I had great sympathy for the obvious embarrassment of the Parliamentary Secretary here this evening. One could sense it when he tried to explain away or talk away the Minister's attitude to this whole problem. The history of the abolition of the corporation has been gone over and over. The Ceann Comhairle has rightly said that it is really quite irrelevant to the amendments. They are not concerned with history but with the present time and with the serious situation that has existed for far too long.
It is necessary to restate the fact that the members at the corporation at the time were driven to take the action they took because of the frustration they felt. They saw the transfer of more and more taxation onto the backs of the ratepayers. They were fighting this helplessly, and getting no results. They were not being listened to and they felt they had to sacrifice themselves in order to focus full attention on the situation which they opposed so strongly and so helplessly, unfortunately.
The Parliamentary Secretary has stated rightly that the Minister has the power to right the situation, but he is not doing it. Why? Because the Government are not interested in democracy. They are interested in dictatorship. That is why they are not exercising the power and authority they have to cause the elections to be held at any time between this and 1974. When will the members of the corporation—if they say they have done wrong—have purged themselves of their guilt in the eyes of the Government? Surely it is not a capital sin to try to make a case for overburdened ratepayers, which they were trying to do at the time. They were also trying to make a case, for a more equitable distribution of taxation.
The Minister says: "They have not yet purged themselves. We have the power to do it and we will keep them out." He said there was no point in bringing back the corporation while the White Paper on the reorganisation of local government was being prepared. If there was ever a time to ensure that we had a corporation surely it was when drastic changes in local government were being contemplated —the most drastic changes that have even been thought of in the history of this country, changes with which most of us who have been in local government for a long number of years oppose very strongly.
As far as one can gather, the idea is to draw a big circle around Dublin city and county and to have people representing a segment of that area from the centre to the perimeter. It is crazy. The elected representatives are not to be allowed to have any say in this and the Minister knows that if they were allowed it would never happen. They want simply to have a yes man representing the corporation instead of the 45 members who had a voice, who could express the opinions of the people strongly. They know there would be opposition created through the views of the people being expressed by those representatives.
But the Government are not interested in democracy. They could not care less about the concerns of the people. They talk freely about the devolution of authority and we have had the Minister for Health talking about this devolution of authority. All the provisions in the 1970 Health Act, now fully explained, indicate a concentration of more and more power in the Government and in bureaucracy.
This is a deplorable time in which to have the citizens of Dublin not represented by elected representatives. There was nothing whatever, as the Parliamentary Secretary admits, to prohibit the Government from having an election at any time from the date on which the corporation were abolished, but in the Government's eyes the citizens have not yet purged themselves. If the Government are afraid to face the electorate—it is quite obvious they do not want an election of any description, national or local— I have suggested in the House a means by which the citizens of Dublin could have a sort of representation without an election. I have suggested that instead of one commissioner the Minister would put in 45 commissioners— let the 45 members back into their seats and let them talk for the citizens. If he can employ one commissioner, surely he could employ 45.
Various population figures have been mentioned but it cannot be contradicted that at the moment there is no local government for a quarter of the Irish people. There has not been since 1969 in an area where there is more rapid development than in any other area in the country, because of enormous planning changes and because of transportation studies, all carried out by bureaucrats without the possibility of any comment from elected representatives of the people. There was never a time when it was more important to have the citizens of Dublin represented by those elected to speak for them. Of course, if that situation obtained the Government could not carry on their dictatorship, their bureaucracy. They could not any longer carry on telling the people what they think is good for them, in spite of the people.
Since I came into the Dáil I have represented quite large slices of Dublin city. I represented Ballyfermot for eight years and I now have the honour to represent a large area of Ballymun. For as long as I have been in public life I have never known the housing situation to be worse. You write to the corporation about a case of six people living in one room and you will be lucky if you get a reply in two or three months telling you that there are larger families due for consideration and that the case you represented may be considered at some future time. It is a deplorable situation and is it any wonder that we have violence starting throughout this city and undemocratic movements getting up all over the place? When people see there is no fair play or any democratic way for them to have their grievances aired and attended to—that they are simply being sat on by bureaucrats who have not to face them—the people are driven into acts they would never otherwise contemplate. There is frustration and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary appreciates this.
It beats me how in the face of what amounts to lawlessness the Government cannot see the wisdom of bringing back into existence democratic representation for those people. One had only to listen to Deputy Maurice Dockrell, one of the finest Lord Mayors the city has had, to appreciate the sincerity with which the people of Dublin whom he represents feel this loss of democratic representation, and the embarrassment they feel at having no lord mayor to speak for and to represent their city. It must also be an embarrassment to the Department of Foreign Affairs and to the Government when other cities get in touch with them and ask to have the lord mayor visit them on some occasion or another.
No good or sound explanation can be offered. That is obvious because when Fianna Fáil speakers rise in the House they have nothing to fall back on but a history of squabble in which they took part. They cannot make any case why the corporation should be kept out of existence. They have made the foolish statement that there is no point in bringing them back as long as this serious White Paper is under consideration. If they wanted to they could not make a better case for bringing back the corporation.
I do not know how those Deputies can go out and face the people in the constituencies they represent and tell them: "We voted and argued against amendments the effect of which would be to bring back the corporation in July." What will the news media have to say who condemned this from the start and who always wanted the people to be represented democratically? They will expose those public representatives for what they are, people who will back the Government regardless, who will troop into the lobby even though they know they have a responsibility to their people.
I have never listened to more irresponsible utterances than those by Deputies Dowling and Moore, the latter a former lord mayor, and Timmons. They came in here to say they will vote against these amendments because they think the corporation should not be brought back into existence now, because they can see no case for it. Their reason is, of course, that they cannot contemplate the Government carrying out their dictatorial activities, telling the people what is good for them in the matter of reorganising local government in the region, if the corporation were in existence. How they can come here and say it and face the people afterwards beats me.
That is the deplorable situation that exists and that is what is driving the people of this city to resort to what amounts to lawlessness in an attempt to get justice for the people from the Government. It is because of these injustices that they act in this manner. We would not have trouble about rents if there were reasonable, democratically elected members who would talk to the people. On one occasion I went to a meeting in an area I represent and I was appalled that people did not know about their entitlements. There was a breakdown in public relations and there was no contact with the City Hall. It was only a question of talking to them for an hour and convincing them that there was another way out besides parading and upsetting others. This would not have arisen if the people had local representatives doing their job for them.
There are irresponsible Fianna Fáil Deputies who say that they do not want a city council, that the city can do without a council until the Minister for Local Government decides that the council that was in existence have purged themselves of the great guilt of fighting against local taxation. It is the attitude of these irresponsible people that the citizens of Dublin cannot be trusted to elect the right people and that is a dreadful thing to say to the citizens. It is a horrible thing for a public representative to say this in an effort to make a case against these two reasonable amendments.
Deputy Belton made the case that at the moment a commissioner and a city manager are doing the entire job of the city council and that millions of pounds are being spent in the name of the citizens. The Deputy said that the Minister for Local Government can sack either of these men and the remark was made that this would not be any trouble for a Fianna Fáil Minister— in fact, one succeeded in sacking himself. The people who are acting are under the Minister's thumb and they recognise that fact. They are not speaking on behalf of the citizens, there is nobody to come between the citizens and the bureaucrats, and this is a serious situation.
As a local representative for many years, I have had the experience of intervening between officials in the local authority and citizens who were deprived of services. Sometimes it was due to misunderstanding, carelessness or inefficiency but a public representative had the right to intervene. It is the job of a public representative to know about local matters; very often people are unable to make a case for themselves but they can explain their grievances to the public representative. Citizens cannot get to the people in the local authorities; this drives them to acts of lawlessness and it is a major factor in a situation which is getting ugly in Dublin city. It is a situation about which the Minister for Local Government should be concerned and anxious to rectify at the earliest possible moment.
The Minister has had that opportunity since 1969. The Parliamentary Secretary admits he can take this action at any time he likes but he will not because there are major changes which the Government wish to make in a dictatorial fashion without consulting the people. It suits the Government not to have public representatives in the Dublin city area in order that they may impose their will on the people, as they have done in so many instances.