This Bill seeks to give to a local authority, without any qualification, power to change the name of a street. I do not think that that would be a wise step to take. Speaking of Dublin, I am certainly very much in favour of changing the names of a great number of our principal streets, but I think it would be very unwise, in order to carry out that object, to do it in the way proposed here. I think that we would probably pay hereafter much more than it would be worth to get these names changed in a hurry. I hold that the people in the streets concerned are definitely entitled to be consulted even if the result should turn out for the moment to be adverse to us. We should not attempt to use the big stick, as it were, to get the job done in a hurry. That would be a very bad precedent. The 1946 Act did make a big advance in this matter. Before that, the local council or corporation could not initiate a proposal to change the name of a street. Somebody else had to do it and had to present a memorial signed by a majority of the ratepayers in that street. Outside of Dublin, it required a two-thirds majority to change the name of a street. As I understand it, there was no provision whatever for changing the names of towns or villages. The 1946 Act gave the initiative to the local council at any time to take a poll amongst the ratepayers in the street and if they got four-sevenths of a majority in favour of the proposal, they could change it. So far as I know, since that Act was passed, the Dublin Corporation, at any rate, have not attempted to enforce it. They have not attempted to try to change the name of any street by getting four-sevenths of a majority of the residents in favour. The last effort that was made, which was done under the previous Act, was in connection with Talbot Street.
Private Deputies' Business. - Local Government Act, 1946 (Amendment) Bill, 1950—Second Stage (Resumed).
Where a lesser percentage was necessary.
That is so. There are several other streets in which an effort could have been made but nothing has been done. A question was raised about the term "ratepayers." Personally, I think that we could do something to change that, as I do not think it properly describes the people who should be consulted. I think that perhaps the word "occupiers" would be better. If I am right as to the legal interpretation of that description, I think it would include anybody in occupation of a particular premises or part of a premises in the street concerned. They would be entitled to vote on the question.
Would the Deputy agree if the voters' register were taken as the basis of decision?
I might. I have not considered that. That would mean giving everybody over 21 a vote. I was thinking only of the occupiers of particular premises or part of premises. As the present Act is worded, if the house were a tenement, the owner, who might not live in the area concerned, would be the ratepayer, while the people living in the house would not have a vote at all. So the people mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary who come under the Small Dwellings Act, who were owners, would not be entitled to vote, and I think that those people are definitely entitled to consideration.
I do not, however, agree with the Bill as it stands. I think that it would lead to a feeling of opposition which would probably develop in other matters, and would create precedents that would be very hurtful to us in other matters later on. I would suggest to Deputy Lehane that having got the undertaking he has got from the Parliamentary Secretary he should withdraw the Bill because there is the further point that it makes a big change of principle in dealing with a matter like this, and it ought to come from the Government if it is to come at all. The Parliamentary Secretary gave him a certain undertaking, and I think it would be as well for him if he withdrew the Bill and saw what the Government would do, and they would probably arrive at agreement.
In one or two years.
It is very hard to follow the argument put forward by the last speaker. He practically expressed our views on the matter and he very clearly stated that he himself feels that the names of a number of streets in Dublin should be changed and that is simply all we want. Talbot Street has been mentioned. Attempts have been made over a number of years to have its name changed to "Seán Treacy Street." Deputy Briscoe speaking this night fortnight said that there were very good reasons why that change should take place and why the name of Seán Treacy should be associated with Talbot Street. I fail to understand the attitude of the speakers from the Opposition who feel that the ratepayers of any particular street, town or village should have priority of rights as they have at the present time. They have gone out of their way to claim that that is a democratic approach to it and all of them from time to time dropped the word "ratepayer" and used as the last speaker did the words "occupier" or "resident". If in the 1946 Act they had included the word "occupier" or "resident" it would not be necessary to bring in this amendment at all. For a number of years a continual agitation has been going on to change the names of some of those streets and to blot out from the capital of the Irish Republic the names of kings and queens, earls and dukes of an alien state and replace them by the names of the people who fought and died on those streets in their attempt to establish the freedom of this country.
Deputy MacEntee, who I understand was primarily responsible for the introduction of the 1946 Act, defended that Bill in his own very able and artful way this night fortnight on the grounds of democracy. He claimed that the local authority had the right to alter the name of any street, town or village and that that right was in the Act. He said that certain qualifications, rules and regulations were laid down with which the local authorities must comply before they could make a change. They had to get the consent of four-sevenths of the ratepayers in the street, town or locality before the name could be changed. He claimed that that was a democratic approach and defended it as a democratic approach. He occasionally dropped the word "ratepayer" and used the word "occupier" or "resident." We would be prepared to accept that.
Deputy Lehane, in introducing the Bill and during the discussion which took place on it, said that once its principle was accepted we were prepared to accept any reasonable amendment on the Committee Stage. Deputy MacEntee challenged Deputy Lehane and asked if he would be prepared to go into any of the streets in Dublin and tell the ratepayers that he wanted to take from them the right to change the name of the street and give it to the local authority. I do not think that Deputy Lehane would be afraid or ashamed to do that. For myself, I would be perfectly prepared to get up on top of Nelson Pillar and tell the citizens of Dublin and all concerned that the time had arrived when the British admiral should be taken down. I would be prepared to stand in any street, particularly in my own constituency, in King Street or Queen Street, and say that the name should be changed irrespective of what the ratepayers think of me. I would suggest especially to the soldiers and chiefs of the Irish brigade, of the Irish Republican Army, sitting in this House that we did not ask the ratepayers at any particular period whether we had the right to carry arms and fight in the streets for the establishment of an Irish Republic. If we had asked the ratepayers for their permission we certainly would not have got it. If we leave it to the ratepayers in the streets of the city to hoist a particular flag on the 11th of this month I know the flag they will hang out; it will be the same one that they hung out in 1924, 1925 and 1926 after the Treaty was established.
There has been some suggestion that the majority of the people cannot be coerced. There is no question of coercing the majority of the people. As it stands, the majority of the people are coerced and the right of deciding what name should be on the streets is in the hands of the local authority or the majority, not of the people who live in the street or occupy the street but of the ratepayers, and I definitely object to that.
Take Talbot Street. If Seán Treacy, God rest his soul, had to go to the ratepayers and say: "I intend to have an office in Talbot Street, will it be all right?" I know the answer he would get. If when it was proposed to call that shop the "Republican Outfitters" they had to go to the ratepayers and say: "We want to start a business and we want to put the name ‘Republican Outfitters' on it, we have a national outlook, and as well as being used for business purposes the premises will be used to advance national ideals" they certainly would not get the sanction of the ratepayers.
This is not just a matter of one Party scoring off another. We are prepared to admit that the late Government attempted to make some advances, but we feel that they did it very timidly. I feel also that the proposal we have before the House is itself a little too timid, and I was hoping that someone would say that the time had arrived when the names associated with the alien aggressor should be taken down from the streets of the capital city of this Republic of ours. If such a proposal were put forward as a result of our introduction of this Bill, I should be prepared to accept it, as, I think, would Deputy Lehane also. We have heard Deputy MacEntee pleading for democracy, but he feels that a private Deputy has no right to bring in such a motion as this. When that right is taken from the private Deputy, democracy leaves this House. We have that right and will continue to claim and exercise that right while we are here. I am absolutely convinced that steps must be taken immediately to deal with this important national matter, so that visitors to this country will no longer have to stand in amazement on seeing the names of streets in our capital city and ask "Have you got kings? Have you got queens?" and then hear our explanation that Britain conquered us for a while and, at her own discretion, without asking the ratepayers, named these streets to commemorate her kings, queens and earls——
Have we not got our own kings and queens?
——and that now that we have complete freedom we would like to have these names changed, but do not want to offend the ratepayers. I suggest that we must be getting old and timid. That was not the attitude of the people here when the blow for freedom was struck in this city. I was very glad to hear Deputy Colley say that he agrees with us that the names should be changed but I cannot understand why, when he agrees that they should be changed, he should object to this motion, and, following the lead given by Deputy MacEntee, suggest that the proposal should be put back and the Government given an opportunity of introducing it. The experience of Deputies here is that, when such matters are deferred and the Government requested to bring in comprehensive proposals, we have to wait too long. We are not prepared to wait any longer.
We believe the time has arrived to change the names of the streets in the capital and wipe out the last signs of the alien aggressor. I hope the Opposition will not set any hard and fast rule and tell Deputy Colley that, no matter what he believes, they passed this Act in 1946 and do not intend to have it upset by a couple of private Deputies. The motion has been put forward, I should be inclined to say, very timidly and we are anxious that it should get a free and frank discussion. We hope also that the Opposition Deputies will be free to vote for it.
Deputy Fitzpatrick has discussed this measure as a motion, but it is no motion. It is a Bill.
When I have been here 20 years, I will not make that mistake.
Being a Bill, we have to consider it in its proper perspective. It is a private Bill introduced for the purpose of making it easier for local authorities to change the names of streets, but I for one do not understand what alternative procedure the framers of the Bill have in mind. We have heard about majority rights and minority rights, but the law as it stands lays down a certain procedure— and, in my opinion, it goes as far as any sensible code of legislation could go—by which four-sevenths of the rated occupiers of any particular area can get a name changed through the local authority. That is about as far as it should go——
If Deputy Fitzpatrick were as critical as the Deputy, he could smite him on that point.
——unless the people standing behind the Bill want to trample entirely upon human rights. We have heard a lot about human rights in connection with these matters, and here we have the members of a Party advocating the complete steam-rolling of human rights.
If it is to be made so easy for people, through the local authority, to change the name of a street, what is to prevent people from changing it back again? In my view, this would lead to a ridiculous position, because if it were made easier for people in one part of the country to change the name of a street, town or place, the same facilities would be available to other sections, and, in the long run, it may not work out so satisfactorily and those who think about changing street names to commemorate people who played an important part in the history of this country or about changing them to Irish names, as the same facilities would be available to people to change already existing Irish names, as the case might be, would find that they would be doing more harm than good by opening up the avenue in this way.
I do not know what the general feeling of the House is in regard to this measure, but my feeling is that the Deputies responsible for the introduction of the Bill would be well advised to accept the advice of the Parliamentary Secretary and leave it over for further consideration. What is the great urgency about it now? The Parliamentary Secretary has given an undertaking that it will be considered very shortly by the Government, and, in the light of that undertaking, Deputy Lehane should withdraw the Bill.
The longer one lives, the more one learns. I was under the impression, in my simple ingenuousness, that I had brought into the House one of the shortest, simplest and most unequivocal types of measures it would be possible for the ordinary human brain to conceive. I brought it in in a spirit of complete frankness, and I was frank to the fullest possible extent with the House in asking the House to support me. I made no secret of the fact that what urged me to bring this measure before Dáil Éireann was the fact that there had been in Dublin city and other places throughout the country a feeling of dissatisfaction, a feeling of frustration, because we were saddled in our local nomenclature with names reminding us only of the Conquest, names which commemorated only those who had been the ministers and instruments of aggression against our people in the past. I was frank to this extent; I made no secret of the fact to the House that what moved me primarily was the difficulty that had been experienced by the majority of the people in Dublin who wanted to see the name of Seán Treacy commemorated in the street in which he gave his life. Deputies opposite know as well as I do that there has been considerable feeling about that for some years back. It was not a feeling confined to any one particular Party or group. I know members and adherents of the Party opposite who were amongst the most vocal, the most energetic and the most anxious, and still are amongst the most anxious to have that change effected.
I sought for what appeared to me the simplest method of giving effect to that opinion, which I suggest to the House, and I do not think I will be contradicted in this, is the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the people of this city. Apparently, in my ingenuous simplicity, I perpetrated a terrible wrong against what Deputy Kissane described as the human rights of the Irish people. I do not know to what extent Deputy Kissane was serious in asking the House to accept that.
I do not know to what extent I am to take seriously Deputy MacEntee's apprehensions about what might be behind this Bill. The Bill speaks for itself. It seeks to perpetrate the frightful crime of entrusting local authorities, some of whom we entrust with millions of the ratepayers' money, with the power to alter, when they think wise, the names of our streets and public places. Deputies know as well as I do that there is not a monopoly of wisdom and sense in this House, and that the people who man our local bodies throughout the country, irrespective of Party, are, in the main, sane, reasonable, and, to a very large extent, conservative-minded people. To suggest that there is something revolutionary in giving, say, in the case of Dublin to our city fathers the right to decide the names by which the streets of Dublin will be called is to my mind an absurdity that needs no demolition by way of criticism from me.
According to Deputy MacEntee, this Bill contains no new principle. Perhaps I might concede to him that that is so. I do not think it does contain any fundamental new principle. According to Deputy Kissane, not alone did it contain a new principle but it contained an attack on human liberty and human rights. But I want to suggest to Deputy MacEntee that it makes this important alteration so far as this particular portion of our local government law is concerned, that it makes it possible for a local authority to give effect to the wishes of the majority of the people who elect them, something which in my submission Section 78 of Deputy MacEntee's Act prevents them from doing.
Deputy MacEntee says that I am misleading the House when I talk about giving power to the local authority. According to the Deputy, the local authorities already have that power. They have that power, but it is qualified in such a way and so costly to exercise that the likelihood of their ever using it is remote. Deputy MacEntee was not quite frank with the House when he neglected to point out that Section 78 of the 1946 Act was undemocratic to this extent, that even after having ascertained the desire of 57 per cent. of the ratepayers to effect the change, Deputy MacEntee's Local Government Act of 1946 did not make it mandatory on the local authority to give effect to the express wishes of that 57 per cent.
Reference was made to the attempt some years ago to change the name of Talbot Street into Seán Treacy Street. What happened in that case was this. A canvass was carried out by a committee composed of representatives of various national organisations. The G.A.A., the Gaelic League and the National Graves Association were represented on that committee. They carried out a canvass of the residents in Talbot Street. I think there was also an attempt made to suggest here that the canvass was tactlessly carried out. I am not in a position to answer that criticism but, from inquiries I have made, I understand that that is not so. However, I cannot speak from personal knowledge. The 51 per cent. requisite under an old British statute was obtained, but I must admit only barely so. When it was suggested to the corporation subsequent to the passage of the Act of 1946 that they should operate the Act in order to ascertain whether there was the requisite percentage, they pointed to the fact that Section 78 had raised the requisite percentage to such an extent that it would not be possible to obtain the consent of the percentage necessary. In actual fact, whatever the intention behind Section 78 was, and I understand that it purported at the time to make it possible to effect a change in the case of Talbot Street, the effect of Section 78, which the present Bill seeks to amend, was to make it more difficult and to render it impossible for the name of Talbot Street to be changed as desired.
We have been told that this Bill is undemocratic. We were told that by Deputy MacEntee and his sentiment was re-echoed by Deputy O'Higgins. I do not know whether that argument is seriously advanced or not but what, in God's name, could be more democratic than to allow a decision on a matter affecting the citizens in this city to the elected representatives of this city? Surely no more democratic method could be evolved. I think I am entitled to make the comment that while from both sides of the House we have had pious expressions of goodwill in so far as a desire to have the change effected was concerned, nevertheless, we have had at the same time a criticism of any effort or any method calculated to make that change possible.
I do not think I need deal with the argument that there is an undemocratic principle enshrined in the Bill, at any great length. The argument is so demonstrably ridiculous that it deals with itself. It has been argued that if the Dáil gives a Second Reading to this Bill they are giving a Second Reading to a Bill which may leave the door open for the abuse of the unqualified power given to the local authority. I think I have dealt with that point already in another way. I do not believe the local authorities or county councils or borough councils or corporations or urban councils are composed of individuals who are going to abuse or unwisely use the additional power given to them under the Bill.
Then, Deputy Briscoe, and to a certain extent Deputy MacEntee, lightly touched on another ground of objection. They touched on it lightly: I am sorry they did not develop it because therein, I think, lay their real objection to this Bill—the possibility of inconvenience being caused to trade interests. I cannot see that any such apprehension of inconvenience or disturbance of trade has any basis in fact. Whatever little temporary inconvenience there might be would be of such a minor and transitory nature that I think we are entitled to ignore it. Particularly are we entitled to ignore it in view, in my submission to the House, of the widespread public feeling there is in connection with this matter. I do not know whether representations have been made by influential interests in any given street or particularly in the street to which so much reference has been made. I do not know whether any influential interests are behind the persistent opposition to change the name of Talbot Street to Seán Treacy Street, but there is persistent, virulent and determined opposition and I do not think Deputies, no matter on what side of the House they may be sitting, should give any countenance to that opposition because it is opposition from a very very small minority, numerically.
The only real argument I have to meet, of all the arguments that were advanced against this measure, is the argument that the Government are bringing in a Bill which may, possibly, effect the desired change.
It will further facilitate——
——further facilitate the desired change. I should like to be in a position to tell the House that the undertaking given by the Parliamentary Secretary went the whole way to meet me. Unfortunately, I should be dishonest if I were to say so. If we had in our hands a draft of the measure which the Parlimentary Secretary envisages when he gives that undertaking perhaps I might be able to accept that undertaking. However, in default of having the actual draft and particularly in the light of some of the observations made in the course of this debate, I feel I am still entitled to ask the House to accept this measure and give it a Second Reading.
May I put this to the Deputy? Deputy Fitzpatrick said a few minutes ago to Deputy Colley—I do not know whether he has any responsibility for doing so or not— that he would be prepared to withdraw the Bill if he thought we could bring about a position whereby the rated occupiers and small dwellers had the power to change the street name. At least that will be done.
I am afraid the Parliamentary Secretary misunderstood Deputy Fitzpatrick in that respect.
I do not think so.
However, Deputy Fitzpatrick can answer for himself. This Bill would not be before the House if the representations that were made repeatedly by some of us on these benches for a period of over two years had been heeded. It was only after a period of two years of Parliamentary Questions, of representations, of private and informal lobbying, which resulted in absolutely nothing, that the Dáil was troubled with this Bill. Consequently, in spite of what the Parliamentary Secretary says, I still ask the Dáil to give this Bill a Second Reading.
I would say this to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the Dáil: that if the principle of giving the power to the local authority or to the persons on the electoral register were accepted, I am perfectly prepared to agree to any amendment which does not derogate from that principle, but, in default of that, I ask the Dáil to give this Bill a Second Reading. If the Dáil gives a Second Reading to this Bill, any reasonable amendment will certainly be accepted by myself and the other Deputies supporting this Bill.
I have attempted to make as completely objective an approach to this question as is possible under the circumstances. I am certainly approaching it without any feeling of rancour over any of the things that may have been said in the course of the debate. I would ask Deputies to consider this point: Many of them waxed eloquent on the right of the ratepayers to decide, but I would ask them how many new thoroughfares have been named since 1923 about the nomenclature of which the residents, the rated occupiers, the ratepayers have never been consulted? I can put it further. How many streets are there in Dublin in the naming of which one single individual ratepayer, resident or rated occupier has had the slightest say? The answer, of course, is not one single street, except in so far as public opinion was responsible for forcing the change of name in the case of Cathal Brugha Street, Seán MacDermott Street, Pearse Street and O'Connell Street. The ratepayer, the resident, the rated occupier was not consulted on any occasion in respect of the naming of any street.
I do not want to detain the Dáil unduly. I am afraid that at the back of the opposition to this Bill is the assumption that the Irish nation does not really exist, that this country is inhabited by a number of different groups, professing different political faiths, and that one of these political faiths is just as good as another and that nothing must be done, no legislation must be enacted, which may hurt the susceptibilities of that small section whose secret aim is to subvert the freedom of this country and to bring the country once more under the control of the British Crown. I think that, unconsciously, Deputies opposite, perhaps in an effort to be unduly fair, are allowing some kind of loose thinking of that type to permeate their approach to this and to many other questions.
I ask the Dáil to give this Bill a Second Reading.
Tá
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beirne, John.
- Brennan, Joseph P.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Commons, Bernard.
- Connolly, Roderick J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cowan, Peadar.
- Davin, William.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Flynn, John.
- Halliden, Patrick J.
- Hickey, James.
- Kinane, Patrick.
- Larkin, James.
- Lehane, Con.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- MacBride, Seán.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McQuillan, John.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Sullivan, Martin.
- Pattison, James P.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Timoney, John J.
- Tully, John.
- Walsh, Thomas.
Níl
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
- Coburn, James.
- Collins, Seán.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, John A.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Everett, James.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hogan, Patrick.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Madden, David J.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- O'Gorman, Patrick J.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
- O'Leary, John.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Sheldon, William A. W.
- Spring, Daniel.
- Sweetman, Gerard.