Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 20 May 1931

Vol. 38 No. 13

Local Elections and Meetings (Postponement) Bill, 1931—Second Stage.

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (General Mulcahy)

I move the Second Reading of this Bill. Normally, between the 23rd June and 1st July the triennial elections would take place in respect of the county councils, urban district councils and town commissioners. It will be recalled that in his Budget speech on 6th May the Minister for Finance foreshadowed that the Government would introduce proposals for the remodelling of local government, and stated that at a very early date proposals would be put before the Dáil for, in particular, the remodelling of the county council machinery. In the circumstances it was thought that no advantage would be gained by having an election to these bodies now. An election will take place for the county borough councils of Waterford and of Limerick, and one-third of the members of the council in Cork will be elected.

There will be no county borough election in Dublin, but with the exception of these elections it is proposed to postpone county council elections and elections to urban district councils and town commissioners. The important proposals that have been promised will be introduced and take effect before the term of office of the new council elected in June next would be completed, and in the circumstances it was thought quite unnecessary to spend approximately £30,000 on these local elections on the one hand, and on the other to put public representatives administering the work of local bodies at present to the inconvenience of contesting an election for a period that would not be the normal period of the life of the council. The postponement of the elections then saves the local bodies approximately £30,000. It also puts us in the position that while we will be discussing very important proposals dealing with local government. we will have in office councils who will have had continuing experience of the last three years as well as whatever period will elapse before the proposals are put before us. It is thought that that will be an advantage too. The proposals are then that the elections will be postponed to a date not later than July, 1934. That is the end of the normal period. The proposals that are before the House contain provisions whereby committees, of which the principal one would be the board of health, that are usually elected after the triennial election and are entitled to last for the life of the councils that elect them, will continue to run for the period of life of the present councils, so that there will be a continuity in respect of the work of the committees.

The Bill makes certain proposals in regard to casual vacancies and resignations. As far as urban district councils are concerned, since the change of local government in 1922 elections are held on the same date as the county council elections and part of the cost of the elections only is borne by the urban district councils. It is considered that it would be unwarranted to carry out elections in the urban districts, imposing more expenses on these districts than would normally be the case and more than they had made provision for. Apart altogether from that, there are some urban district councils and a number of county councils that will be changed in any remodelling of the local government system and in many ways the work of the county council reacts on the urban districts, so that it is as well to have continued the personnel of the urban district councils as well as of the county councils while we are discussing our proposals. Provision is made also in respect of those areas where we have commissioners acting for the councils at the present moment. It will, if the circumstances suggest it, enable the Minister to postpone further the elections that would normally take place in these areas. Normally it might be desired to postpone these elections until such time as we are holding the general local government elections. So powers are taken to extend the present period in respect of which a commissioner can do the work. There is nothing that will prevent a council being restored in any of these places if the circumstances should appear to warrant it.

At the annual or quarterly meeting of the Council, as the case may be, that takes place between the 23rd June and the 1st July, a chairman is elected. Deputies will realise that the Eucharistic Congress will take place in June of next year. Urban councils and, in an ex-officio manner, the chairmen of urban district councils may possibly, and probably will, take rather a prominent part in the functions in connection with the Eucharistic Congress. It is obviously undesirable that the persons acting as chairmen of such local bodies should be changed during the period of the Eucharistic Congress. Many of them may be organising or doing other work in connection with the Congress in June, 1932. Everyone will realise that it is desirable that the person occupying the position and doing the work leading up to the Eucharistic Congress should continue to do it in whatever representative capacity he may occupy during the period of the Congress. It is therefore proposed that the election of chairman to the local body that would take place in June, 1932, will be postponed for six or seven weeks.

Mr. O'Kelly

I think this Bill is an entirely unnecessary one. We were told by the Minister for Finance in his Budget speech that there is an intention to alter in some form or another the present system of local government. The Minister for Local Government has just told us now that a Bill is in preparation and will be introduced some time before 1934. I do not see the necessity of introducing a Bill of this kind postponing the elections while we are waiting for a Bill which will embody the proposals of the Minister for Local Government and his colleagues, to alter, modify or abolish, whichever it may be, the present system of local government. I do not see why the Bill could not be introduced now. It probably will not be introduced in a great hurry; if we are to judge by former experience, it may be six months or even twelve months before we will see the Bill. I see no adequate reason, therefore, why the ordinary elections that would fall due this year should not be held.

One argument, and one only, that I have heard from the Minister, offered as a good reason why the election should not be held is the Eucharistic Congress. What the Eucharistic Congress has to do with the election of chairmen of local bodies I cannot see. Whatever their shade of politics may be, I cannot see what difference it would make to have Tom, Dick or Harry as chairman of the local urban district council. I cannot see what difference or effect it would have on the Eucharistic Congress. The Government were hard up for arguments when they fell back on that for an argument to advocate the postponement of elections in June.

General Mulcahy

The Deputy must have misunderstood my point in regard to the Eucharistic Congress. The Eucharistic Congress is not introduced in any way for the postponement of elections to the local bodies this year. It is introduced as an argument for putting into this Bill a section which is only for the purpose of securing that whatever local bodies will be in existence in June 1932 will not be called upon during the week of the Eucharistic Congress to elect new chairmen. That is all.

Mr. O'Kelly

I cannot see why I was not right in saying that it introduced no argument in favour of the passing of this Bill. Why it was introduced appears to me to be difficult to understand. Even if the Eucharistic Congress were actually in progress why a local body should not elect its chairman or change its chairman and elect a new one is a thing that passes my understanding. The Bill is unnecessary in my opinion. Whatever may be the fate of local government in the view of the present Ministry, this Bill is unnecessary. The elections could be held. The people could be given an opportunity of re-electing those at present in control or changing them if they wish, as I maintain they have a right to do. The proposals of the Ministry regarding local government and its alteration or abolition could be considered and discussed here. This is, in a way, rather discussing the whole question in the dark. This Bill only deals with the question of the postponement of the elections, but the whole question of local government changes that are to take place is naturally in one's mind, and it is difficult to avoid discussing them. I do not propose to call upon myself a ruling from the Chair by going into this matter now, but if I am to take as accurate the statement made in Monaghan ten days ago by the Vice-President it would look as if there was going to be very little change in local government. That does not bear out what we read every second or third day in the inspired articles in the "Independent."

The Vice-President of the Executive Council told the people in Monaghan that they would allow the system of local government to remain substantially in the form in which we had it. If that be the intention then I see very little necessity, if any, for this Bill. I think it is a waste of the time of the House, time that could be more valuably spent in other directions than in introducing this unnecessary Bill. I do not know what the attitude of my colleagues on this Bill will be. We only got the Bill on Friday last, although the Minister wanted to have its Second Reading fixed for last week. It is more than a fortnight since it passed its First Reading, but not withstanding that we only got the Bill on Friday. For that reason I have not had an opportunity of discussing the Bill with my colleagues and I do not know what their views may be. I am only speaking for myself. I think it is a waste of money and time and a reflection on public bodies in general that they are not to be allowed to hold their election and elect or reject their chairmen, or elect whoever pleases them to run their local affairs.

Mr. Hogan (An Clár):

This Bill does not give an opportunity for very much discussion. It simply says that we propose to adjourn the local elections for an indefinite period not later than July, 1934, but it does not say when between now and 1934 it is intended to hold them. It intends to hold up what we were taught to regard as a very sacred thing—the will of the people— for that period. It intends to cut them out. It intends to say that the people shall have no say as to whether they are satisfied with those people they elected to public responsible positions during the period. It is indicated that before 1934 we are going to have some modification of local government. In 1925 we had a very drastic alteration of our local government, that was six years ago, and we had another change in 1923. We had the wiping out of certain bodies. There was a good deal of opposition given to that measure. Later we had further drastic changes in local government administration. I refer to the experiment in Cork and Dublin.

Now we are asked to wait for a further period, and we are told that some time between this and 1934 we are going to have further drastic changes. One would have expected that in the last five or six years the Government would have made up their minds as to what their local government policy should be, as to what ought to be the manner in which local affairs should be managed. They ought to be prepared to tell us now what they propose to do and how local government should be run. Instead of that, they ask us to wait for this indefinite period. The Minister told us that there is going to be a saving of public money. To my mind, that argument could be adduced in favour of anything. You could postpone a general election indefinitely on the supposition that you were saving money. You could say, "Why have a general election? Postpone it and save a certain amount of money to the country." No sufficient reason has been adduced by the Minister as to why the local government elections should not be held. He can let us have the code in 1934 to which he is so favourably disposed. Let us have the reformed system of local government when the period of office of the councils expires in 1934. Nothing desperate can happen between this and 1934 so that we cannot wait until the elections are over and the people have a say in the matter. I have been so often asked to consider the will of the people as a sacred thing that I did not think the Minister would interfere at this moment and try to suspend it just for the sake of waiting one, two or three years until he has his code prepared, his alterations ready and his system perfected. I do not think there is any great necessity for that. We ought to have some adequate reasons adduced for the suspension of the elections.

Like Deputy O'Kelly, I cannot understand this reference to the chairmen. He talked about their experience and all that sort of thing, and that they are more likely to come in a representative capacity to the Eucharistic Congress. I would have thought that the Minister would have liked to allow the councils to say whether they were satisfied with the actions of their chairmen in their representative capacity during the three years, or if they were not, have given them an opportunity to send alternative chairmen.

General Mulcahy

A period of one year. The chairmen are elected annually.

Mr. Hogan

I know, but they rarely change them. If the Minister gets to be a chairman he has a very good chance of remaining chairman for three years. I can assure him of that. Where they are satisfied with the activities of the chairman for one, two, or three years we are not giving the councils an opportunity, and the people an opportunity through the elections to the council, of saying: "This is the man we would like to send up as a public representative to the Eucharistic Congress to represent us on such an auspicious occasion." This is a Bill on which we cannot say very much. It simply proposes on the ipse dixit of the Minister to postpone the elections. So far he has not given any good reason why they should be postponed, and I hope, before he asks the House to vote on the Bill, that he will give us some adequate reasons.

Mr. Kennedy

It is apparent to us that the Minister is postponing the local elections for the purpose of doing away with local government, or, at least, so curtailing the powers of local bodies that local representation might as well not exist at all. I do not see any reason why the county council and urban council elections should be postponed. They cannot be postponed certainly on the ground that the present councils are inefficient. In the county councils and the urban councils, taking them as a whole, you have as clean government as you have in any part of the world. In fact, local government in Ireland sets a headline which could be copied in many other countries. There is certainly not any state of things here, such as you have in American cities, that would justify the postponement of elections. We would like to have a definite reason from the Minister as to why he contemplates postponing the elections for the purpose of bringing in his reform of local government. Surely local government has already been too much curtailed under the 1925 Act. Surely the example of the powers enjoyed in the Six Counties and in Great Britain in local government should be a headline to the Minister not to curtail further the powers here. I contend that we have as unselfish a body of men on the local councils as is to be found anywhere. If we do away with local representation, the poor and the ordinary ratepayers will have a very small chance of making representations to anybody.

An Ceann Comhairle

This Bill does not do away with them—it keeps them there.

Mr. Hogan (Clare):

In order to do away with them.

An Ceann Comhairle

I know the Deputy is in a certain difficulty.

Mr. Kennedy

You, sir, should take cognisance of these difficulties. Under the Local Government Act, which did away with district councils, representation was cut down very much. If the Minister examines the return of voting at county council elections and compares them with those for Dáil elections he will find that a bigger percentage of the electorate vote at council elections than at Dáil elections, which shows that the people take a bigger interest in local affairs than they do in the affairs of this House. If the object of the Bill is to postpone local election so as further to curtail the representation of the people locally we certainly intend to vote against it.

Mr. Walsh

I rise to support Deputy O'Kelly in his protest against this Bill. As Deputy O'Kelly said, there is no necessity for it. There is only one precedent in recent times for such a proposal as this, and that was when the local elections were postponed from 1917 to 1920. We all know the reasons for that postponement. There was a world war raging, and this country was also in a state of war. Certainly the British authorities at the time had a very good argument for postponing the elections—a far more substantial argument than the Minister has for his proposal now. I cannot see in what way the celebrations connected with the Eucharistic Congress next year are inter-mingled with local government, or what they have to do with it. The Minister, even in this Bill, has shown his inconsistency. When making his statement he said that in counties where there were Commissioners there was nothing in the Bill to prevent the restoration of the councils between this and 1934.

As a result of this Bill a situation might occur in which a council which was dissolved where a Commissioner had been appointed might be restored, and that such a council might not represent the views of the people. The Minister may say that I may be hitting against myself when I mention that, as I am an ex-county councillor, but that is the fact. The best test that we can have in any county that the council does really represent the views of the people is to allow the election to proceed. Never since I came into this House did I listen to a weaker speech in support of any Bill, whether introduced by a Minister or a private member, than the speech made by the Minister for Local Government in introducing this Bill. I shall not go into the proposals in this Bill or try to anticipate them, or to make prophecies regarding them as to what the Minister has in his mind regarding the form of local government that should prevail in this country in the future. The Minister may have in mind the total abolition of local government, or he may only intend to go as far as the Minister for Finance said in Monaghan he would go in regard to local government. But whatever his intentions are or whatever proposals the House will be presented with they should not make the Minister bring forward this Bill. As I said, the Bill is inconsistent with what the Minister said, that in counties where Commissioners are now in office there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the restoration of the former councils. I am sure the Minister will see how inconsistent that statement is with the proposals in the Bill itself.

The best argument in regard to a county like Mayo or any other county similarly situated that the Minister could give in support of his action is, if an election is held that the present members of the council should be defeated, or that the majority of them should be defeated. I am sure if such a result were to take place it would justify the Minister's act. But certainly, denying to the people of Mayo or any other county the right to express their opinion upon what has happened is rank injustice and is, in my view, an outrage.

As Deputy Hogan has said, we hear a lot of play made by the Ministerial and Cumann na nGaedheal speakers throughout the country about the will of the people. Certainly this Bill is not very consistent with the will of the people. It would seem, one might say, sacrilegious to connect the Eucharistic Congress celebrations with local government elections. Further, it is ridiculous to say that it might be considered disrespectful to the celebrations. I think the thing is absolutely preposterous, and I appeal to Deputies, no matter on what side of the House they sit, to throw this Bill out.

Mr. Shaw

I believe the vast majority of the people, and also the people's representatives, are grateful for the postponement of the local government elections at the present time, because they believe very considerable improvements can be made. I think that Deputy Kennedy, who has spoken against the Bill, as chairman of the board of health where there are ten members, will admit that a board of health will do more work in one day than a county council of thirty-two representatives will do in ten days. I challenge contradiction of that statement.

An Ceann Comhairle

I would be completely against the statement and equally against the contradiction. We would never get anywhere if we started discussing boards of health. Let us hear about the postponement of the election.

Mr. Shaw

I believe I am ventilating the opinions both of the public and the public representatives when I say that they agree with the postponement of the local elections, and that one of the next things that ought to be done is to cut down the number of county councillors, who prevent work being done.

Mr. G. Wolfe

I think it would be generally agreed that the present time is not a very suitable time to spend money unnecessarily. We have not a very great lot, except in the hospitals sweep, to throw away without very good reason. As it has been foreshadowed in the Budget speech that a change in local government is going to take place that will require thinking out and development, and will also involve an election soon after the Bill becomes law, I think it would be criminal waste of money to throw away £30,000 unnecessarily and for no purpose whatever.

A great deal has been made about this being done to convenience those attending the Eucharistic Congress. Of course this Bill has nothing to do with that. The only matter that would occur in June would be the election of chairmen of councils, and, as the Minister mentions, he means to make some arrangement by which that inconvenience would be obviated, so that chairmen of those important bodies will, if so disposed, be able to attend and take part in the Congress. On the whole, I think not only in the House here, but all through the country, the proposal of the Minister will be approved. I think the matter of economy ought to appeal to all of us. This is not a time for throwing away money. The Minister very wisely decided that these elections shall not take place this year, and I think that his decision will be upheld by every sensible person, not only in this House but outside.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell

I do not think that the Minister has given any substantial argument in support of this measure. I doubt, in fact, whether any good or substantial argument could be produced in favour of it. Summing up his arguments, such as they were, we have the money argument, the saving of £30,000, but if that were to be used as an argument we should never have elections which would cost money. We could always save money by saying that we will not have elections. That argument must be ruled out. I quite agree that there are a number of people, like Deputy Shaw and Deputy Wolfe, who think that elections of all kinds are a bit of a nuisance and that we can get on very comfortably without them. That idea is opposed to all ideas of democratic government. If we hold that this is a democratically run country, and that the voice of the people must get an opportunity of expressing itself now and again, we must have elections. The main argument of the Minister is: "We are going to introduce fundamental changes in the local government system sometime between this and 1934"—that is as near as he has gone; it might be this year, next year or the year following—"and because of that we are not to have the ordinary elections which usually take place in June."

What is his reason for that? He said that it would be a good thing, while that measure is going through, to have men on local bodies with considerable experience of local government. That, I take it, was the main point of his argument, but he did not even suggest how he is going to make use of that experience, or what voice local councillors will have in framing the proposals which he is going to bring in. He has not said that they will have any voice. He has not shown how it will be more advantageous to have men on public bodies who were there for the past three years and among whom, according to the Minister for Finance, there are a considerable number of windbags than to have a new election this June, when the windbags might be eliminated.

A Deputy

Fresh windbags.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell

I do not know whether a fresh windbag is any better than an old windbag. I cannot see why the ordinary practice should be interfered with in order that the men in office, while this measure would be going through, would be men with a certain amount of experience, when they cannot and will not be availed of to any great extent, so far as one can see. I suggest that there will be no difficulty in putting through proposals within the next three years and fixing the appointed day in June, 1934. That point was mentioned by Deputy Hogan and it seems to me to be a practical and sensible thing to do. There is certainly no point in postponing the elections because we are going to have a new system of local government. There is nothing, so far as I can see, to prevent a scheme being submitted, put through this House and becoming operative from, say, 1st June, 1934, when you could have your new elections under the new system. I can see no point in postponing the elections except that it saves money. That, however, would be an argument for postponing all elections, for wiping out county councils and even the Dáil itself. I think that it was an undemocratic action on the part of the Minister to bring in this measure. It certainly is not wise, because it gives the people an idea that they have no voice in things. That has been done more than once and the idea has got about among the people that the party in power can postpone elections and, if necessary, bring in a Bill to double the life of the Dáil and to extend the period of government. That could be done and as good a case could be made out for it as for this Bill. This Bill is simply taking away that sense of responsibility which we all join in trying to inculcate amongst our people, and I certainly will oppose this measure.

Mr. Corry

Some Deputies seemed to have difficulty in finding a reason for the introduction of this Bill. Personally I find none, because I am aware that there is very keen competition between members of the Executive Council as to who will be responsible for the introduction of the greatest number of nonsensical Bills within twelve months. There is competition, for instance, between the Minister for External Affairs, who looks for the exemption of certain classes of Port wine from duty; the Minister for Local Government, who introduces some other nonsensical Bills, and also the Minister for Justice who introduces a Bill for giving three hours' relief to the publicans in twelve months. The time of the Dáil is, in fact, occupied in considering nonsensical Bills introduced by gentlemen opposite. This measure is part of the competition amongst Ministers. I am prepared to admit that in this instance the Minister has another reason. I think that anyone who has any experience of public bodies will admit that I hit upon the right reason for it when I say that, just as constant dropping wears a stone, constant pounding by the Minister for Local Government and his officials on the heads of unfortunate councillors for a number of years makes them more or less tame.

When the Minister has his birds fairly tame he likes to keep them there and to play with them. When a new body starts in office the Minister start pounding again, and says: "You shall not do this, you must do the other thing." That is the whole difficulty which I see about the Minister and, in my opinion, the principal reason that he has introduced this Bill is that he considers that he will have less trouble in running the local bodies when he is certain that a certain number of county councillors will be walloped into submission, pounded into it. The Minister has shown very great contempt for these people while he was getting them tamed. I remember hearing the Minister a short time ago— I think it was on our de-rating proposals—allude to the county councils who adjourned the striking of the rates as disreputable councils. Then he came at the tame boys who struck the rate and he saddled them with extra expense because they carried out his instructions. I can quite understand Deputy Shaw's anxiety to keep a little longer in the public eye. The poor man knows that he has been found out and that he will be dropped as soon as the people have an opportunity of dropping him. As I said, I quite appreciate his anxiety to have the elections postponed and I sympathise with him. I think that the time of the Dáil would be better occupied than in paying draftsmen to draft fourteen sections of a nonsensical Bill like this. The Minister should consider the public purse a little more and should find better use for civil servants than getting them to draft nonsensical Bills. As to the arguments of Deputy Shaw and Deputy Wolfe, the same arguments could be, and probably will be, used to-morrow or afterwards to extend the life of the Dáil by those who know that they have no chance of getting back.

Mr. Shaw

Like yourself.

Mr. Corry

I would beat you in Westmeath in the morning.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy ought to talk about the Bill.

Mr. Corry

The very same proposal probably will be introduced in respect to the Dáil, because the Minister and the Executive Council have found out from all those whom they could collect at the Cumann na nGaedheal meeting a few weeks ago what the country thinks of them. I am afraid they gave the verdict that the time is not a very good one for an election, that it would be much better postponed, and I am afraid that decision is working in their minds. I cannot see any sane reason for this Bill. If there was any idea in the Minister's mind to postpone the elections until 1934, then the three years' office for the new council would be up. If it is going to take the collective wisdom of the Minister's Department all that time to hammer out a new local government scheme, I can guarantee him that he will not be here as Minister to see it through.

Mr. Reynolds

I should like to say that in introducing this Bill the Minister is voicing the opinion of the people in County Leitrim. There was a county council election held in Leitrim three years ago, and in some of the divisions the elections were not contested at all. In other divisions the people found it very hard to get candidates to make a contest. I believe that on this occasion we would have the same state of affairs. By postponing the elections you are saving the ratepayers the money voted for the elections. I honestly believe that it is the view of the people that the councils should be allowed to remain as they are. I believe that is the view of Deputy Corry and other Deputies, and that an election once every six years would be sufficient.

A Deputy

What about the Dublin Corporation?

Mr. Reynolds

I do not know anything about that but I am quite sure that in the case of county councils an election once every six years is quite sufficient. I am sure that Deputy Kennedy who has considerable experience on public boards would agree that it is not fair to the ratepayers to hold elections every three years. It is not fair to the county councils that an election should be forced on them every three years. With regard to the election of county council chairmen, the election of chairmen takes place in June. They should have one year's experience at least before the Eucharistic Congress is held, and I think it is wise that they should not be asked to elect a new chairman this year. I quite agree with the Minister in his proposal to postpone the elections.

Dr. Ryan

It would appear from the few speeches we have heard now that county councillors, who are also members of Cumann na nGaedheal, are extremely anxious that the life of the county councils should be extended. Deputy Shaw and Deputy Reynolds, who are also county councillors, are very anxious that they should have another two or three years which the electors did not give them when they were first elected. I notice, on the other hand, that members of Fianna Fáil and of the Labour Party are anxious that the electorate should have a chance of putting them back or not as they think fit. That at least shows that members of the Fianna Fáil and Labour Parties are not as much afraid of the electorate as the Cumann na nGaedheal Party is.

That might be the reason why the Bill was introduced. Why should it be necessary to provide in this Bill that elections may not take place until 1934, three years hence? Why should the Minister or the Executive Council require three years to make these changes, which, we understood from the Budget speech, were already decided upon? The Minister for Finance, in his speech on the Budget, spoke of decisions on the question of local government, and we understood that they had decided even on the details of the Bill which they meant to introduce. He spoke of cutting down the number of members of the councils. He spoke about a modified system of management somewhat on the lines of the Cork and Dublin councils. Surely when the Minister for Finance was able to speak in that strain the plans must have been already decided upon by the Executive Council. Why should they require three years to put these plans into operation?

If the Minister had brought forward a Bill asking for a six months extension there might be some reason for it, but to ask for a three years extension is absolutely ridiculous, and no case can be made for it. Deputy O'Connell said that the same case might be made for an extension of the life of the Dáil, and for all we know the same case will be made. As a matter of fact, I believe that Ministers on occasions during the past twelve months have been giving hints in various places that if there was a demand from the people that the life of the present Dáil should be extended, it would be welcomed by the Executive Council. A Parliamentary Secretary, in making a speech in Tipperary last Sunday, as reported in the "Cork Examiner," said that he did not wish the people to think because he appeared there, that there was a general election in the offing. Evidently he did not appear there very often, and he thought the people might misunderstand his visit. Well, he did not wish them to understand that a general election was in the offing. "He for one hoped there was not." I think that hope of the Parliamentary Secretary is also the hope of Deputy Shaw and Deputy Reynolds in their respective councils. They hope that there is not going to be a local election in the offing either.

Mr. Reynolds

What is your own hope?

Dr. Ryan

Fortunately or unfortunately I would not have to face the electors in the case of a county council election. As I have stated already, members of our Party who are members of county councils have clearly expressed the view that they are not afraid to face the electors next June, which is the time at which these elections should be held. I think it is altogether unfair to the electors to extend the life of the councils for another three years, because they were not told at the time they were electing these councils that they were electing them for four or five years, or for any period longer than three years. Deputy Reynolds has mentioned that in some districts in Leitrim there were no contests on the last occasion, because only the number of candidates required to fill the vacancies were put up. Surely that does not prove that the same thing would occur again? If it did occur again, it would show that they were satisfied with those whom they elected the last time, but in 90 per cent. of the areas at least in which there were contents the last time there would be contents this time.

In all probability changes will be made. The electors who would elect those county councils would be fully represented if elections were held in June, as they should be. I do not know that the Minister has made any case whatsoever for this Bill as it stands. Perhaps in reply he will try and improve on the case he made on the introduction.

General Mulcahy

Deputy Ryan thinks his Party—he would also take it on himself to speak for the Labour Party—are anxious to have local government elections in order that they, putting forward persons to carry on local administration, will ask the electors to say what they think of Fianna Fáil to-day and what they think of Labour. Firstly we stand here for keeping party politics, as much as possible, out of local government administration. Secondly, I think it too much to ask the ratepayers of this country to pay £30,000 this year for the purpose of saying, a little beforehand, what they think of Fianna Fáil or Labour.

Mr. Davin

Or of Cumann na nGaedheal.

General Mulcahy

Of anyone, but we know, to some extent, what they think of us.

Dr. Ryan

So do we.

General Mulcahy

Deputy Ryan thinks it would be worth £30,000 to the country to be given an opportunity of saying exactly what they think of Fianna Fáil in June, 1931. It is not worth the money.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell

Why in June, 1934?

General Mulcahy

They will get an opportunity of seeing what kind of representatives they want to carry on local government long before 1934. I hope Deputies, on the far side, will have got out of thinking by that time that they will do themselves or the country any good by contesting local government elections on a political party programme.

Deputy Walsh finds a weakness in my case on this subject. It is weak because I come forward and make a businesslike proposition. We have said that we intend to put proposals before the Oireachtas for changing the machinery for local government administration. We have said that we propose to put these proposals before the House at an early date. Deputy O'Kelly says that even in these circumstances, to introduce a measure like this, postponing the local elections, is a wastage of time and a wastage of money. He thinks, on the other hand, that it is no harm to waste the money of the ratepayers in holding an election for the purpose of setting up bodies that might last, say, for not more than eighteen months. He thinks that it is a waste of time to say the few words necessary on this measure. He thinks nothing of the waste of time we would ask representatives of local bodies to undertake in the conducting of elections throughout the country, urban and county councils, for a period of office that might not last more than eighteen months.

Deputy Hogan thinks we are not acting according to the will of the people. We are going on our own instinct and our own information on that matter, and I think we are meeting the general wishes of the ratepayers of the local government electorate, and the general wishes of those who are working to-day on local bodies, in asking the House to pass legislation that will make it unnecessary to have elections in June. We are putting down 1934 as the period for the postponement of the elections, simply in order to put down a date at the end of the next three years' period. I do not want to enter into a proviso with regard to when it may be possible to bring about the position which the proposed legislation with regard to local government proposes, but it is not the intention to postpone the introduction of that measure for, say, two years or anything like it. It is proposed to bring it in at the earliest and most convenient time for the Oireachtas to discuss it. The only thing the House is called on to decide here is, anticipating that new machinery of local government will be proposed, and put into operation in eighteen months or two years, whether you are going to ask those at present carrying on local government administration to stand the expense to themselves and the expense to the ratepayers of carrying out local government elections this year. On this side of the House we do not think it is reasonable to ask that that should be done.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 69; Níl, 51.

Tá

• Aird, William P.
• Alton, Ernest Henry.
• Beckett, James Walter.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Blythe, Ernest.
• Bourke, Séamus A.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Brodrick, Seán.
• Byrne, John Joseph.
• Carey, Edmund.
• Coburn, James.
• Cole, John James.
• Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
• Conlon, Martin.
• Connolly, Michael P.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Craig, Sir James.
• Daly, John.
• Davis, Michael.
• Doherty, Eugene.
• Dolan, James N.
• Doyle, Peadar Seán.
• Duggan, Edmund John.
• Dwyer, James.
• Egan, Barry M.
• Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
• Finlay, Thomas A.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Good, John.
• Gorey, Denis J.
• Haslett, Alexander.
• Hassett, John J.
• Heffernan, Michael R.
• Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
• Hennessy, Thomas.
• Hennigan, John.
• Henry, Mark.
• Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
• Holohan, Richard.
• Kelly, Patrick Michael.
• Keogh, Myles.
• Law, Hugh Alexander.
• Leonard, Patrick.
• Lynch, Finian.
• Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
• McDonogh, Martin.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, James E.
• Myles, James Sproule.
• Nally, Martin Michael.
• O'Connell, Richard.
• O'Connor, Bartholomew.
• O'Mahony, The.
• O'Reilly, John J.
• O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Reynolds, Patrick.
• Rice, Vincent.
• Roddy, Martin.
• Shaw, Patrick W.
• 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.
• Cassidy, Archie J.
• Clancy, Patrick.
• Colbert, James.
• Corkery, Dan.
• Corry, Martin John.
• Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Davin, William.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Everett, James.
• Flinn, Hugo.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Goulding, John.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
• Houlihan, Patrick.
• Jordan, Stephen.
• Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Brady, Seán.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Broderick, Henry.
• Carney, Frank.
• Carty, Frank.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• Maguire, Ben.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Mullins, Thomas.
• Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Connell, Thomas J.
• O'Kelly, Seán T.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Ryan, James.
• Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
• Smith, Patrick.
• Tubridy, John.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C.

Tellers: Ta, Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl, Deputies G. Boland and Allen.

Question declared carried.

Ordered: That the Committee Stage be taken on Wednesday, May 27.