Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 8 Mar 1945

Vol. 29 No. 18

Local Government (Dublin) Bill, 1945—Second Stage.

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

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. MacEntee)

This Bill proposes to increase the representation of the citizens of Dublin on the city council. It proposes, in the second place, to empower the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to make a new division of the city into electoral areas, and, consequential on this, to assign to each such electoral area the number of members to be elected for it. Thirdly, it proposes to empower the Minister to defer the election for the Dublin County Council to such date, not being later than 1st day of July, 1946, as he may think necessary, and to further empower him—this time with the consent of the Oireachtas—to defer the new election for a further two years. Fourthly, it proposes to postpone until 1948 the new election for members of the several boards administering public assistance in Dublin City and County.

The Bill also proposes to give the Lord Mayor of Dublin a wider range of choice should it become necessary for him during his term of office to appoint a deputy.

Section 2 of the Bill proposes to increase the membership of the Dublin City Council from 35 to 45. No doubt, most members of the House are aware of the fact that the Local Government (Dublin) Act, 1930, fixed the size of the city council at 35 members, of whom 30 were to be elected by persons for the time being registered on the Register of Local Government Electors for the city, and five by persons on the Register of Commercial Electors. By the Local Government (Dublin) Act, 1935, the provision for commercial electors was abolished and the ordinary local government electors were given the right to elect the whole of the 35 members.

When the Act of 1930 was passed, however, the total local government electorate was only 144,000 odd, giving an average of just over 4,800 local government electors per councillor elected by them. But in 1935, the local government electorate for Dublin City was considerably increased and has since continued to increase still further until this year it has reached the figure of 297,051, or more than double what it was in 1930. On the other hand, there has been no corresponding increase in the total membership of the city council so that to-day it remains at the original figure of 35, giving a membership of one councillor to over 8,300 electors.

I think the ratio is too large, particularly in view of the fact that the city council has to nominate members to a very large number of committees and its numbers should therefore be such that these nominations can be made without unduly burdening individual members. The council not only appoints eight council committees, but there is a number of joint bodies such as the Vocational Education Committee, the Joint Committee of Management of Grangegorman Mental Hospital, the Dublin Fever Hospital, to which the council are required to appoint members. The council also nominates representatives to numerous hospital boards, to five school attendance committees, the Irish Tourist Association, and other bodies. I submit to the House that the proposed increase in the number of members is justifiable on the ground I have mentioned, and particularly in view of the duties which council members are called upon to fulfil.

Section 3 of the Bill is, as I have said, consequential on Section 2. Naturally if the membership of the city council is to be increased, some provision must be made for the re-allocation of the representation to the various electoral areas. Under the Act of 1930, to which I have already referred, five electoral areas were constituted; but that Act did not give a continuing power to make new allocations from time to time as population changed. Therefore new powers, such as Section 3 is drafted to confer, are necessary if the re-allocation is to be made. Apart, however, from the proposed increase in the membership of the city council, there is another reason why powers to make a re-allocation are necessary.

Marked discrepancies exist in the representation allocated to the several borough electoral areas. Thus, in No. 1 Area, 43,867 electors return seven members; in No. 2 Area, 66,683 electors return seven members; in No. 3 Area, 63,527 electors return eight members; in No. 4 Area, 50,863 electors return six members; in No. 5 Area, 72,111 electors return seven members.

So that the number of electors per member varies from 6,267 in No. 1 Area to 10,301 in No. 5 Area; with corresponding figures of 9,526; 7,940; and 8,477 for Nos. 2, 3 and 4 respectively.

The corporation quite properly have drawn my attention to these anomalies, and I propose, if the Oireachtas gives me the powers asked for in Section 3, to remove them so far as is reasonably possible.

Section 4 of this measure was not originally in the Bill, but was inserted on the Committee Stage of the Bill in the Dáil in deference to representations, made from all quarters of the House, that the present limited choice which the Lord Mayor of Dublin has in regard to the appointment of a deputy lord mayor has been found in some instances to occasion great inconvenience.

Section 5 will give the Minister power to defer the holding of the new election for the Dublin County Council until the 30th June, 1946; that is, one year later than it might otherwise be held. The section further proposes to empower the Minister in certain circumstances, which are set out in subsection (3), and with the acquiescence of the Oireachtas, as provided for in sub-section (7), to extend by Order the period within which the election may be held.

The reasons why it has become necessary to envisage the deferment of the election for the Dublin County Council is the simple fact that the overhaul and reorganisation of the county services now proceeding are not likely to be quite completed by the end of June of this year. Furthermore, many important proposals for the constructive development of certain of those services which are under immediate consideration will have reached a critical stage about that period.

These proposals, which envisage the construction of over 1,350 houses, the execution of water supply and sewerage schemes to the value of £358,818, and the construction and improvement of roads at an ultimate cost of over £5,000,000, are all urgently necessary for the proper development of the county. The actual execution of these works, except to a minor degree, will not be possible until the end of hostilities in Europe renders the procural of the necessary plant and materials more feasible than it is now. But it is imperative that the planning of them should be undertaken now, and pushed as rapidly as possible to completion, so that everything will be ready to enable the actual works to be put in hands as soon as the opportunity offers.

The preparation of all these plans, under the direction of the commissioner for the county, is, in fact, in progress and is well advanced. Indeed, as I have already indicated, most of the actual planning of the proposed works has reached a critical stage in its development. I would, therefore, deprecate very strongly any possibility of a change which in any way might impede or delay the completion of these plans, as a change in the direction of the council's affairs at this stage might do.

Section 6 of the Bill proposes to defer until 1948 the new election for the Dublin Board of Assistance. What I have said in regard to the undesirability of making any change in the present administration of the Dublin County Council affairs applies with equal force to the administration of the Dublin Board of Assistance.

When I found it necessary, in April, 1942, to replace the then members of the board by commissioners, I indicated to the chairman of the commissioners that I desired him and his colleagues to undertake a radical reconstruction of the entire services for which the former board had been responsible.

A report dated 9th February, 1944, which I received from the commissioners, and which I caused to be circulated to all Deputies of the city and county, last March, indicates the almost chaotic conditions which the commissioners, when they took over, found to exist in the administration of the affairs of the board. I do not propose to recount to the House this report in detail. It recommends radical reforms in St. Kevin's Institution and a complete reorganisation of the whole administration of the board's services. When the commissioners investigated the organisation of the institution, they found that it represented practically unchanged the inheritance which the board had received from the bad old workhouse days. Since then the commissioners have been trying to segregate the hospital, St. Kevin's, from the home, and to dispel the spirit of pauperism which pervaded the whole place. They have recommended that, in due course, the premises now housing the infirm and chronic inmates should be evacuated, and that all those buildings which are intended for the care and accommodation of the aged infirm, should be removed to a much more suitable site on the outskirts of the city. As one step in clearing away the relics of the poorhouse service, which have been clinging to the hospital, the commissioners have abolished the employment of inmate labour therein. Paid orderlies and ward attendants have now taken their place and a considerable increase in the nursing staff has been effected, while the hospital itself is being fully equipped as a surgical hospital.

Besides the problem of the institution proper, the commissioners have also had under consideration the reorganisation of the whole dispensary system, and in this connection a survey of the dispensary premises and dispensary medical services has just begun.

The importance of co-ordinating the public health services and the medical services in the metropolitan area need not, I am sure, be stressed; the work to be undertaken by the commissioners in this respect is of the greatest urgency and is an essential preliminary step to far-reaching developments in that regard which we have in contemplation.

In connection with all this I should point out that the estimate of the commissioners for the coming year will be just under £4,000 less than the figure which the old board of assistance estimated would be required for the year ending the 31st March, 1943. That fact is very significant when considered in relation to the improvements which have already been made in the management of the institution, the improvement in the general conditions of the inmates, the improvements in the buildings, and the expansion in the services which the commissioners have undertaken since they were appointed. It shows that not merely may we hope to provide a proper service for the poor but that, if we carry through the reorganisation which we are contemplating, that these improvements are not going to impose an undue burden upon the general body of ratepayers.

The commissioners have been administering the affairs of the board only since April, 1942. They have already carried out many far-reaching reforms, but the great, and, I think, the more onerous job still lies in front of them. They have, as I have indicated, to prepare schemes for the evacuation of the aged poor and infirm from the existing institution. They have to modernise the hospital there. They have got to overhaul and reorganise the dispensary and medical services and they have got to complete their overhaul of the administration of public assistance.

It would be, in my view, disastrous if at this stage we were to take the commissioners off the task on which they have been engaged up to the present, in order to replace them, perhaps, by a body such as that which we had to dissolve less than three years ago. Accordingly, I am asking the Oireachtas, in this connection, to give me powers to defer the new election of members of the board of assistance until the year 1948. I do that, not only for the reasons I have indicated, but also because I am satisfied that we cannot get ahead and coordinate the local government of the city and county until we have found a solution for the problem of devising a sound scheme for administering public assistance and the various other services for which the Dublin Board of Assistance were responsible.

Sections 7 and 8 of the Bill relate to the position of the Balrothery Board of Assistance and the Rathdown Board of Assistance. It is proposed to defer the elections for these boards until 1948 also. As the House is aware, the functional areas of the Dublin, Balrothery and Rathdown Boards adjoin each other. They are all within the geographical county; and the county, as a matter of fact, is a contributor to the Dublin Board of Assistance which administers public assistance in areas which, for other purposes, are under the jurisdiction of the county council. We cannot institute a new scheme of local government for the city and county, based, of course, upon popular election, until we have carried forward our plans for administering all these interlinking areas, authorities and services, much further than they are at present. That is why I am asking the Oireachtas to give me power to defer the elections for the Dublin Board of Assistance, the Balrothery Board of Assistance and the Rathdown Board of Assistance until 1948.

Mr. Sweetman

On behalf of Senator Hayes I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.

Mr. Hayes

The Minister gave us an explanation of all the sections of this Bill, but, although it could be put rather briefly, he gave us no indication at all of what the policy is with regard to this particular kind of thing. The Bill, in effect, postpones elections in County Dublin and in certain subsidiary bodies of the Dublin County Council because those bodies are now being administered by a commissioner, and because the Minister is quite clearly of opinion that the administration of the commissioner is superior to the administration that we might get through a manager with the assistance of any kind of county council that would be elected. That is one part of the Bill. The other part of the Bill, the first part, provides for an increase in the members of the Dublin City Council, and provides for a rearrangement of the electoral areas in the City of Dublin. The case for increasing the membership is clear. It has been made to the Minister, I think, by the Dublin City Council already. I think it is fair to say that the case for a rearrangement of the electoral areas goes with the case for more members, the increasing population. But the Minister did not tell us what he expects the new city council to be. At the same time, we are not without enlightenment on that particular subject, because a colleague of the Minister told us a few nights ago, in very robust language indeed, what he envisages. He envisages an entirely political council, and he argues that no other council can be any use but a political council which is in complete agreement with him. I suggest to the Minister that, if that is the Government policy, then it is very unfair that a politician should have complete control of the arrangement of the electoral areas in Dublin City, because if he is so in control he will surely use his power for the benefit of the Party—the Party which, according to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, is the only Party whose members can ever rise above Party considerations.

It seems to me that one obvious amendment to this Bill would be to put the rearrangement of the electoral areas into the hands of an impartial committee, presided over by some impartial person, which would come to an arrangement that could be accepted by all concerned as satisfactory. We have some evidence already of the way in which the Dáil constituencies have been rearranged with an eye to the political prospects of a political Party, and there are some grounds for the fear that the Dublin City area might be manipulated also in the interests of a political Party. I wonder has any consideration been given, when increasing the membership of the council, to a proposal to increase the term of office of the council from three years to five years? On the whole, I think it would be an improvement, but I do not want to go into that now. What I do want to say is that the two parts of the Bill seem to be inspired by entirely contrary policies. One part of the Bill envisages a city council, which the Minister for Industry and Commerce hopes will be radically changed in its political views, and the other part of the Bill envisages no council for County Dublin until certain schemes have been brought to fruition.

It is only right that one should ask whether it is a definite policy on the part of the Government that local bodies combined with the managerial system should be elected on an entirely political basis, because it has always seemed to me that the managerial system in itself, if one were to argue for it and to acknowledge its merits, most certainly implies that the councils, who have certain powers vis-a-vis the manager, should not be elected on a political Party basis. There are only two methods of electing local bodies once you have a manager. One is the totalitarian method, where you have only one Party in the State ever allowed to raise its head. That Party appoints the manager from the Party membership, and the local body is also appointed from the Party membership.

The other scheme is the one which the Government has actually adopted. In the appointment of a manager, such as the Dublin City Manager who will have a council to assist him in this Bill, the view has been taken that the manager is a non-Party person, that he should be appointed by a non-Party machine, that he should act as a non-Party person, and that he should serve the council that is elected, and serve a central administration, whatever its particular political complexion.

It is fair to say that managers have been appointed on a non-Party basis, and if they have, it would seem to me to be very foolish to endeavour to secure that the councils with whom the managers are to co-operate should be themselves entirely political. The extraordinary thing about this whole business—I had occasion to refer to it before—is the way in which the members of the Government Party are able to assume to themselves such extraordinary virtues, such almost superhuman attributes, while they deny to their opponents even the virtue of having a national outlook——

Mr. MacEntee

They do not assume them; they have acquired them.

Mr. Hayes

Mind you, Sir, if they have, it is even a greater miracle than one could hope for. They must have acquired them since the time I knew them long ago. When the British were here, Party politics in local bodies was completely understandable. It was very simple. There were the people who wanted to change the British régime, and the people who wanted to keep it there. It had the merit for a great many years of being very simple, indeed. You had an Administration in Dublin, a foreign Administration, not one responsible to the people. Now that that has been changed, it seems to me, and has always seemed to me, that the corollary is that local bodies should be allowed to do their business in a nonpolitical way. The managerial system existed in Dublin and Cork before the present Administration came into office, and the present Minister has extended the managerial system to the whole country. It would appear to me that the natural result of that managerial system would be that politics, in the Party sense, would be kept out of local bodies, that they should do their job along with the manager without being partisans. I have no understanding how any other conclusion can be reached.

For example, local bodies have been shorn of their powers to a great extent, and one of the results of that is that a great deal will depend, more than ever before, on the type of person elected to local bodies. They will have their influence on the manager rather more by personalities and the type of people they are, for the powers they exercise have been very much reduced. What we have put forward as Government policy, and it is very important to this Bill, because it concerns the City of Dublin, is that Fianna Fáil cannot take the chance—I am quoting the Minister for Industry and Commerce—"that candidates nominated by other Parties will always be capable of rising above Party or sectional considerations to the extent of giving enthusiastic support to schemes for which Fianna Fáil may get credit."

I think I said some time ago that members of the Party in this House were Pharisees to the last degree. Surely that is quite indisputable. The Pharisee says: "Look at me, I can rise above Party consideration—no one else can". We have here in this House in the Fianna Fáil Party, if I am allowed to say that of the members who normally support the Government, the pick of the Fianna Fáil Party. We have the result of a combination of the Party in the Dáil, and in the country in local bodies, so that we should have in this House those who represent the very cream of the Party from the point of view of intellect and from the point of view of putting national considerations above Party. But I am sorry to say, and I think nobody would disagree with me, that even in the case of the cream in this House, they do not always take a non-Party view.

Mr. Quirke

Would the Senator go so far as to say that they always take a Party view?

Mr. Hayes

I would go so far as to say that they do not always take a wholly Party view——

Mr. Quirke

An unholy Party view you mean?

Mr. Hayes

They more frequently in a majority take an unholy Party view. I know that there are occasions, such as yesterday, when they did not all follow the Party line. Even as a matter of fact, Sir, the Fianna Fáil members of the local bodies do not come up to the standard of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He wants the kind of member who will never let him down, who will always say that whatever comes from the central Government is right and must be done. Quite clearly, that is a bad system, and, quite clearly, it is going to bring local government into greater disrepute. Every argument in every individual instance for the abolition of a local authority is the same as the argument for the abolition of the Dublin County Council which arises under this particular Bill. When you take all the cases together, and if you make all the political bodies completely political, so that they will not have any function but to shout "Hurroo" when a measure comes down to them, you will reduce local government to a farce. When you have done that, there will not be an argument left in favour of the Dáil and none at all for a Seanad.

I want to call attention to the effect of this Bill on the electoral areas of Dublin, seeing that Dublin is to be made a political battleground. Elections for the municipal council will be a political battleground if electoral areas are selected by one Party. The Dublin Corporation should be allowed to remain in office for more than three years. I do not understand this provision at all, but I do not intend to fight it, or obstruct the passage of the Bill, but by what process of reasoning are we asked to accept that if a county council were elected, it would in some way impair the great schemes which the commissioner has brought to a certain point? I have not made any study, and I am accepting the Minister's view that the schemes are good in themselves, but I do not accept the view that you can work a democratic parliament or democracy in the country if you are going to replace your local bodies in the country with commissioners.

If you think that a system of efficient commissioners is better than local bodies and that an efficient commissioner unadvised by a local body is better than one hampered by a local body—that is the Minister's view—I think it is a deplorable view for the future of local government and central Government. If we insist that people must put on a Party label before they take an interest in local government, we shall fail to get the proper people interested in local affairs. Therefore, some of the provisions in this Bill, and the policy of local Government, as stated by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and as carefully not stated by the Minister for Local Government, are going to have extremely bad consequences. In the meantime, in accordance with the policy which I have frequently advocated, the Bill ought to get a Second Reading, but there are certain matters which will call for further consideration.

Mr. Duffy

It is difficult to justify the provision in this Bill which seeks to postpone for a period of, say, three years, the election to Dublin County Council. Dublin County Council was abolished some four or five years ago for reasons which are understandable, but I am not at all sure that the arrangement which was made for the discharge of its functions is satisfactory. Some people are happy in the possession of good publicity agents. Their smallest achievements can be glorified in the Press and their shortcomings are ignored. There are many shortcomings in the present administration of County Dublin. One of the things which strike me in relation to Dublin County Council is this: that with all their weaknesses and all their vices, and having regard to the fact that they were suppressed because of their incompetence to carry on administration, yet seven members of the council are called into the election of members of this House. It is a most extraordinary thing that a body of men who are not regarded as being capable of conducting their local affairs now, under the authority or guidance of the county manager, are sufficiently qualified to become electors in the body that elects members of this House.

In regard to the situation in Dublin City it is clear that a case can be made for increasing the council but I am not quite sure if that case has been made. I wonder for what purpose is it necessary to increase the membership of the council. It was pointed out that there are a number of subsidiary bodies, committees and the like and that you require a larger number upon which to draw. If you are going to get away from the principle of a small council, then you are getting back to the old situation where the council was worthless, because it was unwieldy. At one period there were 80 members or there abouts on the Corporation of Dublin. That number was subsequently reduced to 35 and now the proposal is to increase it to 45. I am not opposing the view that 45 should be the minimum, but nevertheless it is a very large body, and if there is a full attendance at the same time it is not a body that will do the best work. I think a smaller council would be much more efficient than a large one. The difficulty I see, however, is in regard to the description of the new electoral areas. It is true that the Order which will be made by the Minister describing these areas will be tabled in both Houses of the Oireachtas, and may be annulled by either House, but it might have been a better arrangement if the Minister were to provide that the Order would not have effect until approved by both Houses.

One knows what happens when these Orders are tabled. They are placed in the Library and when you get your Order Paper you find a reference to the fact that this Order has been tabled. That places on somebody the duty of taking the initiative to have it annulled, but if nobody puts down a motion for the purpose of annulling the Order, then it becomes operative, without any more ado, after 21 Parliamentary days. It seems to me that from the Minister's own point of view, it would be more satisfactory if he were to put down a motion confirming the Order. That at least would ensure that the Order was brought to the attention of both Houses of the Oireachtas. There is another aspect of this matter which is of some importance. A private member putting down a motion has no assurance that his motion will be taken and debated within the 21 days. Although, in practice, that usually happens, I remember one or two instances in which a motion on the Order Paper was not reached within the 21 days, and therefore the provision enabling the House to take action was inoperative.

Another point arises out of this rearrangement of the electoral areas and the enlargement of the council. I do not think the Minister has adverted to the question of the number of aldermen who will be elected if the membership is increased, and if the number of areas is increased. I take it that those increases will be followed by an increase in the number of aldermen. I am not quite sure how that is provided for. It may be provided for by another method. I merely draw attention to the fact so that it may be cleared up. The last point I want to refer to is the provision in sub-section (5) of Section 3, because that seems to me to be more or less getting back to the position in which we had a commercial register in Dublin, which was abolished by the present Government in 1935. The sub-section reads:—

"In assigning by an Order under this section the numbers of members to be elected for the electoral areas specified in the Order, the Minister shall have regard to the populations and rateable valuations of such areas."

Apparently the Minister does not like this principle of counting hands or counting noses. In fact, he imposes upon himself the obligation to have regard to the kind of house in which a voter lives. I think it is a reasonable assumption that what is provided by this sub-section is that 1,000 people living in Rathmines or Pembroke will be entitled to larger representation pro rata than 1,000 people living in Townsend Street. There is not much other point in imposing on the Minister the obligation to have regard to the rateable valuations in the areas when determining the number of members to be elected to the city council. I urge on the Minister that that is a reactionary proposal and that he ought to get back to where the Government stood in 1935, when they abolished the commercial register.

Mr. Hayes

That did not work. They did not get a majority by abolishing it.

Mr. Duffy

I wonder if Senator Hayes suggests that they will get a majority by increasing the representation of Rathmines and Pembroke.

Mr. Hayes

It could happen.

Mr. Duffy

It may be that I am not now in touch with matters and that they would get a majority from those areas. If so, then the case made by Senator Hayes would be correct. I do not think that the Minister would like to go down to history as having departed completely from the policy which was inaugurated by his predecessor, who abolished the commercial register and extended the local franchise to every man and woman over 21 years of age. I approved then, and still approve, of that attitude. I urge on the Minister that he ought not to take this step, that he ought to get back to his former position in regard to election to the Oireachtas and to local authorities—that is, adhere to adult suffrage, giving every individual an equal right in regard to elections and forgetting the great qualifications that attach to a high valuation.

Mr. Seán O'Donovan

It is not as one of the cream of the Fianna Fáil Party, to whom Senator Hayes referred, that I rise to speak on this Bill. The Minister referred, in his opening statement, to the differences in population that exist in respect of the five electoral areas. I have a booklet here showing the figures. Those figures are extraordinary and require the correction of which the introduction of this Bill is indicative.

The matter to which I wish to draw attention has no reference to politics. It is connected with the curious overlapping and interlapping of the Parliamentary constituencies and the municipal electoral areas. Crumlin, for instance, is within the city for the municipal election and without the city for the Parliamentary election. The people there do not know whether they are in the city or county. That may interest representatives of the county electoral area in the Dáil. This overlapping of the municipal and county areas is causing great confusion. It is not confined to one area. In the area in which I reside, the Mountjoy Ward is in our No. 2 electoral area for municipal purposes and it is in North-West Dublin for the Dáil Election. Howth, now part of the city, comes into the No. 2 electoral area for municipal purposes but it is in the county for the purpose of the Dáil Election. I think that that arrangement should be revised. I believe that the statutory period in which the Dáil constituencies must be revised will soon expire. If there is to be an alteration of the municipal electoral areas, they should be made to coincide, so far as possible, with the Parliamentary constituencies and obviate this overlapping of areas in the city as well as the division of areas between county and city. That is forced upon one's attention in districts like Crumlin, Rathfarnham and Howth. I think that if a district is within the city for the purpose of the municipal election, it should be within the city for the purpose of the election to the Dáil. The same thing should apply in the case of the county and not have this overlapping and interlapping.

As regards this Bill, if it simply means a more uniform allocation of the representation of the electorate to the different areas, I think that is quite desirable. The Bill refers to five or more areas. There are five at present. The Minister has not indicated whether it is his intention or not to increase that number or to increase the representation of the areas as he will define them. It would be better if we knew what the areas would be. Then we would be in a position to discuss the matter. At present, we can only discuss the Bill and hand it over to the Minister to tell us what the areas will be later. Senator Duffy was not correct in referring to 21 sitting days in connection with annulment of an Order made under this Bill. The period is seven sitting days. If there were an Adjournment of the Dáil or Seanad, it would be easy for the period to elapse and even seven sitting days might prove somewhat awkward. However, the principal point I want to emphasise is this overlapping and interlapping of electoral areas and of municipal and county districts.

Mr. Sweetman

Surely the Senator is aware that, under the Constitution introduced by the Party of which he very modestly said he was not the cream, there must be a redistribution of the Parliamentary constituencies this year.

Mr. Duffy

Not this year.

Mr. O'Donovan

That is what I said —that the time for revision was approaching.

Mr. Sweetman

Why complain of overlapping now?

Mr. Ryan

I do not wish to enter into the Party discussion which has arisen on this Bill, but there are a few points to which I would like to refer. Senator Duffy spoke of the annulling of the Order under the Bill within 21 days. Senator O'Donovan spoke of the annulling period as seven days. Both happen to be right. The Bill provides that the Order made under Section 3 may be annulled by resolution passed by either House within the next seven days within which that House has sat after the Order has been laid before it. Section 9 provides that an Order made under that section—an Order adapting existing enactments to give effect to the Orders made under the Act—may be annulled within 21 such days. It is difficult to understand why the Order made under Section 3 should be annulable within seven sitting days, since 21 days are allowed for the annulment of the Order under Section 9.

Mr. Seán O'Donovan

It is a question of time. This has to be done by 1st June, and the second has not.

Mr. Ryan

I thought that the Order under Section 9 was just as important as the Order under Section 3, because it may be that an Order may have to be made under Section 9 as well as under Section 3. However, in making these few remarks I only wanted to make possible the annulment of both Orders, within the same time limit. Under the Bill, the membership of the city council is increased from 35 to 45. Personally, I cannot see any advantage in being a member of the city council, since the functions of the council were so limited under the Local Government Act of 1930. That Act limits the powers of the city councillors to certain functions, described as reserved functions, and I cannot understand why people should be so anxious to become members of such a council in order to discharge a limited number of functions. Possibly, the main function of the council is the election of the Lord Mayor, and that might be a sufficient attraction to induce people to wish to become members of the city council. It seems to me, however, that it does not matter whether the number of councillors is 35 or 45, so far as the city council is concerned, since their functions are so limited. I think it was Senator Hayes who spoke of a non-political city manager and a political city council. I understood that the city manager was appointed on the recommendation of the Local Appointments Commissioners and that, therefore, the question of politics did not arise.

Mr. Hayes

Is not that what I said? The Senator has just quoted what I said. I said that you could have a non-political city manager and a council elected which the Minister wanted to make political. Does the Senator agree that that is what I said?

Mr. Ryan

I understood Senator Hayes to say that there could be a nonpolitical city manager and a political city council.

Mr. Hayes

Yes.

Mr. Ryan

But I also thought that the Senator suggested that the city manager would be appointed by a political body.

Mr. Hayes

Oh, no.

Mr. Ryan

Well, then, I apologise. The city manager will be appointed by the Local Appointments Commission and, accordingly, the question of politics would not enter into his appointment; but so far as the question of election to this body is concerned, it would seem to me to be a matter of amusement or recreation, so far as their actual functions are concerned. I think that, perhaps, it would be advisable for these people to change their names: some of them to call themselves "city reformers,""independent ratepayers", or some such names. It appears to me that so far as this Bill is concerned, there would be very little disadvantage in changing the name and that it would be very easy for any party to do so.

I have very little to add to what I have said. The functions of these local bodies, which are kept in abeyance, I presume, will be kept under observation up to 1948. If we are all alive at that time, I am sure that the whole system of local government will be changed considerably. Possibly there may never be any election to these bodies, but personally I am of the opinion that, from the point of view of administration, a small body is better than a large and unwieldy body of persons of dissimilar tastes who may not have the necessary concentration to deal with the problems which must arise in connection with such matters. As regards the Dublin County Council, I think that, at all events, for the present, the present county commissioner system should be given a chance for another year or two, because, in that time, it can be seen whether or not it has proved to be a success. Perhaps if that system should prove to be a success, there may be a further postponement of elections to the county council, but the probability is that by that time Dublin County will come to form part of a greater Dublin City and that the whole system of government of Dublin City and County will take a very different form from that which we have to-day. At all events, if the Dublin Corporation think that 45 members are necessary instead of 35, then, by all means, let the city council have that membership. I have nothing further to say, except to refer again to those discrepancies in the Bill to which I have referred and which, no doubt, have already come to the Minister's attention.

Mr. Quirke

I thought that this was going to be about the least controversial measure introduced in this House for a long time, and therefore I was surprised to hear Senator Hayes talking, as it appeared to me when I came into the House, quite excitedly about the alleged suggestion of the Minister as to politics entering into county councils. I would not mind such a suggestion coming from certain Senators but, coming from Senator Hayes, I thought it was a very good joke. Now, I understood Senator Ryan to suggest that certain political bodies might change their names for the purposes of election to county councils, but I can assure the Senator that that has been tried before. Senator Ryan who, like myself, is non-political, would agree that it has been tried before, and that we have had very many Parties calling themselves by different names, such as the Ratepayers' Association, the Farmers' Union, the Christian Front, and I do not know how many other fronts. All these people call themselves by various names but, as a member of a county council—and I have been a member of a county council for a long time—I think I can say that I hardly ever saw one of these people making a mistake so far as the attitude of the majority of the people was concerned. I do not think there is anything wrong in the bringing in of Party questions into discussions by local bodies. In fact, I think that one of the most sensible speeches ever made was that made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who generally makes a very good and sensible speech, when he referred to that matter. The fact is that at the present time the combined Opposition—and by that I mean all the various Parties that go to make up opposition to the Government —have, apparently, lost all hope at the moment of ever getting anywhere or of ever getting into power, and it seems to me that it is quite evident that they have made up their minds that their only hope of getting anywhere is by the use of obstructionist tactics. I can assure the House that the people of this country are sick and tired of all this bickering and nagging, whether in connection with county councils, boards of health, county committees of agriculture, and so on, and that they feel that the best thing for the country is to have some kind of uniformity.

Mr. Foran

Why not have one big Party?

Mr. Quirke

No, not necessarily.

Mr. Hayes

The Senator's Party is now in a majority.

Mr. Quirke

Well, when Senator Hayes' Party were in power he saw nothing wrong in Party politics in local bodies.

Mr. Hayes

What did the Senator say?

Mr. Quirke

I said that when Senator Hayes' Party were in office and had a majority he saw nothing wrong in Party politics in the case of local bodies.

Mr. Hayes

As a matter of fact, I was not engaged in Party politics at all at that time.

Mr. Quirke

In any case Senator Hayes will admit that that is the fact. There is no doubt about that whatever. There is no necessity to go back to the economic war. Anyway I would not do so in the absence of Senator Counihan. The fact of the matter is that, if we are going to get anywhere, we must have a body of men who are——

Mr. Sweetman

Yes-men.

Mr. Quirke

——as the Minister for Industry and Commerce said, men who will take an interest in the work, who will be enthusiastically in favour of putting the machinery which the people of the country desire in motion. The majority of the people want one thing and there is no reason why their representatives on local bodies should not do everything in their power to put the machinery in motion. Senator Duffy referred, rather sarcastically, I thought, to the seven members of the defunct county council who have the right to vote in the election of the Seanad. Does Senator Duffy suggest that that right should be taken away? If he does, why not go the whole hog and say so? If he does not, it is ridiculous to refer to it at all. He says also that we should have a smaller council. How much smaller would he make it? Should we have, say, 20 members or five or six members? If we were to have five or six members going round from one room to another, as members of the various committees, surely that is not a sensible suggestion? If we are to have efficiency on the various committees there must be a reasonable number to choose from.

Mr. Duffy

What is wrong with 35?

Mr. Quirke

I do not think there is any necessity to go into that argument. I am sorry that Senator Hayes introduced politics. I know it is very difficult for him to avoid them, but in this case at least we ought to keep away from Party politics.

Mr. Healy

Baineann an Bille seo leis an gCathair agus leis an gConntae Ath Cliath agus labhróchaidh mé ar an mBille amháin. This Bill applies mostly to the City of Dublin and I shall endeavour to confine whatever few remarks I have to make to the city. Unfortunately I was detained in another place while some of the previous speakers, whom I was anxious to hear, were addressing the House. I have only just come in now but since coming in I have heard various observations as to an increase or decrease in the representation of various areas. It is well that Senators should know exactly the fluctuations in the representation of Dublin for the past 50 years. Under the '98 Act—I am speaking now subject to correction from the legal gentlemen — Dublin City was enlarged by bringing in the three outlying townships — New Kilmainham, Glasnevin and Clontarf. They were then called added areas and the city had a representation of 80 members. There were 20 wards, each ward returning three councillors and an alderman, a total representation as I have said of 80. The councillors went out triennially, that is to say one councillor in each ward went out each year, and the alderman went out at the end of five years, so that when the alderman's election came on there was a councillor and an alderman elected at the same time. That system went on smoothly until 1930.

At that time, of course, as well as the City of Dublin there existed two independent urban councils — Rathmines Urban Council and Pembroke Urban Council. Under the Act of 1929—I am again speaking subject to correction of the legal gentlemen—the whole representation of Dublin was changed. The 20 wards and the two adjoining urban councils were dispensed with and five areas were formed with a total representation of 35. Three of these areas returned six representatives, one returned seven representatives, another returned five representatives and what was called the commercial representation also returned five representatives. The idea of the commercial representation was that a certain type of representative would be elected on a special register composed of the wealthy ratepaying section of the community. I heard some talk about politics but what happened that commercial representation? It became the tail-end of one political Party in Dublin Corporation with the result that there was an Act passed in 1935 dispensing with that special representation. They had a special register of their own. The five commercial representatives were apportioned to each of the five existing areas. That brought the representation of No. 3 area up to eight representatives, the representation of No. 1, No. 2 and No. 5 up to seven representatives each, while No. 4 had a representation of six. That accounts for the total representation of 35 and that is the position as it exists to-day.

There were certain inequalities in the position that existed in 1930. For instance, No. 3 area had a higher representation than No. 5 area, although No. 5 area had the bigger population. No. 5 area is the area which the Minister now present represents in the Dáil. It is coterminous with the old townships of Rathmines and Pembroke. It required more votes to elect a councillor in No. 5 area than in some of the other areas. Vast changes have taken place in the population in recent years. I think I would be justified in saying that No. 4 area has increased in population more than any other area. It has increased by 50 per cent. because of the addition of Crumlin. There has been a big housing scheme in that area which has meant an addition to the population computed to be equal to that of the City of Limerick. We have no indication in the Bill as to how the city may be divided or what the representation of each divided area will be. Some people were thinking that it is quite possible that the Minister, by his Order, may follow what happened in 1936 by adding the increased number to the five existing areas. Of course, in 1936, as I have already stated, the five outgoing commercial representatives were allotted to the five existing areas. If I may here dabble a little bit in politics, I will say that it is so clear that the Government were justified in their action in 1935 that only one of the five commercial representatives had the courage to face the Dublin electors— Willie O'Hara, who was formerly a member of the Dublin Corporation.

I do not know whether any suggestion I might make would be looked on with favour by the Minister, but I would suggest to him the advisability of considering whether, in some way, the Dáil constituencies could be linked up with the municipal areas. At the moment, we know that there is this anomaly: the Park ward, which is, of course, on the north side of the Liffey, is in No. 4 area for the purposes of municipal elections, and it is in No. 3 Dáil constituency. It is in a separate and distinct area for each election. For the Dáil election, it is in north-west Dublin, and for the municipal election it is in No. 4 area. Furthermore, there are many anomalies in regard to boundaries. As those who know Dublin are aware, Dublin City South, the townships area and the County Dublin area, link up with each other around Crumlin, and the dividing line there is so complicated that in some of the dwelling-houses you will find one room in one area and another room in another area.

Mr. MacEntee

We did not do that.

Mr. Healy

I agree, but what I am suggesting is that the line should now be drawn clearly. The Minister has corrected me by saying they did not do that. I am not accusing the Minister of having done so. The area about which I am speaking was a big tillage or pasture area. To the corporation engineers and architects I will pay the compliment that, in my opinion, they do their business well. The Dublin housing architect is a splendid man. But they were not going to pay attention to the dividing line as between one municipal area and another, or between one Parliamentary constituency and another. That is what gave rise to the present position. I am only suggesting to the Minister now that he might consider the advisability of clearly defining those lines. Between the No. 4 and No. 5 municipal areas the line is very clear indeed. Latterly, Mr. Brown, one of the Minister's officials, was consulted, and he satisfied the corporation representatives, in so far as he made a clear line in what is called Clogher Road. The left-hand side of that road is in No. 5 area, and the right-hand side is in No. 4 area. When you cross over Sundrive Road again and go up Kildare Road the left-hand side of Kildare Road is in the No. 5 area, and the right-hand side is in No. 4 area. As far as that line is concerned, it is clearly defined, but in other cases we have the anomaly to which I have referred, where one room in a house in one area and another room in another area. I am not suggesting that the Minister should take any dictation from any member of the municipal council in Dublin, but this matter was discussed at a general purposes committee meeting on last Tuesday week, and if he would consult with that committee he would find them most anxious to give whatever help they can. The municipal elections are due to be held next June. Again I am speaking subject to correction, but I think they are due to he held between 20th and 30th June.

Mr. MacEntee

Between 23rd June and 1st July.

Mr. Healy

Well, we are not far apart. I would respectfully suggest to the Minister that he should proceed immediately with the dividing up of the areas and the defining of the boundaries, so that people who are interested in those elections will know the representation of each area. We are now well into March, and the elections will be held in June. Those elections will take some time. We have to take into consideration the distance between Palmerston Road and Chapelizod and Merrion Gates, or the distance between Larkhill and St. Aloysius Schools in Crumlin, and so on. Dublin is now becoming a big city, and the sooner those who are interested in the elections have the position made known to them the better it is for everyone.

The Minister referred to the South Dublin Union and its administration before the commissioners took office. There is an old saying that the devil is not as black as he is painted, and I hardly think that the Dublin Board of Assistance exactly deserves the censure of the Minister for the manner in which they conducted their duties. In the first place, let me inform members here that, after the Dublin Board of Assistance meetings each Wednesday, the minutes of the meeting were sent to the Minister's office, so that the Minister was well acquainted with what was going on. He has stated now that the commissioners have been endeavouring to clear away the old pauper stain from the Dublin Union. I think that all men and women of goodwill will endorse and support that. It is unfortunate that that stain is there. I know the Dublin Union fairly well. There are excellent medical officers and an excellent staff there now to look after the poor patients, so there need be no prejudice against going into St. Kevin's Hospital.

The Minister stated that changes have been made. I remind the Minister respectfully that some of the changes for which he takes credit for the commissioners were carried out by the old board of assistance. The nurses were increased in the Dublin Union and inmate labour was dispensed with by the old board. A new wing was built, the back of it extending as far as Pigtown Lane, during the time of the board, and a comprehensive plan was arranged for the extension of that wing in the other parts of the union but, unfortunately, the war intervened in 1939 and upset the apple cart so far as new building was concerned.

Then the commissioners came in. I have nothing to say against the commissioners. Those commissioners were there before, during the previous regime. I have a clear recollection of speaking at a public meeting in James's Street on a Fianna Fáil platform and accusing the then commissioners of starving the paupers in the Dublin Union. I am not suggesting that the same thing is happening to-day, but let me point out this to the House and the Minister, that it is quite possible there is not such a great need for outdoor relief or home assistance as there existed formerly.

His colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, has introduced wonderful legislation for this city and country. By his legislation, he has relieved to a great extent the want of the people all over the city. His most recent help was the Children's Allowances Act, which was a great boon to families who had been receiving outdoor relief. There were several other beneficial Acts, including one making provision for building employees in wet weather. In fact, the number of Acts he sponsored is almost too numerous to mention, and it is quite possible that the reduction in costs which the Minister speaks of is in a large measure due to the legislation introduced by the present Government. Sometimes I have other views to put forward, but when I rise in the House they seem to disappear.

Mr. Sweetman

Not at all.

Mr. Healy

Again I appeal to the Minister to let the people who will be interested in elections know as soon as possible the details about the new divisions. First we want to know the number of areas-there are five at the moment—and next, the manner in which those areas will be divided up, and the representation given to each area. That is my final request to the Minister.

Mr. Tunney

I would like to say a few words arising out of the statement made by the Minister, because I think it needs some clarification. At the outset I want to say that as far as the abolition of the Dublin County Council is concerned, I was one of those who went in and gave evidence on oath for two hours why they should be abolished, so that I have no regrets so far as the Dublin County Council is concerned. I think it is hardly fair to the present electors, however, to deny them a chance of electing a new council. I say so for this reason-County Dublin had no right chance to elect a proper council. In 21 years, only three local elections were held in the county, so that the council had grown stale and it was time they went out. Nevertheless, I hold that when the electorate of County Dublin are capable of electing members of the Dáil to form a Government, they should be given an opportunity to elect a county council. If the new council defaults, they can go the same as the last council went.

As regards the Dublin Union, like Senator Healy, I happen to be a member of the board of assistance, and while I agree that great credit is due to the commissioners for the work they are doing, I must say that in the four years in which I was a member of the board—not of the board that was abolished but the one before it—they did very many useful things in the improvement of that institution such as the employment of those nurses. I want to say to the present Minister— he was not the Minister then—that many good proposals put up by the board were not sanctioned by the Department of Local Government. We found that Department a stumbling block in many respects, including the employment of those nurses. I am afraid that we did not get much co-operation from the Department in our efforts to carry out reforms.

Personally, I would like to see the Dublin Union institution burned out altogether, because it should not exist, and although I am getting a bit away from the Bill, I hope to see the day when the poor and those unable to provide for themselves will be housed in better surroundings than those of the Dublin Union. Therefore, I congratulate the commissioners on going in that direction. The only other thing I would like to say is that I feel the whole system of local administration, both in the City and County of Dublin, requires careful planning. You have Balrothery Board, Rathdown Board and the Dublin Board of Assistance, which caters for portion of County Dublin, and as stated by previous speakers, you have the Dáil constituency of County Dublin over one area and members of the corporation for the same area, although it is in County Dublin. The whole matter requires cleaning up, because some of the people in County Dublin do not know who represents them at the present time. So far as I am concerned, I have no objection to the Bill in any shape or form, and neither have I any regrets for the abolished bodies, the Dublin County Council and the Dublin Commissioners.

Mr. MacEntee

Senator Hayes devoted quite a part of his speech to tilting at the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and criticised me because, in introducing this Bill, I made no reference to a certain speech which my colleague delivered, not in the Oireachtas, but in a proper place to members of an organisation to which the Minister for Industry and Commerce and I have the honour to belong, regarding the policy of that organisation towards the forthcoming local elections. He complained that I had given no indication of the Government's policy in that regard. I think I can say this in justification. Senator Hayes is as well versed in our constitutional provisions as I am, and I think it is no part of the functions of the Government of the State to have, as a Government, any definite policy in relation to the contesting of the local or other elections.

We are not a Government by virtue of the fact that we are members of a political organisation. We are a Government by virtue of the fact that we are members of the Oireachtas, and the Oireachtas as a body has no definite policy in relation to the contesting of either the municipal, or the Parliamentary elections. Neither House of the Oireachtas, at least no intelligent member of either House, expects or requires a member of the Government to come and put before the Assembly for its acceptance any specific policy in regard to these elections. All they want us to do in that connection is to assure them that so far as we have any function in the matter, the elections will be properly and fairly conducted.

Of course, Sir, we may have, as individual members of a political organisation, our own responsibility in a matter of this sort. Political organisations have a constitutional right. I think if the rights are not definitely conferred on them by the Constitution they are at least there by implication. They have the right as organisations to participate in the public life of this country. We have been endeavouring to induce some organisations to do that rather than to depend upon non-participation for the advancement of their particular point of view, and in that regard I may say we have had the very useful support of Senator Hayes. If, therefore, the governing body of the organisation to which I and my colleagues belong should decide to nominate candidates for the local elections, I am sure we shall give our candidates as loyal support as I am perfectly certain Senator Hayes will give to Fine Gael candidates if his organisation decides to nominate such at the forthcoming election. Beyond that there is nothing I can say in the matter. I do not think indeed that I am called upon to follow Senator Hayes further through the rather intricate convolutions of a speech in which he tried to associate a speech quite properly delivered by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to an appreciative audience with the provisions of this Bill.

The Senator seemed also to be concerned that I had not in this Bill asked the House to confer upon what I think he said would be a non-Party committee or a non-political committee....

Mr. Hayes

A non-Party committee.

Mr. MacEntee

To confer upon a non-Party committee the right to determine how the City of Dublin should be divided up into electoral areas for the purpose of municipal elections. If I were to do that it would be to create a completely new precedent in the matter.

Under the Local Government Act passed when the original progenitor of the Party of which Senator Hayes is so bright an ornament and such a stalwart supporter was in power, there was provision for the division of the City of Dublin into electoral areas. It is found in Section 33 of the Act. That section states:—

"As soon as may be after the passing of this Act and before the day of election the Minister shall by Order, divide the area consisting of the existing city, the added urban districts and the added rural area into five borough electoral areas which shall be the borough electoral areas in the city for the purposes of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1919."

Senator Hayes, if he had then been an active member of the Oireachtas, would, I am sure, have been the first to refute any suggestion that the Minister for Local Government in 1930 was unworthy to be entrusted with the function of dividing the City of Dublin into electoral areas for municipal purposes. I should think very little of myself if I were for a moment to admit that I was any less worthy of the responsibilities that I have to carry than he was in relation to the responsibilities he carried then.

Section 35 of the Act of 1941 likewise provides that the Minister may by Order divide any borough or urban district into two or more local electoral areas and fix the number of the members of the council of such borough or urban district to be elected for each such area. The Oireachtas four years ago conferred that power upon my immediate predecessor in relation to every local authority in this country outside the City of Dublin and I don't think I am any less worthy of trust than my predecessor was. I do not think I am any less fitted or that I am likely to discharge my duties less fairly than my predecessor did in 1941. Therefore I do not see that by any stretch of the imagination I could have found myself in the position of coming here and saying to the Oireachtas that this function, which had been discharged properly enough, efficiently enough and equitably enough by two of my predecessors was one I did not feel myself capable of undertaking. Yet that is the position which Senator Hayes wanted me to put myself in.

I only hope that the Seanad will appreciate that I am just as well able to undertake and discharge this function as General Mulcahy was when he was Minister for Local Government or as Deputy Ruttledge was when he was Minister for Local Government. I have, however, strange as it may appear, made a concession in regard to this matter, but not because I felt that if I did make the division it would not be one which would be generally acceptable to the citizens of the city, who are the people to be considered in this matter. I did it because the members of the Opposition in the Dáil tabled an amendment and I, because I felt that if my proposals were put before the House they could not be challenged from any quarter and that they would not be challenged from any quarter, accepted that amendment. That amendment forms sub-section (7) of Section 3 of the Bill.

As Senator Ryan has pointed out there are similar provisions in Section 9 and also in Section 5, but this sub-section differs from these sections in so far as it provides that the Order will be on the table only for seven days before it becomes unannullable. The reason for that has been touched upon by Senator Healy.

It is only fair that those who would be concerned as to the electoral areas, because they might be thinking of becoming candidates at the municipal elections, should have the question of their possible electoral areas put beyond doubt in the shortest possible time. If I were to provide that this Order should lie on the table for 21 sitting days, as in Section 5, that might run over a very long period. On the other hand, if I were to say that the period should be 21 consecutive days, it might happen that the Oireachtas might not be meeting during that period, and that those who might want to question or criticise the Order, or suggest its amendment, would not have an opportunity of doing so. On the other band, the period of seven sitting days gives those who are interested, from the point of view I have mentioned, an opportunity of consulting their colleagues in the city council so that arrangements could be made for a motion to be put down here which would ensure that the Order would be discussed, if they so desired. The motion could ask for its annulment or amendment and, in that way, members would have an opportunity of expressing their view and, perhaps, influencing the Minister before the Order would become final and unannullable. I think that that was a perfectly reasonable attitude to take up. I adopted it because, as I have said, I wished to be fair.

I have not, and never have had, any other intention in relation to these matters than to ensure that the electoral areas will be clearly and simply defined and will be such as to secure reasonable representation for all points of view in the municipal council. Because I have had that aim firmly in mind, I have had no objection to tabling the Order after putting my ideas as to how the city should be divided in black and white, leaving it to any member of the Dáil or of this House to put down a motion challenging the Order if he wished and asking me to justify it. I believe that I shall have no difficulty in justifying any Order I may make under Section 3 but I would not do—I hope the Seanad will take my view—as Senator Hayes suggests I should have done-come along to the Seanad and say, by implication, that I am unworthy of doing what the Oireachtas thought my predecessors were worthy of doing.

Senator Hayes said that this Bill seemed to be inconsistent inasmuch as I was proposing to enlarge the representation of the citizens of Dublin on their own city council while, at the same time, I was depriving the citizens of County Dublin of the right to elect a representative body. I am reasonably certain that if it were left to the ratepayers of County Dublin to decide whether they wanted the present administration of their county to continue or whether they wanted to revert to the old position, they would vote by a very large majority for a continuance of the present situation. That, however, is not why I decided that it was necessary to continue the commissionership for a period of 12 months and possibly for a period of two years thereafter. I did not, in introducing this Bill, use that as an argument in favour of Section 5. The reason why I think it would be very undesirable to revert to the representative body at present is that the commissioner has had an enormous task. The administration of the affairs of Dublin County Council had got into almost the same sort of chaotic condition as the administration of the affairs of Dublin Board of Assistance. There was a huge amount of arrears in respect of rates—amounting, I think, to about £175,000. The administration of roads, housing, public lighting and water supply had become so entangled in a network of intrigue and jobbery that it will take the commissioner at least another year and, probably, two more years after that, to straighten out the whole position. He has managed to deal with the rate position. Dublin County is now beginning to rise in that regard to the position which it should have held ever since the State was established. So far as the proportion of rates collected was concerned, it was one of the worst counties prior to the appointment of the commissioner. It has risen until it now holds eighth place in the list of counties in that connection. I think that it can go even higher. I think that when the present year will have elapsed, Dublin, instead of being one of the least satisfactory counties in that respect, will have become one of the most satisfactory. That is the position which, by virtue of its close proximity to the city, the high value of the land and the many advantages which it enjoys, it should occupy.

When the commissioner has reorganised its finances, as he is doing, the county council, when it is elected and starting off, will be freed from the damning inheritance which the commissioner had to take over when he was appointed. It will start off with a clean sheet and there will be no excuse whatever for the representative body not being able to give to the citizens of the county the good, clean administration to which they are entitled and which they deserve.

There are other reasons for this provision. As I indicated, the commissioner is planning a very large housing scheme which will meet the outstanding needs of the working-class people of the county for some time to come. He is planning for 1,350 dwellings, and these dwellings are to be built not in places which will suit the local magnate, but in places which will meet the needs of the people for whom they are intended. All of them will be provided with water, light and sanitation. That, I think, will be a very pleasant contrast with the position which prevailed under the old county council, which we had to abolish. Similarly, the commissioner is engaged in planning a very large programme of sewerage and waterworks and, as I mentioned, there are very large road works in contemplation and being planned. I should like to emphasise that these are all being planned. They are not being undertaken at the moment. If circumstances should change favourably during the period in which the commissioner holds office, naturally, the works will not be held up but will be proceeded with, but, in any event, before they can be proceeded with the necessary public inquiries will be made and the citizens, the ratepayers and the people of the county will have an opportunity of seeing what is proposed to be done and what developments are proposed to be undertaken within their county. I am saying that so that people will not come along and say that these schemes are being put into effect without the knowledge or consent of the ratepayers and citizens of the county. These things, no doubt, will be fully publicised in the Press, and those interested will, possibly, attend the public inquiries also. In addition to that, the commissioner has been pushing forward, in co-operation with the civic authorities in Dublin, a joint planning scheme for the City and County of Dublin, and these draft plans will be made available to the people for comment and criticism.

With their views to guide us and with the examination of the proposals in our Department, we shall eventually make a provisional plan. A draft will enable the matter to be carried forward a further stage, for we shall have a blueprint of the services we propose for the City of Dublin and the county, some of which will have to be undertaken by one authority and some by the other, and others by both authorities in co-operation with each other.

When we have gone ahead as far as that, and have got a solution of the problem presented by the administration of public assistance in the area of the board in the City of Dublin, and also in the area under the boards of public assistance dealing with the Balrothery and Rathdown districts, then, and only then, will we be in a position to determine what organs we want to administer local affairs in the City of Dublin and the surrounding county. This question of administering public assistance in the County and City of Dublin is a very big problem. There is almost £550,000 involved, and that represents a very substantial part of the expenditure of the Dublin Corporation. If that problem is not examined and if we are not able to satisfy ourselves that we can devise a system of organisation, an administrative system which will ensure that the service is carried out efficiently and properly, then I do not see how we can ever approach that larger plan for the co-ordinated administration of the city and county which some people visualise. Before we can really begin to reconstruct our plans we have to think of these things and examine every proposed solution. We hope to be able to do that before 1948. At any rate, we hope that before that we can lay at least the foundations, and plot out our schemes. Then someone will get the kudos—I, probably, shall not—of putting them into effect. There is, however, a tremendous amount of work to be done before we can tackle this problem in the City of Dublin. Before the war a lot of work could have been done, but the war diverted the attention of people responsible to problems which, naturally, appeared to be more pressing.

We are now, however, looking forward to a time when all these emergency problems will become less insistent and when we shall be able, in peaceful and more normal conditions, to plan for the city and county. This Bill is designed to enable those essential steps to be taken, steps which are an indispensable preliminary to the preparation of any composite proposals for local government of the City and County of Dublin, and for that reason I hope that the Seanad will give me the Second Reading of this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 13th March.