I was rather surprised to hear the Minister assert, as he has asserted, that a definite promise was not given by the Government that the term of office of the existing Commissioners in Dublin would not be extended beyond the 31st March next. I must admit that I have not here with me any official record in which that promise is stated, because it did not enter my head that the Minister would deny that such a promise was given. Certainly, whether it was given in so many words or not, during the entire of last year the House was left under the impression that the Bill regulating the future of the city of Dublin would be introduced and be in the hands of Deputies before 31st March. Now we are told that it may be introduced and pass the First Reading before the Summer Recess, and even in that connection the Minister has told us that in saying that he feels he may be stretching his hope to breakingpoint. Now we are opposed, and very strongly and vehemently opposed, to this Bill to extend the period of office of the Commissioners. We might perhaps be prepared to modify our opposition if there was on the Order Paper, or in the hands of Deputies, the Management of Dublin Bill, which will possibly appear later on in the year. There is no justification whatever, I think, for the very long delay which has taken place in its preparation and introduction. The Government set up in 1925, I think, the Greater Dublin Commission, and its Report was submitted in 1926. We have not yet had an assurance from any Minister that that Report has been even considered by the Executive Council. In fact, when the great Cork City Bill was under discussion we were definitely told by the President that the report had not been considered. It seems an extraordinary thing that the Government would go to the expense of setting up a Commission to pursue a very detailed investigation and prepare a Report, which has been printed and circulated, merely for the purpose of having it pigeonholed. It is also much more extraordinary that the Government which set up that Commission, a Commission which reported on the general principles of city government, actually introduced and passed through this House a Bill dealing with the government of another city without having considered the first Report. It is all the more extraordinary, in view of the fact that in every case in which the Commission expressed an opinion on the principles of city government the actual decision of the Government was contrary to it.
We do not deny that there is a case, which can be put forward, for the appointment of Commissioners in special circumstances. It happens occasionally that when popularly-elected bodies have continued in operation for a long period, certain abuses arise, and grow in volume, with which these popularly-elected bodies are not capable of effectively dealing. Commissioners, civil servants, having no direct responsibility to the people, appointed to remedy these abuses, should be appointed for a very limited and clearly-defined term, and, as soon as their special work is completed, they should be removed, and the control of affairs given back, in all cases, into the hands of the people's representatives. Whether such abuses did or did not exist in Dublin or Cork in 1924 does not arise here. But if they did exist, I maintain that that long since has been remedied, and we can quote the words of the Commissioners themselves in that connection. There was, perhaps—it was alleged anyway that there was an abundance of officials, that staffs had become top-heavy, that people whose period of utility had expired and who should have retired on pension were continued on full pay. In that connection the Commissioners reported that they had reorganised the various departments of the Corporation, and that this reorganisation scheme had been completed. As a result they claim there has been a considerable increase in efficiency and in economy effected. In so far as that abuse existed in Dublin, by 31st March, 1927, that abuse had been eradicated. If that be the reason for the Commissioners' appointment, that reason had ceased to operate on that date. It was also alleged that there were other abuses, that there was considerable laxity in the awarding of sick pay. Again, I say, if that abuse existed, we have it on the words of the Commissioners that on 31st March, 1927, it no longer existed. The same applies to many other matters mentioned— certain irregularities in the keeping of store accounts and other minor points. There were, no doubt, also improvements capable of being effected in certain other departments of the Corporation. They have undoubtedly increased the efficiency of the method by which refuse is disposed of, and by which certain other normal Corporation functions are carried out. But these are matters which could have been done, and that I have no doubt whatever would have been done, by an elected council if that council were in operation. Any special reason which existed for the appointment of Commissioners, and for taking control of municipal affairs out of the hands of the council, had ceased to operate two years or eighteen months ago, and if the Government were paying the attention to the matter which they should have been, they would then have set about preparing the Management of Dublin Bill, which could have been introduced last year, and which could have passed through this House, to enable the new council to take the place of the Commissioners on 31st March next, when the period of office of the Commissioners expires.
I admit that there may have been faults in connection with the administration of the old Corporation, and there possibly always will be. Democracy has its faults. No perfect system has yet been devised. This House has its faults, but serious as these may be at times, they are not nearly as serious as the faults which attach themselves to a dictatorate, and that is what, in fact, exists in Dublin at the moment. It becomes a matter of particular seriousness when we find these Commissioners, in the exercise of the normal functions of the Corporation, increasing the municipal debt by fresh borrowing. They in fact, I think, increased the municipal debt by over £1,000,000, and the ratepayers of the city will have to be paying the debt charges in connection with that sum over a very long period. I do not say that money should not have been borrowed. In fact, I say it should have been borrowed. The greater part of it was expended in the financing of housing schemes, but the elected representatives of the people should have had the decision as to whether or not that liability should be placed upon the citizens of Dublin.
When there is an elected council and public representatives on it the business which it does and the work it proposes to do receive much greater publicity than attaches to the work done by the Commissioners and public interest is much more keenly aroused. I do not allege that the Commissioners have in any way invited secrecy or attempted to preserve secrecy in respect to their actions, but in fact it has worked out that way. People all complain that they have had very little information given to them as to what the Commissioners were doing, and that consequently they are not informed as to the present financial position of the municipality. The work of the Commissioners during the last two years and during the period for which it is now proposed to continue their term of office will be the normal work of the elected council. It will not be work of any special nature whatever, but just the carrying on of the ordinary administration of the city which should be in the hands of the people's elected representatives.
This Bill proposes to extend the term of office for another eighteen months. Even if some extension is justified, as it undoubtedly is under the circumstances, because even if the Bill were introduced to-morrow it could not be passed before the 31st March, nevertheless we think the period mentioned here is much too long. If the Government have, in fact, made up their minds as to the principles which are to operate in the government of Dublin in the future, there is no reason why the Bill cannot be introduced in this session and passed through this House during the present year. The general principles of city government have been discussed here already in relation to the Cork City Bill, and if the same principles are to apply in the case of Dublin, then there need not be the same prolonged discussion concerning them. Of course there will have to be many other matters taken into consideration here, because it is proposed not merely to alter the system of government, but also to extend the area.
I am convinced that the Bill, if introduced now, could be in operation certainly by this time next year. It seems, however, that the Government have been putting off this matter from day to day, and have not yet reached the stage of laying down the heads of the Bill which they will finally introduce. It seems to me that they have been lacking in their duty in this connection, and in consequence of that fact the House should, by the rejection of this Bill, demonstrate its resentment. This Bill is one that cannot be justified on any ground whatever except the laziness of the Department of Local Government and their failure to deal with this matter of the Report of the Greater Dublin Commission and the introduction of a City Management Bill.
