Local Elections Bill, 1948—Second Stage.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Murphy)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. There are two main features in this Bill. The first feature of the Bill is to provide for the postponement of the local elections of county councils, borough councils and other local authorities to 1950. The second feature of the Bill is to make preparation for the holding of the local elections in the Counties of Dublin and Kerry this year. Provision is also made for giving effect to the recommendations of a recent inquiry under which certain powers will be conferred on the citizens of Tramore. Accordingly, provision is made in the Bill to give effect to them. There are certain other minor provisions dealing with vocational committees and similar bodies. These are not of very considerable importance. They are more or less routine and generally follow on a Bill of this kind.

Coming then to the main provisions of the Bill, I think it will be agreed that it is undesirable that the Dáil elections and local elections should take place in the same year. For that reason it is proposed to postpone the local elections until 1950. The question may be asked why not defer them until 1949. The purpose is to avoid a clash with the Dáil elections. Having regard to what is the normal life of the Dáil, Deputies will understand that 1950 is the most appropriate year for the holding of local elections once the principle of holding both elections in a different year is accepted.

The second feature of the Bill then deals with the holding of the elections in the counties of Kerry and Dublin. It seems to me essential that these elections should be held at the earliest possible date because of the fact that the local affairs of these counties have been administered over a very considerable period by commissioners. In my judgment, and in the judgment of the Government, that is not a policy that ought to be pursued unduly. For that reason it is proposed to hold the local elections in these counties this year at the latest possible date, having regard to all the circumstances, in order to give a maximum interval between the holding of the Dáil elections, which took place in February last, and the date on which the local elections will be held in those particular counties.

Certain consequences arise from the election of the county council in Dublin. Under the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1945, the Rathdown and Balrothery Boards of Assistance will be elected at the first meeting of the council. In the case of the Dublin Board of Assistance the position is somewhat different. It is, I think, generally known that the services dealing with this board will, in the early future, undergo a considerable reorganisation. The matter is at present being dealt with by my colleague, the Minister for Health. He is actively engaged in preparing a scheme for the reorganisation of health services generally with particular reference to the institution responsible for the administration of the Dublin Board of Assistance. The remaining functions of the board in connection with home assistance are supervised by the Minister for Social Welfare. I have discussed this matter with my colleague, the Minister for Health, and he assures me that plans for the reorganisation of the institution and of all the services connected with it are being rapidly drawn up and that in all probability special legislation will be required in the near future in connection with the matter. It would, I think, be undesirable therefore to provide for the election of a board that might have to give way in a short time to some alternative.

I do not think that there are any other special features arising under this Bill that call for any comment from me at this stage. If any questions arise, however, I shall be prepared to deal with them before the debate closes.

Mr. MacEntee

The speech which the Minister for Local Government has made is in one respect rather intriguing. He stated a proposition with which we all agree, that it is perhaps inconvenient, if not actually undesirable, that elections for local authorities and for Dáil Éireann should be held within the same calendar year. He indicated that that was the reason why he had chosen the year 1950 for the next election of members of local authorities rather than the year 1949, stating that, of course, if the Dáil ran its normal term of office, which is something less, as we all know, than the period fixed by statute, there was a possibility that a general election would be held in the same year as the local elections were due to be held. I say that is rather intriguing, because if the next local elections are held in the year 1950, this Bill provides for triennial elections and, therefore, the next election of a local authority should be somewhere in 1953. Allowing for a lifetime of four or four and a half years for Dáil Éireann, that would mean that if the Dáil lives its normal life we shall have the local elections and a Parliamentary election coinciding, or, at any rate, happening in the same year. I think the Minister's speech rather indicates, and some remark which his colleague in the one-time Labour Party, the Minister for Social Welfare, made during the debate on the Budget does indicate, that it is not the expectation of the present Government that this Parliament will have a four years' life.

Mr. Murphy

You would be surprised.

Mr. MacEntee

I say it is not the general belief that it will have a life of four years.

Mr. Murphy

Again, you would be surprised.

Mr. MacEntee

It is not what I think; it is what the electors think, and perhaps that is the reason why, rather than any desire to avoid a clash between the elections for local authorities and an election for Dáil Éireann, 1950 has been chosen rather than 1949, because, if the elections for local authorities were to be held in 1949, there are a number of Deputies belonging to the inter-Party Government who might have to face their constituents somewhat prematurely. They would not be standing for Dáil Éireann, but they would be seeking election to the local authorities and the local authorities might then be in a position to pass judgment upon those gentlemen who went before them last February with programmes which have been put in abeyance and with promises which have not been fulfilled. For instance, it would be very difficult for a member of the Wicklow County Council who is a supporter of the inter-Party Government, as they like to call themselves; it would be very awkward for him to explain to the Wicklow people, and particularly to those who reside in East and West Avoca, why the programme of mineral exploration and development which was devised for the area by the former Minister for Local Government, had been dropped at the dictation of the Minister for Finance. It would be very embarrassing indeed for any member of the Wicklow County Council who happens to be a member of Dáil Éireann and who stands for that policy. I imagine that is one of the reasons why, instead of having the elections fixed for 1949, they are being fixed for 1950.

This Bill does differ in a great number of respects from the Bill passed by the last Dáil and by the Seanad, with a minor amendment which is being dropped by our successors. It differs particularly in this regard, that whereas the previous Bill provided for quinquennial elections and proposed to extend the life of the local authority from three to five years, this Bill proposes to retain, with the modification relating to the existing local authorities, the three yearly period. It is not because the Minister for Local Government thinks these elections should take place only at five yearly periods, but simply because he believes, as he said himself, that in present circumstances it is undesirable that the election which is normally due to take place this year should take place, having regard to the fact that a Parliamentary election has already been held this year. Therefore, one would have said that, since he believes in a three-year life for local authorities, he would have taken the earliest opportunity of allowing the members of those authorities to renew their mandate and, therefore, would have selected the year 1949. I want to reiterate that apparently, for some reason or another, he hesitates to send the Deputies who happen to be members of local authorities and who support his Government to face their constituents next year.

I do not know whether, in view of the very restricted terms of the Long Title of this Bill, I would be justified in proceeding to dilate on the fact that this Bill proposes to retain the existing system of electoral areas and to retain the existing system of extensive multimembered constituencies.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not think that that would be in order, in a discussion on this restricted measure.

Mr. MacEntee

I was afraid of that. It is obvious that the Minister for Local Government has achieved his object.

Mr. Murphy

Not at all. I am prepared to discuss it even to-day or at any time.

Mr. MacEntee

If the Minister were prepared to have this matter discussed on this Bill he would have taken care to draw up the Long Title differently.

Mr. Murphy

You will have the opportunity of discussing it on the Estimates and I invite you to discuss it.

Mr. MacEntee

As the Minister has refused to fulfil his obligations to the Oireachtas I do not know whether, under the head of administration, I am entitled to discuss the matter or not.

Mr. Murphy

I will give the Deputy any opportunity he wishes to discuss the matter.

Mr. MacEntee

I am sorry, if the Minister were anxious to face up to his responsibilities, that he did not draw up the Long Title of the Bill within the Rules of Order.

Mr. Sweetman

Could not the question have been raised on the discharge of the old Bill? The Deputy had already the opportunity of discussing it.

Mr. MacEntee

One thing is quite clear, however. Prior to the general election and the change of Government, many members, particularly in the new Party, said that they were anxious to try to break what they called "machine control in politics", to allow the ordinary private citizen the opportunity of participating in public life, but this Bill denies him even the right of participating in the affairs of local authorities for, unless he has a big Party behind him, he cannot possibly contest a local election.

Captain Cowan

He would have to pay a deposit.

Mr. MacEntee

The object of this is to politicise local government and to maintain the present undesirable position in an intensified form.

The Minister, in passing, referred to Section 5 under which the new election of members to the Dublin Board of Assistance is to be postponed, and, in doing so, he has done what this Government collectively, and the members of it individually, have tried to do since they took office, that is, to appropriate to themselves the credit for the constructive nation-building work done by Fianna Fáil. When they have to do an unpleasant thing, there has been a shirking of responsibility and they say that their predecessors compelled them to do it, but when they are putting into operation the plans prepared by Fianna Fáil with regard to a great number of matters, including the Housing Act, they claim it as their own. The plans to which the Minister for Local Government refers were not plans initiated by the present Minister for Health; his was not the creative mind or the formative genius that developed those plans. The plans which the commissioner, acting for the Dublin Board of Assistance, is now working out are based upon instructions and directions given to him by my former Parliamentary Secretary, Dr. Ward.

Captain Cowan

That is a long time ago.

Mr. MacEntee

Since that time a great deal of opprobrium has been heaped upon his name by the people sitting upon those benches opposite, but they might at least have the decency, the public decency, to give him credit for the fact that it was due to his initiative and under his administration that the present commissioner for the Dublin Board of Assistance was directed to prepare plans to separate the public assistance side of that institution from the medical and health side of it, and to try to remove finally from it the stigma of pauperism and the poorhouse which clung to the hospital and to the medical services associated with that institution. It was I who discharged the old Dublin Board of Assistance and put in commissioners to do that. It was Dr. Ward who kept in day-to-day touch with the commissioner, who was responsible for the immediate supervision of what was being done and it was under him that St. Kevin's Hospital became one of the finest hospitals in the City of Dublin.

An Ceann Comhairle

There is no mention of that institution here.

Mr. MacEntee

Yes, there is, because St. Kevin's Hospital is administered by the Dublin Board of Assistance.

One of the excuses—I withdraw the word "excuses"—one of the very sound reasons that the Minister has given for Section 5 of this Bill is the fact that the reorganisation upon which the commissioner is engaged had completed the separation of the public assistance services from the health and medical activity of this institution, but the Minister, in saying that to the House, also implied that this was due to the efforts of his colleague, the present Minister for Health, and tried to appropriate to that gentleman the credit which really belongs, as I have said, to Dr. Ward and to his successor in responsibility.

I do not think, Sir, that there is anything further which I have to say on this Bill. We frankly admit that it would be undesirable that the elections for local authorities should be held this year, having regard to the fact that the election for Dáil Éireann has already taken place. We regret very much that the Minister has seen fit to discard a Bill which has already been passed by the Oireachtas and which, I believe, would have had a beneficial effect on the development of local government in this country and which would have led, I believe, to a great improvement in the services which local authorities can render to the community. However, he happens to have the whip hand at the moment and he is using the whip. We are not going to oppose the Bill, and we frankly admit that it would be undesirable to hold the elections this year. I do not think that I need detain the House in discussing what is not in the Bill.

Mr. Larkin

While we may agree in regard to the purpose to be achieved this year as far as the avoidance of local elections in the same year as the Dáil elections is concerned, I do not think that this Bill will achieve its object because of various factors. While we may pass the Bill we have little guarantee that we are going to avoid clashes. That is largely a matter of machinery and detail, however, and we can consider the question with more detail on the Committee Stage.

I want to address myself in particular to Section 5 of this Bill which postpones the election for the Dublin Board of Assistance until 1950. I am aware of what Deputy MacEntee has said in regard to the plans which are in hand for some time for reorganisation and for keeping the medical and health side of the duties of the Dublin Board of Assistance separate from their duties regarding public relief. Though he may say that St. Kevin's Hospital is one of the finest medical institutions in the City of Dublin, I think, however, that it is still regarded as a workhouse hospital.

Those of us who have the unpleasant duty, from day to day, of trying to secure accommodation for people in hospitals find that we are up against the same insuperable obstacle in inducing people to accept accommodation in St. Kevin's Hospital rather than in any other in the city. I do not desire to place any particular blame on any individual for this. I think that the original plans drafted in order to effect the separation of the two functions of the institution had the object in mind of having in the hospital the very highest medical services available for the citizens of Dublin, and that that was a very laudable object. We should support that object and give credit to those who drafted the plan, but I doubt if we will have those plans given effect to quickly enough. In a matter of this nature it is necessary that the elected representatives of the people should and must take a keener and more direct interest in securing the putting into effect of these plans than any official or even than an individual Minister, however earnest he may be. I would press for having this matter done at the earliest possible opportunity. So strongly do I feel on that matter that I propose to submit an amendment on Committee Stage.

In addition to the medical and health services to be carried on in relation to St. Kevin's, there is a very broad scheme for the reorganisation of the assistance services to bring the entire centre into line with a more modern conception of the use of social services. I am aware generally of the ideas along which it has been organised and the steps being taken. I do feel that in this particular instance it is necessary to have popularly elected representatives directly associated with the work. Not merely would it be a means of securing affinity in the execution of the plans, but, more important still, there would be an understanding applied to those plans by men and women who have close and intimate contact with the ordinary people and the ordinary citizens.

No matter how well plans may be drafted, there is always the difficulty and danger that the plan drafted in an office or department may be divorced from the actual everyday life of the people. As we are making an effort to establish a most modern health centre and one that will be removed completely from any taint of a workhouse—which is a most difficult thing to achieve—it is essential that at all stages there should be the closest contact between those carrying out the plans and those who can speak intimately of the feelings, the prejudices even, and the desires of the ordinary citizens of Dublin. Although I am personally aware that St. Kevin's now provides medical treatment equal to that obtainable in any other hospital in the city it is still almost impossible to get an ordinary working man or woman in Dublin voluntarily to enter that hospital if there is any alternative. No matter how one may assure them as to the treatment and care they will receive, that prejudice remains. That attitude is so intangible and so wrapped up and connected with the background of the life of the people of Dublin that only Dublin men and women intimately associated with that background and knowing the ways and means by which that prejudice can be removed will be able to give effect to the plans which had been prepared and are being carried out now.

I would earnestly urge the Minister to give further consideration to Section 5 and to make possible at the earliest opportunity association of a board of competently elected representatives of the citizens with the wide plans, both in relation to the medical and health side of the institution and the development of its duties as a centre of public assistance in connection with the wider scheme of social services that we may have to deal with later.

Captain Cowan

As far as I and the Party I represent are concerned, we would very much like to see local elections held next year. I cannot see any reason why they should be deferred until 1950. The local authorities now in office, like the Parliament, require an infusion of new blood. There has been such a change in the country that undoubtedly local elections will infuse new blood. For that reason it is undesirable that the elections should be delayed beyond the year 1949 and I shall press on the Minister an amendment on Committee Stage substituting the year 1949 for the year 1950. I can see that it may be undesirable to hold general elections and local elections in the same year but it has been done and can be done. No matter how we may endeavour to provide for it in this Bill, it is quite possible that if the next local elections are held in 1950 the next succeeding local elections, in 1953, would coincide with and be in the same year as the Parliamentary election. I do not think the argument that you must hold the elections in the year 1950 to avoid clashing with the next Parliamentary election is sound. I would like to see a comprehensive Bill in relation to local authorities dealing with the area to be represented by local councillors. I would like to see such a Bill introduced at an early date so that it can get consideration. We have discharged one Bill that made an attempt to do that and we discharged it for very good and sound reasons but any person who is familiar with the problem knows that there is necessity for some revision of the areas represented by local councillors.

I agree entirely with what Deputy Larkin has said and I would support Deputy Larkin on Committee Stage in an amendment to provide for the early setting up of the Dublin Board of Assistance. In Dublin we feel the necessity for a popularly elected board of assistance. The citizens want such a board of assistance in operation at the earliest possible date.

There is one final matter that I want to refer to—Section 10. I do not know whether or not Section 10 is the type of section that is put into Bills brought into this House, but, to my mind, Section 10 in its present form should not be passed by this Dáil and, as far as I am concerned, I want to indicate here and now that, unless it is amended, I must oppose it. I will move for the deletion of certain words in that section. The section purports to give the Minister power "by Order, to make such adaptations or modifications in any statute". That is an amazing proposition to be contained in any Bill. I could safely say that it is an insult to Parliament and to the courts of this country that words such as these should be put into a Bill. If an enactment is to be interpreted, it can be interpreted only by the courts. If an enactment is to be modified, it can be modified only by this Dáil. I say to the Minister that that section must be amended on Committee Stage. It goes too far. It takes too much power. It takes power that cannot be given to a Minister under any circumstances.

I would ask the Minister, in view of the way this Bill has been met by Deputy MacEntee on behalf of the Opposition, by Deputy Larkin on behalf of the Labour Party and by myself for Clann na Poblachta, to meet us on the next stage in regard to the amendments we have suggested.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

My views coincide with those of Deputy Cowan regarding Section 10 and I would like to recommend to the Minister that he should consider reframing that particular section. It appears to me that the words used in the section give the Minister authority which Deputies should be very slow to give to any Minister—the power to amend legislation by Order. Outside this House I have always opposed as strongly as I could the tendency, which has been apparent in this country over the past decade or so, to permit Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries to legislate by Order, even in matters which might be considered to have very much less effect than the Orders visualised in Section 10 here. I agree very fully with the remarks which Deputy Cowan made on that subject and I would press the Minister to reframe the section.

Sir John Esmonde

I would like to support the observations of Deputies Cowan and O'Higgins on the contents of Section 10. Undoubtedly, there has grown up in this country during the last few years—it was emphasised during the war years—a system under which a great deal of the responsibility for the making of laws that should really be borne by the duly elected representatives in this House has been passed over on numerous occasions to various Ministers. I believe we are breaking faith with the people who sent us here if we are not vigilant on every occasion when a Bill goes through here to see that we do not surrender to any Minister or Government Department the duties which we were sent here by our constituents to perform ourselves, that is, to make laws. I believe that if we should agree to the passing of Section 10 in its present form we would be abdicating our position regarding those duties.

Mr. Allen

The Minister appears to have made up his mind that a three-year period is most suitable for local elections, after this five-year period in the Bill. I would have thought there was general agreement that a three-year period was too short and should be extended to five years, as was proposed in the Bill in the last Dáil. The Minister should reconsider that question. Where new people come in to local authorities, it is felt that most of the three years is spent by them in getting to know the ropes; and if an election is held after that they may be thrown out and all the period is lost. The period should be five years at least.

Regarding the proposal in the Bill to hold elections in Kerry and Dublin this year, we have had a strenuous general election in the beginning of the year and we do not see much reason why these local elections should be held in 1948. I would agree with Deputy Cowan that there is no reason why they could not be held next year. Everyone would have been rested by that time and would be ready for the fray again, and if Deputy Cowan or anyone else of his group wants to become a member of a local authority, there is no reason why an early opportunity should not be given to him or to any section of the community seeking membership of local authorities. The reason for not having the local elections in the same year as a general election is that the Parties are after a strenuous general election campaign and may find their funds partially depleted in many cases and may not be ready for the second election in the same year. However, there is no reason why we should not have an election in 1949. There may be something at the back of the Minister's mind or the Government's mind that, in the uncertainty of the times, we may have a major election in 1949. Let us hope that is so. There is a reasonable chance of having a major election before June, 1949. The Minister might leave the holding of elections in those two counties until 1949, on the same basis and for the same reason as he is postponing the holding of the elections in other areas.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I was rather surprised to hear Deputy Allen approaching the Bill in the manner in which he did. I would have thought that the proposal not to hold a general election and a local election in the same year was designed in the interests of the people. Deputy Allen approaches it from the point of view of the convenience of political Parties who choose to fight county council elections. I do not know whether I am taking the Deputy up correctly or not, but it seems to me to be sensible that the people should not be faced with the trouble of making up their minds twice in the same year on important elections like these. I agree with Deputy Allen that the period suggested for the life of a county council appears short and perhaps the Minister would consider a further extension of that period.

I would like to add my voice to what has been said from this side of the House concerning Section 10 of the Bill. I seems to be one of the most extraordinary sections contained in any Bill introduced into this House since its formation. I know that is a very wide statement, but I think it is true. Under this particular section, power is given to the Minister to override the legislative enactments of this House as they apply to county councils. I would strongly recommend to the Minister to inquire if the views of the Attorney-General have been sought as to the validity of the proposed section, as I am quite certain that the views of the Attorney-General may be that the measure would be likely to be held invalid by the Supreme Court. In any event, apart altogether from the legality of the section, it is a very wrong type of section. Now that we are getting back to saner government and getting over the difficulties there have been here in recent years, we should be getting away from this type of legislation by Order, whether it be by an official or by a Minister.

Mr. Murphy

I want to record my appreciation of the manner in which this Bill has been received by the House and, perhaps I should say, by the generosity extended to me by the various Parties on this, my first effort, to pilot a Bill through the House.

It was inevitable that Deputy MacEntee, as the person responsible for another local government measure, should express his disappointment at any change of policy. I do not complain of that at all, but in view of the fact that the Ceann Comhairle has ruled that references to that matter were not relevant to this Bill I am unable to join in what I would welcome as a useful measure for discussion, in which I would be very glad to take part. I think it will be clear to Deputies that, while five years is the legal life of the Dáil, in fact, the Dáil has hardly ever lasted five years—never in my experience, which is a fairly long one. The dissolution usually occurred after four or four and a half years—in one case something over four and a half years had elapsed. I want to assure the House that there was no hidden meaning behind the provision in the Bill which I defended on the ground that I wanted to avoid a clash between the holding of the Dáil and the local elections in the same year. I am of opinion that we have had far too many changes in local government over a number of years. I think that has caused a great deal of the chaos—and I use that word advisedly—that has been a picture of local government for years past, in addition to that kind of constant wrangling that takes place between the Department and the various local bodies. I want to restore, so far as I can, perfectly normal relations between the Department and the local bodies. I regard this Bill as a Bill, generally speaking, in line with local opinion, that will be a first, although a minor, contribution to doing that. I am impressed by what Deputy Larkin has said with regard to the position of the Dublin Board of Assistance. Were it not for the reasons that I have already given I would have no hesitation—in fact, I would regard it as a duty—in including a provision for the election of the Dublin Board of Assistance in this Bill. I was impressed by the line taken by my colleague, the Minister for Health, in the matter, but, having regard to what Deputy Larkin has said, it seems inevitable that there will be a further discussion on this matter at a further stage of the Bill. I want to say quite clearly that I sympathise with the view that he has expressed as regards the difficulties of the poor people in this country in reconciling their prejudices against the workhouse with the fact that they need treatment in an institution. In so far as I have any views to express on this question from that point of view I am with him on that question. I can only repeat that, in view of the fact that the board may, because of another and greater scheme, be superseded in a short time, I have thought it wise to avoid the rebuff that may thereby be inflicted on the duly elected representatives of the people by superseding them in a short time and that, even without the election of the board of assistance in Dublin, the representatives of the corporation and the representatives of the duly elected Dublin County Council might be utilised towards securing, if not full public control, at least free contact and perhaps advisory responsibilities between the local representatives and the officials having charge of the institution. I would remind the members of the House who have spoken on this matter—Deputy Allen and, preceding him, Deputy Cowan—that the Bill which has been superseded by this measure actually provided for the postponement of the local elections to 1950. That, in itself, is not a sufficient reason but it did appear to me on reconsideration of the whole position that this was perhaps the most advisable course to take.

It may be that this matter will be the subject of further discussion, but at the moment I must be very careful, in view of the kindly reception which has been given to the Bill, not to make any promises, because I cannot afford to make promises on this matter. May I take this opportunity of assuring Deputy Cowan, however, that I believe there ought to be a comprehensive measure of local government provided in the lifetime of this Dáil? It has been a source of difficulty for a considerable time to relate the local government measures that have been passed and, consequently, I think that a measure of the kind is not alone due but overdue. Similarly, I want to assure him that I have not the least desire for added powers. I have no desire to masquerade or to appear to anybody in this House as a dictator who wants to get and to hold certain drastic powers for the Department of Local Government for the lifetime of this Government in which, at present, I have responsibility for that Department. The position is that this section in the Bill is in line with the general trend of Bills of the kind and, generally, legislation in this House over very many years. Deputy M.J. O'Higgins was, therefore, I think, wrongly informed or under a perfectly innocent misconception in thinking that this was a new departure. I have before me the Local Elections Act of 1937. Section 14 of that Act reads word for word with the section included in this Bill. That may not be quite a good reason, but in any case I want to disabuse the minds of Deputies of the view that I am just a dictator masquerading as a democrat and that I am thirsting for additional powers. I have no ambition of the kind. I certainly would be prepared to take some steps to meet the points of view that have been expressed in this House. One step that may be taken in this matter would be to accept, on a further stage of this Bill, an amendment that would make it necessary to lay any Orders or regulations made under this section on the Table of the House when they could be discussed by the House and annulled by a majority of the House if that majority was secured. I suggest that the matter might be considered and, if it is considered, I think that I can promise that the reception of that amendment will not be unfavourable.

There is nothing further, I think, that I need add, except to make a reference to the position in Kerry and Dublin. My general view with regard to local government in this country is, I think, very well known. I have often expressed it in this House when I had very much less responsibility than I have now. It has not altered with any degree of responsibility I have got. I think it will be a good thing in the Counties of Kerry and Dublin to have the powers of local government restored to the elected representatives of the people at the earliest possible date. I, therefore, commend the Bill to the House and am grateful for the unanimous way in which it has been received.

Mr. M. O'Higgins

On a point of personal explanation. I should not like the Minister to think that any remarks made by me or any other Deputies were directed in the belief that the Minister was looking for dictatorial powers. We were speaking with an eye to the future with regard to legislation by Order generally. I should like to make that quite clear to the Minister and to say that, so far as we are concerned, we have every confidence in him.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered: That the Committee Stage be taken on Wednesday, 19th May.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 13 May 1948