Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Jun 1948

Vol. 35 No. 2

Local Elections Bill, 1948—Second Stage.

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

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Murphy)

This is a small Bill, which contains one main section and a small number of consequential provisions. Its main purpose is to secure the postponement of the local elections that would fall to be held this year, to a date not later than the 30th September, 1950. That is modified by an amendment accepted in the Dáil, following a pretty full discussion, giving the Minister a certain option in the matter. The provision, therefore, is that the elections shall be held not later than 30th September, 1950, but may be held at an earlier date.

There are two reasons for the postponement of the local elections. One reason, which will be generally acceptable, is that they should not be held in the same year as a general election and another is that they should be held at a time when legislation dealing with local government, as it affects city and country management, may have been passed into law, so that the members of local bodies may take up the new and added duties which I hope will fall to them as a result of those changes. One regrettable feature of local government in recent years has been the lack of interest by persons in coming forward to seek election and, generally, perhaps even more a lack of interest in local affairs—which, I think, is a rather unhappy symptom of the position that has developed in recent years. While I have an open mind on the matter, I was impressed by the case made in the Dáil that it may be advisable to hold the elections before 1950.

Provision is made for the holding of local elections in Kerry and Dublin this year. Both counties are managed at present by commissioners and it seems to me to be out of line with the policy to which I hope to give effect as Minister that that arrangement should continue very much longer. There is also provision for the re-election of the Dublin Board of Assistance. The orginal draft of the Bill postponed that until 1950, but there was a very widely expressed view in the Dáil that the board should be restored immediately after the local elections took place in Dublin. Giving way to that view, I felt I was interpreting the views expressed in the Dáil.

It may be necessary to make some liaison arrangement between the board of assistance and the Department, arising out of the election of the board, in order that certain work of reorganisation going on in the central institution with which the board would be dealing at a subsequent time, may be carried through; but at this stage I need not trouble members of the Seanad with any particulars in that connection, as it is the subject of discussion between the Department of Health and my Department at present and ultimately will be decided in accordance with the progress that has been made in the reorganisation.

Sections 8, 9 and 10 relate to committees for vocational education, agriculture and harbour authorities. They are consequential proposals, arising out of the main purpose of the Bill. Section 11 gives power to the Minister to make certain adaptations in the law regarding local elections. This was the subject of considerable discussion in the Dáil and, as a result, provision has been made to prevent any unfair use being made of this section. Any regulations or adaptations made under this section will be laid on the Tables of the Oireachtas and be subject to annulment within the period provided.

Mr. Hawkins

I am not satisfied that the Minister has given to the House ample clarification of what the Bill proposes to do or the reasons that prompted the Government to set aside the Bill which this House and the other House passed just before the general election and which passed through the Dáil with the unanimous approval of all Parties. It contained certain proposals with which we all agreed and one of the main features was that the term of office of local authorities would be extended from three to five years.

An Cathaoirleach

That Bill is not before the House.

Mr. Hawkins

There is only one Bill before this House, but this is the second dealing with this particular matter. That one also contained a provision——

An Cathaoirleach

That other Bill disappeared and is not open for discussion.

Mr. Hawkins

But this Bill contains a section which defines the term of office and, therefore, I presume I can make reference to it.

Mr. Duffy

Which section is that?

Mr. Hawkins

The Bill also defined a new area for the members selected. Now the Minister introduces a new Bill. This is not the Bill he introduced in the Dáil, as it has been changed radically. Provision was made in the Bill that the elections would take place not later than the 30th September, 1950. That was also contained in the Bill which was annulled. As the Minister has informed the House, he also gave way to an amendment providing that the elections may be held earlier than 1950. Side by side with the Minister's determination that they should not be held, we must take into account the statements made even by Senator Hayes in returning thanks for the election of the new Seanad, that the people who took part in that election were elected quite a long time ago. They have been a long time in office— they have been elected for a term of five years—we have a new set up in this country in the last six months and I hold that it is the duty of the Government, and particularly of the Party of which the Minister is a representative, to see that the feelings of the people can be expressed—and there is no better way at the present time than by having these local elections.

Does the Minister seriously tell the House that he can foresee when the next general election will be held and, if there is one in 1949, are we not to have any local elections for three years? Side by side with that, there is a proposal that the local elections be held in Counties Kerry and Dublin. If a case can be made for Kerry and Dublin, where a general election has also been held recently, surely the argument does not hold good that it is bad to hold local elections throughout the country? Again we see a change of mind in the Minister.

In the original Bill introduced in the Dáil, provision was made for the setting up of a Dublin Board of Assistance, and here again an amendment was accepted that it would be set up after the County Dublin elections. In making that statement first in the Dáil, the Minister argued against this proposal. His colleague, the Minister for Social Welfare, argued against him and informed the House that if this proposal were accepted it would have very serious consequences on the developments now being undertaken to implement a scheme already introduced—and to which the other Ministers made no reference—that is, the great advance that has been made under the commissioners and under the regulations introduced by the former Parliamentary Secretary and the former Minister. Here to-day, after accepting that amendment in the Dáil and it now being agreed that this board should be set up, he qualifies it. The Minister fears that the election of the board might hamper the developments now being taken and he proposes to set up some liaison or board between the Board of Assistance and the Department. It is a clear admission in this democratic Assembly that he proposes to do this because the board is going to hamper the development already undertaken. If it is not a fear in that direction, there is no necessity for him to tell the House that he is afraid the work would be hampered and that, to ensure that will not occur, he is going to have a liaison or link between his Department and the board.

The Minister made another extraordinary statement, one which I and other members on this side and on the other side of the House, many of whom are members of public bodies, will certainly resent, the statement that in latter years, because of the introduction of the managerial system very bad types of public persons have gone forward for election to public boards. I think the Minister should withdraw that statement.

Mr. Baxter

The Minister did not say that at all.

Mr. Duffy

When did he say it?

Mr. Hawkins

In this House and I leave it to the records.

Mr. Murphy

You will not find it in the records.

Mr. Hawkins

The Minister regretted that the best type of person was not prepared to go forward now.

Mr. Counihan

That is a different thing altogether.

Mr. Hawkins

It is not. If that is the case, and if the Minister's statement is true, then the people who will allow themselves to go forward because of the annulment of the managerial system and because more power is to be given to local authorities would not be the types of person who should be elected to a local authority. I think that the best type of person is the person who, under present circumstances, is prepared to go forward knowing the limit there is to his powers and obligations, and not those who will come forward for election on public boards because there is some patronage to be given under those boards. If that is what the Minister holds to be the best type of person to be elected on public boards he can have a present of the new system that he is introducing.

He made another remarkable statement when he said that he did not wish these elections to be held because it was proposed to introduce legislation in the future to give back to the local authorities the powers that they held before the managerial system was introduced, but he qualified that statement also to this extent that this legislation may be the law before the next local elections are held. The Minister cannot have it both ways. We are either going to have the managerial annulment Bill introduced before the local elections are held, or we are going to have that law foisted on the local authority just after the election.

I do not wish to hold up the House on this Bill. There is nothing very much in it except the few points that I have brought to the notice of the House. I want to say again that we are anxious that these local elections should be held as early as possible. We are not in agreement with the Minister's proposal that they should not be held this year because there was a general election. For that reason, it is proposed to oppose this Bill. We shall do our best to have it amended to meet our wishes. On that, I hope we shall secure the co-operation of many members on the opposite side of the House so that they may put into effect many of the things to which they have given lip service in the past.

Mr. Douglas

I should like, first of all, to express on behalf of the House a welome to the Minister on his first appearance here.

Senators

Hear, hear.

Mr. Douglas

There is a long standing tradition here that we give Ministers every reasonable facility. I am perfectly certain that the present Seanad will maintain that tradition in the case of the present Minister and indeed of all other Ministers. The last speaker spent a great deal of his time objecting to certain things which I did not hear the Minister say. I think that what he said was not a fair interpretation of the Minister's statement. If the Minister himself thinks fit he will deal with that matter when replying. The Senator was particularly concerned about the Bill for what is not in it. I am rather pleased with the Bill for what is not in it. On the Second Stage of a Bill we are naturally concerned with what is or is not in it. We, in this House, had a number of Bills before us which, because of the decision to hold an early general election, did not receive as much time or consideration as I think most of us would have wished to give to them. I do not want to go into that now. One of them was the Local Government Bill. There were two amendments introduced to it. I do not know whether Senator Hawkins meant to do so or not, but he was quite wrong if he tried to give the impression that this House was unanimous in its support of that Bill. If he thinks so he is under a misapprehension. Speaking for myself, I have a very clear recollection of expressing a very strong objection to the provision in that Bill for single-member constituencies, a provision which, in effect, abolished proportional representation as far as elections to county councils are concerned. It did leave proportional representation to the extent to which it is possible in three-member constituencies in towns, but for all practical purposes it abolished it for county council elections.

Whether proportional representation is or is not a desirable thing, is a matter for an honest difference of opinion. I believe it to be desirable, and I am extremely glad that, in dealing with this matter, the new Government has not reintroduced that section of the old Bill, and that proportional representation is to be continued. I regard that as a very satisfactory step and one to which attention should be drawn. Due to political circumstances, and also because of the fact that a number of measures were before this House at the time, I found that the public generally did not realise that proportional representation was, in effect, being abolished in the last Bill as far as the county councils were concerned. Again, I say that I am extremely glad that such provision is not in this Bill.

I fail to understand Senator Hawkins's criticism of the Minister because he did not deal with the Bill that was introduced in the Dáil. Why should he? The only Bill that we are concerned with is the Bill that is introduced here.

Mr. Hawkins

I did not criticise the Minister for not dealing with the Bill he introduced in the Dáil, but I criticised him for not dealing fully with the Bill now before the House.

Mr. Douglas

I do not want to misrepresent the Senator, but that was the impression that I got from his statement. It seems to me that it is essential in this House, or in any revising chamber, that we should not pay undue attention to discussions in the Dáil but rather should take a Bill as it reaches us, discuss it and see how we can improve it by amendment. Senator Hawkins showed a certain mentality which is perhaps understandable but which is completely different from the view that I hold. He seems to be horrified that the Minister should introduce a Bill and that there should be public discussion of it, and that it should be amended as a result of the Minister's willingness to accept amendments. That, in my opinion, is the ideal state of affairs. It is essential to the proper working of democracy, and I say "all hail" to a Minister who is prepared to have free discussion of Bills he is in charge of and is prepared to accept amendments to them. I do not mind whether the amendments come from this side of the House or the other so long as they are properly discussed and accepted or rejected on their merits. There we have two types of mentality on which we can agree to differ. I think that what I have said explains, to a certain extent, some of the criticism which the Senator made on this Bill.

There is just one other point that I should like to deal with. For the life of me, I cannot see the point which Senator Hawkins made about the elections in Kerry and Dublin. For my part I do not mind when the elections are held. To the best of my recollection, Senator Hawkins, a short time ago, was in favour of the year 1950, but now he thinks it would be better if the elections were held this year. I have no strong feeling with regard to that. I prefer the Bill as it is. The Bill which we had before us earlier tied the election down to one particular year. This Bill does not. It may be considered desirable, in the public interest, not to have elections all over the country in a particular year. I think everybody admits that elections are disturbing to business. They cause a certain amount of dislocation, but because it may not be desirable to have elections all over the country is no reason why counties such as Dublin and Kerry, which have no local bodies at present, should not have elections at the earliest date possible. The two points at issue are completely different. To say that because you do not want the re-election of bodies which are already in existence this year, therefore, the counties which have no local bodies at present should be obliged to remain as they are, seems to me not to rest on logic.

In or about the same time that we had the Local Government Bill before us, to which I have already made reference, we had another measure closely allied to it dealing with the redistribution of constituencies. It also reduced, if it did not abolish, the effectiveness of proportional representation. I hope the Minister will reconsider that measure, having regard to the whole question of the effectiveness of proportional representation and as to whether the maintenance of proportional representation is to continue to be the policy of this State. I also suggest to him that he should consider the Act in which his predecessor admitted there were a number of flaws. It was passed through in a hurry. I refer to the Act providing for the Seanad election. I think that Act will have to be reconsidered, and I trust that the reconsideration of it will not be deferred too long. I suggest that ample time should be given for its discussion here.

Mr. Duffy

There were a few points raised by Senator Hawkins which appear to me to call for attention. Senator Douglas has already referred to what transpired in the Seanad when the Local Elections Bill of 1947 was under consideration. Senator Hawkins gave the impression that it was passed through this House with the unanimous consent of the members. May I say that I and others associated with me protested vehemently against two features of that Bill. One has already been referred, to by Senator Douglas—the abolition of proportional representation. I would like to remind the House that the then Minister denied that he was abolishing proportional representation, and pretended that the single transferable vote was synonymous with proportional representation. That view was pressed home in this House.

I would again remind Senator Hawkins that the Bill, for which he voted last November, also contained a very serious proposal which I am glad to say is missing from this Bill, the proposal to weight the franchise in favour of property against human beings. I think the Senator will recall that I protested very strongly against that weighting—the proposal that, in allocating franchises, regard should be had to the property owned in a particular district as against the weight of human beings in other districts. That has gone here, and, as the Minister very properly said, this is a very simple Bill. All it does essentially is to postpone the local elections generally until September, 1950, or such earlier date as may be fixed. That is not an innovation. Members on the other side of the House voted for that proposal last September. They voted for a Bill postponing the elections throughout the country until 1950, so I do not understand the point made now by Senator Hawkins. He wants the elections now, though he objects to the elections being held in Dublin and Kerry in 1948.

Mr. Hawkins

I did not object to the elections being held either in Kerry or County Dublin, but I said that I held that if a case could be made for holding the elections in Kerry and County Dublin, there was a case for holding them throughout the country.

Mr. Duffy

The case is that there are no councils functioning in those areas. The late Government suppressed both these councils and on one of them at least there was a very substantial Fianna Fáil majority.

Mr. Hawkins

It was not political suppression, then?

Mr. Duffy

No, it was not. I think the charge made by the Minister was incompetence. In any event, we have a proposal here to restore two county councils in areas in which the administration is entirely in the hands of officials of the Department, officials appointed by the Minister, responsible only to the Minister, and, in one case of which I have personal knowledge, an official who is very much concerned with collecting the rates and not at all concerned with building houses for people living in shacks or providing sanitation or water supplies.

Mr. Hawkins

I do not think it is fair for a public representative to come into this House and level charges against a person who is not in a position to defend his honour.

Mr. Duffy

I have never assented to that proposition and I refuse to assent to it now.

Mr. Hearne

The House has assented to it many a time.

Mr. Duffy

It may have, but I still insist that if officials are appointed by the central or local authority to do a job, somebody has to criticise them somewhere if they refuse to carry out that job.

Mr. Hearne

Do not wrap the mantle of privilege around yourself in doing so.

Mr. Duffy

It is the Fianna Fáil Senators who are wrapping the mantle of privilege around me. It is the job of every member of the House to insist that attention will be paid to public interests where human needs are disregarded, particularly in County Dublin, where there is sheer incompetence and absolute neglect of public interests because no council has operated in the area for the past 12 years. It is time we got a county council in Dublin and I assume, though I cannot speak with the same knowledge of Kerry, that it is time they had a county council in Kerry, too. I want to see these county councils elected, and elected as soon as possible, in 1948. I am quite indifferent whether the elections of the other 25 county councils are held this year or not. I objected to their postponement under the Bill before us last December and I accept the proposal here because it does not postpone the county council elections outside these two areas I have mentioned. It permits their postponement to a date not later than September, 1950, but there is nothing to prevent the elections being held in 1948 or in 1949. I think the Minister made it clear, and I am sure that every member understands, that the purpose of the postponement provided for in this Bill is to enable legislation to be introduced for amending the law relating to the administration of local authorities. The Minister has said that he intends to restore to the county councils much of the power taken from them in recent years.

Mr. McGee

All of it.

Mr. Duffy

I do not think he said all of it, and I do not want to read into his words something which may not be there. I should like to see all of it restored. I should like to see all the authority hitherto enjoyed by the county councils restored to them. I think that the more local authorities we have the more certain is the security of democratic institutions and the more likely it is that the public at large will know what is being done in their names and what obligations are being undertaken on their behalf. That is what I am anxious about. It is certain to me that there is nothing in the Bill which suggests, as Senator Hawkins professes to believe, that the local authorities will be elected and a new Local Government Act imposed upon them without their knowledge. That obviously is not so. It seems to me that the Minister proposes to get the Local Government Act restoring to the county councils such functions as he proposes to restore to them in the Bill and to have his elections immediately, to have the elections under the new Act, when the people will know the kind of representative they require in relation to the functions they will have to perform. That seems to me a sensible approach and one which, if it had been proposed last December, would have had the wholehearted support of Senator Hawkins.

Mr. Hawkins

It is not the statement the Minister made. He made the statement that it may be passed into legislation before the local elections, but there is no guarantee.

Mr. Duffy

The Minister can decide this for himself. I am interpreting his words as I understand them. I was very much surprised by one complaint made by Senator Hawkins. He complained that the Minister accepted amendments to his Bill in the other House. That, I think, is the substance of what he said when he complained that it was not the same Bill as was introduced into the Dáil, that it had been altered by amendment.

Mr. Baxter

What a shame!

Mr. Duffy

I understood that this Government made it clear at the outset of their career that the Dáil and Seanad would decide what kind of legislation they wanted, that it would not be imposed upon them by a Cabinet, or by the officials of a political Party, or even by the managers of a political Party. There is a lot to be said for that, and this House might welcome a demonstration on the part of the Government that, if it has amendments to propose, they will be heard and discussed, and that, if the House thinks fit, it may insert these amendments in the legislation without any Minister losing his head, resigning his office or doing anything of the kind. The difficulty we were in here last year was that a Minister came into the House with a Bill which was clearly defective. The Minister admitted in the course of the discussion last December that five sections of his Bill were defective, but his retort was that this was not the last Bill of the kind, that there would be other amending Bills and that the position could then be put right. We would not be permitted, even when the defects were admitted, to put them right, and, as a matter of fact, the predecessor of this House dishonoured itself by refusing to give 24 hours to those of us who wanted to move amendments because it was in a hurry to get all stages of the Bill disposed of in one night.

Mr. Hearne

That will not happen with this Bill.

Mr. Duffy

I hope not.

Mr. Hearne

We are glad of your, support on that.

Mr. Duffy

I want to assure Senator Hearne that I have not changed my views in one particular about anything which has gone on in this House for the past four or five years. They are the same as ever. I hope sincerely that the attitude of the Government towards the House will have changed. If there is a change, we will have a very pleasant time, because most of the unpleasantness was due to the fact that Ministers came in here and told us they were not responsible to this House but to the Dáil for the administration of their Departments and refused to permit us to discuss anything in connection with the administration of their Department. I hope that attitude is dead and will not be revived.

Mr. Hearne

I hope the Minister supports you in that.

Mr. Duffy

The Senator will find me most helpful if the procedure insisted on in this House for the past four years is carried out. The Minister made it clear, and I do not think that anything Senator Hawkins said upsets the suggestion he made, that this Bill has a very limited function—the postponement of the elections outside Dublin and Kerry until a date not later than September, 1950, the holding of elections this year in Dublin and Kerry and the restoration of the Dublin Board of Assistance. That is certainly a very slender programme and I should not be justified in occupying the time of the House unduly in debating the Bill on Second Reading in view of its limited character. I urge the House to give the Bill as it stands a Second Reading.

Mr. McGuire

Being a new member of this House, I am not in a position to examine very closely the details of this Bill and I shall, therefore, content myself with saying a few words on general principles, principles which I regard as being of the greatest importance. I have pleasure in supporting the Bill, but there are one or two matters on which I should like to comment. I welcome the restoration of the powers of democratically elected local government bodies, and I welcome also the reduction of the rule by officials. The centralisation of control and the concentration of power in the hands of a few officials is a very easy path to dictatorship. Nominally managers are responsible to the local councils, but in fact they are appointed by Ministers who themselves are appointed by the leader of the Party, so that in fact these councils are appointed by and are the creatures of the ruling Party.

Mr. Hearne

I do not want to interrupt any member, but feel I must protest against such an outrageous statement being made. The Senator has said that Ministers are appointed by the leaders of the political Parties and that is a statement which should not be allowed to pass.

Mr. McGuire

I did not say that.

Mr. Hearne

I am subject to correction, but that was my impression.

Mr. McGuire

I apologise if I did not make my meaning clear. They are nominated by the Leader of the Government, who is, in nearly all cases, the leader of a Party. This is Government from the top. The people are thus forced to carry out the wishes of a Party instead of the Government carrying out the wishes of the people. The Minister has referred to the lack of interest on the part of members of local authorities. I quite agree. I think there is a great lack of interest in local elections but that does not say that we have not men of calibre and honesty on existing councils. There is a lack of interest because the councils have no real power. Up to date, we have been fortunate in our Miniters and in our officials appointed by them under Local Government, but it cannot be denied that under the managerial system we have been creating something that would be very dangerous in the hands of a Party that was inclined to be totalitarian or dictatorial, either now or at some future date. We all know that efficiency and benevolence are given as the reasons for putting these powers into the hands of individuals and for replacing boards by officials. I know that large bodies move slowly but their very slowness is a safeguard and they are more difficult to corrupt. Local bodies have proved themselves safeguards against tyranny in the past, in the days before we had self-government. We are all mindful of the great work done by county councils and by the Dublin Corporation in the old Sinn Fein days.

Mr. Hearne

And when we had to fight the Blueshirts in 1934.

Mr. McGuire

I believe that some of those bodies, if democratically elected and democratically worked would be a safeguard against a tyranny of our own making under our own Government now and in the future. That is no farfetched fear because we have only to look around the world to-day to see what is happening. I welcome the Minister's proposal in this Bill to reestablish these councils at the earliest possible moment. There is one other point on which I would like to comment, and that is on Section 11, which gives the power to the Minister to legislate by order. I understand that this is a routine phraseology that is inserted in all the Bills of this nature. I know it is not the Minister's wish that he should be vested with these powers but I think that it is a matter that should be considered by the Government at the very earliest opportunity. It is undesirable that the Oireachtas should pass over its power of law-making to Ministers. I know that it is a quick and efficient way of getting things done but fundamentals should never be sacrificed to expediency. Parliament should retain to itself alone the power of making laws. It is only through democratically elected bodies fully safeguarding their rights and powers that the rights of the individual citizens can be safeguarded. The oldest struggle in the world is this struggle for individual liberty and it will go on until doomsday. To-day liberty is threatened and denied in many countries and it is very often done under the guise of benevolence, efficiency and social service. Where there is no real individual liberty nothing else is worth while. I hope therefore that we in Ireland will take every step at every opportunity towards safeguarding the powers of Parliament and keeping full control for Parliament itself.

Mr. Tunney

I would like to say just a few words on this Bill. I would like to say that I am disappointed that the first Bill is not first, that is, the Bill giving back the powers to the local authorities. I am speaking subject to correction when I say that we elect in the City of Dublin 45 members who when elected have not sufficient power to appoint a chairman. I hold that the election of local authorities without sufficient power is a humbug. I feel proud to say now that we have a Minister for Local Government who has promised to reinstate those powers. So far as the suppression of councils is concerned I hold that the present system is all wrong. I do say that if there are members of local authorities who have done wrong, have done something detrimental to the people, they should be taken out singly and punished instead of dismissing all the members of the council. The honest members should be allowed to carry on. I know that there are members of local authorities in this country who have made great sacrifices and they are honest and efficient and they have never done wrong in their lives. These men should not be fired out when some particular member of the council commits a crime against the people. I hope the Minister will bring forward legislation to provide that where individual members of councils or local bodies commit crimes against the people they will be taken out individually and prosecuted in court. I hope to see that even applied to the central authority in the future. Instead of doing that, however, we give pensions in this country. I would like also to draw the Minister's attention to the position in County Dublin in the hope that between now and the holding of the election he will reconsider the matter which I believe is altogether wrong. In the Number 4 area of County Dublin, which is the Borough of Dún Laoghaire, the local authority has full control over all matters with the exception of public health. That is the only service which is looked after by the county council.

I think it is most unfair to the people of Fingal and the people of the other rural areas of the country that Dún Laoghaire should be able to elect eight members of the Dublin County Council, one-third of the total, and thus have a decisive influence on all council decisions although the only thing they are concerned with in Dún Laoghaire so far as the county council is concerned, is public health. I would ask the Minister to give Dún Laoghaire its own public health service. Leave them as a local authority and elect a country council for County Dublin. There is nothing in common between the people of Dún Laoghaire and the people of Fingal. One-third of the members, by their influence, can have people elected on the various subsidiary bodies, such as the Dublin Board of Assistance, in which they have no interest. They are interested in the Rathdown Board of Assistance. Before the Minister has an election for County Dublin I would ask him to see that the county is separated from the Borough of Dún laoghaire. They have their own libraries, their own vocational schools, and they should not have any dominion over the rest of County Dublin. I was a member of the Dublin County Council and I am sorry to say that I felt the Dún Laoghaire members had practically a majority. If there were only 15 members present, eight could decide or oppose proposals affecting the North County Dublin. I hope the Minister will remedy that.

Whether Senator Hawkins likes it or not, I must say that I am opposed to commissioners. Let us not forget that Dublin County Council was abolished and commissioners were put in its place. Before its abolition, the council had acquired land all over the county for the erection of houses. In one area they were to build 84, in another more than 20 houses. The commissioner, to earn a good name for himself and to save the rates, prevented the erection of the houses. These houses will have to be built now and at three times the cost. Commissioners are not altogether perfect, either.

It is a shame that the people of County Dublin have not been allowed to elect members of a local authority. They were good enough to elect Dáil Deputies but they were not good enough to elect members of a local authority. Another thing that was most unfair to County Dublin was that in the last Seanad election they had no voice whatever. With 24 members and 116 votes they could turn the tables and there might be a different Seanad here if there were a Dublin County Council. It is useless electing a county council unless it is given full power.

The Minister should have power to deal with people who go forward for election and offer reward for their election. It should not be sufficient that they should be defeated at the next election and get away with it. He should have power to see that they will be brought to justice. The suppression of county councils should be discontinued. It is most unfair to the decent, honest members of the various councils that a slur should be cast on them because of the crime of individuals. The same applies to the Government.

Mr. Ruane

I welcome this Bill because of the attitude of the Minister since he accepted office as Minister for Local Government, and his desire to restore, as far as possible, the powers taken from local bodies. The Minister has made no secret of that in his public pronouncements. I did not read into his remarks any reflection on the personnel of the public bodies as elected since their powers were centralised but I know for a fact that in my native county the desire to seek election on county councils and urban councils declined with the diminution of power following the policy of centralisation. Senator Hawkins and his Party underwent a revolutionary change in so far as their views on centralisation were concerned during the time their Party happened to be the Government of this country. A few months before the advent of the Fianna Fáil Government, at a time when the Fianna Fáil supporters in my county were making a determined attack on the appointment of a certain official who was appointed through the public appointments system, the leader of the Party was asked publicly, at a meeting, what were his views on these matters and he said he was categorically—or some word to that effect— against centralisation of power, that local administrative bodies should have local administrative powers. Of course, he and his Party underwent a great change and we have seen cases, even in this House, when matters connected with local administration were being debated, where the Minister was adamant in regard to suggestions put forward by people who had spent a lifetime on public bodies. Because I believe there is a possibility, even a certainty, of the restoration of many of the powers that these bodies should enjoy, I welcome this Bill and will support it.

Mr. McGee

My colleague has correctly interpreted the views on this Bill. Public bodies are entitled to restoration of their powers. I make no apology whatever for saying that. I will be terribly disappointed if the Minister is sympathetically received by the public should that not prove to be the case. I do not know what the public are afraid of. Local administration will become more healthy when it is charged with its full responsibility. The man working on the road should be taught that he is just as important as the richest fellow. It is absurd that any Government should introduce a system under which there are sent down to those operating public services officials to whom we dare not say a word. In some instances I have seen the impertinence of these individuals and the impossibility of running public services to serve the best interests of the community. I have seen members shut up in disgust at what is trotted out to them occasionally. The system of telling us that that is a reserved function, this is a reserved service, is something for which those who operated it in the past should apologise to the public. I do hope the Minister will stick to his guns. I do hope he will invigorate the country so that there may be independent thought. That is the only line along which independent Ireland can work out its salvation.

Mr. Séamus O'Farrell

I do not think anything has been said in favour of the Bill on this side of the House. Fortunately, though I sit on this side, I still have independence. I approve of this Bill. Everything that has been said against the Bill seems to me to be an argument for it. It is desirable that arrangements should be made for the holding of local elections. It would be undesirable to rush those elections if there is any possibility of legislation being brought in which would affect and increase the powers of local authorities. It is only right that the men to be elected on public boards should know in advance what powers and responsibilities they are likely to be called on to exercise. I realise that there must be central control, that is, control from the Custom House, but it should be with the minimum of interference with local authorities. My desire would be to see direction without dictation of our local authorities' work. I would like to see more liberty, more freedom of action given to them and initiative being approved of in local authorities.

I do not know how far one could go outside the Bill to discuss other things, but, if you had proper local authorities, with sufficient authority to do the things they think desirable in their own localities, to some extent you would be finding a solution for both unemployment and emigration. If people are not allowed to do something for their own districts, they will fly from the country. Regarding the necessity for the earlier election in Counties Kerry and Dublin, the answer is obvious. In those two counties, there is no representative body now, even though the ordinary representative bodies have only limited powers.

I adopt the same stand as that of Senator Duffy, and if I have any criticism to make of any man, public or private, I will make it here. I have stated outside on public platforms the things which I thought were wrong. I always say what I believe to be true, and if a man has not the courage to talk the truth, because he is terrified of an action in the courts, he should never talk at all. The fact that there is a certain amount of privilege in this House and in the Dáil should not debar us from telling the truth as we know it. If I were asked why I would be against commissioners being put in instead of local authorities, I might go no further than County Dublin, where houses have been put up by speculative builders which should never have been passed by any public authority. If they were so passed, they do not conform to the ordinary principles of good building that were expected to be enforced. I live in one of those houses. We took it less than 12 months ago and it consists of five rooms and a kitchen. In every one of those rooms parts of the ceiling were falling down inside five months. Presumably those buildings were approved by whoever is acting instead of the local authority. We were told to move our furniture out of the ground floor rooms—as also were other people in the same street—as thistles and potatoes were growing up underneath. These houses were built 12 months ago where there had been allotments, and the floors were laid over raw clay, and thistles and potatoes were growing up. After the tenants went in the floors had to be taken up and cement put under the boards.

I could tell 20 or 30 other things about those houses. They were not passed by a local authority in which there were public representatives— they were passed by a man nominated by a Minister; and I have no grievance against any particular man—as if ordinary public representatives passed houses of that sort they would be hounded out of public life.

It is desirable to have elections in Counties Dublin and Kerry, where there are no public representatives at the moment. However limited the powers of public representatives may be, at least you could go to them and complain and there would be some way in which the authorities could be set moving, but my experience is that county managers are unapproachable, if not always irreproachable.

Mr. Fitzsimmons

The main question before us is that of elections in Counties Dublin and Kerry and the postponement of the elections in the remainder of the State. If we are to hold them there, we should hold them elsewhere, and there is no reason why that should not be done. We may be faced with several elections immediately after 1950 and there will be a bit of a lull in the meantime, so I do not see why the Minister should not hold the elections this year or next year. We could hold them every four years. I believe there should be an election for local bodies every three years, as it would be a sound test of public opinion and people who are anxious to get in to serve the people could come forward and put their views before the electors.

I am not opposed to the County Management Act, as some speakers were here to-day. On the whole, the managers have done a good day's work and I do not hold the same opinion as Senator Tunney in regard to what county councils have done in Dublin and Kerry. If the councils did their job, none would be abolished. That has been my experience over 15 years' association with public life. One or two may go wrong, but they all will not, so I have no defence to make of a local authority that fails to collect the rates and eventually is abolished. I believe we should hold the elections next year and I support Senator Hawkins in that respect.

Mr. Baxter

I am rather disappointed that we did not hear more from the supporters of Senator Hawkins in opposition to the Second Reading. We should have reasons for taking decisions and should state them. A decision to oppose this Bill does not make sense and I feel there are many behind Senator Hawkins, and probably alongside him, who think as I do. I expect some of his colleagues to give reasons for their opposition, if they are opposed to this measure. Members of the Fianna Fáil Party should not oppose a Bill merely for the sake of being in opposition: it would be much better tactics to decide the things really worth opposing and let those that do not matter very much go through. Senators will recall that, when we sat over there, we did not oppose everything that came along. When it was worthy of our support we gave it, and some of us gave it unhesitatingly. I do not think there are any principles that the Senator's Party stood for in the past that are infringed by accepting this measure. It postpones the local elections until 1950 at the latest—perhaps 1949. The results of the last elections should be enough for Fianna Fáil for a bit and they should be prepared to wait and see whether the new Government is going to err as their predecessors have done to such an extent as to turn public opinion against them. It is too soon yet, from the Fianna Fáil viewpoint, to call for another election on the basis of the law as it would have been if this Bill were not introduced.

Senator Hawkins said the previous Bill had the unanimous support of the Oireachtas. He should state the facts. He knows how vigorously I and others opposed it, for very good reasons. Senator Douglas gave some of them and Senator Duffy others. I would like Senator Fitzsimmons, or others with personal knowledge of the part played by members of county councils under the law as it stands to-day, to say that, from their view and experience, those members do not want to exercise more authority than they exercise at present. I know of no members of my county council, no matter to which Party they belong, who do not declaim against the Managerial Act as it is being operated. If we have a Minister coming in like a fresh breeze from the country to tell us that he has more faith in the men in the countryside for the election of local authorities than his predecessor, and is quite prepared to give them more power, will anyone dare say he does not want those powers given to county councils?

I think it is very sensible of the Minister to tell us that he wants to delay the elections until he sees what real authority the new county councils are going to have when elected. If we take the attitude of the people in the country towards this whole question of local government, it is very desirable that there should be an extension of the powers of local authorities. I refer to that because the Minister gave that as part of his reason for the postponement of the elections.

There was another part of the law passed here which was very objectionable, certainly as far as my county was concerned. We had a particular objection to the abolition of the proportional representation system being applied to county councils, because so far as my county was concerned it was going to eliminate minorities which had been given a voice in local affairs ever since this State was established. I think Senator Hawkins should realise that no decent principle is being infringed if the House gives its unanimous approval to this Bill. It may be that, on further consideration, flaws may be found in it, but these can be dealt with on the Committee Stage. I think it would be much better if real reasons were advanced for opposing the Bill rather than to do so because it is introduced by those who are in power at the moment.

Mr. Summerfield

When I got this Bill I regarded it as being so non-controversial that I did not intend to speak on it. But in the debate that has taken place we have had an exposition of the meaning of democracy and criticisms of the managerial system, and so on. Frankly, I welcome the Bill. I think we can console ourselves with this thought that the abolition of the two county councils which have been referred to has had a salutary effect and will prevent a recurrence of the things that led to their abolition. I think all of us will have to admit, no matter what politics we profess or what degree of independent thought we give expression to, that something is needed to stimulate public interest in local and in national affairs. We are not going to have a healthy interest in national affairs if, at the root of things, the local affairs are neglected. We certainly are not going to get a healthy interest in local affairs as long as the people have to look to an official to administer their most intimate concerns. Therefore, I welcome the Bill.

Speaking for the County Dublin, of which I am a resident, the sooner we get the county council election there the better. It is not derogatory of other counties to suggest that Dublin is an extremely important county and that for too many years the people have been divorced from the administration of their local affairs. I think that, at the earliest date possible, they should be given the opportunity of electing that good type of man to the county council who, I think, will be forthcoming. I agree with those public representatives on local authorities who have expressed their willingness to take on more rather than less responsibility. There is, of course, a case to be made for centralisation and against centralisation. Each system has its faults. I think that we should concentrate more on the virtues of the election system whereby, if an individual has a grievance, he can see his local representative for the area and seek to have it remedied. I welcome the Bill and hope it will be accepted by the House.

Mr. Finan

Most of what I had intended to say has already been said by previous speakers. I am very glad that this Bill has been introduced. As a member of a public body, I feel it is extremely unlikely that many of the existing members of local authorities would seek re-election if there was not some extension of the powers vested in them. I think that the County Management Act had proved a disappointment, even to its sponsors. It has proved very unpopular amongst the people of the country. I think Senator Fitzsimmons was mistaken when he said that no council was abolished unless it deserved to be abolished. I come from a county where the council was abolished for a short period. The reason for its abolition was that a majority of the council decided that the main road estimate should be reduced. When that question was put at the council meeting 14 voted for the reduction and seven against. Following that decision, a sworn inquiry was held, and the Roscommon County Council was abolished. I may say that everybody in Roscommon, irrespective of their political outlook, maintained then and still maintain that the council was unjustly abolished. I feel that, if the same thing occurred in the County Meath, Senator Fitzsimmons would hold the same view as I do.

I welcome the Bill for the reason that the new local authorities are to have restored to them powers which, I hold, they ought to have, with perhaps an increase in the powers they held prior to the passing of the Managerial Act. It may be, as one Senator said, that some few councils erred in the past. The councils throughout the country ought not to be condemned, even supposing a few mistakes were made. I think that, taking our local representatives generally, they are acquitting themselves in a manner that does credit to them. They will do even better now when the powers which they had been deprived of are restored to them.

Mr. Anthony

As one who for a very long number of years has been associated with public bodies, I could not allow this occasion to pass without saying a few words on this Bill, and on the position of public bodies under a centralised authority. I welcome the Bill in its entirety. I agree with every section in it. We on public bodies have been waiting for a long period of years for a Bill of this character. I was a member of the Dáil when the County Management Act, which curtailed the activities and public duties of the members of our public boards, was introduced. I opposed it for that reason at the time. I felt at the same time—I do not think this can be denied —that we are not all angels in this country. Though I opposed some aspects of that measure, at the same time I was responsible for getting some alterations made in it. In connection with the public body with which I was associated, I succeeded in getting the representation raised from 14 to 21 persons.

As I have said, we are not all angels in this country, and everybody will agree with me when I say that. I say there was then a necessity and it was well known to many members of this House—they know that what I am about to say is true—that there were undoubtedly cases of corruption and jobbery, cases proved beyond yea or nay, in some of the public bodies of that day. I feel now that that day has passed. The country has been purged and these public bodies have been purged of this type of representative. I feel, too, that a number of people who, before the introduction of this Bill, kept aloof from contesting local elections will now readily present themselves for election.

The Minister, in my view, has done a very good day's work and I am delighted beyond measure to see him in the position he holds to-day. I think, too, that a very old debating trick—what I call the crossroads club trick—has been played, or has been attempted to be played, on the Minister, that is, to make a debating point by building up on a false thesis, misquoting the Minister, a remarkably good indictment of the Minister. I do not say it was done deliberately, but the Minister was certainly misquoted, and Senators who listened to him will agree with me in that. I am sure that the Senator who made this charge, for charge it is, will withdraw it when he sees from the Official Debates that he did make a charge against the Minister, because he knows the statement was not true.

This Bill is undoubtedly a good one. The original measure did some good, but it did a lot of harm, too. It did good in ridding the country of a number of parasites then on public bodies who were well known to have received money for their votes. That cannot be denied—it is an unpalatable truth. I have a feeling that this measure, which should get, and, I believe, will get, the full support of the House will be welcomed by the people of the country and particularly by those who value good citizenship and have regard for civic duty and civic spirit. It will arouse a new spirit in the country especially amongst a certain class regarded as the white collar class and so on. These men, some of the best intellects and some of our best citizens, whether they be dockers, miners, labourers, professional men or any other type will be pleased, because it will give every man who takes an interest in public affairs a chance of making himself heard in the deliberations of his own little local authority.

As one speaker has pointed out, it will have a very useful effect in that way. The ordinary citizen who goes to his local councillor and asks him to get some amenity provided in his street, village or town will be encouraged to go again and will be encouraged to take a live interest in the affairs of his local council, which should be reflected later on in the affairs of Dáil and Seanad Éireann.

Mr. O'Dwyer

The clause in this Bill which reduces the term of office of members of local bodies to three years is a great mistake. It might be said to be a reactionary step, because I am sure it will be generally agreed that a term of five years, or four years at the very least, would be more suitable. It is a pity that that clause in the original Bill was not allowed to stand. Another clause in the original Bill, the dropping of which I regret, is a clause which provided for single member constituencies for county councils. I think that would have brought the administration of county councils much nearer to the people and eventually provide a solution of the difficulties of local administration. Many opinions have been expressed regarding the County Management Act. I agreed to that Act very reluctantly, for the reason that many members have spoken of, that it was contrary to our ideas of democracy; but we must admit that, taking it all in all, that Act has, in general, proved efficient and successful and not by any means contrary to democracy in the past four or five years. We have found it an ideal form of administration in Limerick. There may be places in which it did not work so well, but, in general, it must be agreed that it has worked well.

In discussing this question of the centralisation of power, one thing seems to be forgotten. It has been said that the appointment of the county managers was a reflection on the individual members of the local bodies, that these officials were appointed because individual members of these bodies were inefficient or corrupt. That is not the case. The members of local bodies are the very same class of people as come up here to the Dáil and Seanad, and what has been forgotten is that the very constitution of these county councils renders members unable to carry out the duties imposed on them. That was the reason the County Management Act had to be passed. We forget that the council of each county is composed of individual councillors who are voluntary members and who have to travel long distances to carry out the work for which they were elected, and the very fact that the meetings take place only once a month renders it impossible for them to carry out the multifarious duties which have arisen within the past eight or nine years.

With the growth of social services and the increased complication in recent years of both local and national administration, it would be impossible for these men to look after their own business and to carry out these duties. I am quite sure that a better type of person has volunteered for elections to public bodies since the coming into force of the County Management Act and I feel that, if we went back to the old situation, these people would again withdraw into private life. In any case, it is quite clear, in view of the present constitution of county councils, that they would be unable to carry out all the duties imposed upon them in the old days when local administration was much simpler.

I regret that the one-member constituency proposal in the original Bill has been dropped, because I firmly believe that it is not to the county councils we must look for perfection in local administration. We must look to a still smaller unit, and until local administration goes down to the local parish it will not be perfect and truly democratic. If we are in earnest about making local administration democratic, let us set up our statutory parish councils. Let the people in the small rural communities organise them and see how well they will administer their small local affairs. On that basis we will be able to make local administration much more efficient and certainly more democratic than it could possibly be made by any other method.

Mr. Orpen

I should like to welcome this Bill for one reason and one reason only. I feel that it is a move towards decentralisation. It gives to the local authority the power which it formerly had, and which of late had been seriously wanting. For that reason I welcome the Bill. I welcome another thing in reference to this Bill. I welcome the sign the Minister has shown, that when he is considering amendments of value he is prepared to accept them no matter from what side of the House they come. Statements like that may be outside the proposals in this Bill, but I think they are reconcilable. I welcome them for another reason. Some of us are getting old, some of us have noticed county councils getting old and filled with old men. We noticed over the last ten years that relatively few young men went into these councils and other public bodies. That is very unfortunate.

Public bodies such as county councils are a training ground for people who may ultimately aspire to higher offices, to public platforms and possibly the Legislature. If these young men are not encouraged to become members of local councils then, probably, they will not take an interest in local affairs, not having had an opportunity of conducting local affairs. If by some fortuitous circumstance they become members of the Oireachtas they will not have had experience of local affairs when they come to manage national affairs. It is for these diverse reasons that I welcome this Bill as a sign of a change. I hope that I am right, and that we will see, with the advent of more administration and practice of county council work, the younger generation taking more interest in local administration and that it will be for the good of the locality and the nation as a whole.

Mr. Quinn

Senators who have spoken made little reference to the Bill and I hope I will be forgiven if I do not speak to it. A Senator on the opposite benches asked if it was the desire to give back all power to local bodies. As one who has been associated with local bodies for many years, and as chairman of one of the largest county councils, I urge the Minister to be slow in giving back to county councils the power to appoint officials. In County Galway we stand for that. Under the Managerial Act and the Local Appointments Commission we have in our council as good officials as there are in the State. I believe that if we had not such an arrangement we would not have them. I warn the Minister that whatever powers he is returning to local bodies he should be slow about giving them power to appoint officials.

Mr. Murphy

I confess to a certain sense of surprise or, shall I say disappointment, that my first appearance here with this very limited measure should disturb the judicial calm of this Chamber. That has always been my conception of it. My conception of the association of this Chamber with the statement of Senator Hawkins—which obviously he made with a great deal of feeling—is that I know of nothing inside the limits of this Bill that would justify his description of it as being in any way "a violently controversial measure". I was rather glad to observe as the debate progressed that that feeling did not appear to be shared generally in the House. Allowing for the disappointment of Senator Hawkins, that this Bill replaces one which was dropped, I do not intend to make any reference to it beyond saying generally that I feel his objection sought to misrepresent the short explanatory statement I made in support of this Bill. I did not intend and, in fact, did not make in the course of my observations any reflection on members of local bodies. I have far too much respect for local bodies generally, having been for a quarter of a century associated with them, to make any reflection on them in my capacity as Minister or otherwise.

In reply to Senator Hawkins I say that the Bill to which he refers was not acceptable to me or to the Government of which I am a member, and if it had been passed into law—which, in fact, it was not—I would regard it as my first duty to repeal it. Rather would I have expected unanimous approval for the amendments made to this measure in the Dáil. I always believed, and I think, rightly, that this House performs a very useful function by its minute examination of Bills passing through. In fact, I think it was generally accepted in the other House, that legislation was very often, if not generally, bettered by the calm, careful, judicial examination it got in this House. Shall I pay the Seanad the compliment of saying that I hope that policy will be adopted and widely practised in the other Chamber in future?

It has been suggested that I could not foresee the date of the general election, that I was arguing on wrong lines, and that local elections should not clash with a year in which a general election is held. One could only base a statement of that kind on the knowledge that the lifetime of the Dáil is limited by legislation, and one presumes that one can make some kind of accurate forecast as to when a general election is to be held. In doing so, one must have regard to the normal period of life provided for the Dáil.

Now I do hope, in reference to the proposal for the election of the Board of Assistance of Dublin, that this will be possible immediately after the county council elections, without any difficulty whatsoever. I hope that my colleague, Dr. Browne, will have completed certain proposals for the reorganisation of certain services with which this board will be associated and that it will not be necessary to make interim arrangements for the transition period after the local elections take place. I am therefore not able to give a clear answer to this question but I hope and it is my own wish, that the board will be restored at the first opportunity that will arise after the local elections.

I am rather glad to notice in the House a general view that the time has come for a review of the County and City Managerial Acts. I feel that the members of local authorities throughout this country generally share that view. The best possible course for any Government in this country is to put its trust in the people and in local affairs and to put its trust and confidence in and extend its cooperation fully to the elected members of the local authority. Certainly I have ample evidence of the fact that there has been a waning interest on the part of local representatives in local affairs and I regard that as an unhealthy sign in the public life of the country. Because I hold this view I feel that there is an urgent need for holding elections in the two counties at present controlled by commissioners. To me this is a system to be avoided as much as possible and should be confined in space of time to the shortest period possible.

The county council of Dublin, I believe, was abolished over a period of six years ago, and I think that a return to the system of control by the local representatives is now due. Similarly, I think the same position arises in Kerry. I want to assure Senator McGuire that no important or far-reaching regulations are contemplated under this Bill. The provision which was amended in the Dáil whereby changes made arising out of the Bill will have to be tabled and may be subject to annulment, was originally inserted for the reason that it is not always possible to foresee a difficulty that may arise out of a particular Bill. I think I should say, in justice to that much maligned Civil Service, that that was the original idea in inserting it. Again I hope that the members of the Seanad will not find me guilty of making any effort to use these powers in an unnecessary or dictatorial way. I do not know whether I should refer to all the points made by Senator Tunney and the other speakers. I think the members of the Seanad will understand that it will take some time before the proposals for the overhaul of the County and City Managerial Acts will be ready. My idea would be that the proposals would be enacted before the local elections take place generally in the country, so that members of local authorities would be assured that they would not be embarrassed in discharging their duties in the future. It would also have the effect of bringing forward public-spirited men for election to the local authorities. Senator O'Dwyer suggests that the life of the local authority should be extended to five years. I am afraid I cannot offer him any accommodation on this point.

Since the first Local Government Act was passed under the British Parliament the local elections have been on a triennial basis. I have given this matter full consideration and I think it is the best safeguard and the best way of ensuring that local authorities will be closely in touch with local opinion. I think I have covered most of the points that have been raised and I want to express my appreciation again of the happy manner in which the measure has been met generally, as well as the proposals in it, and the spirit behind it.

Question put and agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach

When is it proposed to take the next stage?

Mr. Murphy

I would ask the Seanad to take the remaining stages of the Bill this week. I feel that I should not ask the Seanad to take the remaining stages to-day, but I feel that the Seanad would be willing to facilitate me when I explain that there may be legal difficulties if the Bill is not passed into law in a very short time. I would like to have the remaining stages to-morrow or on Friday.

Mr. Quirke

No one would be more capable of explaining better than Senator Hayes why it should not be proposed to rush legislation through this House. He was usually on his feet immediately such proposals were made in the past and I am surprised that he did not stand up to-day. However, we wish to be helpful, but I would like to point out that there may be Senators here who would wish to put down amendments. If we take the remaining stages of the Bill to-morrow they will not have time to do so. If we agree to take them on Friday it will mean holding Senators over. Would this day week be out of the question?

Mr. Murphy

I am afraid it would. I had this matter carefully examined. I would be glad to allow the remaining stages of the measure to take the ordinary course were it not for the fact that I am advised by the officials of the Local Government Department that there may be a legal difficulty if the Bill is not signed and does not become law in a short time.

Mr. Quirke

In view of the explanation given by the Minister, I take it that we will have very little option and will take the remaining stages of the Bill to-morrow.

Mr. M. Hayes

Amendments will, I presume, be received until late to-morrow, if Senators want to put in amendments.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

If it is decided to take the Committee Stage to-morrow, amendments will be accepted up to 1 o'clock on that day.

Mr. Hearne

While we agree, may I make this remark—the more Ministers change, the more they are the same.

Mr. Douglas

I have great sympathy with that remark. I am particularly glad to see it recognised from that side of the House.

Mr. M. Hayes

It is a remark of mine, Sir, plagiarised.

Mr. Douglas

It also carries more implications than the Senator meant but, as far as I am concerned, I am still of the same opinion. I do not like the particular plan and I would not agree to it at all if I were not satisfied that there are complications. The complications exist owing to the fact that the matter was being dealt with before the general election. The Bill was withdrawn. A new Bill was introduced. That has resulted in a lengthier time than could have been foreseen. According to the information given to me, which I believe to be correct, the technical position is that under the Local Elections Order of 1942, the last day for nominations for county councils would be the 10th June and if this Bill did not become law you might have the position that there would have to be nominations or a complicated position in which, under the law, if they refused to nominate, you might have to appoint commissioners for the one or two days. In fact, you would have a comic opera position.

I do not mind admitting to the House that I and a good many of my colleagues were totally opposed to agreeing to this procedure. It was only when we found that it was a position so complicated to deal with that we agreed. I appreciate very much the attitude of the Front Bench on the other side. It will be recognised that it is rather humiliating for us on this occasion—this applies to all of us—to have a case to which, unfortunately, you cannot make an answer. There are the facts.

Agreed: That the Committee Stage be taken to-morrow.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendments, as I have already stated, will be accepted up to 1 o'clock to-morrow.

The Seanad adjourned at 5.15 p.m. until 3 o'clock on Thursday, 3rd June.