to see them used for the benefit of the State and not expelled from the country.

It is argued that when the vote is given in respect of Parliamentary elections, it should be given for local government elections, but I hold that they are two different things. I hold that our duties are administrative duties, duties that we perform for the general good of the community, and they are subject only to the approval of the Minister for Local Government. The electors who have votes for Parliamentary elections have control over all administration through their representatives, and the two are quite different. The local government vote affects the local interests of a county, and every interest in that county, while the other is a wider and more extended interest. We are told, of course, that the Government contributes a very large amount to local taxation. They do, but the local bodies contribute more. Take the case of County Monaghan. Our gross rate is £121,000, agricultural grants being £16,000 and urban rates £5,000. We contribute from the rates £65,000 and from the agricultural grant £10,000. It is, of course, only fair to state that the credit notes, amounting to about £10,000, are not included in that. There are also the grants from the Central Fund towards motor taxation which would reduce the other grant considerably because it is contributed locally.

I hold that this is not a question between the rival sections here. I am not in favour of this Bill because it is a Party Bill, and I am sorry to see the Party question brought into almost everything in this and in the other House. I deplore it and it is very annoying to me because I felt that, when we got a Government of our own, we would all unite and try to make that Government a success. We were told about the patriotism of this country, but I am afraid that patriotism is a thing of the past and that jealousy is far more dominant in this State to-day. I am sorry to make that statement, but I am afraid it is true. I feel that this is also another barrier to the unity of our country. We have all heard a good deal about the Border, but when our friends across the Border, who are paying no rates at present, learn that the youth of the country are going to get control of the local affairs of the country, it will be no encouragement for them to join with us here in a united Ireland. There are other black spots, but this is the blackest spot in the whole Treaty, and I feel that this attempt to place the local government affairs in the hands of the young people of the country will have a very bad effect on the unity of the country. We have heard a lot from the leaders on the different sides about unity, and I say that one is as bad as the other in that respect. We are told that the only hope of unity in this country is good government on this side, but I fear that this is not tending in that direction. I regret it because, to my mind, our people across the Border have been very badly treated. We seem to have forgotten them altogether. There are 500,000 of our people there who are getting very little consideration.

I feel, as I have said, that this is a bad Bill. I am not going to introduce the economic question because it has been discussed time after time but, for one reason or another, agriculture is in a very bad position at present and we will have to be very careful if there is not to be a real collapse. I represent an agricultural constituency and I say, without fear of contradiction, that there is no demand for an extension of the franchise from the agricultural people of the county I represent. Senator O'Rourke, in describing the councils to-day, said that we, in our council, had a majority of Fianna Fáil supporters. Politics have been excluded from the deliberations of our council, I might add, and we have a resolution on the books forbidding the introduction of politics, but Senator O'Rourke, in his statement, was altogether wrong. I think I am safe in saying that the majority of that council would not be in favour of that policy but, to their credit, they have never interfered, they never passed a resolution during all this trouble and never, so far as I know, hampered the Government in any way in the policy they thought it well to adopt. I am afraid that the remarks I have made have been very rambling and not very much to the point but, at the same time, I feel very strongly that this Bill is not a suitable Bill for the people of this country and that the young people are not prepared for this responsibility. We are told that the young people would have better views as to the spending of money than their fathers and mothers. I am afraid that this Bill will have an injurious effect because the young people of 21 years of age will side-track their fathers and mothers and say: "We have as good a right here and as much power as you have" and will soon tell them to stand aside. It has been stated by some Senators that the fathers and mothers control the votes of the young people in this country. I wish that were so and I should be very glad if it were so but I am afraid that it is not so. I am afraid that the young people, when they get that power will exercise it and that the spending powers of the local bodies will be exceeded very much.

The last Senator who spoke said that the county council meetings were very badly attended. That is not my experience. I have a long experience and I have found that the members of the county councils take a great interest in their work and that there was never any difficulty in securing a quorum at our meetings, which were always well attended. I think it is also greatly to the credit of the members that they can hold different political opinions. They can go into the meetings of the county council and discuss the affairs of the county and, when a question arises affecting their own districts, it is not unusual to see my friend on the right—and I think the House knows his politics —and another great friend of mine, who is not here, but who holds equally strong views on the other side, "colloging" together as to how best they can benefit their own district and, very often, leaving the council chamber, if not arm in arm, in close contact with each other. That is the spirit that should prevail and politics should be excluded altogether from county councils. I am sorry for keeping the House so long but I should like to say that I think that most of the county councils have found the Minister, whom we all admire, a most agreeable man to deal with and anxious in every way to help them so far as local government is concerned, but statements have been made that the county councils were interfering in political matters and, also, that they had interfered with the proper carrying out of the policy of this Government. Some few county councils may have done that but I must say that the majority of them have not done it. We all recognise that the rates have to be paid but, surely, we should recognise the ability of the ratepayers to pay and strike a rate accordingly. I oppose the Bill not for any political reason but for the reason that I am convinced that it is a bad Bill and will have an injurious effect on the welfare of this State.

Mr. Cummins

When I referred to the attendance at councils I had not the county councils in my mind, but certain other councils with which I was connected.

Mr. Counihan

As the details of this Bill have been already debated from all sides, I want to make a suggestion to the Minister. I would not object to the extension of the Parliamentary franchise to local government electors, provided there was an age qualification, and that people over 30 years of age got a second vote. I suggest that the Minister should withdraw this Bill, and introduce an amending franchise Bill, giving all citizens over 21 years of age the vote for Local Government and Parliamentary elections, but giving them two votes when they reach the age of 30 years. If we are to have proper administration of local affairs some consideration will have to be paid to the matured opinion of people over 30 years of age. The whole case must not be swayed by boys and girls of 21 years and upwards. If the Minister would consider that proposal I think there would be an easy passage for a Bill of the kind.

Mr. O'Hanlon

This subject has been covered from nearly every aspect. The disappointing feature of the whole debate was the introductory statement of the Minister. The Minister usually has some "bite" in his remarks, and tries to get at the kernel of the case, but he was disappointing this evening, and did not bother very much to make a case for the Bill. As Senator Sir John Keane stated, the Minister indulged in generalities. We are looking to hear something more when he is winding up the debate, but it will then be rather late. What strikes me about the whole debate is that two views were expressed in regard to local bodies, as they exist. We had the point of view expressed by Senator Toal that local bodies were efficient; that they consisted of sound administrators, who had a clear mission, and who set themselves out to attend to local affairs in an efficient manner. There were tributes on all sides to the local bodies for the services they rendered the country. They rendered these services in times of danger with no regard for personal interest. We had encomiums paid by Senators to local bodies, but on the other hand, we had others who stated that local bodies were inefficient, that the meetings were badly attended; that it was difficult to get a quorum; that the affairs were managed by four or five members, and that a full attendance could not be got except when there was a job on, or when there was a possibility of doing a favour.

There were two absolutely divergent points of view expressed. I take it there is a mean between the two. If the local bodies are sound, and administered local affairs well under the conditions that existed up to the present, they should be allowed to go on, and we should not pass the legislation that is now before us. If the local bodies were wrong, and if no real attempt was made to administer local affairs fairly and justly, or if they were not reasonably constituted, or if unclean things were done, there was one course open to the Ministry to take. I submit with great respect that that was not to introduce a Bill of this character, but to introduce legislation to bring about a condition of things by which city or county managers would be appointed. That would be the logical solution. What is attempted here? An attempt is made to extend the franchise, by giving it to those who did not enjoy it under the system which prevailed up to the present. I leave it to the Senators to make up their minds on the course to take. One Senator stated that the opposition to the Bill was a political move. In a sense it is a political move. I am opposed to the Bill. This is a political counter to a political move. That is the whole case. A considerable number of Senators believe that this Bill was introduced by the Fianna Fáil Party for political purposes. One Minister stated recently that their aim was to bring about a condition of things where local bodies would work in unison with the present Government. They wanted to bring in people who are more likely than others now on local bodies to work in unison with the Fianna Fáil Government, and who will adopt their attitude on most other things which will arise. I suppose it is no great harm if this is accepted as a political move. Then we are entitled to make a political counter. There is no reason why any Party in this State should be allowed to interfere in local administration for political purposes, and to alter the franchise for that purpose. What we should aim at with regard to local administration, and where a lead should be given to every citizen by the Executive Council, is by having legislation introduced which would effect an improvement in local administration, which would bring about a cleaner and a saner attitude of mind— if that is possible—and, as part of that, a decrease in local bodies. That should be our object. One of the surest ways to secure that is to keep politics out. There are some who believe that political matters should not be taboo on local bodies. There are others who believe that political matters should be taboo there. We are entitled to our points of view and we ought to express them by voting accordingly.

Mr. Johnson

On social and economic policies.

Mr. O'Hanlon

A Senator stated that the demerit of old age on local bodies was that these people view any departure from the existing situation with a certain amount of suspicion. That is probably an exaggeration. There is no doubt supposing older persons relish a change, when on these bodies they are not likely to embark lightly on any new steps, leading God knows where, because any new departure usually means extra expenditure. If there was any time in recent years in the history of the country when there was absolute need for economy in local and national administration it is the present time. If there was one time when it seemed inopportune to introduce legislation of this character, it is the present time. After all, the prerogatives that we associate with youth are initiative, energy, expenditure, while with middle age we associate steadiness, calmness, balance, judgment, commonsense and experience. Each of these attributes in local administration seem more necessary at the present time than ever before. By all means sound legislators will plump for experience, judgment, sanity and economy at the present time.

Mr. Johnson

That is the Senator's view.

Mr. O'Hanlon

That is my opinion. Reference was made to the fact that there was no agitation for this proposal and that was countered by a Senator who stated that the thing to do was to forestall agitation. There has been considerable agitation in this country for a scheme for the derating of agricultural land. If we are to follow the reasoning of one Senator, the Government would forestall that agitation by giving the people something that they were likely to agitate about. Would not a wise Government give the lead if a reasonable case was made for it? A reasonable case has been made for derating. The Government should meet that agitation, rather than try to forestall an agitation which did not exist, and which is likely never to arise. An attempt was made to prove to the farmers' representatives, in particular, that this Bill was likely to prove an advantage to them. One Senator laid down the hypothesis that farmers' sons would vote as their fathers and mothers voted. I am afraid that in political matters, and in semi-political matters, the exact opposite is the case. I think that hypothesis has been blown sky-high.

It is not necessary to deal with the question of a mandate. If the Seanad refuses to pass this Bill, it cannot be indicted in that respect. The main purpose of the Seanad—and it was referred to yesterday—is to check hasty and ill-advised legislation. I think this is hasty and ill-advised legislation. I do not think it can effect, even the purpose which some people expect. One purpose it can serve, in my opinion, and that is to secure that younger people are put on local boards. The Bill is only giving the right to vote to younger people. It does not stipulate and ensure that the younger people who will get the franchise will vote for and elect younger people to local bodies. That is one thing which can be said against the Bill.

Mr. Johnson

That removes your fear.

Mr. O'Hanlon

I am not afraid. The Minister stated that he believed, through the medium of this Bill, there would be more efficiency, more just and a cleaner and less extravagant administration. If we respectfully differ from the Minister there, he must not be annoyed. I want someone to make and prove the case that, if you replace some of the middle-aged men on local bodies, with young men or young women of 23 or 24 years of age, with little experience, perhaps you are going to get a more efficient and a less extravagant administration. No one has attempted to make a case in that respect. I will not say much about the real purpose of the Bill. There is no necessity to do so. There happens to be the coincidence—I hope the Minister in his reply will deal with it—that the elections which were fixed for local bodies for the 23rd June were postponed. This Bill was then introduced. It has been alleged —I do not know enough about this myself and perhaps the Minister would also deal with it in his reply—that the agents of the Fianna Fáil Party through the country took their soundings. On the present register they thought that the local bodies would in a sense, in so far as their political tendencies were concerned, be opposed to the present Government. Perhaps their soundings were confirmed by the results of the recent elections in Dublin, but there is certainly the coincidence that you had the local elections postponed, and that then you had this Bill introduced: an attempt being made to secure a new register. Every one associates the strength of Fianna Fáil with the fervour and the enthusiasm of the young people who support it. Fianna Fáil is quite entitled to do that. If there are others who believe that another type of person is more qualified and better fitted to elect people to control local administration, then we are entitled to maintain that point of view and, in all justice, to oppose any change.

The last elections in Cork and Dublin were fought on Party issues. That was a pity. Politics should be kept as far away as possible from local administration. I think that the young people of this country are quite sufficiently politically-minded already. I think, further, that the more they are taken away from politics and got to concentrate upon the more material matters in life, the better for the country in the long run. Anyone who read, for instance, the statements made at the Congress of those associated with vocational and technical training could not but recognise that the young people of this country would serve their own and their country's interest best by concentrating on work, and to a greater degree leaving politics alone.

Cathaoirleach

The Minister to conclude.

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. O'Kelly)

This debate has been very long, but it has not always been very interesting. I hope I shall not weary the House too much by the remarks I have to make. If I were to cover all the points that were made, I am afraid that not alone would I be long-winded, but I could not attempt to be interesting either. There were a few points made that I think I should answer. First of all, my belief is that this Bill can in no sense be regarded as a Party measure. If the statements made in Cork, Galway and elsewhere during the last General Election by the leaders of Cumann na nGaedheal be true: that the youth of Ireland are behind Cumann na nGaedheal—Mr. Cosgrave stated that a dozen times, if he stated it once—well then they should have no fear of this Bill. Either his statement is not true, or you can take the consequences. Leaving aside what any political leader may have stated, my personal belief is that the administration of local authorities would be vastly improved by the importation of such new blood as would likely be brought into the service of local authorities by an enlargement of the franchise. I have not had the honour of having to my credit so many years' service on public boards as some of the Senators who have spoken— perhaps Senator Toal and some others —but I think I have had as long experience serving on public boards as any man in public life in Ireland to-day. Speaking out of that knowledge and experience, gained from active work for over 27 years on local and other authorities, my belief is that it would be of the greatest possible assistance to the country, to the people and to the local authorities concerned to have a good sprinkling of young men and young women on these public boards. I believe that the present franchise does not give the opportunity that should exist to the young, intelligent and energetic people who would like to see progress made. I do not want to drag politics in at all, but I would like to see progress and development in the social life of the country and in the work of our public boards. For that reason I believe the bringing in of these young people would be of great advantage to the country.

I think it was Senator MacLoughlin who suggested that we had no mandate for this Bill. My answer to that is this: that the Government of the day always has a mandate for any measure that it thinks will serve the country's interest. Personally, I would look for no other mandate. I am quite happy with that mandate. Therefore, the Government can feel fully justified in bringing in this or any other measure that it was thought fit and proper to introduce. Apart from that, I have had—perhaps I would be exaggerating if I said hundreds—certainly more than 100 resolutions since I became Minister from different bodies in all parts of the country asking me to bring in a measure such as this.

Sir John Keane

Were they from county councils?

Mr. Douglas

Would the Minister mention the bodies?

Mr. MacLoughlin

Fianna Fáil Clubs.

Mr. O'Kelly

They were not all from Fianna Fáil Clubs, but a number of them were. Is it any discredit to have them from Fianna Fáil Clubs? I am glad to say that there are many Fianna Fáil Clubs that send me resolutions every second day in the week on matters of interest to them locally. I am glad to get them. They keep me in touch with the country. I may say that there are Cumann na nGaedheal Clubs that send me resolutions. I had one from Donegal, a long-winded, vapid resolution such as Senator MacLoughlin might be the author of.

Mr. MacLoughlin

Is the Minister sure that it is genuine?

Mr. O'Kelly

I could not be sure, knowing the place that it came from. I would like to have someone to testify, but I would like to say this much, that I can see no wrong in people sending resolutions to me as Minister for Local Government. I am glad to receive them and to know what the country is thinking.

Mr. Wilson

Will the Minister settle the war in the East?

Mr. O'Kelly

I will leave that to those who may be regarded as the Senator's constituents and who are so interested in Eastern and other oblique affairs.

Mr. MacLoughlin

That is a Fianna Fáil Club from Meevagh.

Mr. O'Kelly

I would like some testimony of that other than the Senator's.

Mr. MacLoughlin

I would be very willing to supply it.

Mr. O'Kelly

The Senator said that we were responsible for postponing the elections. The Bill postponing the elections was one that was welcomed with open arms by the Senator and I think by this House in 1930—the Bill that gave power to postpone the elections up to the end of June of next year. We did not introduce that Bill. I could equally well say here now that the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, which formed the Government when that Bill was introduced, ran away from the people two years ago. They asked this House to pass that Bill postponing the local elections. They ran away. Senator MacLoughlin ran as far as anyone could run. The proof that he was right in running away at the time is to be found in what happened at the last general election. I do not know whether it was from stupidity or dishonesty on his part—I will leave him the choice —that he made the suggestion in his speech to-day that we are moving in the direction of a dictatorship. That comes well from a spokesman of Cumann na nGaedheal : that we are moving in the direction of a dictatorship. I do not think there is a Government in the world calling itself democratic that did more dictatorial acts in its time, especially towards local authorities, than did the Government that was happily kicked out at the last two general elections.

Mr. MacLoughlin

What did they do?

Mr. O'Kelly

They suppressed the Dublin Corporation, the biggest body of its kind in the country.

Mr. MacLoughlin

And very properly too.

Mr. O'Kelly

"Very properly" the Senator says, thereby very properly condemning his own leader.

Mr. MacLoughlin

And the rates were reduced by 3/- in the pound.

Mr. O'Kelly

The Senator's own leader for a good many years, up to the time that the Free State was established and he had to leave the Corporation, was an alderman and leader in the Corporation. If, as Senator MacLoughlin and others have suggested, that body was guilty of corruption well then you know who is meant.

Mr. MacLoughlin

The suppression of the Dublin Corporation was very profitable for the ratepayers of Dublin.

Mr. O'Kelly

The ratepayers of Dublin whenever they got an opportunity of declaring their wishes on it did not endorse that view. I know of no Government calling itself democratic that acted more dictatorially than did that Government. My policy as Minister for Local Government and the policy of my Government is to support the local authorities everywhere; to encourage them to do the right thing. We are not out for the suppression of any body. The mere fact that we are introducing a Bill of this kind shows that, whatever else it may be, it is not towards a dictatorship that we are moving. I doubt if it is necessary to emphasise that we have trust in the people. We have faith in them. They may some times do wrong, but generally the majority will do fairly well right.

I get, as I have said, a number of long-winded resolutions. They are a relic, like Senator MacLoughlin himself, of past days in politics. They are a relic of the time that Senator MacLoughlin, and perhaps Senator Crosbie and some other Senators are more acquainted with than I am, when very long-winded resolutions used to be sent up from all sorts of political organisations pledging confidence in John Redmond, or Tim Healy, or some other of those dead patriots. These things are gone. They are dead and buried—the old snowball resolution that in my youth I was so familiar with. Some Senator referred to the fact that the local authorities of the present day, particularly the county councils and the board of health, have to do very complicated work. Their work is of a very arduous nature and it is not being lightened. While I personally see no objection to members of local authorities discussing what is called politics, I think they are too busy usually to occupy their time on matters that might easily be of very great interest to them and of very considerable national importance.

Might I say this en passant that I think it would be no harm if many of the Senators who talked about dragging in politics into local boards would look up the meaning of the word “politics.” They ought to see what it does mean before they use that expression again. Surely they ought to find out the meaning of the words they use. “Politics” means “public affairs,” and surely to God, a local authority is entitled to discuss public affairs. If people divorce the word “politics” from its proper meaning, that is quite another story, but I have always said that personally I would have no objection to people discussing politics, and I stand by that.

I spoke of my own experience of local boards. I can say this from personal experience and I can assure the House that I believe it to be true—that the young men and women with whom I was associated on public boards, irrespective of the Party to which they belonged, made for more efficient working. The younger they were, the more progressive, the better educated, the more efficient and the more intelligent were the members of the public boards. It would not be my wish that all the wisdom that is usually associated with grey hairs and grey beards—perhaps this comes very badly from myself— should be swept away from the local bodies. But I do think that an admixture of youth, education, intelligence, and what Senator O'Hanlon referred to as verve and energy would be a considerable advantage. From my own experience, I can say that where one found extravagance or something approaching dishonesty or want of due regard for public money in respect of local boards, it was not on the part of the younger people. I do not want to be personal, but I think that Senator MacLoughlin might remember that there is no fool like an old fool.

Cathaoirleach

That approaches the personal very closely and personalities will not be allowed here.

Mr. O'Kelly

I do not intend to be personal in the least.

Mr. MacLoughlin

It is no offence whatever, considering the quarter from which it comes.

Mr. O'Kelly

I agree with Senator Crosbie that the vote ought to be regarded as a very valuable possession. I regret that those who had the vote for the election of members of local authorities did not so regard it in the past. They did not use the vote as if they regarded it as a valuable possession. That is regrettable. In the last election in Dublin City there was hardly a 50 per cent. vote. Even amongst a community like that of the City of Dublin, where you ought to get people well-educated politically and from every other point of view, there was only that small poll. In Cork, the average vote was much less. Three years ago, in Dublin City, the vote was only about 47 per cent. It is not creditable to our people that when they have the vote they do not use it. I think there will be an improvement if this Bill be passed into law. Not alone will there be a new interest taken in local affairs but the activities of the young and the energy of the young will, I think, induce the older people to make greater use of the vote and to value it more. I believe that what Senator Wilson desires—the wise expenditure of the rates—will not be impaired but rather will be assisted if the franchise be extended.

It is not solely to conserve rates or to obstruct people who want to spend wisely for the people's good that candidates ought to be elected to county councils. We have quite a number of county councils who have not yet seen fit to appoint a county medical officer of health. I have it on the authority of county councillors who were vigorous opponents of the appointment of county medical officers of health four or five years ago that experience of their work had convinced them that they were worth ten times their salary. The Department of Local Government has been obliged to make a fight in order to get county councils to adopt progressive measures of that kind. In counties where these medical officers of health are operating, the health of the county generally, and particularly of the children attending school, has considerably improved. The outlook has also improved and I am of opinion that these appointments will eventuate in a reduction of the expenditure on public health services as time goes on. I should like to get progressively-minded people on these local authorities. I should not like to see them take up any of these schemes hastily but I should like them to examine them when they are put before them and to be influenced by the experience of other local authorities who tried them. We have local authorities at present who are a danger to their communities because they stand in the way of wise and helpful expenditure of that kind. I have given one instance of that.

Mr. O'Neill

I should like to ask a question——

Cathaoirleach

The debate is closed.

Mr. O'Neill

I am only putting a question. I am not going to interfere in the debate.

Cathaoirleach

The debate is closed.

Mr. O'Neill

Am I not in order in asking a question?

Cathaoirleach

No.

Question put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 13; Níl, 25.

Tá

Barniville, Dr. Henry L.
Chléirigh, Caitlín Bean Uí.
Comyn, Michael, K.C.
Cummins, William.
Dowdall, J.C.
Farren, Thomas.
Foran, Thomas.
Johnson, Thomas.
MacKean, James.
Moore, Colonel.
O'Neill, L.
Quirke, William.
Robinson, Séamus.

Níl

Bagwell, John.
Bellingham, Sir Edward.
Brown, Samuel L., K.C.
Browne, Miss Kathleen.
Costello, Mrs.
Counihan, John C.
Crosbie, George.
Garahan, Hugh.
Griffith, Sir John Purser.
Guinness, Henry S.
Hickie, Major-General Sir William.
Jameson, Right Hon. Andrew.
Keane, Sir John.
Kennedy, Cornelius.
Linehan, Thomas.
McGillycuddy of the Reeks, The.
Milroy, Seán.
Moran, James.
O'Connor, Joseph.
O'Hanlon, M.F.
O'Rourke, Brian.
Parkinson, James J.
Staines, Michael.
Toal, Thomas.
Wilson, Richard.

Tellers—Tá: Senators S. Robinson and Johnson; Níl: Senators Toal and O'Rourke.

Question declared lost.

Dr. Barniville

I made a mistake and went into the wrong lobby. Can I have that rectified?

Cathaoirleach

There is no redress.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 12 Jul 1933