I beg to move that the Bill be received for final consideration.
LOCAL ELECTIONS BILL, 1927—REPORT.
Cuirimse os cómhair na Dála an leas-rún so.—"In page 2 to delete lines 31 to 35 inclusive." Although most of us object to certain principles that are adhered to in this Bill, we may take it that in discussing this particular amendment we will be discussing matters which will cover the ideas we have in mind, particularly in relation to the situation that exists with regard to the abolition or dissolution of the Municipal Council of Dublin, the Board of Guardians of Dublin, and the Municipal Council of Cork and subsidiary bodies. We on these benches object in toto to the continued existence of the Order which was put in force in 1924, which was acted on in 1924 as if authority existed to do so, and which abolished since that time the Municipal Council of Dublin. Going back a bit, and it is no harm to go over what did happen, we believe that at that time the matter was never discussed in this House. We believe that when that Order was issued by the Local Government Minister of the time to dissolve the Municipal Council of Dublin that that Order was ultra vires; that there was no authority sought here in this House, as it existed then, for power to suppress the Dublin Corporation. Of course, that power was obtained later. Therefore, I take it this body put itself in order so far as that original Order, which I at any rate claim was ultra vires, is concerned.
I have never heard it explained—I have never seen in print anywhere any statement giving the reason for the suppression of the Municipal Council of Dublin, the Borough Council of Cork, the Board of Guardians in Dublin and some other bodies against whom no charges of mismanagement or corruption were made. I speak in particular with regard to the Municipal Council of Dublin and the Board of Guardians of Dublin. We had a discussion last week relative to the County Borough of Cork, and there it was made clear that, so far as Cork was concerned, there was no charge certainly of mismanagement or corruption levelled against that body; neither was there, so far as I am aware, any such charge levelled against the Municipal Council of Dublin. The citizens of Dublin—and I speak especially of those of us who have been connected for a long time with the Municipality of Dublin and with civic affairs—have been wondering why that body, without any reason, serious or otherwise, being advanced for the act, was suddenly wiped out of existence. The other day we were discussing the Borough Council of Cork, and Deputy de Loughrey, from Kilkenny, said the Free State Government did right in suppressing the Dublin Corporation. I know that others have said the same in public. Responsible people have said it. I know that the Dublin daily Press has said the same, but I have yet to meet an individual, and I have yet to read in the daily Press or elsewhere, any good or sufficient reasons why that municipal authority of the City of Dublin should have been suppressed. Deputy de Loughrey did not advance a solitary reason for his statement. He was reminded, when he spoke of the Dublin Corporation, that Dublin had not had, and the Municipal Council of Dublin did not have, any official in its control in the working of that Municipal Council against whom a charge of misuse of the public funds could have been advanced. We are told that the same could not be said to be true of Kilkenny. No charge of mismanagement, that we know of, was made against the Municipal Council of Dublin. No charge of corruption was advanced against any official of that Corporation, and no attempt was made to prove any such charge or any such innuendo, and yet the Corporation was dissolved. No such attempt at proof was made at any time that the Corporation of Dublin had been unsatisfactory to the citizens.
I had a long connection with that body, as also had the President of the Executive Council. I, personally, because of my long connection with that Corporation, leaving aside the fact that I am a citizen of Dublin and a ratepayer, because of my long and intimate connection with that body, deeply resent, as a citizen and on behalf of the citizens of Dublin, the fact that, without any inquiry and without any charge being levelled against that body, a Government in this country, supposed to be the first native Government in existence in Ireland for a century, and the most prominent member of which was formerly most prominent also in the municipal life of Dublin and on the Municipal Council of Dublin, blotted out, so far as it could do so, the Municipal Council of Dublin and filched from the citizens their civic rights.
That is an act that does not do credit to those who are responsible and it certainly casts grave reflection on the municipal body of Dublin. I am sorry the President was not here to hear what I have to say. He was intimately associated with the working of that body. He was what would be called, in America at any rate, the boss of the Dublin Corporation. He controlled it practically, he had it in his pocket, and if there were mismanagement or corruption he is more to blame than anyone else from the years 1919 to 1922.
Does the Deputy admit mismanagement?
I certainly do not. If there was mismanagement that gentleman for three or four years before the abolition was primarily responsible. I must say in regard to the President of the Executive Council that as far as my knowledge goes, and I was fairly intimate with the work he did as a municipal councillor, he was as good as anyone could be in any part of Ireland, in any public body. He was as efficient, as reliable and as trustworthy as any man ever elected to a public board. I had twenty years' experience of that body. I think I happened to be in it one year before the President of the Executive Council. I continued there for a great number of years, and I personally must do what little I can to refute the charge of mismanagement and corruption levelled at it, particularly by the daily Press. I, personally, never came across anything that anyone could put a finger on and say it was corruption. I have never had that experience. I would like to say that, in justice to the abolished Corporation which the President of the Executive Council certainly did not show great regard or respect for when he wiped it out at the first opportunity he got. He was elected to that body over and over again by the citizens of Dublin. That body on many occasions paid respect to him, and he ought to have shown a little more gratitude to the city and the citizens that elected him. The abolition of the municipal council, in my opinion, was entirely autocratic. With the sudden access to power of some of these gentlemen, they thought they were little tin gods. They got power into their hands, a thing unknown to them before, and they forgot all their teachings with regard to the duties and rights of citizenship and the responsibilities that attached to membership of public offices. They showed their disrespect for a body that was up to a short time before that the premier public body in the country. It was certainly a very rotten headline to the country, and there is little credit due to those responsible for that action. The affairs of the municipal council were handed over to a triumvirate. I do not know anything about any of them personally, except that I remember one of them in the old Volunteer days, but it was an extraordinary idea to hand over the City of Dublin, with its intricate services and its huge finances, to three absolutely inexperienced men. Of course, they had, as municipal councillors who were newly elected had, the advice of reliable officials, but to throw out a responsible body of citizens, elected by the citizens to control the destinies of the city and put in three well-paid gentlemen, not one of whom had any experience of municipal management and to expect that these men should be able to give better service than the municipal councillors, some of whom, at least, had several years' experience, was preposterous.
It is certainly an act against which I, as one citizen of Dublin, at any rate, protest with all my might. We know that the daily Press in Dublin—the "Independent" Newspapers and, to a greater extent, the "Irish Times"— were delighted at this action and gave it their blessing. We know, as long as I can remember taking any interest in public life, that certainly the "Irish Times"—the "Independent" was not so long under the same control, since it came into the hands of the late Mr. William Martin Murphy, a very respected citizen—we know that for a great number of years since the wider and more democratic franchise was introduced there has been a persistent campaign against the municipal council of Dublin on the part of these two newspapers. As long as the municipal council was controlled by what I might call the old gang—those who were not elected on the broad franchise —the "Irish Times" did not have much complaint. They criticised naturally, from time to time, but they never demanded the filching from the citizens of their civic rights. From the time that the late Mr. William Martin Murphy was defeated in his efforts to get control of the electric lighting system of Dublin, the newspaper which he and his family controlled has been bitterly hostile to the municipality of Dublin. Therein, to my mind, lies a good deal of the unswerving hostility that that particular paper has shown towards the management of municipal affairs by the popularly-elected body. Those who own and control the "Independent" Newspapers wanted to control and run the electricity undertaking in Dublin, now owned by the municipality, despite the efforts of the Murphy family. But they to a great extent own and certainly control the tramways in Dublin. There was an idea in recent years in the minds of the members of the Dublin Municipal Council that these tramways, being a public service, ought to be owned by the citizens, and that when the lease of the tramways, which was renewed in 1896, fell in, that the municipality would take over the tramways. I wonder if the abolition of the Municipal Council in Dublin did not have some connection with the renewal of the lease of the tramway company or of the streets of the city of Dublin to the Dublin Tramways Company. That may seem, in the minds of some, to be farfetched, but when we know that quite recently the lease of the streets of Dublin, which had several years to run still, has been renewed for a further long period—it has been renewed behind the backs of the citizens by the gentlemen who now, nominated by the Free State Government, control the city and its finances—the suspicion is in the minds of many citizens that it is a far-sighted move on behalf of those who had a personal financial interest in the matter. That may have been one of the reasons suggested—that the Corporation might not have so easily given away a lease but might have demanded a bigger price for the use of the city's streets—why that body was wiped out and three gentlemen who could be induced—I will not use a stronger word—more easily to deal lightly with a body like the Tramways Company, and to have perhaps a less sense of responsibility of what is due to Dublin and its citizens than the old municipality would have or the new municipality if there had been one elected in the meantime put in their place.
I would like to understand the Deputy as clearly as is possible. Do I understand that he suggests that the Dublin Corporation was abolished so that a renewal of the lease might be given to the Tramway Company, and that he suggests that members of the Executive Council had shares in the Tramway Company?
My words are very clear, and I do not think I mentioned members of the Executive Council, good, bad or indifferent.
I thought they were the people responsible for it.
You can think what you like.
I only wanted to be as clear as I possibly could.
My words are there for anybody to read. My statement was definite and clear, I believe.
Sometimes.
That suggestion was made, and it certainly is in the back of my mind. It may be because these people are long-sighted and wanted the Municipal Council out of the way, because they could get a renewal of their lease more easily in other quarters, that the Municipality was wiped out. Then we are told that it was in order to introduce a system which would mean better civic management that the Corporation was abolished. If there were a serious idea in the minds of those who abolished the Corporation that they wanted to get some other kind of system of municipal management, it would not necessarily follow that in order to make inquiries or to study other systems of municipal control or management that they would have to abolish the Municipality of Dublin in the meantime. It was not even because it was desirable to extend the boundaries of Dublin that the Corporation of the city had to be abolished. In my time—it is not so very long ago —I remember the boundaries of Dublin City being extended, and it was not necessary to suspend the functioning of the Municipal Council of Dublin while that process was going through. I cannot, therefore, see that there is any serious reason why, in order to extend the boundaries of Dublin, if that be decided upon at present, the Municipal Council of Dublin should not be restored and should not function in a normal way, and why the citizens should not have their civic rights restored to them. Important as the Greater Dublin Report is, that excuse does not hold water. I really am at a loss to know what was in the minds of those who adopted such an autocratic way of dealing with an old body like the Corporation of Dublin, one that in Ireland's fight for freedom in recent years and within the last century and a quarter had done its share. That body, speaking as a municipality in its corporate capacity, had helped very materially to make a success of the fight in recent years against British rule in Ireland. Anything that it, as a corporate body, could do to help that fight was done by it, and on many occasions it gave a lead to the whole country and to public bodies all over Ireland as to what such bodies could do and should do to help to get Ireland free.
One of those who had been a leader in that direction was to the front in suppressing the old-established, respected—it was worthy of respect, too, in every way as far as my knowledge goes—Municipality of Dublin. I am at a loss to know what was at the back of it.
He had shares in the Tramway Company.
Perhaps he had. I do not know, and I hope you had. To my mind, judging by experience, it should not have been done in order to secure better municipal management because in the last few years, looking on the city as I see it, there has not been any improvement in management that would justify such improper action being taken by this body or any responsible person connected with it towards the Municipal Council of Dublin. It was a body that ought to have, if only for its work within the last five or six years before it was suppressed, earned the respect of those who form the responsible element in the Government of the Free State. It did not get that, and, therefore, I claim, at any rate, that those responsible people who abolished the Corporation showed the basest ingratitude. I also claim that the city has not been better managed. Rates have been reduced undoubtedly, and I am as glad of that as anybody. It means as much to me as it means to the majority of citizens—to my own pocket—but I would be prepared to sacrifice what little has been gained if it were necessary, as I believe it is, to treat the poor of Dublin better than they have been treated by the Commissioners appointed by the Minister for Local Government. Since they came into office I am informed that they have tightened up—no one could object to that if there was looseness—relief inside the various buildings associated with the old Dublin Union, but as regards home assistance or poor relief they have gone too far in my opinion. They have gone further than present conditions of life in the city for the poor justify. As one who is a Dublin Deputy—I am sure every Deputy from the city of Dublin has the same experience—I am every day bombarded by callers and communications from people who are very poor and half starved, but who nevertheless are entitled to every consideration and respect. They are entitled, too, to the relief which is provided out of the rates paid by the people. They find, unlike the old days when they could go to a Guardian, get a friendly hearing and get their cases considered, in these times that they have the greatest difficulty in getting consideration for even urgent cases of distress in our city. From that point of view, things have not improved, but instead have very much disimproved. It is true, of course, that the rates have come down. No one objects to that if in bringing them down hardship is not imposed upon the people who are least able to bear it.
Looking around the city, I agree that the centre of it is very clean. In some respects perhaps certain streets are better looked after than they used to be in the days of the old Municipal Council. But if one goes into the back lanes, the back streets, the alleys and the slums, he will see there sights during weather like this which are certainly no credit to any body in control of the municipality. While, as I have said, some of the city streets are getting more attention than used to be paid to them in the old days, I do say that the back streets of our city are neglected. But there are other things happening, such, for instance, as the taking up of the pavement in Dame Street. The pavement there was quite good and would have lasted for perhaps another ten years. It was taken up perhaps for publicity value—in order to give the Press something to talk about in praise of the wonderful young men who have transformed certain streets of the city. That pavement, in my opinion, would have lasted for another ten years, but it has been taken up and the street has been asphalted at very considerable cost. Things like that are done to give opportunity perhaps for praise and publicity for those concerned, but to my mind at least they do not mean that the city is better governed than it was ten years before.
Somebody called my attention the other day to the fact—I suppose it is a kind of quid pro quo—that the part of Middle Abbey Street nearest to the "Independent" Office has been dug up and a new noiseless road laid down. But the same thing was not done near Jervis Street Hospital, a hundred yards further down the street. I think we could reasonably claim that a public institution of that nature was as deserving of consideration, if there were noiseless streets being handed out, as was the "Independent" newspaper office.
A great deal has been said and published with regard to housing improvements in Dublin during the last five or six years since these wonderful, active and brilliant young men took control. But there is one test that one might put, and I think it is a just test, to find out what exactly, so far as housing is concerned, has been the improvement in the city. I asked for and got figures the other day which proved, although we are told wonders have been done and thousands of houses have been built and that there are great schemes in operation, that, notwithstanding all that, it is a fact that there are a greater number of families living in one-roomed tenements in the City of Dublin to-day than there were five years ago. These are the facts, and these figures can be got even from the Municipality itself. That, to my mind, disproves any claim that can be made that as far as housing is concerned any advance whatsoever has been made. As a matter of fact, we have retrograded.
There is only one direction that I am conscious of in which an advance, as some people might call it, has been made, and that is in the publicity of Dublin as a municipal centre. The activities of these three well-paid, brilliant young men, who, as we have been cold, have instituted so many social reforms in the municipal life of Dublin, have certainly reformed the old Dublin as we used to know it so far as publicity is concerned. They have a lot to say in praise of their own work. The Corporation of the old days got little praise. Perhaps they did not deserve it, but I do not think they looked for it. These gentlemen, whatever the reason, seem to me to give more of their attention to getting publicity and praise for their work, for whatever they do, than one would expect or than one would think right and proper if they were giving the whole of their time, as one would expect them to do, to the work of the municipality. With regard to this publicity there was, to use a slang word, one stunt held a couple of months ago in the city. It advertised Dublin as if Dublin were a fifth-rate American town that had sprung up in a few weeks and that wanted to boost itself. This stunt they called Civic Week. Well, what that Civic Week did to make Dublin better known or more respected inside or outside the ambit of the municipality I do not know. I am not aware that it did anything to raise the credit of Dublin City or of the Dublin Municipality. They erected some kind of a wooden structure on O'Connell Bridge. I think it was "Dublin Opinion" that called it "Dublin's Empty Formula." What value it had or what value we got out of the sum of close on £2,000 that it cost, goodness only knows.
The whole of that week's proceedings seemed to me to be a lowering of the dignity that attaches to the municipality of Dublin. We had a week of jazz and a circus of some kind parading the city. Ladies—I do not know anything about them and I do not know anyone who does—were brought here on beauty show. Imagine bringing beauties from outside to a city like Dublin. Someone beside me suggests that it was like bringing coals to Newcastle. Well I do not think Paris can teach us anything in that way or that they possess any attributes in that way that we need look to. Bringing people here about whom little is known was certainly not adding to the dignity or sense of responsibility of this old municipality. The bringing of them may have given a little enjoyment to the Minister for Local Government and the officials concerned, parading around and dancing around those beauties, showing them off and airing, perhaps, their French, but what in God's name all that did to help to raise the tone of Dublin City or to add to the dignity of this old municipality I do not know.
Or what it has to do with the Local Elections Bill?
If the citizens of Dublin were in control of the city, which they are not owing to the Local Elections Act, that sort of "codology" would not be tolerated. We have our own ideas of beauty here and we have our own ideas of what constitutes good citizenship and what constitutes dignity. We do not need jazz bands from Paris or elsewhere to teach us anything in that respect. We do not need—I do not want to say a word in disrespect of them—ladies from Paris or elsewhere in France to teach us anything in regard to what constitutes beauty. Perhaps the Minister and his acolytes who control the municipality do need a little tuition or, perhaps, they thought they did when they imported these people.
I do feel that Dublin has been badly treated. I do feel that the dignity of our city has been hurt. I do feel that a body which gave good service, not alone to the citizens, but to the national movement—a body that even during the period of membership of the President of the Executive Council gave service second to none in the movement for the liberation of our country—that that body should be wiped out of existence, a body of which President Cosgrave was such a valued member, and who did, as I said earlier when he was not present, such good work in his time. I do feel that that body should have been wiped out of existence without any discussion, without any charge of mismanagement, without any charge of corruption being levelled against it, without any opportunity being given to that body to defend itself. I feel that we should make an earnest protest against that. I take this opportunity, speaking as one citizen who has some sense of responsibility, who has a love for the old city, and who believes that it ought not to be treated in that way, to protest against the system which has been adopted. It is to get an opportunity of voicing that protest, and helping to bring to an early end the period over which this order abolishing the Corporation will run, that I move this amendment. We believe that it is not necessary to continue the extinction of the Corporation for another nine months or for another year, or perhaps longer, in order to discuss the question of Greater Dublin or the reconstruction of the municipality. We believe that all that could be discussed, and discussed well, while the Municipal Council was carrying on its ordinary functions. Therefore, we believe that the amendment I have proposed to shorten the period is in order, and ought be adopted by this House.
I did not intend to take part in this debate, but as Deputy O'Kelly has referred to a statement by me, that the Government were justified in every case in which they appointed Commissioners, I think I might be allowed to explain. Deputy O'Kelly says I made no attempt to prove that the Corporation of Dublin was unsatisfactory—that I made no reference to the mismanagement of the Dublin Corporation. I did not, and I never intended to do so. I think he sums up the situation himself when he says he could not put his finger on anything that could be called corruption. I should be long sorry to stand up here and charge any elected body with corruption. But we know that a municipal body, like a Corporation, can be inefficient and unsatisfactory without being actually corrupt. At least, that is my experience—that you will find such a state of affairs existing for many years in a public body that no matter how well you divide your energy in order to bring it into a state of efficiency, you are handicapped by the fact that you inherit a good deal of inefficiency. I think that applies generally. I would like to make it quite clear that I am not in favour of Commissioners as a permanent cure for unsatisfactory local government. While I believe that there are cases in which the appointment of Commissioners is not only justifiable but desirable—that there are councils which have, so to speak, run to seed and require different methods—I do believe that Commissioners as a permanent cure would be unsatisfactory. Nevertheless, I believe that the general body of the electorate in Dublin would vote for the continuance of Commissioners. I have only the knowledge derived in discussing the matter with citizens in Dublin to justify me in that statement. There were certainly expressions of dissatisfaction with the methods of the Dublin Corporation. I believe that in Kilkenny, for instance, the electors would vote for Commissioners. Notwithstanding that, I disagree with this method, because I think it tends to kill public spirit. I think that even if you got better administration from Commissioners, it would be a very undesirable method of administration, because it would kill local interest and public spirit. I never heard it stated that it was the intention of the Local Government Department to retain the Commissioners in Dublin or elsewhere longer than was absolutely necessary. I take it that they regard this as only a temporary expedient. I think they should get support in putting back the Dublin Corporation, the Cork Corporation, and any other bodies that have been dissolved, so that these bodies could start off with new life. I think that we, as a young State, should give our capital city a decent start and make it a city that we can all be proud of. I do not want to criticise the Dublin Corporation of the past. I believe the members did their best, but they were up against a situation, as others were up against similar situations elsewhere, which they could not control. I hope that, as soon as possible, but not sooner than is desirable or safe, the Commissioners for the City of Dublin and the City of Cork will be replaced by elected bodies.
During the debates on the Second Reading and on the Committee Stage Deputies on these Benches tried to extract from the Government, in the first place, some explanation as to why the Dublin Corporation was suppressed, and, secondly, why it was necessary to continue its suppression until March, 1929. We have not succeeded. No reasons whatever have been given, except one which, I think, was obviously not the correct one, namely, that the report of the Greater Dublin Commission has not yet been adequately considered, or the legislation that will arise out of it drafted. I should like to know from the Minister what were the reasons for the suppression of the Dublin Corporation, and do those reasons still exist. Deputy De Loughrey, who is a member of the Government Party, has assured us that, although the Government was justified, there was no mismanagement or corruption proved against the Dublin Corporation. He said, however, that the Corporation was inefficient—that it had gone to seed. If such were the case, the evil could have been remedied by the election of a new Council. There is no one here who will suggest that the Council which was in office at the time of the dissolution should be continued indefinitely. That particular Council had, for various reasons in connection with the troubled period during which it existed, lost a number of its most useful members. Another election, I submit, could have been usefully held and a new Council elected. That new Council could have been conducting the affairs of the city while the Greater Dublin Commission was discussing the problem of municipal management and preparing its report. While that report is being considered by the Executive Council, we are told that it is necessary to continue the suppression of the Corporation until March, 1929, because it will take that time to enable the Government to prepare, introduce and have passed the necessary legislation arising out of the report of the Greater Dublin Commission. I cannot convince myself that that is the correct explanation. I believe that there was some motive, which we have not even glimpsed at, originally behind the suppression of the Corporation, which is now the reason for continuing its suppression long after the date on which the other local government elections will have been held.
Let us cast our minds back over the period during which the Commissioners have been in control and see what exactly has happened, in order to discover, if possible, a clue to the reason for their appointment. We know that practically their first triumph, or successful performance, after their appointment was that they succeeded in reducing the wages of the Corporation workers very considerably. These reductions have been continued. As Deputy Boland pointed out on the Second Reading, the last reduction endured by the Corporation workers was followed immediately afterwards by an increase of £200 per year to each of the Commissioners. Was it in order to ensure that reduction of wages that the Corporation was suppressed? Possibly, it may have been one of the reasons. Deputy O'Kelly has mentioned the matter of the tramway lease. That was a big reason. Possibly that lease in itself was the real reason behind the suppression of the Corporation, because I do not think it is likely that the elected representatives of the citizens would have so lightly entered into the matter as the Commissioners did. There was no urgency in the matter. I think I am correct in stating that the existing lease holds good for a few years yet, and the whole matter could have been left over until the Greater Dublin Commission had been set up and the elected representatives of the people had an opportunity of considering it. Now they are presented with a fait accompli. They have no choice in the matter. Their property has been given away from them without their consent.
There was a reduction in the rates, we are told. I think an examination will reveal that a very considerable portion of that reduction was automatic and would have come about just as surely if an elected Council had been in control instead of the Commissioners. The remaining portion of the reduction was secured, as Deputy O'Kelly pointed out, by economy in the wrong direction—by cutting the rations that were given to the poor in the Union and by economy in the administration of outdoor relief to an extent involving great hardship on the lowest strata of the population. That is one way to secure economy. If you abolished outdoor relief altogether, pulled down your Union and dismissed the officials, you would be able to secure a very considerable reduction in the rates. If you abolished all other municipal services of a charitable kind, you would be able to reduce the rates still further. But I do not think that the ratepayers of Dublin want reductions made in that way. I think that they would be prepared to pay a fair share to maintain in some degree of comfort the destitute poor of this city. These things are past and it is our purpose now to try and find out what is going to happen within the next sixteen or seventeen months, while the Commissioners are in control, to explain the extraordinary delay in the consideration of the report of the Greater Dublin Commission. I have been trying to discover it, and I do not think I have succeeded yet. I hear that an agreement is being negotiated to place the public libraries of the city under the control of the Carnegie Trust. Whether that is correct or not, I do not know, but there are certainly strong rumours to that effect in circulation in the city.
It is good enough as a red herring.
At any rate we would like to know the truth of it. There is one thing certain—that no elected Council in Dublin would consent to such an agreement. I can hardly think that it is proposed to reduce the wages of the workers any lower than they are. That is a physical impossibility. They must give the men enough to keep them living at any rate from week to week, and that is barely what they are giving at present. Of course, the Town Clerk has been given a remunerative position in connection with the Shannon scheme, and I do not think that there are any other officials to be placed in highly paid positions that do not require considerable activity. It is very hard to know what is the real reason for continuing the Commissioners in power and postponing the election of the Corporation from June until March, 1929, and I hope the Minister will endeavour to enlighten us. As I said previously here, it strikes me, and it is striking the citizens of Dublin, that the Executive Council do not appreciate the seriousness of their action in taking from the people of Dublin, and of the other municipal areas in the country, their democratic rights. We, as the representatives of the people, and the guardians of their rights, should grudge every moment during which the suppression of the Dublin Corporation and these other Councils is continued. That is our function. It is for that we were elected—to preserve the rights of the people who sent us here. One of the rights of the people of Dublin is to have a direct voice in the control of their municipal affairs, and it is as much the duty of the Deputies elected for Dublin on the Government Benches, as it is the duty of the Deputies on these benches, to see that these rights are restored to the Dublin people at the earliest possible moment.
I believe if the Minister for Local Government would try and ginger up his staff and get things moving it would be possible to have legislation introduced and passed through this House before June which would enable the elections to take place in Dublin on the same date and time as the elections for municipal bodies in the country. Deputy de Loughrey is quite right when he says that if we want to restore the proper civic spirit amongst our people we must give them the civic responsibility. We cannot produce that spirit amongst the people of Dublin that we would like to see until the citizens feel that they have direct responsibility for every action taken that affects the affairs of the city. Deputy O'Kelly mentioned Civic Week. I do not want to deal with that, except to mention a matter on which I feel very strongly.
The Mansion House in Dublin and other municipal halls were available during that week for beauty shows and jazz dancing competitions. But when Madame Markievicz, a lady representative of the City of Dublin, died recently, and it was attempted to secure one of those halls for the purpose of having the body laid in state so that the citizens might pay a last tribute to her memory every municipal hall was refused, and it was necessary to hire a concert hall to enable that lying-in-state to take place. I consider that studied insult offered to the people who elected that lady to be their representative was itself sufficient to condemn the whole Commissioner system and the mentality behind it.
Deputy de Loughrey said he is not in favour of continuing the Commissioners longer than is necessary. Necessary for what? That is the question I have been asking during the whole course of my remarks. Longer than is necessary? I want to know why it is necessary to have them at all in the first place, and, secondly, why it is necessary to make an exception in the case of Dublin and to keep the Commissioners in office longer than is necessary?
I did not intend to make any contribution to this debate, but I suppose in some respects I am the principal villain of the piece, having been the Minister responsible at the time. I intend to explain my position as briefly as possible. The two speeches delivered from the Opposition Benches, one by Deputy O'Kelly and the other by Deputy Lemass, would have served a more useful purpose if delivered three years ago. At least, they might possibly have served some purpose then, but post mortem jeremiads of this kind are not going to serve any very useful purpose now. The question as to whether the Government were justified in the abolition of the Corporation or not is going to be decided by the experience which we have gone through rather than by any theoretical argument, pro or con. We know what the facts are. Even Deputy O'Kelly could do no more in criticising the Commissioners than damn them with faint praise. He has had to admit that the rates are reduced, that services are better, that the roads are better, that the streets are cleaner and that there are more houses available, and in order to find some fly in the ointment, he had to go down to the slums.
There is no city in the world of which I have had experience but has its slums. You cannot get rid of them. Even in New York, San Francisco, Chicago, on the continent, and in London there are many slums. If the body responsible for the control— the municipality—is able to keep its particular streets in first-class order, I think it is as much as could be expected. You must have first and second class streets in every city, and you cannot have them all up to the same level of perfection.
We have been accused of putting out the Corporation without legitimate excuse. The Corporation was put out after a public inquiry was held. I was the individual responsible for signing the order. I was an Extern Minister at the time and had a certain amount of responsibility. I believed at the time that the extinction of the Corporation would justify itself. I had some experience in another country. I was in the City of Buffalo and I saw how Commissioners had been appointed and justified their appointment. I was, also, in the model city of Dayton, in Ohio, where Commissioners had been appointed, and gave complete satisfaction. I was always quite confident that the suppression of the Dublin Corporation would justify itself. It has done so. The excuse for putting out the Dublin Corporation was not corruption. We held a public inquiry. We did not find corruption, and we did not expect to find it. We found that there was a certain amount of mismanagement, and we realised that the time had come to make a change. We realised that we would have increased efficiency and that we would gain economically by putting in Commissioners. There is an idea that because you have a body in existence for a great number of years you ought never change it, that the old order should never be changed, and that you should never have anything new. But that is a wholly wrong conception.
It is asked why the Commissioners are continued. Everyone is aware that there was a Commission set up, known as the Greater Dublin Commission, to inquire into the whole question of the administration of Dublin. That took a long time. They published a short report. It took a very long time to hear all the evidence, and it will take a considerable time to put into operation machinery based on that report. Personally I do not know what action the Government will take later on, but I hope the Commissioner system will be retained, whether with some kind of an advisory body or not I do not know. But I would be very sorry, and I think the citizens of Dublin would be very sorry, to revert to the old Corporation system.
There is one point in connection with this amendment which I would like the Minister for Local Government to refer to when he comes to reply. The last speaker referred to the reduction of the rates effected by the Commissioner system, in justification of the suppression of the Dublin Corporation and the appointment of the Commissioners. Attention has been repeatedly drawn to the reduction in rates they affected. I should like to ask the Minister if it is not a fact that at the time of the suppression of the Dublin Corporation the public debt was, approximately, £2,400,000, and that at the present time it is approximately £3,600,000, an increase of £1,200,000, and is it not a fact that if that £1,200,000 had been levied on the rates it would mean an average additional rate of 8/- in the £ on the intervening years.
Has the Deputy examined the assets stated in respect of that £1,200,000?
I am asking the Minister to explain that. Perhaps he will refer to it in his answer.
One of the black spots in the history of President Cosgrave's régime is that in respect of the dissolution of public bodies in the Free State and the appointment of paid Commissioners. I quite agree with Deputy O'Kelly when he says there was no reason for the dissolution of the Dublin Corporation, or, indeed, for the dissolution of any other public body in the twenty-six counties. I say here from experience—experience gained in the case of the Leitrim County Council, the first public body in the twenty-six counties to be dissolved—that the work of the public bodies has not been carried out as well by the Commissioners appointed by the Local Government Department as by the suppressed public bodies consisting of elected representatives.
I will take the case of the Leitrim County Council to prove this assertion. When the Commissioner who was appointed for the County Leitrim came there to discharge the duties of the dissolved County Council the rate on land was 1s. 11d. in the £, and the rate on buildings was 3s. 11d. When the Commissioner left Leitrim the rate on land had risen to 6s. 6d. in the £, and on buildings to 10s. The overdraft when the Commissioner left was something like £35,000. That in itself proves that the duties were not carried out half as well, or, indeed, anything like as well as when the Leitrim people had their own county council there. There was no audit of accounts. We are not in a position even yet to say how things stand. We know from experience that things were not done as well as they would have been done by the local bodies. We have had no audit of accounts of the Leitrim County Council from 1922 to 1926, during the time the Commissioner was there.
I wonder if the Deputies opposite have a mandate from their constituents to vote for the retention of the Commissioners in Dublin and Cork? Are the Deputies from Leitrim, who sit opposite, and who have a knowledge of what happened in the case of the Leitrim County Council, prepared to disfranchise the citizens of Dublin in a manner similar to that in which the ratepayers in Leitrim have been disfranchised and mulcted? The discharge of the duties of the Commissioner brought about a series of abuses from start to finish, and I say that in order to stop this at once the first thing the Government should do is to have an election in Dublin and Cork.
I have not very much to say on this matter. I have given a little consideration to matters connected with Dublin City and I have tried to verify whether the objections that have arisen to the Commissioners taking over the powers of the Corporation of Dublin can be justified. I have not approached this matter from the angle of a party subject, from any political angle, and I have not approached it merely for the sake of saying something about it with others. I find that the Government do not seem to realise that there are many things wrong as a result of the present administration. Deputy Lemass first of all mentioned that when we, representing the City of Dublin, approached Commissioner Hernon—I was one of the men who went along with the deputation—for the use of the Mansion House for the lying-in-state of the remains of Madame Markievicz, Commissioner Hernon could give us no reason. His explanation was that he had received instructions from Merrion Street not to give us the use of that place. That was the secret of the administration. The Commissioners' affairs are not administered from Dublin City Hall; it is Merrion Street that is administering.
I had an interview with Doctor O'Dwyer with regard to derelict sites in Dublin and I tried to discuss with him ways and means by which these derelict sites could be acquired and much-needed housing accommodation for the poorer people of Dublin, living in slums and tenement dwellings, erected. Some of the slums and tenement dwellings that I refer to were condemned for various reasons. I was given to understand that there was no such thing as an impossibility in the building of more than one thousand houses per annum, as was put up to us in the unemployment debates. Doctor O'Dwyer tells me that the reason they cannot build houses is because they have not the money. He tells me further that this money does not come through a Government grant other than the grants they give in the ordinary house-building schemes, and he mentioned that it would not be wise to borrow money for the building of houses, first because it might interfere with the floating of the National Loan, and, secondly, because they owe enough already.
That is not the outlook that the ratepayers would have. The representatives of the ratepayers would examine the situation and they would realise that we have slums. I do not believe the Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Bourke, when he tells us that there are condemned dwellings in places other than Dublin administered to a certain extent by Commissioners or by the elected representatives. In Dublin there is a lot of work to be done in that regard, and if you restore the representatives of the people on the Dublin Corporation they will have the responsibility of looking after the requirements of their fellow-citizens. Obstacles such as Dr. O'Dwyer has to overcome, possibly as a result of interviews in Merrion Street, would be more easily overcome by the representatives of the people. With regard to the houses that have been built, we have heard frequently of the number but I have yet to find a house that has been built which is suitable for a workman from the point of view that he is able to pay the rent.
Will the Deputy build one himself, in order to show us how?
I will come to that later on. At the present time there is no use in building houses for workmen when they cannot go into them because the rents are too high. There is no use in putting men in houses if they have to starve themselves when they go there and pay a rent that is too high. There is an objection from certain circles with regard to the building of self-contained flats. A certain number of flats are being built. I have asked questions of prominent men in business in the city in regard to the erection on properly-acquired sites of houses for workmen on the basis of the buildings in Temple Bar, and I find that houses could be erected and charges for rent could be made that would be more in keeping with the capacity of the workman. There is no doubt about that, and if the President wants to get particulars he will not have much difficulty.
Build one and show us how it can be done.
I am not a builder. Has it been attempted by the Commissioners, or has it been proved a failure by the Commissioners? They are building houses at present, and there is no failure about it. Where a local body is established through election by the citizens you have your local unemployment questions solved by the locally elected representatives. In Dublin, because of the way the Commissioners run the city, the question of local unemployment gets no consideration at all. I have in mind a certain incident. At the time the Commissioners took over the Corporation there was a department employing permanent men who were on the Corporation staff, and who did the work of compiling registers. The Commissioners, with a view to effecting economy, disbanded that department and put the men who were permanently employed on a temporary basis. I find now that out of the sixty men who were permanently employed at one time, and who were afterwards made temporary, four are now employed and the rest are ex-National Army officers. I think that is a grievance. Where we have an elected body they will look after questions of unemployment, and they will not look into it in any political sense.
Would the Deputy kindly repeat the figures relating to that department?
Out of sixty men who were once permanently employed, afterwards temporarily employed, only four are now working.
Does the Deputy suggest that 56 ex-National Army officers are now working there?
They may not be all officers.
You suggest there are 56 officers and men?
There are ex-National Army officers there who have no right to those positions, and they replace men who were permanent and afterwards made temporary employees.
I want it clearly from the Deputy what the number is?
I will make it ten if you like.
Four from sixty leaves ten!
Or even one. I will put it down at even one if you like. One even is wrong. The fact that you have now one man who was a permanent member of the old staff of the Corporation when the Commissioners took over, and who is now unemployed, is wrong. The fact that even one permanent man became a temporary man as a result of the Commissioners' campaign of economy, and is now unemployed and replaced by an ex-National Army officer, is wrong. The one thing I would like to get back to is this: I would like to see the Dublin Corporation restored, because if they are restored some more humane point of view would be taken with regard to the building of living accommodation for the poorer people of this city. I do not think the President has gone over the district that he once was very much interested in—I mean the Meath Street district. The deputation on which I went to Commissioner Dwyer arose out of a deputation that was appointed ten years ago, and in which the President was interested, and that was with respect to derelict sites in Meath Street. Nothing in connection with that matter was done by the Commissioners although the Corporation, when they were dissolved, had schemes to deal with this very matter; these schemes were shelved because of the economies propounded by the Commissioners. I believe if we get back in Dublin to the elected representatives of the city, and have them to take over the Corporation, not only will you have the departments, such as the Electricity Department, a paying concern, but you will have the other departments run just as well, and I believe we will have a better understanding with regard to cheap living accommodation for the less fortunate people of the city.
I was not joking when I interrupted the Deputy. I would like the Deputy and anybody he is acquainted with who is anxious to make an experiment in connection with housing on the lines he suggests, to make that experiment, and not to look to other people to do it.
I would suggest to the President to discuss that with Deputy Good.
Oh, no; the Deputy is intervening with a view to telling us what can be done. I have learned from experience what can be done. The Deputy is displeased with it, and with what we have done. I am suggesting to him as the very capable business man which I am sure he is—he was one of those who was returned by the Fianna Fáil Party at the last election— as a business man——
I was returned as a Republican.
Well, does that mean that a Republican cannot be a business man? I did not stand up to joke or make any fun. We want business. I am suggesting to the Deputy that he should get two or three persons——
Why not make a Commission of it?
Get two or three persons to come together and show how the thing can be done, because we do not know, we cannot do better than we have done, and if the Deputy requires further information I can give it to him. The Deputy will find that in connection with the building schemes under the old Corporation, speaking now of the last thirty years, the type of housing which he describes as flats was the most uneconomic type of building which was possible for the Corporation to carry out. The Deputy does not believe it. I would advise him if he is still an unrepentant unbeliever in respect of that, that he should get the figures, the published accounts of the Dublin Corporation, and that he should get the report of the Departmental Housing Inquiry which took place in 1913, and which was published in 1914. He could satisfy himself on the point, and if still dissatisfied he could invite a couple of those with whom he is acquainted in order to give an example of citizenship by way of a housing experiment and showing how it can be done.
I do not dispute the fact——
The Deputy must not interrupt.
Considering this matter this evening, I wondered, with the anxiety of the Government to appoint Commissioners, and their craving for Commissioners, that they never got the idea of appointing a couple of Commissioners to run the country. When you consider the fact that £23,000 a year is paid to the Deputies of this House, I think you will see that a lot of economy can be effected here. Coming from the county which has been, and I say it deliberately, Commissioner-ridden recently, I make this suggestion. We have there Commissioners being shoved around from one post to another. We have there, in fact, Commissioners who were found, in the finish, to be absolutely unable to manage their own home affairs, and who have been withdrawn from being Commissioners on that account— through being unable to manage their own home affairs. We have a Commissioner now in the Cork Corporation. He happens to be at present a member of the Public Health Board in Cork, representing five members of Cork City. I have noticed that the Mommissioner's chief anxiety there is to cut down the relief that we are giving to the poor.
There are members of that body on the opposite benches and they are aware of that. He was the individual who stood up the other day to make the case and to say that the Local Government Department were wrong in interfering with the salary of a gentleman who was drawing £900 a year. Doubtless he had some fears as to his own salary. I wonder what case has been made for the suppression of the Cork Corporation and other Corporations that could not be made equally well and with equal strength for the suppression of the members of this House and for the appointment of Commissioners here. I cannot see any. If the people cannot be trusted to elect representatives to manage the Corporation and to manage the affairs of the county, and the affairs of the city, how can they be trusted to elect representatives to manage the affairs of the twenty-six counties? I wonder that the members opposite have the impertinence to offer themselves as candidates at all if they could not trust the electors. How did the President offer himself as candidate for Cork City when he cannot trust the people of that city to elect the Corporation?
They trusted me.
The President gulled them sufficiently to elect him. But I see no reason whatsoever for retaining the Commissioners and I think the time has come when we, who are in here to protect the rights of the citizens everywhere, must see to it that this Commissioner system is abolished and at once. I see no case put up for it that could not be put up very much more strongly for the abolition of this House and the appointment of three Commissioners to discharge our duties here. It would save a great deal of money to do so.
As has been pointed out already, the effect of Section 3 is still to allow the Minister his discretion with regard to retaining the Commissioners in Dublin City, Dublin Union, in the Corporation of Cork and in the Urban District Councils of Trim, Ennis and Westport. The effect of removing this section will be to withdraw from the Minister his discretion in these matters. Now as far as the three urban district councils are concerned, I am not yet convinced that it is right in the interest of the ratepayers and in the general interests of the affairs of the Urban District that the election in these districts should take place in June. If I am persuaded between this and June, that in these districts an election can take place, then there is nothing to prevent an Order being issued ordering an election in these places. At the present moment, I see no reason why an election should take place there. In the case of Cork, I dealt with that in Committee. In the case of Dublin, I want to reiterate that as far as the Corporation is concerned, and as far as the Dublin Union is concerned, I cannot recommend at all that the Commissioners be removed and that they be replaced by elected bodies in time to have an election take place in June.
Deputy O'Kelly has spoken at great length on this particular matter. He opened his statement with a whole broadside of misrepresentations. When we consider the City of Dublin, we consider very important interests, very important concerns for the people of the city and for the people of the country as a whole, and it is wrong and unfair to the judgment of members of this House that a case should be endeavoured to be made in connection with the matter, prefaced, as I say, by a whole broadside of misrepresentations. Deputy O'Kelly stated that the Dublin Corporation was suppressed without any inquiry, that he never saw any reasons for its suppression, that the Government at the time sought no authority for it, but that it obtained powers later. As bring us any further, and I must beg regards the statement that there was no inquiry, a proposal to hold an inquiry was duly advertised in the Press, and an inquiry was publicly held in the Mansion House on 11th March, 1924, and from the 19th March, to the 24th March, 1924. Deputy O'Kelly said that the Corporation was dissolved without any inquiry, that there were no reasons. The fullest publicity was given in the Press to the evidence that was given before that inquiry and an order was publicly issued declaring that after the holding of the said inquiry the Minister for Local Government was satisfied that the duties of the Council of the County Borough of Dublin were not being duly and effectually discharged by them. No reasons! No authority! And the suggestion that having dissolved the Corporation we came back to the Dáil and got authority for it! Section 12 of the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923, gave the Minister power to hold an inquiry and, for particular reasons, to dissolve any public authority. That was passed on 28th March, 1923. After due public inquiry, and within the authority given to him under the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923, the Dublin Corporation was dissolved by the Minister on the 20th March, 1924, more than twelve months after the Minister had been empowered by the Dáil to take the action that was taken. Yet, the Deputies who may not recollect the position at that particular time are informed by Deputy O'Kelly that no authority was sought for the dissolution, and that power was obtained later. It is unfair, in the discussion of a very important matter, that a Deputy should get up and endeavour to blind the Dáil to facts. The Dublin Corporation was dissolved for the reasons stated in the Order given by the Minister at the time. We are dealing here with the consideration of whether or not it is possible to have an election for the Dublin Corporation held in June, 1928, bearing in mind the general position with regard to the city and the in terests of the ratepayers. To get back into all the reasons, imaginary and otherwise, that are germinating in the mind of Deputy Lemass, would not to be excused by the Dáil, and I am sure the Dáil will excuse me, if I leave Deputy Lemass to the particular kind of nightmare he has with regard to this reason—leave him to sleep on it.
What were the reasons for the suppression?
The reasons are that an inquiry under proper authority was held publicly, and the Corporation was dissolved because its duties were not being duly and effectually discharged.
No details.
The details were given at very great length before the inquiry, that was held publicly, and that lasted a number of days.
Is it not a fact that the Corporation were not represented at that inquiry, and is it not a fact that if the existing Corporation were not fairly discharging their duties that a new election could have been held?
Whether the Corporation were legally represented or not I cannot say; it has no bearing on the present position. They had perfect liberty to be represented there legally, and to go there individually, and to give all the evidence they could. But all that matter is not relevant to the discussion we are having now.
Are the French beauties relevant?
Very little of what Deputy O'Kelly said was relevant.
You are a good judge.
I am a good judge. We are discussing whether or not an election for the Dublin Corporation can be held reasonably in June next year. As I say, all the discussion that took place at the inquiry dealing with the Dublin Corporation in 1924 might have been relevant when the Local Government Act of 1926 was being passed. It gave authority for the continued retention of the Commissioners in Cork, Dublin, and the Dublin Union until the 31st March, 1929. That may have been relevant then, but it is not relevant now. The different things that are wrong with Dublin from the point of view of Deputy Briscoe have little relation to what we are discussing now. They have, perhaps, some, in that it can very easily be argued that if the matters that are under consideration in connection with the Greater Dublin Commission's report are thoroughly and systematically gone into, and proper and mature judgment is brought to bear, that when you deal with Dublin, on decisions taken after the Greater Dublin Commission's report has been examined and decided on, you will, certainly, much more easily and effectively deal with problems required to be dealt with, whether it is the giving of more pay to city workers or the greater alleviation of people who want home assistance, or the better provision of housing. So that the point I rely on to persuade members of the Dáil that the best interests of Dublin can be served only by postponing, until a date not later than the 31st March, 1929, the election, is the consideration of the facts brought out in the Greater Dublin Commission's report. I have already drawn attention to the fact stated here on page 3: "In the area to be comprised within Greater Dublin, and to enjoy unitary control and administration, there now function some nineteen thinking and spending authorities." Within these nineteen bodies are the Dublin Corporation, the Rural District Council, important townships like Rathmines and Pembroke, and large sections of the county townships, such as Howth.
In the interests of all concerned, of the workmen, the people who want houses, the poor and the rest of the citizens of every class, we must insist and very strongly urge on the members of the Dáil that the matters that require to be considered and require a clear and workable decision, and that are dealt with in the Greater Dublin Commission's report, are matters of such importance that they cannot hope to be dealt with in time to allow an election to take place for any kind of a governing body in Dublin City in June next. If you are going to shut your eyes to objectionable facts in the way Deputy O'Kelly has shut his eyes to them, and if you do decide that you are going to have an election for Dublin in 1928, you are going to spend approximately £10,000 on elections in the city to elect bodies who may, after the Greater Dublin Commission's report has been examined and decided upon, be, to a large extent, replaced or changed in 1929, involving fresh elections in 1929 practically over the whole County and City of Dublin. So that in the interests of all those things that are wrong, it is suggested to you that you scrappily examine an important question, that you throw away £10,000 in unnecessary elections, and that generally you shut your eyes to facts because of the long-drawn-out indignation of certain Deputies about the way in which the Dublin Corporation was dissolved in 1924. We are considering here the problems that confront us to-day and will confront us to-morrow, and we ought to bring our minds honestly to bear on these and the facts that made them up. The amendment of Deputy Seán T. O Ceallaigh is unacceptable, and would throw a very heavy expense on the ratepayers in both the city and county of Dublin, and would prevent them having examined, in the thorough way it ought to be examined, the whole management of their city here.
What about Cork?
Before you put the question, I would like to ask the Minister for Local Government if he could give to the House any explanation as to why the Commissioners granted a renewal of the Tramway Company's lease, and particularly as to why the President of the Executive Council intervened to influence certain townships which were refusing to grant that lease, to grant similar powers and similar extensions to those which the Dublin Commissioners have already granted. I want the Minister to state why the President of the Executive Council intervened to secure an extension of that lease.
Has this anything to do with the Bill?
Yes, a good deal, because, as a matter of fact, we see that the City Commissioners are simply the mouthpiece of the Department of Local Government.
Might I ask the question I should have asked, but which Deputy Lemass mentioned, that is with reference to the refusal of the Commissioners to allow the remains of the late Madame Markievicz to be, for a time, exposed in the City Hall or the Mansion House? I would like the Minister to give his reason why there should be a refusal in the case of such a distinguished citizen of Dublin.
I have no power to compel the Minister to speak.
I suggest there is power to keep irrelevancies out of the discussion.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 64; Níl, 76.
Tá
- Frank Aiken.
- Denis Allen.
- Neal Blaney.
- Gerald Boland.
- Patrick Boland.
- Daniel Bourke.
- Seán Brady.
- Robert Briscoe.
- Henry Broderick.
- Daniel Buckley.
- Frank Carney.
- Frank Carty.
- Archie J. Cassidy.
- Patrick Clancy.
- Michael Clery.
- James Colbert.
- Hugh Colohan.
- Eamon Cooney.
- Dan Corkery.
- Richard Corish.
- Martin John Corry.
- Tadhg Crowley.
- William Davin.
- Thomas Derrig.
- Eamon de Valera.
- James Everett.
- Frank Fahy.
- Hugo Flinn.
- Andrew Fogarty.
- Seán French.
- Patrick J. Gorry.
- John Goulding.
- Seán Hayes.
- Samuel Holt.
- Patrick Houlihan.
- Stephen Jordan.
- Michael Joseph Kennedy.
- William R. Kent.
- Frank Kerlin.
- James Joseph Killane.
- Mark Killelea.
- Michael Kilroy.
- Seán F. Lemass.
- Patrick John Little.
- Ben Maguire.
- Thomas McEllistrim.
- Seán MacEntee.
- Séamus Moore.
- Daniel Morrissey.
- Thomas Mullins.
- Timothy Joseph Murphy.
- Patrick Joseph O'Dowd.
- Seán T. O'Kelly.
- William O'Leary.
- Matthew O'Reilly.
- Thomas O'Reilly.
- Thomas P. Powell.
- Patrick J. Ruttledge.
- James Ryan.
- Martin Sexton.
- Timothy Sheehy (Tipperary).
- Patrick Smith.
- John Tubridy.
- Francis C. Ward.
Níl
- William P. Aird.
- Ernest Henry Alton.
- James Walter Beckett.
- George Cecil Bennett.
- Ernest Blythe.
- Séamus A. Bourke.
- Michael Brennan.
- Seán Brodrick.
- Alfred Byrne.
- John Joseph Byrne.
- Edmund Carey.
- John James Cole.
- Mrs. Margt. Collins-O'Driscoll.
- Martin Conlon.
- Michael P. Connolly.
- Bryan Ricco Cooper.
- William T. Cosgrave.
- Michael R. Heffernan.
- Michael Joseph Hennessy.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- Mark Henry.
- Patrick Hogan (Galway).
- Richard Holohan.
- Michael Jordan.
- Patrick Michael Kelly.
- Myles Keogh.
- Hugh Alexander Law.
- Patrick Leonard.
- Finian Lynch.
- Arthur Patrick Matthews.
- Martin McDonogh.
- Michael Og McFadden.
- Joseph W. Mongan.
- Richard Mulcahy.
- James E. Murphy.
- James Sproule Myles.
- Martin Michael Nally.
- Sir James Craig.
- James Crowley.
- John Daly.
- Peter de Loughrey.
- Eugene Doherty.
- James N. Dolan.
- Peadar Seán Doyle.
- Edmund John Duggan.
- James Dwyer.
- Barry M. Egan.
- Osmond Thos. Grattan Esmonde.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
- John Good.
- D.J. Gorey.
- Alexander Haslett.
- John J. Hassett.
- John Thomas Nolan.
- Richard O'Connell.
- Bartholomew O'Connor.
- Timothy Joseph O'Donovan.
- John F. O'Hanlon.
- Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
- John J. O'Reilly.
- Gearoid O'Sullivan.
- John Marcus O'Sullivan.
- Patrick Reynolds.
- Martin Roddy.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Timothy Sheehy (West Cork).
- William Edward Thrift.
- Michael Tierney.
- Daniel Vaughan.
- John White.
- Vincent Joseph White.
- George Wolfe.
- Jasper Travers Wolfe.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies G. Boland and MacEntee. Níl: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.
Amendment declared lost.
Question proposed: That the Bill be received for final consideration.
On the motion before the House I wish to raise a matter which I had hoped to mention on the last amendment. That is the matter to which Deputy Lemass has already referred, namely, the circumstances under which the Dublin Corporation granted a renewal of the Tramways Company's lease.
On a point of order, is this matter relevant to this Bill, which deals with elections?
I hope to establish the relevancy in this way: in order to show how detrimental it is to the interests of the citizens of Dublin generally that the Dublin Corporation should still remain suspended. I wish to draw attention to one incident which occurred under the administration of the present Commissioners. This incident goes to show that either the Department of Local Government or the Executive Council interfered in the civic concerns of Dublin city. I think if I can establish to this House that Dublin municipality is not administered by the Commissioners on behalf of the citizens but by the Commissioners on behalf of the Government, I will be in a position to show that there is no reason whatsoever why the elections should be postponed.
This Bill, the Second Reading of which has been passed, embodies a principle in connection with the holding of elections and changes the date of elections from January to June or July. The Dáil, by the Vote which has just been taken, affirmed the exclusion of certain local authorities from the scope of this Bill. They are not included in the Bill and are not part of it now. This Bill refers only to local authorities in respect of which elections would be held in January but are now to be held in June or July. I submit that the point the Deputy is raising is irrelevant on this Bill. While anxious to accommodate him at any other time, I submit that he is not in order in raising this matter now.
Is not the point this: that we on this side of the House oppose the omission of the public bodies that the President has cited from the operation of this Bill. We wish them to be included.
I was anxious to allow Deputy MacEntee to establish the relevancy of his remarks. If the Deputy had spoken when we were considering amendment No. 1, I would have allowed him to proceed and make the point. The position, however, is that a vote has been taken on amendment No. 1 and a decision arrived at. In view of that, I do not see how the Deputy can be allowed to re-open a decision already taken.
On the Report Stage am I not in order in discussing the whole principle of a Bill, not only the positive but the negative effects of it in so far as it stipulates that certain public bodies and authorities will remain outside its scope? There are two principles involved in this Bill. One stipulates that elections will be held in certain areas, and the other that elections will not be held in certain areas. I am confining myself to the second principle in the Bill, which is that elections will not be held so far as public bodies in Dublin are concerned.
That matter cannot be discussed on this stage. The principle of a Bill is discussed on Second Reading. As the Second Reading Stage is past, the principle of the Bill cannot be discussed now.
Question: That the Bill be received for final consideration, put and agreed to.
I gave notice on Committee Stage that I would ask to have the Bill received for Fifth Stage consideration either to-day or tomorrow. The purpose of that is to convenience the Seanad. If the House be agreeable, I would move that the Bill do now pass.
Is it agreed that leave be given to take the Fifth Stage now.
Agreed.
Question again proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
On that motion, cannot Deputy MacEntee discuss the question of principle that he raised.
The question of the principle of the Bill cannot be raised at this Stage. The principle of the Bill was decided on Second Stage.
Can a question of detail be raised now?
Questions of detail are decided on Committee Stage.
What can be discussed now?
What is in the Bill at present.
Would not that include the exclusion of the bodies to which Deputy MacEntee proposed to refer?
One of the clauses in the Bill provides that elections shall not be held in certain areas for certain public authorities. That is in the Bill. Am I not entitled to discuss that?
May I point out that the Deputy has no possible chance, at this Stage, of ensuring that elections shall be held in these places.
I am not so sure about that. Deputy Redmond carried his motion.
The Deputy, it seems to me, desires to make the Bill a little more extensive than it is. It is extensive to this extent: that elections will take place in the case of 95% of local authorities. We have decided the principle of that. Not only that, but the amendment to include the other 5% has been definitely rejected. I put it to the Deputy, as a matter of common sense, that having brought the Bill on its present 95% basis to the present stage, the only question really at issue now is whether or not the Bill ought to pass.
Then we shall simply have to confine ourselves to voting against the Bill because of the authorities that are not included.
I would ask the Deputy to remember this: the main purpose of this Bill was economy. A case has been made as well, and answered as well, as it could be in respect of those local authorities which are precluded for nine months from having their elections. In those circumstances, is it wise to divide on this motion, having regard to the economy and to the change of time—the change of the date of election from January to June, and the limitation and lessening of the expense in connection with those elections.
We have no other way of indicating that we are still dissatisfied with the exclusion of Dublin and Cork from the scope of this Bill. We have indicated our willingness to accept, in the balance, the holding of the elections on the same day. To that extent we are satisfied. But we are not satisfied with regard to the exclusion of Dublin and Cork. The only way we can indicate that we are not satisfied in that respect—notwithstanding that we have accepted the other portions of the Bill—is by voting against the motion.
Standing Order No. 97 says: "When a Bill shall come forward for final consideration, it shall be moved, ‘that the Bill do now pass.'" When the Minister for Local Government and Public Health makes such a motion, are we not entitled to discuss the motion? Are we not entitled to make a case showing why the Bill should not pass?
A Deputy cannot now discuss something which he says should be included in the Bill, but which is not, in fact, included. The Deputy cannot say that certain provisions, which are not included in the Bill at this stage, ought to be included. Standing Order 97 says: "... no amendment not being merely verbal, shall be made to any Bill on this stage."
Can we not show that the Bill should not pass?
I am quite prepared to allow Deputy MacEntee to discuss what is in the Bill as a whole, but I cannot allow the Deputy to introduce extraneous matter —matter that is not in the Bill.
Would the term "exclusion" itself not be regarded as an inclusion in the Bill?
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 74; Níl, 65.
Tá
- William P. Aird.
- Ernest Henry Alton.
- James Walter Beckett.
- George Cecil Bennett.
- Ernest Blythe.
- Séamus A. Bourke.
- Michael Brennan.
- Seán Brodrick.
- Alfred Byrne.
- John Joseph Byrne.
- Edmund Carey.
- Mrs. Margt. Collins-O'Driscoll.
- Martin Conlan.
- Michael P. Connolly.
- Bryan Ricco Cooper.
- William T. Cosgrave.
- Sir James Craig.
- James Crowley.
- John Daly.
- Peter de Loughrey.
- Eugene Doherty.
- James N. Dolan.
- Peadar Seán Doyle.
- Edmund John Duggan.
- James Dwyer.
- Barry M. Egan.
- Osmond Thos. Grattan Esmonde.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
- John Good.
- Denis J. Gorey.
- Alexander Haslett.
- Martin Roddy.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Timothy Sheehy (West Cork).
- William Edward Thrift.
- Michael Tierney.
- John J. Hassett.
- Michael R. Heffernan.
- Michael Joseph Hennessy.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- Mark Henry.
- Patrick Hogan (Galway).
- Richard Holohan.
- Michael Jordan.
- Patrick Michael Kelly.
- Myles Keogh.
- Hugh Alexander Law.
- Patrick Leonard.
- Finian Lynch.
- Arthur Patrick Matthews.
- Martin McDonogh.
- Michael Og McFadden.
- Joseph W. Mongan.
- Richard Mulcahy.
- James E. Murphy.
- James Sproule Myles.
- Martin Michael Nally.
- John Thomas Nolan.
- Richard O'Connell.
- O'Connor.
- Timothy Joseph O'Donovan.
- John F. O'Hanlon.
- Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
- John J. O'Reilly.
- Gearoid O'Sullivan.
- John Marcus O'Sullivan.
- Patrick Reynolds.
- Daniel Vaughan.
- John White.
- Vincent Joseph White.
- George Wolfe.
- Jasper Travers Wolfe.
Níl
- Frank Aiken.
- Denis Allen.
- Richard Anthony.
- Neal Blaney.
- Gerald Boland.
- Patrick Boland.
- Daniel Bourke.
- Seán Brady.
- Robert Briscoe.
- Henry Broderick.
- Daniel Buckley.
- Frank Carney.
- Frank Carty.
- Archie J. Cassidy.
- Patrick Clancy.
- Michael Clery.
- James Colbert.
- Hugh Colohan.
- Eamon Cooney.
- Dan Corkery.
- Richard Corish.
- Martin John Corry.
- Tadhg Crowley.
- William Davin.
- Thomas Derrig.
- Eamon de Valera.
- James Everett.
- Frank Fahy.
- Hugo Flinn.
- Andrew Fogarty.
- Seán French.
- Patrick J. Gorry.
- John Goulding.
- Seán Hayes.
- Samuel Holt.
- Patrick Houlihan.
- Stephen Jordan.
- Michael Joseph Kennedy.
- William R. Kent.
- Frank Kerlin.
- James Joseph Killane.
- Mark Killelea.
- Michael Kilroy.
- Seán F. Lemass.
- Patrick John Little.
- Ben Maguire.
- Thomas McEllistrim.
- Seán MacEntee.
- Séamus Moore.
- Daniel Morrissey.
- Thomas Mullins.
- Patrick Joseph O'Dowd.
- Seán T. O'Kelly.
- William O'Leary.
- Matthew O'Reilly.
- Thomas O'Reilly.
- Thomas P. Powell.
- Patrick J. Ruttledge.
- James Ryan.
- Martin Sexton.
- Timothy Sheehy (Tipperary).
- Patrick Smith.
- John Tubridy.
- Richard Walsh.
- Francis C. Ward.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle. Níl: Deputies Boland and MacEntee. Motion declared carried.