Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 28 Feb 1930

Vol. 33 No. 9

Local Government (Dublin) Bill, 1929—Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Debate resumed on the following amendment:—

To delete all words after the word "that" and substitute the words "the Dáil declines to give a Second Reading to a measure dealing with the local government of the City and County of Dublin which fails to establish a local authority of any kind for dealing with matters common to the metropolitan area as a whole, which deprives citizens of effective control over the administration of their municipal affairs, and which introduces the undemocratic precedent of conferring special franchise rights and privileges based on the possession of property."—(Deputy Tomás O Conaill).

Mr. MacEntee

In the course of his speech last night the President spoke in a manner which showed he did not understand the principles of this Bill. I notice that the President has left the Chamber. I was going to make him familiar with some of the provisions of the Bill, but apparently ignorance in this matter serves him and his cause better than knowledge. He spoke about a certain newspaper. He referred to the business capacity of Deputies of this Party. He adverted to the complexity of local government and very portentiously stated that his Government had given every consideration to the efficiencies which would result from combining services and combining certain areas in accordance with the proposals in this Bill. When the President was asked a simple question which went to the root of the whole matter he showed that he knew nothing whatsoever about the Bill. So far the speech of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health and the speech of the Minister for Education are the only speeches that we have heard from the Government Benches with regard to this matter. I hope that before the President's colleagues in the Executive Council rise in the debate they will endeavour to understand the provisions of the Bill and not follow the example of the President and rise unprepared; I hope that they will at least know what section of the Bill allocates the powers of the municipality as between the council and the manager. I hope that they will at least know that in this Bill there is no section which gives power to the council to frame Estimates and that they will not repeat the silly, unfounded argument which the President used in support of the measure last night.

I will come back to the Bill. The main proposals which this Bill sets before the House are three. The first is not to establish the City of Dublin, but to establish a coastal borough. The City of Dublin is already in existence, existing within certain restricted and narrow limits which everyone agrees have hindered the development and progress of the city. The coastal borough is not in existence. The establishment of that borough is one of the new and main proposals of this Bill. The second proposal is the creation of a City Manager with practically uncontrolled authority. The third proposal is the establishment of a special and privileged franchise. These are the three principles contained in the Bill. It has been said by the Minister for Education that the onus of proof in this matter rests upon the Deputies on these Benches. He stated that it is for us to prove that these provisions are not acceptable to the House, or that they should not be accepted by the House. The boot is on the other foot.

The Minister in drafting this Bill has ignored altogether the recommendations of the Greater Dublin Commission. He has pitted the fruits of his own intellect against the fruits of the combined labours of a number of very eminent men, selected for their knowledge of the subject. These are men with practical experience of local government extending over a number of years. The Minister has come comparatively recently to the Department of Local Government. I do not think that he ever served upon a local authority in his life. Whatever experience he has had of public administration, it was not obtained in the service of a local authority. Yet this Minister, wholly without practical experience of the problems with which local authorities have to deal, asks the House to accept his judgment in this matter as being better and worthier of acceptance than the experience of men like Deputy Corish, Professor Magennis, and all those other people of experience who constituted the Greater Dublin Commission, and of the majority of those who gave evidence before that Commission. Every one of these were people who had long years of practical experience of local government and had given intensive study to the problem. The President said last night that in this matter they came before the House as judges. That is not so. They came before the House as advocates of new, novel and untried proposals, and they set these proposals against the considered recommendations of men of experience and knowledge in these affairs. It is on them, therefore, that rests the onus of proof.

Now, what were the arguments advanced by the Minister for Local Government in introducing this Bill? He said that, having studied the conditions, they came to the conclusion that the coastal borough was a separate place in its whole outlook. That may be the Minister's conclusion, but I submit that the House will not be doing justice to the people of Dublin, or to the people of the coastal borough, if they accept that simple statement without asking the Minister to advance the grounds upon which he based it. What are the facts upon which that conclusion is based? Let us hear how that conclusion has been adduced from these facts, and then we shall be able to determine for ourselves whether or not the conclusion is well founded. But I submit that there is one big fact which all of us are aware of, that in itself would be sufficient to refute the Minister's conclusion. He said that the coastal borough was a separate place in its whole outlook from the City of Dublin. Where does the separation begin? Even geographically where does it begin? Will the Minister show us where. clearly and unmistakably, a person leaves the separate entity of the City of Dublin to step into the separate entity of the coastal borough? The places are contiguous and they merge into one another. There is no geographical or structural separation between the coastal borough and the City of Dublin. If there is, will the Minister tell us where it is? Is there any conflict, any disparity, or separation of interests between the people of the coastal borough and the people of the City of Dublin? The great majority of the people of the proposed coastal borough are dependent upon the City of Dublin for their livelihood. I am perfectly certain that almost 70 per cent. of them, if not more, spend the greater portion of their lives in the City of Dublin. How can these people, earning their bread and living the greater portion of their time in Dublin, going in and out of the city every day, entirely dependent for their future and present maintenance upon the prosperity of the city, living in the coastal borough, have any outlook that is not almost exactly the same as that of the people who live within the artificial limits that have been imposed upon the city? Will the Minister, when he rises to reply, show how a population, 70 per cent. of which spend the greater portion of their time in Dublin and are entirely dependent on Dublin for their existence, can have a separate outlook from those living within the artificial confines of the city?

The Minister has made the point that, after all, the coastal borough and the City of Dublin have separate drainage schemes. So have Pembroke and Rathmines. But the mere possession of separate drainage schemes does not, in the judgment of the Minister, endow Pembroke and Rathmines with a separate outlook from the City of Dublin. Not only have Pembroke and Rathmines separate drainage schemes, but they are, from the point of view of Dublin City, I believe, much less detrimental to the health of the Dublin community than are the separate drainage schemes possessed by the Townships of Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire. That, however, is merely a technical matter. But the Minister has made the point that because Dun Laoghaire and Blackrock have separate drainage schemes, then Dun Laoghaire and Blackrock should not be taken within the confines of the city, while at the same time, and in the same Bill, he takes Pembroke and Rathmines with their separate drainage schemes and incorporates them. I think the Minister is in a logical dilemma there. If his reason for excluding Dun Laoghaire and Blackrock is that they have separate drainage schemes, then Deputy John Good is justified in demanding that for that same reason Pembroke and Rathmines should be excluded from the Bill. It would not be, in my eyes, sufficient justification for the demand, because I do believe that we do want a Greater Dublin.

I believe that this city should have freedom to extend wherever the needs and desires and amenities of the citizens urge it to extend, and that the Minister should not in this matter adopt the somewhat superstitious practices which prevail amongst savage nations. We have heard how in China the feet of the growing babe are imprisoned in artificial fetters in order that the development of that human being will not take place in that direction. I believe that in South America there are savage tribes which try to prevent by similar artificial means the development of the skulls of infants. The Minister is doing that with the City of Dublin. He says the city may develop to the north, it may develop to the west, it may develop to the east, but the south is stopped, that it will not move towards the sun.

General Mulcahy

Look at the map.

Mr. MacEntee

The powers of the Corporation of Dublin will never extend over the holy ground of Dun Laoghaire and Blackrock. I do not know what makes these particular townships sacred to the Minister, but I can only conclude that he desires to prevent the growth of the city in that direction for some fetish reason similar to that which makes the Chinese endeavour to cramp the development of the feet of their children, and the Indian savages of South America attempt to cramp the development of their children's heads. There is no other reason than that the Minister has been seized with some fanatical idea, and he is determined, as I said before, that the authority of the Council of Dublin will never extend over the holy ground of Dun Laoghaire and Blackrock. Another reason that the Minister urged in support of his proposals was that the last place where the city would decide to extend itself was at the back of Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire. I wonder if the Minister has been over that district recently? I put that question to the Minister, and I should be glad if he would answer me now.

General Mulcahy

Certainly.

Mr. MacEntee

Has he recently been over that area?

General Mulcahy

Yes.

Mr. MacEntee

And he has come to the conclusion, notwithstanding the manifold building activities which any person with open eyes could see for himself, that the last place where the city would decide to extend itself would be at the back of Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire?

General Mulcahy

Yes.

Mr. MacEntee

Notwithstanding the developments which are taking place in the Foxrock district, around Mount Merrion, Roebuck and Stillorgan, along by Newpark right down to Carrickmines, the Minister still believes, having gone over the territory for himself, that the last place where the city would desire to extend is over the district behind Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire. I am not going to discuss with the Minister the standard of vision which he possesses, but if I went over that ground and came to the same conclusion as the Minister has come to, I certainly should see an oculist before I became stone blind.

This question of different interests, of separate outlooks, has been the one ground that has been urged upon this House by the apologists for the Bill. Deputy Tierney proceeded on the same lines. He said that one of the principal things in the Bill was the establishment of the Borough of Dun Laoghaire. He said that the reasons for that step are somewhat subtle—that they are reasons which cannot be made obvious. Surely one would not establish this borough, when to the eyes of the ordinary observer the natural thing to do would be that, since you are enlarging an already established city, since you are absorbing two large, well-managed and prosperous communities into that city, you should at the same time absorb also the two immediately adjacent communities which are not so large, though I doubt not they are equally prosperous. If you are going to absorb Pembroke and Rathmines, surely the natural thing to do would be to absorb Blackrock, Dun Laoghaire, Dalkey, and possibly Killiney. It would appear to the plain man, looking at this question in a common-sense way, not looking for scintillity like a philosopher of Deputy Tierney's peculiar mentality, but looking at the thing in a plain, broad, common-sense, straightforward way, that the natural and the obvious thing to do would be to include Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire with Rathmines and Pembroke inside the greater city which we propose to establish. And since that is the common-sense thing to do, since it appears to be the obvious thing to do, surely those who propose not to do that, but to do something very different, should come here and should be fortified with obvious reasons, not subtle reasons such as Deputy Tierney has spoken about, but reasons which are so obvious as to be incontrovertible, reasons which are so obvious that they will be immediately accepted by this House.

I do not know that there can be anything more foolish than the argument which was used, both by the Minister and by the President, that one of the reasons why Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire should not be absorbed is because they have separate water supplies and separate main drainage. Here are two communities living side by side. Those who live in Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire spend the greater portion of their time in the City of Dublin, are mainly dependent on the City of Dublin for their livelihood; and yet the Minister says that because they have separate water supplies and separate drainage schemes they should not be absorbed into the City of Dublin. If ever there was a case for the co-ordination of those two authorities, if ever there was a case for unified control, surely it exists here where two communities, living side by side, have different water supplies and different drainage systems. Surely it is in a case like that that there arises, more urgently than in any other, the need for these separate schemes to be brought under one common control and authority.

The principal argument which the Minister and the President advanced as a justification for the establishment of a separate borough is, to my mind, and I am sure it is to the mind of Deputy Good, and to the mind of any person who has ever had practical experience of municipal government, the argument that, more than anything else, should make for unified control. We have had so many examples during the past few years of difficulties in meeting the most urgent needs of the people that arise from this diversified control of drainage and water around the city. We have had people in Clondalkin, in upper Rathmines, in Terenure, coming to us and begging us, as Deputies for the County of Dublin, to procure them a water service either from Rathmines or from Dublin, and because the existing schemes were under the control of different authorities we were not able to do anything for these people, because we could not reconcile their requirements with the demands and the various authorities in the matter. I again suggest that the reason which the Minister has urged upon the House, so far as it is based upon the difference in municipal services, for the establishment of the coastal borough is the one reason which would appeal to the practical man to reject this proposal, and to determine that there should be one authority administering to the needs of all those people who inhabit Blackrock, Dun Laoghaire, Pembroke, Rathmines, and the City of Dublin as it now stands.

Another argument advanced by the Minister in support of his proposals was that the coastal borough could hardly expect to get as close attention from the city council as it would get from its own council. That argument might be applied with equal force to Pembroke and Rathmines—the argument that if Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire are absorbed the needs of their citizens will be overlooked, will remain unattended to by the city council. That argument, like every other argument that the Minister has used in support of this proposal to establish a coastal borough, can be applied with equal force to the townships of Pembroke and Rathmines. As a matter of fact, the Deputies for the county received the other day a deputation from the township of Rathmines which put before them, as one of their strongest objections to the Bill, the fact that under the Bill as it stood Rathmines would not receive adequate representation on the council, and that, therefore, they were afraid that the needs of Rathmines would be overlooked by the council. The Minister denies the validity of that argument with regard to Rathmines and Pembroke; yet he asks the House to accept it in regard to Dun Laoghaire and Blackrock. Where is there consistency in the Minister's argument? Where is there logic in it? If it is right to bring in Pembroke and Rathmnies, and if in bringing them in the Minister says that there is no danger that their particular needs will be unattended to by the council, then it is equally right to bring in Dun Laoghaire and Blackrock, and there is equally little danger that when they are brought in their needs will remain unattended to by the council. The Minister cannot have it both ways. If the coastal townships have got to stay out, then Rathmines and Pembroke have got to stay out; if Rath mines and Pembroke have to come in, then the coastal townships should be brought in also.

Of course, Deputy Tierney said that the reasons for the establishment of a coastal borough were subtle; that they were reasons which could not be made obvious to the House. I think that, at any rate, I have shown that whatever those reasons are, the ones which the Minister has adduced to this House are not the reasons and are not obvious. There may, however, be subtle reasons and obvious reasons. Let us endeavour to see what they are. We are aware that the affairs of the City of Dublin are at present being administered by three paid henchmen of the Minister. For a number of years they have carried out his wishes or the wishes of the Department and of the Government. Three hungry mouths to be provided for. There is going to be for one of them the great big prize of the managership of Dublin; there is going to be for another the less attractive prize of the managership of the coastal borough, and, I suppose, the third is saying, like the little pig that did not go to the market, "What is there for me?" It might seem to be a problem for which it would be beyond the capacity of the Minister to find a solution.

But Deputies have noticed possibly that not only has the Minister excluded Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire from the City of Dublin, but he also has excluded Howth, Baldoyle, Sutton, Raheny, Artane, and other areas which the Greater Dublin Commission recommended should be brought under the control of the municipal authority. Though the Minister's problem might not appear under this Bill to be capable of solution, nevertheless, I suggest that one of the reasons why Section 87 has been introduced into the Bill is to award to the third Commissioner, who will be displaced by the Corporation, the consolation prize of ruling over the Borough of Howth, when it is eventually established. There are the subtle reasons that underlie this Bill. First of all, since he can only satisfy one official by the managership of Dublin, to cut off and erect two little satellites, one the coastal borough and the other ultimately to be a Borough of Howth, for the reward of his servants. That is the subtle reason and the reason that could not be made obvious that underlies the Bill. What the Minister really has in mind is eventually to organise the urban district of Howth as a corresponding unit to the coastal borough. Then everybody will be happy, everybody will be provided for, and the Minister's difficulties will be solved in that easy way.

I do not know whether the citizens of Dublin are going to regard that as an adequate solution of their problem. I do not know whether they are going to feel happy when they see their city prevented from extending on the north and on the southeast and compelled, if it is ever going to extend, to extend inland. The amenities of the seashore and of the Bay, which belong of right to the community which first established itself on the shore of that Bay, are going to be filched from it. These resorts, which should be the natural air-lungs of the inhabitants of our tenements and crowded slums, and which should be under the control of the city in which these people are condemned to live, so that the city could exploit and develop them as they ought to be exploited and developed for the benefit of the inhabitants, are to be cut off from the city.

[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]

The next proposal which this Bill sets before the House is the creation of the position of City Manager with virtually uncontrolled authority. That makes the Bill a mockery and a sham. The Bill is entitled the Local Government (Dublin) Bill. Local government in this country for, I suppose, three generations has, at any rate, been associated with a large measure of local autonomy. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that the administration of the capital of Ireland will be under the centralised control of the Department of Local Government. What are the powers that are going to be given to this manager? He has the right, as I showed last night, by sub-section (7) of Section 50 to "do all such matters and things, including the making of contracts for and on behalf of the Corporation and the affixing of the official seal of the Corporation to documents, as may be necessary for or incidental to the exercise or performance of any of the powers, functions and duties of the Corporation which are by this Act required to be exercised or performed by the manager." He may do all such matters and things as are by this Act required to be exercised or performed by the manager. That means that he may do everything that the Corporation under its original charter or by subsequent legislation or amendment of that charter was empowered to do with the exception of the following:—

(a) the making of any rate or the borrowing of any moneys;

(b) the making, amending, or revoking of any bye-law;

(c) the making of any order and the passing of any resolution by virtue of which any enactment is brought into operation in or made to apply to the city or the borough (as the case may be) and the revoking of any such order and the rescinding of any such resolution;

(d) the application to be made to any authority in respect of the making or revoking of any such order as aforesaid;

(e) the making or revoking of any order under Section 5 of the Shops Act. 1913 (in that Act referred to as the closing order);

(f) the powers conferred by Section 5 of the Borough Funds (Ireland) Act, 1888, in relation to the promotion or the opposing of legislation, the prosecution and defence of legal proceedings, and the application for those purposes of the public funds and rates under the control of the Corporation;

(g) the appointment or election of any person to be a member of any public body,

(h) parliamentary and local elections;

(i) The admission of persons to the freedom of the city; or the borough (as the case may be);

(j) Subject to the provisions of this Act—

and this is possibly the greatest piece of hypocrisy, sham and make-believe in the Bill—

the appointment, suspension, and removal of the manager and the granting of an allowance or gratuity to the manager on ceasing to be manager;

(k) the determination of the amount of the salary and remuneration of the Lord Mayor or Mayor (as the case may be);

(l) applications to the Minister for a provisional order under this Act extending the boundary of the city or the borough (as the case may be).

With the exceptions I have recited—and one of these exceptions, as I shall show, has no substance in it—the manager is going to be in a position of uncontrolled authority over the affairs of the City of Dublin. As Deputy Flinn pointed out to the House, this thing might be less objectionable if the City Manager were appointed and if his duties were delegated to him by the citizens or through their duly elected representatives. If that were so I think the attack upon this appointment, based on democratic principles, could not be very well sustained, but though by paragraph (j) which deals with "the appointment, suspension and removal of the manager," it is a function which is ostensibly reserved to the council, in actual fact by sub-section (1) of Section 50 it is made quite clear that the appointment of the person to be manager shall be made by the Minister on the recommendation of the Local Appointments Commission. Not only is the appointment to be made by the Minister, but by sub-section (6) the amount of the remuneration is fixed and determined by the Minister. The Minister appoints the manager and fixes his salary even though the Corporation has to pay that. Whose servant is the manager going to be? If anyone here owed his appointment to a particular man and if that man had the fixing of his salary whom would he serve—that man or that interest or some other? The manager, as I pointed out, will be appointed by the Minister, his salary will be determined by the Minister, and inevitably owing to these two facts he will be the creature and instrument of the Minister in everything he does. So far as the City of Dublin is concerned he can do everything that could hitherto have been done by the municipality with the exception of the reserved functions which I have recited.

Of course the President and Deputy Tierney and some others will come along and say the council have full control over the manager because the council have control of the purse. The power of the purse is held out to us as the great safeguard for the civic liberties of Dublin, but in actual fact and practice the council have no control.

Mr. T. Sheehy (Cork):

We would be in a bad way in Cork only for the power of Ford's purse.

Mr. MacEntee

This power is purely illusory. I tried to put before the House last evening the dilemma in which any council would be if it refused to make a rate or to accept and pass estimates submitted to it by the manager. Supposing the manager comes to them and says: "I propose to borrow £100,000 in order to build houses of a certain type in a certain locality, and I want you to strike a rate to meet the interest and sinking fund charges upon that scheme." If the council, having considered the proposals in the very brief period allowed to them under the Bill to consider such proposals, came to the conclusion that the type of house or the district in which they were to be built were not going to supply the best needs of the citizens, and they say, "We refuse to strike a rate for this purpose," what position are the council then going to be in as between the manager on the one hand and the people on the other? We must assume that if the manager is going to spend £100,000 upon housing that houses of some sort or description are urgently needed. We know that people wanting shelter will go into any sort of hovel or under any roof, however unsuitable, that would be offered to them. The council will be in this position. On the one hand, they will have the manager suggesting to the people that he is anxious to build houses and that the council will not permit him to build them, and on the other hand they will have the people clamouring for houses.

Do you think that any body of elected representatives in such circumstances is going to have any other course open to it except that of absolute capitulation to the manager in this matter? Or again, say the council are dissatisfied with the way in which the cleansing and public health services have been carried on during the past twelve months. The manager comes along and asks them to strike a rate for that purpose, and they say: "We are not satisfied that these things are being done efficiently and economically; we refuse to strike a rate." What happens then? No provision has been made for the continuance of these services. They are immediately suspended, and at once inconvenience is caused to every householder and danger arises to the health of every person in the community. In such circumstances do you think that any body of elected representatives is going to fight that issue to the bitter end and will be in a position to enforce its policy on the manager? Must not they eventually, as I said before, capitulate to the manager and accept his policy in every iota? It is not possible in this case by the mere refusal of supplies to control the policy of a manager in any respect.

As Deputy Flinn put it, if my family do not carry out my behest I can possibly refuse them supplies, but I can only do it by jeopardising their lives, by causing them to suffer pangs of starvation. That is exactly the position in which the council will be. They can only force their policy upon the manager by causing hardships to the citizens, and as they are the elected representatives of the citizens, I contend that it is not right that the council should be put in that position. If they are put in that position they will be powerless to do anything to control the policy of the manager. Furthermore, so far as I can see, there is no means provided in this Bill for a proper supervision of the expenditure of the moneys provided by the council. I know that it suits the Minister and those who defend this Bill to come here and say: "The Dáil has complete control over expenditure and what is true of the Dáil will be true of the city council." But the Dáil has appointed an officer whose special and particular duty it is to see that the moneys voted by the Dáil are expended for the purposes for which they were voted and for no other. There is nothing in this Bill which creates a similar official in the City of Dublin. Once a manager gets those funds the manager can disburse them as he wishes, and, so far as I can see, there is nothing which compels the manager to render an account to the city council of the manner in which the funds have been expended. There is something that at the beginning of every month the manager shall cause to be prepared, and shall furnish to the Lord Mayor or Mayor, a statement showing as nearly as he can, the actual financial position of the Corporation at the end of the previous month. But that may only relate to its bank balance or obligations under loans or other things, but there is nothing there which compels the manager to submit to the Mayor an itemised statement of expenditure in relation to every department and in relation to every penny piece voted to him.

As we have heard from Deputy French, the Lord Mayor of Cork, the attitude which the Manager in Cork has felt himself obliged to take up is that he must work within the narrowest limits imposed upon him by the Bill, and that in his contact with the Corporation he must be as aloof and remote as the provisions of the Bill require him to be. He feels that within the provisions of the Bill he is encircled by a ringed fence and outside that he does not feel competent to go or to make any advance or overture to meet the council. That position, which has already been established in Cork, will become the precedent governing the relations in Dublin between the City Manager and the council in Dublin.

One other thing which makes it impossible for the council to have any control over the development of their city is the fact that the council under this Bill have no powers of initiative whatsoever. They cannot, if they feel that certain developments would be for the good of the city, so far as I can see, on their own initiative undertake those developments and compel the City Manager as their manager and principal administrative officer, to carry out the proposals which they would like. There is nothing in this Bill which would enforce upon the City Manager the duty and responsibility of carrying out any development or any proposals which the council had resolved upon, no matter what consideration had been given to them. Not only that, but the council are not even given the opportunity of examining the proposals submitted to them by the manager. That was one of the most striking facts which the Lord Mayor of Cork put before this House in his speech last evening. He showed how the manager had framed a certain housing proposal and that up to the present a housing scheme was complete in every detail and ready to be immediately undertaken, but that the only member of the council who had an opportunity of examining the proposal was the Lord Mayor himself, and the only opportunity the other members were ever going to have, as far as I could gather, of examining or criticising these proposals would be when they were put before them at a public meeting of the council.

Now, is it fair that these men will have the responsibility of providing the funds to carry through these proposals? They must face the citizens and they and not the City Manager will be called to account by the citizens if their moneys happen to be squandered or misspent. Is it fair to put men in the position that without due examination they would be called upon to vote moneys for certain proposals conceived by the manager which they themselves have never had an adequate opportunity of either criticising or shaping? Again, as the Lord Mayor of Cork showed, so slight is the control of the members of the Corporation over the City Manager that they cannot, even though unanimous and desiring to do it, prevent the disfiguration of Cork City. I do not think I ever heard of a more glaring example of bureaucracy run mad than that which the Lord Mayor of Cork put before this House last evening when he told how the appearance of a work, the replacement cost of which would be £6,000,000, was possibly ruined for all time by the erection of a structure which was altogether out of keeping with the main work.

After all, whatever may be said of the Corporators of Cork or the future Corporators of Dublin, they will all be citizens of the city. Most of them, I dare say, will have grown up in the city. Every one of them will have a certain civic pride, civic loyalty; they will honour and love and respect their city. They will like to preserve the landmarks familiar to them; they will like to hand down to posterity its beautiful features. But the manager may have no local ties or traditions whatsoever to guide him. He may be a mere bird of passage, fluttering down to Cork to do the behest of the Minister there, and, if he pleases the Minister in his administration of the smaller municipalities, he may be promoted to greater responsibilities. That man cannot have the same regard for the civic amenities as those who take a pride in their city, because it is the city of their birth. It is precisely that intangible difference between men which made the City Manager of Cork do something which no man who was born in Cork would have dared to do—to deface and spoil the appearance of that noble river front by erecting a structure which is altogether unseemly and incongruous. That same sort of thing may happen in Dublin, as it happened in Cork, and the citizens of Dublin as a whole will have no redress. A manager wearing the jack-boots of the Minister will be able to walk rough-shod over their desires and their opinions and, as I said, there is no man in the Corporation or outside the Corporation, in the streets of the city or within the City Hall, will be able to say him nay.

This Bill is the very deification of bureaucracy. Under it not only the manager, but the heads of the various administrative departments of the city, are going to be placed in the position of so many Mikados. They are going to be fringed by a divinity which forbids the lowly Corporator to have access to them. As the Lord Mayor of Cork showed when a difference of opinion arose— I do not think I am even correct in describing it as a difference of opinion—between the City Manager and the Corporation, when the Corporation of Cork was considering certain proposals that had been submitted to them by the manager, they requested that they should have an opportunity of consulting with the engineer, a very specialised servant, and I think in all circumstances a very reasonable request. The manager refused to allow the engineer to come before them, refused to allow the Cork Corporation, who were going to assume responsibility before the citizens for the success or failure of the proposals which were paid for by the citizens' money, the advice or the opportunity of consulting one of the specialised officers of the Department. Whatever advice, whatever skill, whatever policy that officer might have was reserved for the services of the City Manager and denied to the representatives of the city.

Under this Bill these officials are not, if I might express the mind of the Minister, to be corrupted by contact with those debased individuals whom the citizens have chosen to represent them. As I said, this Bill and its principles are the very deification of bureaucracy. The bureaucrats, whether they be the bureacrats of the Government or of the municipality, are to be set in a class apart and hedged round, and the ordinary citizens or representatives of the citizens are prevented from having any communication with them.

The next proposal in the Bill is the proposal to establish a commercial register. The Minister, in urging this upon the House, was as inconsistent as he had been in advocating the inclusion of Pembroke and Rathmines in the city on the one hand and the exclusion of Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire on the other. He said that the Government in framing the Bill had come to the conclusion that the purely administrative functions should be entrusted to an expert officer. Then he said later on that one of the purposes sought to be achieved by the establishment of a commercial register was to provide this expert officer with expert advice, in one of those very matters in which he should be most expert, the borrowing of moneys or the raising of loans. If the officer is going to be an expert, and if because he is an expert he is going to be freed from all control by the council, what is the purpose and use of putting upon that council the other experts to advise him in some of the matters which I said he ought to be most expert in? If this officer is going to be an expert in municipal government, surely one of the things which would be essential to that expert, one of the things in virtue of which he would be an expert would be his knowledge of the requirements and of the conditions to be complied with in raising loans. Either this officer is going to be an expert or is not. If he is not going to be an expert, then I submit it is a very dangerous thing to put this inexpert person in control of the administration of the whole city. If he is going to be an expert, then he ought, at any rate, to know enough of the money market to enable him to meet the financial requirements of the city without having to elect by a special and roundabout way expert advisers to the city council, who will not have the shadow of authority or control over this expert officer. The two proposals are inconsistent. If the officer is to be expert, then there should be no experts on the council. Simply no others should be on the council except the representatives of the citizens, chosen for one or other of the various qualities which appeal to the citizens, and if they are expert in anything that should be merely accident and not essential to them in their position as representatives. So far as my recollection goes, the argument with which I dealt was the only one which the Minister put before the House in support of the commercial franchise.

General Mulcahy

No, I put before the House the fact that the valuation in the city was £1,250,000 approximately, and that of that £660,000 was valuation of a commercial kind. While it is valuation upon which rates are paid, it is valuation in respect of which there is no voice.

Mr. Briscoe

Could the Minister develop that point a little further? Could he say approximately how much of half the total city valuation is concerned with small businesses of under £50 valuation?

General Mulcahy

The whole of it is concerned with businesses of £20 valuation and upwards, the valuation we have here.

Mr. Briscoe

The proportion of it would be from £20 up to £50.

General Mulcahy

I could not say right off.

Mr. Briscoe

Then why introduce the section if the Minister does not know?

Mr. MacEntee

I will deal with the point of which the Minister has reminded me, but at the moment I will proceed to the argument which the Minister for Education advanced in support of the proposal. He said that it was because these people represented business interests, and presumably gave employment, that the vote was to be given to them. It was not, he went on further to emphasise, on account of their property that they got the vote, but on account of the amount of employment they gave. I think the Minister for Education did not read the Bill because, if there is one thing standing out more clearly than another, it is Section 33, and if any Deputies will take the trouble to read that section they will see that there is not from beginning to end a single word about the amount of employment given by those who seek to go on the special commercial register. The qualification for that commercial register is a property qualification, purely and simply, without any reservation, without any stipulation of any kind as to the amount of employment to be given. Let us see how, by a number of comparisons, this is going to operate and how it will affect the principle, which apparently would be acceptable to the Minister for Education, that the right to plural voting should be given to persons who provide employment. If that were urged in support of this special franchise, I think that from my point of view it would be worthy of consideration. I am not going to say that I would accept it, but at least it could be argued with much greater force than that with which the Minister has put it before the House.

If the point were that because a man or a concern gave a certain amount of employment they should have a greater say in the affairs of the city there is something to be said on both sides for that, but that is not the principle which is put down in the Bill. There is nothing here about the amount of employment to be given by these firms, but if that were in the mind of the Minister the proposals put into the Bill are not designed to base the franchise on the amount of employment given by these concerns. As a matter of fact, the strange thing about it is that concerns which give the least employment, comparatively speaking, are going to have as many votes as those which gave a considerable amount of employment, because the number of votes is going to be determined entirely by the valuation of the premises they occupy, the number of votes up to six.

Let us consider a few examples of the operations which this particular section brings to mind. In Grafton Street, for instance, you see the premises of a big furniture firm which has recently absorbed a local concern, the firm of Cavendish. I am perfectly certain that the aggregate valuation of the premises occupied by Messrs. Cavendish and Co. is very much more than £250, and they are going to have six votes. That firm, bear in mind, is the selling agency for a number of English furniture-making concerns. The furniture which it sells in Grafton Street is made in England, and therefore, so far as it provides employment for the citizens of Dublin at all, that employment bears a very small ratio to the employment which is provided in making this furniture in England. They will get six votes under this measure, but I question very much whether the premises occupied by O'Dea and Co., who do make furniture in the City of Dublin and do provide employment, will have a value of £250, and whether they will be entitled to six votes or not. It is very doubtful. They possibly may not be, but the Minister has said that one of the great reasons for putting this proposal before the Dáil was that these people with a high valuation provide a certain amount of employment. If that is going to be the principle, surely O'Dea and Co., who do provide a considerable amount of employment in the city, should be entitled to a greater number of votes than Cavendish and Co., that is, if the Minister's principle is a sound one.

Again, let us go a little further down Grafton Street, and we will see the premises of Tyler and Co. They have a considerable number of shops in the city, and I am perfectly certain that under these proposals they will have at least six votes, and by a little wangling they can have many more than six, but six will do to go on with. They do not manufacture boots or shoes in Dublin. Every boot and shoe which they sell is imported, and if they provide employment the major portion of that employment is provided in Great Britain. Yet they will have as many votes, and possibly more votes, than people like Winstanley's, who do make boots in the city. I regret to say that Winstanley's do not seem to be so much concerned with the manufacture of Irish boots as with the selling of foreign boots; but, at any rate, they make a certain amount of boots in Dublin and provide a certain amount of employment. I again doubt if they will have six votes under the Bill, while Tyler's, who are selling imported boots in the city, are going to have six votes, and by a little wangling will have many more.

A little further down Grafton Street we come to Montague Burton and Co. There is no doubt whatever that Burton and Co.—any man can see it looking at the palatial front they have put on their premises—will have a valuation higher than £250, and they are going to get six votes. Do they provide any considerable amount of employment in the city? I question if you take the whole of their staff in Dublin and put them together you will get as many as fifteen people employed in all their shops here. There is no doubt that they provide a considerable amount of employment in Leeds and elsewhere in Great Britain making the clothes which they sell in Dublin. Yet they are going to have six votes, and Todd, Burns and Co., who do make clothes in the city, are going to have six votes, not any more than Burton's, though they provide much more employment in the city than Burton and Co. Whatever argument may be advanced in favour of the proposal for a special and privileged franchise for certain premises because they give employment falls to the ground the moment it is examined.

I think I have kept the House long enough on this Bill. There is only one other point to which I would like to refer. That has been stressed by Deputy Good in the House last night. It has relation to the question of the coastal borough. At the present moment you are going to absorb two large townships and to take over a certain number of officials of these townships, and superannuate and pension others. Why not deal with that problem once and for all? If you amalgamate Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire and constitute it a coastal borough, because you give certain officials increased responsibilities you will have to pay them increased salaries, and when in the course of time you are compelled, as you will be compelled, to absorb that coastal borough into the City of Dublin, you will be compelled to superannuate these officials, and because you are now giving them greater responsibility and higher salaries you will be compelled eventually to provide superannuation for them at a very much higher rate than you can do it now.

The Minister for Education, when he was speaking to this Bill, apparently regarded the proposal to constitute a coastal borough as indefensible. He is a man with a philosophical mind and he quite obviously saw and admitted in the House that the question of the amalgamation of the coastal borough with the City of Dublin would ultimately arise. Therefore he could not see any force, any sagacity or any economy in making two bites of this particular cherry because he saw, for the reason which I have stated, that if you do not absorb Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire now, the expense of their absorption later on is going to be very much more and the superannuation which will have to be given will be very much more.

General Mulcahy

Who was it saw this?

Mr. MacEntee

The Minister for Education, who admitted in this House that this question of amalgamation was going to arise and would have to be dealt with. Therefore he did not attempt to defend the proposal to establish a coastal borough. The whole of his speech was devoted to the proposed privileged franchise for the commercial valuation, not a word about the coastal borough, because he saw, as any man can see who has any foresight at all, that eventually we will have to absorb the coastal borough now to be established into the City of Dublin. If we do not absorb it now that absorption will entail a greater burden and a greater expense than if it were done now.

General Mulcahy

Do I understand that the Deputy is interpreting the Minister's silence and is not quoting his expressions?

Mr. MacEntee

I am interpreting the Minister's silence in the light of one remark which he made, that this question of amalgamation could be considered later. He did not attempt to controvert the statement that amalgamation would be likely later on, and I think we have got to take it that he accepted that amalgamation was going to come. It is not the habit of the Minister for Education to run away from any proposition put to him with which he does not agree and which he does not himself accept. It was put to him that the question of amalgamation would have to be considered later on and he accepted that proposal. Therefore, as I say, since he accepted it, the Minister for Local Government possibly accepts it too, or does the Minister wish to contend in the Dáil that these two communities will be separated and divorced from each other for all time? Do I take it that is the Minister's attitude, that there will never be any proposal for the unification or amalgamation of the coastal borough with the city?

General Mulcahy

I was never one of those who believed that the world will stop when I go out.

Mr. MacEntee

You are only one of those who wish to put a barrier in its way. You do not believe the growth of the city will stop but you are creating now a barrier in its way. You are attempting to prevent it from developing and growing in one direction.

General Mulcahy

Not at all.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Perhaps the Deputy would address the Chair.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not think I have very much more to say. I hope, at any rate, I have given the Minister something to answer. I have been worrying to try to get at the bottom of the subtle reasons, the reasons that are not obvious, why this coastal borough should be established. I have suggested one of them, the fact that there are three hungry mouths to be filled. I suggest another reason why the coastal borough is not going to be absorbed —the passion which the Executive Council have for one Irish industry, the development of which they have fostered since they came into office, the manufacture of pensioners and placemen.

General Mulcahy

I did not hear the Deputy suggest what area the city should occupy.

Captain Redmond

This is a Bill to extend the area of the City of Dublin by including certain other areas within it. At the outset, may I say that I do not envy the task of any Minister in any Government to have such a measure to propose, for inevitably there will be opposition from the residents in those quarters who think that they should be included in the new area and from the residents in those quarters who think that they should not. In fact the whole problem for the Minister, to my mind, is where he is going to draw the line. In arriving at that decision he must take some working basis to go upon. In looking at the map and examining the area that it is now proposed in this Bill should comprise the future City of Dublin, it seems to me that the basis the Minister has worked upon is one of homogeneity. There is, of course, opposition to this Bill. There would be opposition to any Bill of such a character brought in by any Minister on behalf of any Government. The opposition comes from directly opposite poles. The three main proposals in this Bill deal with, first, the area; secondly, the proposed managerial control, and thirdly, the new form of restricted franchise. We have one section of the House opposing one of these proposals, and, perhaps, to a certain extent favouring the other two. We have another section of the House in favour of another of these proposals, but against perhaps the remaining two.

The whole trend of the debate so far leads me to the conclusion, as expressed by Deputy Dr. O'Higgins yesterday, that undoubtedly this is a Bill essentially for Committee. This is a Bill that should go to Committee where these questions could be thrashed out and decided. In fact the speech that we have just listened to seems to me to be to a large extent a speech which should have been made perhaps not altogether, but on various sections of the Bill when going through Committee. As far as area is concerned, the difficulty is where to draw the line. I was almost amused—I suppose the House was generally—at Deputy Good's attitude yesterday. I mildly suggest to Deputy Good that he might as well go out to Sandymount or Ringsend and endeavour himself to stop the tide as to prevent Rathmines and Pembroke being brought in under a Bill proposed by any party, whether it be the Fianna Fáil Party, the Labour Party or the Government Party, to extend the boundaries of the City of Dublin.

Everyone knows that Pembroke and Rathmines are essentially portion of the City of Dublin, and that they would have been within the boundary of the City of Dublin years ago but for the fact that, perhaps, wires were able to be pulled, and that the House of Lords succeeded by their power in frustrating the wishes of the great majority of the citizens of Dublin. Therefore, to my mind, to oppose the inclusion of Rathmines and Pembroke in any Bill proposed to extend the boundaries of the City of Dublin is like beating one's head against the wall. It is true, as was stated by some speaker, that the same arguments to a certain extent apply to the townships of Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire. For myself, I am not going to go into matters which should be dealt with in Committee, but again I would say that I think it is quite possible that when that portion of the Bill is reached an amendment could be moved to include these townships within the new city boundary. Therefore, that is all the more reason why we should proceed as soon as possible to the Committee Stage of this Bill. As far as the Commission's report is concerned, I for one think that to have the City of Dublin at present—I use the words "at present" guardedly and advisedly— to extend from Malahide on the North to Killiney on the South would not create anything in the nature of a homogeneous entity. The interests of Malahide, Howth, and Killiney cannot be described as the interests of the citizens of Dublin, and if the outlying areas, if portion of what I may describe as the hinterland of Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire, are to be included in the City of Dublin, I say why draw a line there? Why not have the whole of the County Dublin as the City of Dublin? The answer will be that it would be ridiculous. But if that is so, where are you going to draw the line? A line must be drawn somewhere for the present, and that brings me to the question that has just been discussed by the last speaker.

There are facilities in the Bill according to Section 25, for the further extension of the city, or of this new borough into the County Dublin, and there are means proposed whereby that extension might take place. There are no proposals, as far as I can gather, for the future amalgamation of the city and of the new coastal borough. In that respect I am in agreement with the last speaker, but that again is a matter for Committee. I certainly would be prepared to support any proposal that would create facilities for the future amalgamation of these two boroughs. Personally, I think that provision for such an amalgamation should be made when we reach the Committee Stage of the Bill. We have heard a lot of talk about partition. We have heard about amputation, and now we have what is described by Deputy MacEntee as divorce. Well I never knew of a divorce before there was a marriage. Neither have I heard of a partition before there was something to be divided, and, so far, neither Dun Laoghaire nor Killiney has been married to the City of Dublin. Therefore, such talk is, to my mind, futile. It is not a question of partition or divorce. It is a question of amalgamation and inclusion, and if at any future time these districts desire to become part of the City of Dublin—where the advantages would be to them at the moment I find it very difficult to see—or if the citizens of Dublin desire to have them within the four corners of their city, then I think it would be desirable if provisions were made in this Bill for that purpose.

On the question of managerial control, I think if a manager is to be provided, that instead of setting out by giving him all the powers and reserving services and powers to the Corporation, the proper method of approaching that problem would be to establish the new Dublin Corporation as supreme, and then definitely set out (a), (b), (c), (d) enumerating the powers which should be given to the manager, because the supreme body and the ultimate tribunal to deal with the affairs of the City of Dublin should be, to my mind, the citizens of Dublin themselves, but that does not say that this proposal in itself cannot be altered in Committee. It is quite possible to move an amendment to Section 37, which would provide that all powers would vest in the Corporation of Dublin, elected as proposed in the Bill, except those enumerated subsequently, which shall be within the province of the City Manager.

I was pleased to hear Deputy Lemass say yesterday that he is in favour of some form of city managership. I think that possibly on that there is common agreement between all parties in this House, that it would be an advisable thing to have a City Manager, but of course the extent of the powers of that manager, and the method whereby he would exercise these powers, is a matter which I think is most suitable and fit for discussion, and above all a non-party discussion, in the Committee Stage of the Bill. I was very much impressed, and I think the House must have been impressed. by the speech made by Deputy O'Higgins yesterday, a most temperate and moderate speech. He said he supported the Bill and that he was prepared to make suggestions. He threw out only one or two suggestions, and quite rightly I think. for these matters should come up on Committee. The suggestion he threw out in connection with a possible dead-lock between the Manager and the Corporation was, I think, a most valuable one, and I hope the Government will take it— namely, that where two-thirds of the council consider that the Manager has not acted in accordance with their wishes there shall be an appeal to the Minister. Deputy O'Higgins made an overture to the House which I think was also a most valuable one. Here we are discussing a Bill, and for what purpose? I presume to provide a Corporation for the City of Dublin which, in certain ways at any rate, will not be the same or act upon the same lines as the old Dublin Corporation. What I mean to get at is this, we do not want to see the new corporation indulging in political wrangles.

We want to keep the new corporation out of politics, and to keep it wholly and solely engaged upon the management of municipal affairs. If we are discussing a Bill for the purpose of creating a body which is to be above politics, surely in discussing that Bill we should be above politics, and surely it should be considered wholly and solely on a strictly non-political basis? When I say that—I see the President here now—may I make this suggestion for what it is worth: If this Bill goes to the Committee Stage, would it not be possible for the Government to allow decisions to be taken on those various matters which are not political essentially and which are entirely concerned with municipal and domestic affairs without the aid of the Party Whip? I do not think there can possibly be a more strictly non-political measure than the one we are now discussing, and I think it would be a shame if the results of our discussions were brought about on Party lines.

As far as the restricted franchise is concerned, I personally admit that I am not in love with it and I would be prepared in Committee to discuss and support proposals which might modify, alter, or even abolish the proposed franchise. Everybody in this House wants some form of Bill to provide for the extension of the City of Dublin, and to provide also for the management and control of the city, but there is little agreement as to the exact form that should take. To use an old paraphrase, some there are in favour of the Bill —I do not say there are very many. All are in favour of some parts of the Bill, but certainly all members are not in favour of all the Bill. That being so, I earnestly appeal to the House to allow this Bill to go to Committee and at the same time I venture to suggest—and my suggestion may be taken in all seriousness —to the Government, that if this Bill goes to Committee they will be prepared to allow decisions to be taken not on a party basis but solely on the merits of the particular section subject to discussion.

Dr. Hennessy

I must say that Dublin members who support the Government, outside the Ministerial benches, have not occupied much time in the House in discussing this Bill. Deputy MacEntee, who spoke a while ago, occupied the time of the House for over two hours, and I can only compare his speech to a mountain in labour and which brought forth a mouse.

General Mulcahy

I did not see the mouse.

Dr. Hennessy

And a very shabby mouse at that. I am not going to occupy the time of the House very long. I am not a very fluent speaker, and sometimes I am inclined to thank God that I am not. In any case the ratepayers are fortunate in not having to pay for reporting my speeches to the extent they have to pay for reporting the speeches of Deputy MacEntee.

Mr. Fahy

What section of the Bill is that?

Dr. Hennessy

There are one or two objections to the Bill about which I want to say something. There are objections to the inclusion of Pembroke and Rathmines. But they are not good objections. They are mainly the outcome of self-interest. I am a ratepayer myself in Rathmines. But I believe it would be as reasonable to exclude Merrion Square, Fitzwilliam Square and Stephen's Green as not to include Rathmines and Pembroke in this Bill. Moreover, I am not so sure that by its inclusion and by the inclusion of Pembroke that the residents of these townships will not get a better service in many ways, though I must say that we have a very good council in Rathmines, and I believe the same can be said of Pembroke. Yet our services are not as good as the Dublin City services.

Now the exclusion of Dun Laoghaire has been objected to and the exclusion of Dun Laoghaire has been also defended. I think its exclusion has been very properly defended, and though as a representative of the City of Dublin, I might say that we might gain something by including Dun Laoghaire; still it would be at the cost of Dun Laoghaire. For that reason I do not think it would be fair for any Dublin City representative to advocate the inclusion of Dun Laoghaire. One of the Fianna Fáil leaders said that the reason for excluding Dun Laoghaire was to make sure of the return of a gilded and, I suppose, rotund mayor to see the President off and to welcome him and his friends when they would come back. If that is an argument against the Bill, I pity the people who have to pay for the printing of such speeches. Dun Laoghaire has its own problems. Dun Laoghaire and the neighbouring townships simply owe their existence to some extent to Dublin. and to a considerable extent to the people from the country who come there on their holidays to these places as health resorts. I cannot see how Dublin could attend to the matters with which Dun Laoghaire is concerned as well as Dun Laoghaire itself could, or as the coastal borough could, so as to make that area attractive as a health resort. I think for that reason the exclusion of Dun Laoghaire is amply justified. Then in the second place Dun Laoghaire, for quite legitimate reasons, does not want its inclusion.

We have heard a great deal about the powers of the City Manager. I suppose the City Manager, like most other people, will not be born without original sin. I would not be for giving him unnecessary powers. But the City Manager has not the powers attributed to him by the Fianna Fáil Deputies who have spoken.

Mr. Fahy

And by Deputy Byrne and the Labour Deputies?

Dr. Hennessy

I only hear myself when speaking. It is said that the Corporation or the council will have no right under the Bill to demand information from the City Manager. There are several sections specifically providing for that. There is also a section there providing, in the event of the City Manager refusing that information, that he can be suspended. That gives the council very great power over the City Manager. Of course the manager's duties will be defined and detailed by the regulations which it is to be hoped will be in accordance with this Bill when it finally leaves the Oireachtas. Deputy MacEntee made a lot of points about the appointment of the City Manager by the Minister, and he urged the point that his salary will be fixed by the Minister. For these and other reasons he said that the City Manager would be the creature of the Minister. If the Deputy knew anything about local government, and he does not, though he has reproached other people with ignorance, he would know that the Minister already had the statutory power to fix the salary of every county secretary and every town clerk in every urban council and city in the Free State. He has the right to fix the salary of dispensary doctors and the salaries of every official under local authorities. Yet I never heard that the object of giving him that power was to make these officials his creatures. Then again there was an objection to the manager preparing the estimates. If we consider for a moment the procedure of our local authorities, we will find that it is the secretaries of the county councils and the secretaries of the boards of public health who prepare the estimates for these bodies. There is, therefore, nothing revolutionary or reactionary in giving the City Manager the preparation of the estimates. There are several precedents for it already. Then, as I have said, if the manager refuses to do anything that he is reasonably bound to do in the way of giving information to the council, he can be met by suspension.

Deputy Good has made some objections to the Bill as a whole. He said, possibly with some truth, that it will add to the pension list. I do not see why it should add to the list of pensioners. If it does add to that list, if it increases it in any way, it is on the presumption that their services will not be required under what we might call the amalgamated or unified scheme. Well, that would be a saving. Giving these people pensions will be a saving to the ratepayers, because I am sure the average pension for redundant officials would not be 50 per cent. of the salaries they are getting. That will certainly be a saving to the ratepayers. What Deputy Good might reasonably have enquired into is whether this Bill will mean a fresh crop of officials. I do not see why it should. In fact, the Bill is bound to make for fewer officials than we have. Deputy Good said that Rathmines, Pembroke, and the other places do not want any change. I have referred to that already. If these townships do not want to come into the city it is because they want to shirk some of their legitimate obligations. But that is neither a democratic reason nor a valid argument against the Bill.

The business register has been criticised a great deal. The whole object of the business register is to give a reasonable opportunity to business men to come into the council. I think it is a very important thing to have the business men of the city in the council. Take, for instance, a factory like Messrs. Jacob's. I would very much like if one of the Jacob firm or one of the Jacob family themselves went into the City Council. That firm pays in municipal rates something like £4,000. It is a very important matter to have these people in the council in the event of rates being piled up. Some people in those councils will think, "Oh, these people are capitalists, pile up the rates on them and they can afford to pay them." A representative of a firm like Jacob's might be able to give the council a very different version of the situation.

He might tell them how it would destroy the whole of Jacob's industry and he might tell them of the unemployment that it would mean. Jacob's are not bound altogether to Dublin; they have factories elsewhere, factories which come under the English scheme of de-rating, and if you crush them with rates and if they are not there to explain the effect of the crushing rates, it would be a very serious thing for their employees. If it were put before their employees, they would be very anxious that Jacob's should have representation on the council. Moreover, I believe that by having these people on the council you will enhance the borrowing power of the Corporation, because people who lend money like to lend it to those who have a big stake in the city. That reason, too, is a very good reason why we should by such means as the business register, secure the election of a small proportion of business men in the council.

We have heard about the outrages on democracy. Some people's idea about democracy is to give the most unworthy element in the community an opportunity for corruption; to give them an opportunity to disgrace their country. I think that is a very unworthy conception of democracy.

I think the Bill is worthy of support. I think there is a necessity for the Bill. I am not altogether in love with the present administration. It has done very creditable things, and it has done things that bring credit on themselves; it has also done very good things for the city. There is one thing that I am not satisfied with in the present administration, but I do not know to what extent they may be responsible for it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must not discuss the City Commissioners.

Dr. Hennessy

I am going to show you the necessity for the Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy can do that without referring to the present administration.

Dr. Hennessy

I am not going to talk about the administration. I would like to say that there is a necessity for the Bill. For instance, Deputy Good in his speech said, "Are we not satisfied with the present system?" He said that they wanted no change. I want to reply that the present system has not all the powers that we require, and I am sure the Chair will agree with me when I say that the present system, from the point of view of the powers granted to it, is not at all satisfactory. Anyhow, for a variety of reasons the Bill is worthy of support. In the destructive criticism from the Fianna Fáil Benches there was no reason suggested why the Bill as a whole should not be supported. I believe the Minister, like other astute Ministers, carries a certain amount of ballast and he may throw some of that ballast overboard if there are amendments of an acceptable nature put up, and if he considers that these amendments will lead to better things than are already embodied in the Bill.

Mr. Briscoe

I was very glad to hear Deputy Hennessy admit there was a necessity for a change in the present system of government of Dublin City. I cannot agree with everything he puts up as an argument in support of the Bill. Before the Deputy leaves the House I would like him to indicate under what section of the Bill the council to be elected will have power to suspend the Manager.

Dr. Hennessy

I never interrupt.

Mr. Briscoe

I am asking the Deputy to indicate the section.

Dr. Hennessy

Read the Bill.

Mr. Briscoe

I have read it, but I cannot find that. Deputy Good stated yesterday that nobody wanted the Bill. I disagree with him. Everybody in the City of Dublin wants a change. They certainly do not want this Bill, but they want a change.

Mr. Good

A second change.

Mr. Briscoe

Speaking for Rathmines and Pembroke, Deputy Good stated that the people did not want a change. They are probably quite right because, as they have progressed side by side with Dublin City during the last few years, they have seen the effects of the present administration. They probably are wise in considering that they are better off without a change because the government of Pembroke and Rathmines is to a great extent in their own hands. Deputy Good tried to argue that there should be one big borough, but at the same time Pembroke and Rathmines should be left out. That is an inconsistency that I cannot understand.

Mr. Good

Pembroke and Rathmines want to be left alone.

Mr. Briscoe

Deputy Good argued that instead of two boroughs there should be only one, and at the same time Rathmines and Pembroke should be left out. That is an inconsistency I cannot see behind.

Mr. Good

I cannot help that.

Mr. Briscoe

There has been discussion on the area proposed to be taken in under the Bill and the area proposed by the Greater Dublin Commission. I have heard a lot about homogeneous reasons. What is meant by the expression "homogeneous" in connection with this Bill? I do not believe the persons who use the word understand its meaning. It may be homogeneous from the blackboard point of view, but in practice it is quite different. If you go out to where the boundary ceases at Rathfarnham you will see that alongside the boundary proposed by the Bill is the end of the Dublin City drainage system. Ten or fifteen yards beyond that there is a whole community of people who are being excluded from the operations of the Bill. These people have no sanitary accommodation and have no water supply. The President knows the area very well. I refer to St. Patrick's Cottages in Rathfarnham just beyond the proposed boundary. I think it is disgraceful that you are going to draw the boundary line just where the present sanitary arrangements end. You are leaving these people without water and without sanitary arrangements possibly because of the cost of making a further extension.

If we are going to try to set up a city or a borough that will develop on proper lines, it certainly will not be to the advantage of the city to have at its outskirts such conditions as exist at present in the Rathfarnham area. I followed the boundary as far as I could in the districts that I know. I followed the line from where the road leads from the side of Loreto Abbey in Rathfarnham right down to Churchtown, Dundrum, and through the Mount Merrion estate to Blackrock. All this particular area is left out in the Bill, although tremendous strides have been made in the past few years in urbanising that area. The argument used by the Minister for keeping it out was that the district was not yet urbanised. The district is being urbanised and is being left out from the whole scheme. Coming along to the North side, the same applies there. The city boundary in this Bill ends with the ending of the present sanitary and water arrangements to a great extent. The area beyond Killester should be taken in. That is the place where that part of the city will naturally develop. I am told that it is greatly used by people at all times, and the natural tendency will be for the city to go out in that direction, yet that area is left out of the Bill.

The Minister used the argument that the coastal borough could not possibly be included in the city because the cost of sanitary and other services would be imposed on the city people. His argument was that it would be unfair to make the people of the city pay for such improvements in that area. Deputy Hennessy disagrees with that altogether and claims that the inclusion of the proposed borough, particularly Dún Laoghaire, in the City of Dublin would be a benefit taken from the people of Dún Laoghaire and given to the city. If the coastal borough were to become part of the city what difference would there be? I do not see any difference in making improvement on the north side or on the south side once they are improvements to the city. If the coastal borough were brought in it would be part of the City of Dublin, and if the sanitary requirements were improved it would still be an improvement to the City of Dublin, so that there is nothing in the argument that the people in the city proper would have to contribute something for the benefit of the people in that area. On the other hand, we are going to be in the position of building up a city, developed to the height of perfection in everything that is sanitary, and round and about it you will have Middle Ages conditions, with no sanitary accommodation, with no proper water supply and where the people every morning have to go to the local pump, and that immediately outside the City of Dublin.

[An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.]

Deputy O'Higgins referred to the three main points of principle against this Bill and appealed to the House to deal with the Bill in a non-political spirit. Why will not the Government leave it to a free vote of the House? Then it would be dealt with in a non-party spirit. There are Deputies in the Government Party not so much in love with this Bill. It may be amended in Committee, but I am very sure that if it passes the Second Reading anybody who hands in amendments which are against the principle of the Bill, by some means of procedure or other these amendments will not be accepted, and the Bill will go through containing those principles that are most strongly opposed.

Deputy Redmond referred to the amputation operation and added another called "divorce." When Deputy O'Higgins was making his point with regard to the amputation he possibly forgot that there was such a thing as a grafting operation, and as far as some Deputies are concerned there seems to be a lot of grafting operations going on in this Bill. Deputy French, the Lord Mayor of Cork, gave what I thought was a very interesting and a very fair exposition of the experience of Cork since the Cork City Management Act came into operation. Nobody appears to care to discuss this Bill on the basis of the experiences that they have had in Cork. I understand that some of the Cork councillors are in the Lobby, and if Deputies want to know something about the Cork Act they can see them, and they will find out that all that is being held out to make the objections that some people have to this Bill less acute in Committee cannot be accepted in good faith. In referring to the extended franchise provided by the commercial register the Minister for Local Government surprised me when he used as an argument the statement that half the valuation of the city consisted of the valuation of premises of a business nature to which this extended franchise is to be given. But he has not got a single figure; he could not tell the House what proportion of the business premises in that half of the total valuation is under a rateable valuation of £20.

General Mulcahy

None of it is under £20.

Mr. Briscoe

I know; but with regard to the arguments that the Minister used in reference to the amount of money received from rates as being 50 per cent. of the total amount, in that there are premises under £20, and I challenge the Minister to say that there are not.

General Mulcahy

The valuation I gave was approximately £660,000 as the valuation of premises of £20 and upwards devoted to business.

Mr. Briscoe

Then I withdraw. I am sorry. I misunderstood the Minister on that. I thought that figure included all business premises.

General Mulcahy

No, and when I said I could not give the figure, what I meant was that I could not give what portion of that figure stood for premises from £20 to £50, but that figure can be got.

Mr. Briscoe

I misunderstood the Minister and I withdraw. The Minister does not know what proportion of that figure applies to business premises of from £20 to £50. That is not given. Deputy MacEntee touched upon a very important point there, and the Minister should realise the danger. Everybody has sympathy with the business concern or the business individual employing labour and has sympathy with him when he is adversely affected by bad city management which brings about an increase in the rates. I am sympathetic towards that individual, but I am not satisfied that such a man will get all the benefit from this extended franchise that it is suggested he will get. In the first place, a small manufacturer does not take premises for his factory in Grafton Street or O'Connell Street; he gets a site—and Deputy Byrne can probably bear me out in this—in a back street where the valuation is less so that he will have small rent, small rates and small overhead. The manufacturer who produces in that way has to watch every penny. He does not take premises similar to those taken by some of the people who have been referred to in the principal streets where the valuations are high. Those are the people whom it is argued we are out to help but those are the people who will not get the plurality of votes at all. Who are the people who will get the plurality of votes? To a certain extent they will be the owners of genuine Dublin concerns, carrying on business and trying to live in spite of heavy taxation and heavy rates, but particularly in spite of unfair competition. I have in mind those multiple shops that come along here with big capital at their back and that probably employ 5,000 hands abroad to produce goods for sale in this country in nice premises where probably only one or two hands are employed. Go into any of these shops in Henry Street, O'Connell Street or Grafton Street and compare the amount of employment they give with that given by shops like Arnotts, Pims or Switzers, genuinely owned Dublin concerns, and you will find that even in the employment of sales hands they have developed it to such a fine art of economy that they will have one window-dresser probably for a series of ten shops, which might be spread out from Donegal to Cork. These are the people to whom we are going to give the extended franchise, people who do not live here, people who are not concerned with whether we extend Dublin, improve its beauty or its health, whether we introduce anything that will mean better control for the citizens by the citizens, or whether there is going to be a dictator in charge, as long as they can carry on their business.

I heard a good deal of talk about the business man in conjunction with this section. The best business man is the man who minds his own business. No decent business man interferes in politics or civic affairs. I hope the House will agree with me in that. I do not believe we have a good business man in the House, because if he was a good business man he would be minding his own business. Then what is all the talk about business men going on the council and watching the manager's expenditure of the moneys. They are not going to go there. We had a citizens' association in Dublin at one time, which set out to upset some of the popularly elected members of the Corporation. I knew some of the members of that association. From the point of view of representatives on the council it was something similar to the Chamber of Commerce. They did not care what went on. They went to Roundwood occasionally and had a nice week-end after the estimates were passed. Apart from that they stuck to their business, and did not mind the business of the city at all. I agree with Deputies who have pointed out that it is the unselfish individual who is going to put himself at the disposal of the people to try to get the best results in civic affairs. You are not going to get the great business men that are spoken of to do so, because they have no time and want to mind their own business.

Plurality of votes is going to be given to a great number of concerns which have no interest, good, bad or indifferent, in this city or this country, and which are daily becoming a great danger to the genuine business community here. I do not want to develop that side of the matter any further, but I would like the Minister to look into it and ascertain how many concerns are going to get six votes, and how many of these individuals or concerns will have the interest of the city or its population at heart. The Minister may then come to the conclusion that, perhaps, it would be better to abandon this step. I could argue that if an individual who paid big rates was entitled to a plurality of votes, in the same way a man who paid super-tax should be entitled, at other elections, to six or seven or twenty votes. There are men who pay £5,000 yearly to the income tax collector, and there are others who pay nothing, but they all have one vote. If we are going to start this system let us do it properly, and give the man who pays £5,000 yearly to the Revenue Commissioners five thousand votes, and the man who pays £1 one vote. We will then be consistent, but this idea goes back to the Middle Ages.

Deputy Byrne was admirably frank, in the circumstances, when dealing with the Bill. He is more in touch with the people of Dublin who are concerned with the Bill, than Deputy Good. Deputy Good meets a certain section in the Chamber of Commerce. They are very nice, decent and honest people, but they hold views that the majority of the people of Dublin do not agree with. Deputy Byrne lives amongst the people who discuss this Bill, and who know all about it, and he was very frank in the attitude he adopted under certain difficulties.

I may say there has nearly been agreement on certain amendments between Deputy Dr. O'Reilly and himself. He was afraid that as so many Cork Deputies were talking about the Bill possibly we were going to have a Cork manager. We intend to introduce an amendment to provide that no Corkman will be manager of the City of Dublin. Deputy Boland dealt fairly well with the argument put forward by the President that the Lord Mayor and the council would have a check on the manager. There is no check whatever. The only check would be if the Lord Mayor refused to sign the cheques and created turmoil. No individual is going to do that especially if a cheque was for payment of the labouring men's wages. He is not going to let them go home without their money.

Coming to the manager, on these benches we have discussed many sections of the Bill in detail, and we agree with the principle of the managerial system generally, and with the manager having control over the staffs, but we do not agree with the manager having power over and above the people who employ him. We want to see this Bill so framed that whatever number of councillors is to be elected by the people, there will be an attraction for the right type to seek election. If they are elected, and if they have some powers, they will be of some use to the city. Deputies like Deputy Keogh or Deputy Byrne who, like myself, represent the city, know that during the past few years we have had more of our constituents coming to us about city affairs than about national affairs. We have had small manufacturers coming to us who wanted to get facilities with regard to water supplies and other things, from the Commissioners. We know that the managerial system proposed in the Bill is going to be, not only a continuation of the Commissioner system, but an aggravated and more acute Commissioner system, because it is going to mean three Commissioners rolled into one.

I want to emphasise that I believe no case has been made by the promoters of the Bill for not including the area outlined by the Greater Dublin Commission. They at least looked into this matter in a non-party way. The men who considered this matter gave great service, spent a lot of time on it, and produced a volume of information in the Greater Dublin Report. I want Deputy Sir James Craig to consider what his view is going to be when he sees that the new boundary of Dublin City is to be a line drawn around just that portion that the main drainage serves. If the Deputy goes out to Rathfarnham he will see that just outside the boundary which is drawn there are a number of cottages housing three or four hundred people which are without water and sanitary accommodation. If anything breaks out in that neighbourhood, does the Deputy think that the imaginary line which the Minister draws where the drainage scheme ends is going to keep anything like that from coming into Dublin? The same thing applies on the north side. This is just a Bill framed round existing conditions, round the district where the sanitary and main drainage services serve and nothing else. There is no desire to take in people who should be properly within the city and who should be properly looked after, particularly from the point of view of sanitation.

I oppose absolutely and entirely the appointment of the manager as outlined in the Bill. He will be outside the control of the nominally-elected representatives of the people. We agree with the managerial system and that the manager should be given every facility, without any interference, to carry out the management of the city, but we say that the right should be left with the elected representatives to be his master in turn; to be able to define policy to him; to tell him, for instance, where they want certain houses and what class of houses they want. The greatest problem that the City Manager or council will have to deal with in Dublin will be that of the slums. The amount of interference that civic administration can bring about in connection with business concerns is very small, because the making or marring of industrial progress lies in the hands of the Government and not in the hands of city administrators. I have never heard any industrialists in Rathmines, Pembroke or Donnybrook blame the local councils for any of their difficulties. I do not think Deputy Good has ever heard any of them do that. It is ridiculous to say that industrial security in the city can be made or marred by the City Council—it is absolute bunkum. The Minister for Finance can help industry by imposing a tariff or can hurt it by taking off a tariff.

Mr. Good

And kill it occasionally.

Mr. Briscoe

And kill it occasionally. Civic administrators can do very little to help or to upset industries. The introduction of this section will prevent the administrators of civic affairs doing what they could do for the poorer sections of the community in Dublin. I can never understand why there is so much hypocrisy amongst us. We preach and pretend to practice all kinds of great moral codes. This Bill will prevent people extending out in order to develop their living accommodation in the way they would like. I can see what is going to happen with the coastal borough. That borough will be made what Rathmines and Pembroke made themselves up to very recently. There will be no chance in that borough of artisans' dwellings being built in a nice airy district. They will be kept out. That is what is at the back of that.

Mr. Davin

They cannot hide the slums there.

Mr. Briscoe

They tried their best. They will prohibit them. They would rather have a greyhound racing track in their midst than decent artisans' dwellings. That is what is going to happen in the coastal borough and that is why I want to see it taken in so that the whole area from Killiney to Malahide will be at the disposal of the elected representatives of the city. I should like to hear the Minister explain what he means by homogeneous. Deputy Redmond also used that word. Is it the map which is hanging in the Lobby? I interpret the word in connection with this borough in a particular way, and that is that it will be homogeneous to all and not to some.

General Mulcahy

I did not catch the definition.

Mr. Briscoe

Perhaps the Minister will give his definition in connection with the Bill. I think it was he introduced the word. Deputy Redmond made an appeal to allow this Bill to pass the Second Reading and then to alter it in Committee and to treat it in a non-party and non-political way. There is only one way of doing that. The Bill can only be treated in a non-party manner if the Whips are taken off.

Let the Government take off the Whips and then we can deal with this Bill in a non-party way, but the Government want to have it both ways. They say we will keep the Whips on but let the others take off theirs and we will get it through. Cork City has had enough experience of the methods adopted to make Dublin Deputies wary of taking anything in the shape of promises that might be given about altering clauses afterwards.

General Mulcahy

Who put on the Whips in the Cork Bill?

Mr. Briscoe

There were no party Whips on the Cork Bill.

General Mulcahy

Yes, there were.

Mr. Briscoe

Deputies on this side of the House voted for and against the Cork Bill.

General Mulcahy

There was a Whip on the Cork Bill from the Deputy's side.

Mr. Briscoe

I think the Minister is wrong. We were divided on that Bill. At any rate, it has nothing to do with this; this is a Dublin Bill. Cork is very useful, of course, occasionally. I want to know will the Minister take up the challenge now of Deputy O'Higgins and say he is prepared, in regard to the three principal points in dispute, to accept amendments. Is he prepared to accept an amendment deleting the franchise section? Is he prepared to proceed with the Bill further if the managerial powers are restricted and greater powers are given to the council? Is he prepared to go on with the Bill if the House decided to have one great Dublin borough rather than to have two—a city and a coastal borough? Let the Minister say that now and we will know where we are. I feel the Minister has definitely made up his mind to get the Bill through as it is. If he accepts any amendments they will be merely minor amendments, but he will insist these three principal points must go through. Perhaps the Minister would say if I am wrong in that assumption?

General Mulcahy

There is no single party here that will be allowed to run away from dealing in a practical way with the particular points in this Bill.

Mr. Briscoe

These are the three principal points and that settles it. Where are the Deputies now who talked about settling these things in Committee? I now know that the Minister has made up his mind to get this Bill through as it is.

General Mulcahy

Not at all. The Deputy must understand me. The Deputy will be given no excuse for not stating definitely whether he wants this area for Dublin City, whether he wants this franchise and this power for the council. The Deputy can do that in Committee.

Mr. Briscoe

I am asking the Minister will he pilot the Bill further if these amendments are carried. I find he will not. As a matter of fact, I am very much afraid of the Ceann Comhairle in this matter, because I have had experience of handing in amendments and having them ruled out because they might not come within the title, or might be against the principle of the Bill. I believe that if I were to hand in an amendment to delete some main section of the Bill that it would not be accepted on the grounds that it would be against the principle of the Bill. I have made it my business to consult people in Dublin who are affected. I consulted people even yesterday, and I must say very few people in the City of Dublin want the extended franchise. Very few people want the coastal borough set up. I must say that Deputy Good, as a Dublin man, is the only one I heard that wants to exclude Rathmines and Pembroke and to take in the coastal borough. I congratulate Deputy Good, who is becoming more and more Sinn Fein. He wants his own little place for himself. As regards the manager's powers, if this Bill goes through, as it is, the Minister will have to select the twenty-five councillors just as he will have to select his manager, because no one will go up for election when he realises beforehand that he can do nothing. We have the best example of that in Cork City. There are some of them in the outer hall at present. Perhaps the Minister will ask them why they are resigning. I hope that Deputies who are genuinely against certain sections of the Bill and hope to secure the deletion of those sections by supporting the Bill on Second Reading will realise that no such thing will happen, and that it is their duty, if the Government keep on the Whips, to vote against the Bill, even if the Government afterwards had to introduce a vote of Confidence. I have no fear they will go to the country over it. I appeal to those Deputies who are very sensible about this Bill to kick it out in its present form.

Minister for Finance (Mr. Blythe)

I ask leave to move that the question be now put.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister for Finance claims to move that the question be now put.

Mr. O'Kelly

May I suggest before you give your decision——

An Ceann Comhairle

We have had this over and over again. There is a Standing Order on this matter, and that Standing Order contemplates that the Chair should be asked for a decision and that no point of order can be made.

Mr. O'Kelly

I was not going to make a point of order, only to say that there are three Dublin Deputies who want to speak.

An Ceann Comhairle

I realise that. The Standing Order is No. 52 and it reads:

"(1) After a question (except a question already barred from debate under the Standing Orders) has been proposed from the Chair either in the Dáil, or in a Committee of the whole Dáil, a Deputy may claim to move, ‘'That the question be now put,' and unless it shall appear to the Ceann Comhairle that such a motion is an infringement of the rights of a minority, or that the question has not been adequately discussed, or that the motion is otherwise an abuse of these Standing Orders, the question, ‘That the question be now put,' shall be put forthwith, and decided without amendment or debate."

This is the third day of the debate, and looking at the course of the debate and the number of Deputies who have spoken for or against, the Chair could not refuse to accept that claim and, therefore, I am accepting the claim of the Minister.

Mr. Davin

Will you state how many Deputies from each party have spoken?

An Ceann Comhairle

I could say that, but it is not relevant.

Mr. Davin

It has some bearing on the rights of the minority. The Minister for Finance has no regard for the rights of a minority, except his own rights, the rights of a bully.

An Ceann Comhairle

The time taken on the Bill by those Deputies who spoke against it was practically double the time taken by those who spoke in favour of it. I am accepting the motion.

Mr. Lemass

I think that is a partisan decision and a perfectly unfair thing to do.

Mr. O'Kelly

Three Dublin Deputies want to speak.

An Ceann Comhairle

If Deputies desire to challenge the decision of the Chair on the ground that it is a partisan decision there is a perfectly simple, orderly and straightforward method of doing that, but that method is not by getting up and shouting abuse at the Chair. The Standing Order prescribes that the Chair has a certain power. The Chair is allowing the House to decide whether the House itself now desires that this Question shall be put. A decision of the Chair to refuse to do that would be a decision of the Chair overriding, possibly, the wish of the House. Therefore I am accepting the motion.

Mr. P. Hogan (Clare)

Considering the infringement of the rights of minorities have you considered that only two Deputies from these Benches have spoken on the Bill?

Mr. Lemass

This has all been arranged by the Cumann na nGaedheal Whip beforehand. It was common talk in the Lobby.

An Ceann Comhairle

The question is: "That the Question be now put." (Interruptions).

Mr. Lemass

Shame!

Mr. O'Kelly

It is a most partisan and disgraceful decision on your part.

Mr. Lemass

We know now that the Chair is ruled by the Cumann na nGaedheal Whip. It has been common talk in the Lobby that this thing was going to be arranged.

Mr. Cooney

A Party hack.

Mr. Lemass

For the last two hours the Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies could have told what this decision was going to be.

Mr. Davin

We could be told in the Lobby at 1 o'clock that this was going to happen.

Mr. Cooney

Disfranchising Dublin Deputies.

Mr. O'Kelly

He is not going to take any risk of the Government being beaten.

Mr. Davin

The rights of minorities! That is the wrong word to use.

Mr. P. Hogan (Clare)

Powers of the majority would be more like it.

Question put: "That the Question be now put."

The Dáil divided. Tá, 70; Níl, 57.

Tá

• Aird, William P.
• Beckett, James Walter.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Blythe, Ernest.
• Bourke, Séamus A.
• Brodrick, Seán.
• Byrne, John Joseph.
• Carey, Edmund.
• Cole, John James.
• Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
• Conlan, Martin.
• Connolly, Michael P.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Craig, Sir James.
• Crowley, James.
• Daly, John.
• Davis, Michael.
• De Loughrey, Peter.
• Doherty, Eugene.
• Dolan, James N.
• Doyle, Peadar Seán.
• Duggan, Edmund John.
• Dwyer, James.
• Egan, Barry M.
• Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
• Nolan, John Thomas.
• O'Connell, Richard.
• O'Connor, Bartholomew.
• O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Higgins, Thomas.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
• O'Reilly, John J.
• O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Haslett, Alexander.
• Hassett, John J.
• Heffernan, Michael R.
• Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
• Hennessy, Thomas.
• Hennigan, John.
• Henry, Mark.
• Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
• Holohan, Richard.
• Jordan, Michael.
• Keogh, Myles.
• Law, Hugh Alexander.
• Leonard, Patrick.
• Lynch, Finian.
• Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
• McDonogh, Martin.
• MacEóin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Myles, James Sproule.
• Nally, Martin Michael.
• Redmond, William Archer.
• Reynolds, Patrick.
• Rice, Vincent.
• Roddy, Martin.
• Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
• Thrift, William Edward.
• Tierney, Michael.
• White, Vincent Joseph.
• Wolfe, George.
• Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Anthony, Richard.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Patrick.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Brady, Seán.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Broderick, Henry.
• Buckley, Daniel.
• Carney, Frank.
• Carty, Frank.
• Colbert, James.
• Colohan, Hugh.
• Cooney, Eamon.
• Corkery, Dan.
• Corish, Richard.
• Corry, Martin John.
• Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Davin, William.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• Doyle, Edward.
• Everett, James.
• Fahy, Frank.
• Flinn, Hugo.
• French, Seán.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Goulding, John.
• Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
• Houlihan, Patrick.
• Jordan, Stephen.
• Kent, William R.
• Kerlin, Frank.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mullins, Thomas.
• Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Connell, Thomas J.
• O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
• O'Hanlon, John F.
• O'Kelly, Seán T.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Powell, Thomas P.
• Ryan, James.
• Sexton, Martin.
• Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.)
• Smith, Patrick.
• Tubridy, John.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Duggan and P. S. Doyle; Níl, Deputies P. Hogan (Clare) and G. Boland.

Question declared carried.

Question—"That the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the Question"—put.

The Dáil divided. Tá, 71; Níl, 58.

Tá

• Aird, William P.
• Beckett, James Walter.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Blythe, Ernest.
• Bourke, Séamus A.
• Brodrick, Seán.
• Byrne, John Joseph.
• Carey, Edmund.
• Coburn, James.
• Cole, John James.
• Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
• Conlon, Martin.
• Connolly, Michael P.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Haslett, Alexander.
• Hassett, John J.
• Heffernan, Michael R.
• Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
• Hennessy, Thomas.
• Hennigan, John.
• Henry, Mark.
• Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
• Holohan, Richard.
• Jordan, Michael.
• Keogh, Myles.
• Law, Hugh Alexander.
• Leonard, Patrick.
• Lynch, Finian.
• Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
• McDonogh, Martin.
• MacEóin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Craig, Sir James.
• Crowley, James.
• Daly, John.
• Davis, Michael.
• De Loughrey, Peter.
• Doherty, Eugene.
• Dolan, James N.
• Doyle, Peadar Seán.
• Duggan, Edmund John.
• Dwyer, James.
• Egan, Barry M.
• Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
• Myles, James Sproule.
• Nally, Martin Michael.
• Nolan, John Thomas.
• O'Connell, Richard.
• O'Connor, Bartholomew.
• O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Higgins, Thomas.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
• O'Reilly, John J.
• O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Redmond, William Archer.
• Reynolds, Patrick.
• Rice, Vincent.
• Roddy, Martin.
• Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
• Thrift, William Edward.
• Tierney, Michael.
• White, Vincent Joseph.
• Wolfe, George.
• Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Alton, Ernest Henry.
• Anthony, Richard.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Patrick.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Brady, Seán.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Broderick, Henry.
• Buckley, Daniel.
• Carney, Frank.
• Carty, Frank.
• Colbert, James.
• Colohan, Hugh.
• Cooney, Eamon.
• Corkery, Dan.
• Corish, Richard.
• Corry, Martin John.
• Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Davin, William.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• Doyle, Edward.
• Everett, James.
• Fahy, Frank.
• Flinn, Hugo.
• French, Seán.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Goulding, John.
• Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
• Houlihan, Patrick.
• Jordan, Stephen.
• Kent, William R.
• Kerlin, Frank.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mullins, Thomas.
• Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Connell, Thomas J.
• O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
• O'Hanlon, John F.
• O'Kelly, Seán T.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Powell, Thomas P.
• Ryan, James.
• Sexton, Martin.
• Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
• Smith, Patrick.
• Tubridy, John.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl, Deputies P. Hogan and Davin.

Question declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle

The question is, therefore, that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Mr. Derrig

On that question I would like to know whether you intend to let the discussion continue. There are a number of Deputies on this side of the House who are anxious to speak. It must have come under your notice in the past few days that they have been waiting for an opportunity to speak. I submit that no arguments have been advanced from the Government Benches in support of the closure motion.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will remember that the essence of the closure motion is that no argument is to be advanced on either side with regard to it. The Second Reading procedure is of the nature that a motion is made that the Bill be read a second time. What is called a reasoned amendment may be moved, and that reasoned amendment, as in this case, generally is a direct negative. It is really a motion proposing to reject the Bill for reasons, and it leads to a discussion not only upon the matter dealt with in the amendment, but on the question of the Bill generally. As was explained from the Chair at the beginning, and as was explained again yesterday, the procedure is that the question is put in the form that the words proposed to be deleted stand. If that question be affirmed, then the main question is put without further debate. There is, therefore, nothing left now but to put the question.

Mr. Davin

In accepting the Closure Motion you decided that the rights of the minority in the House had been duly respected.

An Ceann Comhairle

No. Deputy Davin is quite wrong. In acceding to the claim to move the Closure I decided simply that the claim was one which would have to be accepted under the Standing Order.

Mr. G. Boland

The Ceann Comhairle also ruled that the T.D.'s for this city whose fate is being decided are not entitled to speak. There are three Deputies on these benches representing Dublin City and they are entitled to speak.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Ceann Comhairle has no function to decide who is to speak.

Mr. G. Boland

I say that he has decided.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Ceann Comhairle has simply decided that in his opinion the House should be given an opportunity of coming to a decision on the Question: That the Question be now put. The House has come to a decision and it is for the Ceann Comhairle to carry it out. If Deputies have interesting views about the Ceann Comhairle and about his functions and position it would be more suitable, more orderly, more straightforward and, generally, more satisfactory that they should take a suitable opportunity to put these views in sweet reasonableness before the House and have the decision of the House on them instead of putting them in this not quite pleasant or orderly fashion. If Deputies desire that, they can do so.

Mr. Lemass

Will the Ceann Comhairle inform us what is the particular Standing Order which gave him authority to closure discussion on this motion?

An Ceann Comhairle

The practice of the House.

Mr. Lemass

I take it that in saying that it is the practice of the House the Ceann Comhairle means that he is acting on his own initiative?

An Ceann Comhairle

I now put the question.

Mr. Lemass

Put Deputy Duggan in the Chair.

The Question being put,

The Ceann Comhairle

declared that, in his opinion, the question was carried. A Division was thereupon demanded, but there being no Tellers against the question, the question was declared carried.

The Bill was accordingly read a second time.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 12th March.

The Dáil adjourned at 1.55 p.m. until Wednesday, 5th March.