Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 19 Dec 1924

Vol. 9 No. 27

INTOXICATING LIQUOR (GENERAL) BILL, 1924. - LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL, 1924—FIFTH STAGE.

I beg to move that the Local Government Bill, 1924, do now pass.

I want generally to lay my protest against the passing of this Bill before the Dáil. We have done our best to amend the Bill; so as to reflect in some degree the ideas of local government of the people interested in the conduct of affairs in their localities. We have failed to make much of an impression— we did a little, I am glad to acknowledge—on the Bill, as it was originally introduced. Now, we are asked to pass finally a Bill which goes clearly against the conception of local government that has been growing up, in this country and in other countries, for very many years, concurrently with the development of the idea of self-government. This Bill really turns its back upon that tendency. We have now come to the final stage of a Bill which will detract from local responsibility for the administration of local affairs, and which clearly tends to the centralisation within the country of all minor local matters. The tendency is to a devolution of authority to non-elected bodies, whilst leaving an increased amount of central control and direction, and that is a thing one would have hoped we should see ourselves getting away from.

We opposed the abolition of rural district councils, not because we believe the rural councils were a perfect form and a perfect expression of the idea of local government, but because the abolition of those councils was decided upon without making provision for the substitution of any other authority to do the kind of work which local responsibility for local affairs would reqiure. If this Bill becomes law, we are to have local affairs, affairs affecting the intimate lives of people in the small matters of citizenship, conducted without responsibility to the people concerned. The tendency of the Bill, in my view, will be to deprive citizens of that sense of responsibility. It will go against the direction of local government, which would throw responsibility for purely local matters upon localities. A case can undoubtedly be made for the larger area dealing with matters affecting that larger area; but nothing in this Bill has been done to throw the responsibility upon the smaller area for the government and administration of affairs affecting only that smaller area.

That is retrogressive; it is a reactionary policy. It has been embodied in the Bill with the consent of the majority of the Dáil, and I believe that will result in exciting a great deal of opposition in the country as soon as its effects become known and realised. There are provisions in the Bill which are, of course, quite admirable and desirable. Along with those, however, there are too many provision which will not have the effects one would wish. There are provisions which go against what I believe to be a forward tendency, a tendency which would help to educate the people by giving them responsibility over their affairs. To deprive them of that responsibility is not wise. Under this Bill we are throwing the power into the hands of officials and we are tending towards placing in substitution for democratic government in the higher and better sense, the system of bureaucracy which has frequently been condemned inside and outside of the Dáil. I think the Dáil is doing an injustice to the ideas which have been embodied in our Constitution in respect to national affairs. It is going against that tendency towards local liberty and responsibility for government and administration, and therefore, I think the Bill is bad and ought not to be passed.

I, too, wish to register my protest against this Bill. Without exaggeration, I think it can be described as a most inhuman piece of legislation. I do not wish to convey that the Minister is conscious—I do not think he is—of what the effects of this Bill will be. I do not believe the majority of Deputies who voted for the Bill are really conscious of what are to be its effects. This Bill reminds me in some respects of the Old Age Pensions Bill. When the Old Age Pensions Bill was going through, some Deputies thought they were voting merely for a cut of 1/- a week. When they voted for this Bill, I believe they thought there was nothing in it only what appeared on the surface and what immediately caught the eye.

From my knowledge, and from what I have been able to learn from people who have given most of their lives to the service of the administration of local government, I do not think this Bill can be otherwise described than as an inhuman measure. That is no exaggeration. Two or three years ago some of the Deputies prominent on the opposite benches used to boast that the people of this country were well able to look after their own affairs and to govern themselves. The Minister now tells us that is all bosh, that there was no truth whatever in it, that the people of this country are not able to look after their own affairs, and that paid officials must be substituted for popular representation on the local councils. I believe, with Deputy Johnson, that this is a retrograde step. I believe the responsibility of citizenship should be placed upon the people, and if the Minister persists in carrying out to the full the powers which he obtains under this Bill, the way is opened up for bureaucracy.

We are going to have, every time a council, whether it be a county council or a county board of health, expresses an opinion which is contrary to the opinion held by the Minister, that council suppressed by the Minister and a Commissioner put in the place of its members. That is the general tendency, and I believe that will be the general tendency. Therefore, I think that this Bill should not be allowed to pass in the Dail without a very strong protest being made against its provisions. I want to refer also to the attitude which is adopted by the Minister with regard to the granting to the employees of public bodies the facilities which he was prepared to grant to what we will call, for the moment, the higher class of officers.

The Minister absolutely refused to give any consideration whatsoever or to entertain for one moment the idea that the employee of a public body, no matter how long or how faithful his services may be, should be allowed to get a grant or a gratuity or pension when he retires even after a minimum of 20 years' service. That is not what the workers of this country were led to believe would be the policy of this government. That is not what they were led to expect would be the treatment that would be meted out to them when they got a native Government. Even recently we had it mentioned in the Dáil, by a member of the Government, that that party represented every interest in the country. I suppose we must make allowances for statements made three, four and five years ago, but this statement was made recently. We were told by them that they were there to do their duty by every interest in the country, that they were there to give fair play to every interest in the country, and that they had committees set up within their party to deal with problems affecting every interest in the country.

When it comes down to dealing fairly, when it comes down to meting out justice, we find the old story repeated, and the under dog is to be the under dog all the time. Just because a man who is employed by the county council or corporation or urban council, happens to use a shovel or brush for 20 or 30 years instead of using, perhaps, a pen he is to be victimised for that. His services for all these years are to count for nothing. Once that service is finished, once he has reached the period when he is no longer able to do any work, then he is only fit for the scrap heap or the county home. The man who has spent 20 or 30 years, or less, working, let us say, with a pen, is to be provided for, and his family is to be provided for, for the remainder of his life. There is no justice in that. I do not think the Minister can get up here and say there is. The Minister not only refused to put the manual workers on a level with the higher salaried officials, but he insists on taking from them, and he has really taken from them, certain privileges which they did hold under the British Government.

That is not true.

It is true.

It is not, and you know it.

Under the British Government the local authority could give a pension.

They could not give any pension in the cases the Deputy has mentioned.

In many cases they did give a pension and it was with the sanction of the Local Government Board or with the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant that it was given.

It was illegal.

It was given anyway.

In only two or three cases was it given.

Since we got our own Government they have closed the door, absolutely, and they said "You were only a scavenger or a carter, and, so long as you are not a salaried official, you are not entitled to receive any compensation, any gratuity, any reward or any pension, no matter how long and how faithful your services have been." I think that is most unfair and most unjust, and to my mind, the Government that stands for that policy are not representing every interest. I do not see how they can get up here and say, or how they can go round the country and say, that they are representing every party or that they are prepared to represent every party, and prepared to give fair play to every party, irrespective of what section of the community that party belongs to, whether workers or higher salaried officials. They are not doing that.

We even asked the Minister whether he would be prepared to bring in a measure which would enable those employees to contribute towards their pension. We asked him if he would be prepared to bring in a special Bill to give superannuation to those employees on a contributory basis. The Minister refused. I think the workers are being treated scandalously in this matter. To my mind, the poor will feel the effects of this measure to a far greater extent than—and I am prepared to admit that—the Minister realises, and I am sure the poor will feel the effects of this Bill, when it is being enforced, far more than the Government can realise now. The tendency at the moment; the cry at the moment, is in the direction of economy. Economy always comes at the expense of the poor. That was the cry upon which we had the Amalgamation scheme.

The success or failure of the Amalgamation scheme is determined by the amount of money it will save, irrespective of, at whose expense the saving is to be made. The official appointed by the county board of health to superintend home help or whether you call him a relieving officer or home help superintendent, will have his efficiency judged, and his value to the county board of health will be determined by the low figure at which he can keep the amount of outdoor relief or home help which is to be given to the poor. That is the position, and I honestly believe that this part of the Bill is the most inhuman part of any measure that was passed in the Dáil since we came here.

Sitting suspended at 2.10 p.m.
The Dáil resumed at 3 p.m.,AN CEANN COMHAIRLE in the Chair.
Barr
Roinn