I move amendment No. 1:—
In sub-section (1), paragraph (a), in line 30 and in line 33, to delete the figures "1950" and substitute instead in each place the figures "1949".
In discussing this Bill yesterday, several viewpoints were put forward and I feel safe in saying that many of the Senators who spoke had a very vague idea of what is really contained in the Bill. One would assume that this Bill was the Bill to which the Minister made reference, for handing back to local authorities various powers. There is nothing contained in it but the fixing of a new date for the local elections, which the Minister suggests should be held not later than the 30th September, 1950. So far, he has not shown here or in the other House any substantial reason to convince me that any other year would not be as suitable as 1950. In the ordinary course, these elections are due to be held this month. Last night the Minister asked the House to give all sections of the Bill and informed us that, if it did not pass through the House this week, nominations for the local elections would have to take place and the elections would proceed in the ordinary course. If a case can be made —which I doubt—that it is not good to hold the local elections in a year in which there is a general election and if we agree that it would not be well to have them this year, I am not convinced that it would not be in the best interests of all concerned that they be held this time 12 months. Why are we asked to hold them in 1950? Are we to assume that in 1949 we will have a general election? We know that in 1952 we will have a Presidential election, but that has nothing to do with the present Bill except that it strengthens the argument that we should have the local elections next year.
The Minister and speakers opposed to this amendment probably will remind us that, when our Party were the Government, some short time before the general election we passed through this House a Bill making provision for the holding of the elections in 1950. I concede that and agree with it, but the events that have taken place since the general election strengthens all the more my argument. Certain events have taken place and in order that the pulse of the people might be felt in regard to those events, there is no better way, apart from a general election, than the local elections.
Senator Baxter yesterday evening spent a considerable time in attempting to lecture me and members of this Party as to what our approach should be in these matters. I stated here on the first occasion that a Minister of the new Government came before this House, that our policy would be to be helpful where we think it is in the national interest, but we are going to be critical as far as we can in order to fill the rôle in which we have been placed. Although this House when first conceived and up to recently was not regarded as Government and Opposition, quite recently that Opposition has been brought about. In place of having a really vocational Seanad, we have Parties referred to as for or against the Government. That being so, we are only fulfilling our obligations when we put forward these amendments and it is wrong for the Minister or any member of his Party to take it that, because we speak out our feelings on these matters, we are not as helpful as we should be
It has been put forward that it is essential to defer the elections until 1950 in order to give the Minister ample time to bring in a measure to hand back to local authorities the powers which they originally had. Surely the Minister is not serious in stating that it will take two years to draft a Bill to hand back to the local authorities the powers taken from them under the County Management Act? It would be only a Bill of one section.