Local Elections Bill, 1953—Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Smith)

The purpose of this Bill is to extend the normal life of local authorities from three to five years and to postpone accordingly to 1955 the local elections which, under existing law, are due to be held this year.

The Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, which established county councils provided that the whole membership of each council should be elected in every third year. By 1920 this system had been extended to borough and urban district councils and town commissioners, replacing the rotational system under which one-third of the members went out of office every year.

The system of triennial elections has not been a success. The undesirability of holding local elections at such frequent intervals has been recognised on all sides and has been demonstrated by the number of postponements since 1922. The local elections due in 1922 were postponed four times and eventually held in 1925. The elections due in 1926 were postponed to 1928. The elections due in 1931 were postponed to 1934. The elections due in 1937 were postponed three times and held finally in 1942. And the elections due in 1948 were postponed to 1950. In brief, the Oireachtas has found it necessary to postpone the so-called triennial elections no fewer than ten times since 1922.

The result is that instead of having had ten local elections since 1922, we have had six, and the average interval between them has been something over five years instead of three years.

The Local Elections Bill of 1947 proposed that the normal statutory period between local elections would correspond more closely with the real frequency of such elections, namely, every five years. That Bill went through both Houses of the Oireachtas but two amendments made in this House had not been dealt with by the Dáil before the dissolution in 1948. That Bill proposed also—and logically —to postpone the elections of local authorities from 1948 to 1950. After the change of Government in 1948 only the proposal to postpone the 1948 local elections was proceeded with. They were postponed to 1950 by the Local Elections Act, 1948.

The County Councils General Council and the Association of Municipal Authorities have asked that legislation be enacted to provide that local elections be held quinquennially. Early this year the Executive Committee of the Association of Municipal Authorities asked me to have the election of members of local authorities deferred for two years, and I have received numerous other representations to the same effect. I accepted these recommendations and this Bill is based on them.

The Bill comprises 13 sections, the majority of which are consequential on the main provisions which are contained in Section 2. Section 2 provides that an election of members of every local authority shall be held in 1955 and in every fifth year thereafter, and extends the term of office of existing members of local authorities to 1955. Local authorities are defined in Section 1 as county councils, county borough and borough corporations, urban district councils and town commissioners. The actual dates for elections to the local authorities will be fixed by the county councils and county borough councils under the provisions of the Local Elections Act, 1927, and the City Management Acts, and must lie in the period between the 23rd June and the 1st July in each local election year.

The section contains a saver for the Minister's present powers under Part IV of the Local Government Act, 1941, to fix dates for new elections in the case of local authorities whose members are removed from office.

Some local authorities in anticipation of this Bill becoming law have omitted to make any arrangements for the holding of local elections this year between the 23rd June and the 1st July, as they are required to do by existing law, and instead they have appointed dates for annual or quarterly meetings in that period. Sub-section (5) of this section was introduced by way of amendment in the Dáil to protect these authorities and their officials by making such omissions or actions lawful on the passing of this Bill.

Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 make consequential amendments in the Acts relating to school attendance committees, vocational education committees, committees of agriculture and harbour authorities, so that the years for elections or appointments to these bodies will correspond with the local election years.

Section 6 amends Section 45 of the Local Government Act, 1941. Section 45 provides that where the members of a local authority are removed from office a new election of members shall be held at such times as the Minister may fix within three years from the date of removal (except where such period ends within one year of the date on which other local elections are due to be held, in which case the new election may be held on that date). It is proposed to substitute five years for three years in Section 45.

Section 8 will extend to 1955 the current period of office of members of bodies which are required by law to be appointed by a local authority following an election of the members of such authority. It is designed to apply, for example, to boards of public assistance, joint drainage committees, and the Dublin Fever Hospital Board. It will not apply to bodies whose appointment is not connected by law with the election of local authorities, for example, bodies which are appointed annually, such as joint mental hospital committees.

Section 9 preserves from disqualification existing members of local authorities who may cease to be local government electors for the area which they represent between now and 1955. Section 10 provides for the necessary adaptation of other statutes and statutory instruments to enable them to have effect in conformity with this Bill.

Section 11 was introduced by way of an amendment in the Dáil and is intended to get over a difficulty which may arise if a local authority has stood on the letter of the law as it is. In a non-election year local authorities must fix a date between the 23rd June and 1st July for their annual or quarterly meetings—that is, the meeting at which the mayor or chairman is elected. At the moment local authorities are under no obligation to arrange for this meeting but as soon as this Bill becomes law they will be required to do so. As the time is so short it was considered desirable to provide that, where a council has not by the 23rd June fixed the date of its annual or quarterly meeting, the county secretary or the town clerk shall fix a convenient time for such meeting within the statutory period— which ends on the 1st July.

Professor Hayes

As has been pointed out, the Bill before us does two things —it extends the life of local bodies for two years, as it postpones the election for two years, and it also extends the life of future bodies from three to five years. The Minister gave a very interesting history of local elections, by which it appears that there was always a certain reluctance to hold local elections. One wonders how there ever were elections at all, since all kinds of people were reluctant to have them.

The two parts of the Bill should be separated. Before taking the decision, of which so many are in favour, of making the period of office five years, there should be an election. The argument for a five-year period would also appear to carry with it the argument that before you embark on a change of that kind you should have an election to these local bodies. The Minister also mentioned some time ago that amendments are contemplated to the County Management Acts. One would imagine we would have all these amendments together and then proceed to deal with the whole matter as one business. Certainly, before the new five-year period is put into operation there should be an election. Local bodies are of very great importance, spending a great deal of money and, as the Bill shows, they have a great many ramifications into education, agriculture and other spheres. They have been used a great deal as a school for legislators, where people who later become members of the Dáil or Seanad get a great deal of experience of estimates, committees and debate.

There is one thing about local bodies which the Second Stage of this Bill might give an occasion for stating. The Minister mentioned the British Act of 1898. That was the first British Act which gave any degree of democratic control in Irish affairs to any part of the Irish people. Until 1922 these local bodies were the only legal organism in Ireland which could give expression to Irish views. For that reason these local bodies were used for political purposes and, in my judgment, were legitimately so used, to express opinions about Home Rule and such matters. Local bodies helped in the compulsory Irish campaign in 1908 and 1909. They were used by Sinn Féin; they were in fact captured by Sinn Féin and were a very important part in the operations against the British Government from 1918 to 1921.

The situation altered radically when an Irish State came into being. It was desirable then and it would be desirable now that national politics should be kept out of local bodies. The Minister's Party disagreed with that view and persist in disagreement. They still do their best—and have brought everybody else to take the same line —to see that local bodies are elected on purely political lines. That is a very bad thing for local authorities and for the country. National politics should be kept for the Dáil and Seanad and not pushed into the affairs of local authorities. The present Government Party have always conducted these elections on rigid Party lines, they have gone in for complete Party control of these public bodies, and of course, Party control of whatever patronage they may have, either directly or indirectly, of any character whatever. That is an unwise proceeding. We would get better representatives and a better type of local body if we could avoid bringing the rigid Party line into these elections.

With regard to the managerial system, which is very important also and about which one might say a word on this particular Bill, it was begun as an experiment for Dublin and Cork but the present Government Party introduced it all over the country, for all the county councils, as well.

Mr. Smith

We did not extend it to Limerick or Waterford.

Professor Hayes

No, but to all the county councils. I think it was done very hastily and before sufficient trained personnel were available. It has worked in a rather curious manner. Administration, which is often more important than legislation, has been carried out in such a way as to make the county manager in nearly everything subject to the Custom House, subject to central control about even small matters. It has been argued—I am not highly skilled in these matters myself—that local bodies actually have legally more power than they exercise and that managers have more independence than they actually assert against the Custom House. It is undesirable that the whole of local government should be centralised and that for a comparatively small thing sanction must be obtained, by people in Galway; Roscommon or Tipperary, from the Department in Dublin. If we are not to achieve a form of local government which will leave initiative and responsibility to local people, it will be very difficult indeed for us to make a success of national politics in Dublin. For that reason, we would look forward with great interest to an amendment of the County Management Act which would be very much improved if we could come to an agreement that we would leave Party politics—using "Party" in its strictest and worst sense—out of local affairs.

With regard to the Bill itself, I am inclined to think that the Minister is entirely right in fixing a five-year period as the term of office. But before that action is taken, there should be an election, so that the people would be conscious that they were electing representatives who would stay in office for five years. On that basis, from the point of view of its postponing the election and so prolonging the period of present bodies, I think the Bill is a bad one. Otherwise I am not in disagreement with it.

Mr. Hawkins

The majority of the ratepayers and more particularly the public representatives throughout the country will be grateful to the Minister for having introduced this measure, postponing the elections for a period of two years and extending the term of office in future to five years. Already the Dáil and this House have accepted the principle of a five-year term of office.

Unconsciously, I expect, Senator Hayes made the best case that will possibly be made in this House for the Bill. He referred to the introduction of the managerial system. Since then, we have had a number of elections. Particularly, I think, during the period of the 1948 General Election, one particular political Party made it almost the chief plank of their election platform that, if returned to power, they would seek the abolition of the managerial system. A member of that Party was placed in the responsible position of Minister for Local Government. No doubt, the Bill he proposed to introduce had to be curtailed somewhat more than he would wish, but a Bill was introduced, and that Bill never became an Act because of the intervention of a general election. The previous Government also had a Bill which passed through this House and, as the Minister has pointed out, as a result of minor amendments made here, the Bill was returned to the Dáil and, in the meantime, a general election was held. Now, two Governments decided that the time had come when certain amendments were necessary in the local government administration.

That being so, I think Senator Hayes's proposal that the Minister should proceed now with the local election cannot be justified—and that, having held the local elections, whatever changes are found to be necessary could be incorporated in a Bill which should be introduced and passed, a Bill which could not be given effect to until a period of five years had elapsed. I am sure members would then argue that the persons elected to local authorities at that general election were elected under a particular set of local government regulations and that it would not be fair that a new measure in regard to local government should be introduced and foisted on those elected members. I think the same. The more responsible thing is what the Minister proposes to do—to give a term of two years in which to have this question of local government fully examined and, in that period, putting a Bill through the Dáil and Seanad and then, whatever may happen, holding the local elections.

Senator Hayes disagreed with introducing politics into local government. Sometimes Senator Hayes has a very short memory. I think that the introduction of politics into local government was a matter that was forced on the country more by the Party of which Senator Hayes is a member than by any other Party in this country.

Mr. Burke

That is not so.

Professor Hayes

Not at all.

Mr. Hawkins

A serious attempt was made in the 1934 elections——

Mr. Smith

A little bit of guilt everywhere.

Professor Hayes

We did not start life in 1934.

Mr. Hawkins

At the 1934 local elections, a very serious attempt was made by the Party with which Senator Hayes is so very closely associated to use the local elections which were being held at that time for a political purpose and, a more serious thing, to capture representation on the local bodies with a view to the stoppage of the payment of rates which, if it had succeeded, would have resulted in very serious consequences for the country.

We hear a lot of talk about politics in local government. I think that if we could encourage more people to take a keener and a better interest in politics, both local and national, we would do a great service to the country. If political Parties did not take an interest in local elections, it is very doubtful whether, in many cases, you would have the proper type of person going forward as candidate. For that reason, I think there is nothing wrong with political Parties contesting local elections. When the election is over, the Party elected to a majority, in whatever council it may be, is faced with the responsibility of carrying on the work of that council. They face up to that responsibility or otherwise the Minister, whoever he may be, will probably take very serious and drastic action to ensure that they will do so.

If national Parties, for one reason or another, decide that the matter of local elections is no further an interest of theirs, then you will have various types of people going forward for what, probably, are not the very best of motives at all times. So far as local government in this country is concerned, and particularly so far as those people who are associated with any of the larger political Parties are concerned, I think it can safely be said that they have been very clean in their administration. Therefore, I consider that the Minister has taken a very wise step in postponing the elections that are due to be held now and, in the meantime, giving careful consideration to such amendments as are found to be necessary in our local government administration and then bringing a Bill before the Dáil and the Seanad. When the time comes when a new election must be held, the persons then going forward for election will know the code of rules and regulations they will be expected to administer and the electors will also be aware of the position when they are making their choice as to the people who, in their judgment, should be elected.

Mr. Baxter

I do not think that this Bill should be introduced at this time. I do not think the Oireachtas should be invited to pass this measure which, in my view, is thoroughly undemocratic. I believe that its purpose is to save the Government from having to hold local elections at the present time. Apparently the Government are not prepared to face the consequences of such elections now.

I hold the view that, at the moment, the local authorities are thoroughly unrepresentative of the feeling of the country. I think it would be a very healthy thing if the country could be given a chance to reconstitute the local authorities. They were elected for a period of three years and their term of office has now expired. The people who elected them ought to be given an opportunity of saying whether these local authorities have effectively discharged the obligations which were put on them but, under this measure, the people will not be permitted to do so.

The argument has been advanced that certain groups have urged that this legislation should be passed. Who are the groups? Whom do they represent, in the majority? Surely, this whole matter is purely a political decision. The ministerial authorities or other people ask for an extension of the period of office of local authorities. They do not want an election now. I suggest that that is because they look on it entirely from a political angle. It is really unfortunate that that is the sort of way this country has to face up to discharging its responsibilities in local government.

I do not accept the point of view put forward by Senator Hawkins. If the Custom House and the Minister and his advisers are going to amend local government legislation—and, Heaven knows, it requires emendation and clarification at present—they should have thought about that some time ago. If this measure came along at a time when we could see proposals for the amendment of local government legislation, and could see what the new set-up was going to be, then one could ponder over that situation. I do not think there is anything whatever in the argument that the position has to be studied and that the new legislation should be introduced and tried on the old dogs before new members get a chance of functioning under it. No matter what any member on any side says, that is the real truth about why the measure is being introduced.

In a way, perhaps, it does not matter a great deal in the present set-up of local government who is there, because the fact is that members of local authorities have so little power—and I speak with some knowledge of this— that most of them do not know where they stand. There is not a thing the members of county councils can do with regard to any member of the staff. All they can do is to make the appointment of a rate collector and it is not the county council that will do that but a caucus outside the county council. That is the only power local authorities have to-day in regard to any official whom they employ. They are all merely planted on them and to a certain extent—and this is the very humiliating situation, a situation which is dreadfully bad for local government, for national government and for the morale of our people—we have reached the point at which many of the officials are the masters of the elected representatives. It is a fact that we have reached that stage and members of county councils to-day find that the things they ought to be able to do as representatives on public bodies, they have no power whatever to do. If they want information, they must go around from one official to another and they are almost afraid to speak of these matters at meetings of their councils.

I do not know what the Minister and his advisers think about this situation. It may be very desirable in certain circumstances for certain people, but a change will come and they will look on it as very undesirable then. I have the feeling about all this that local government is either going to crumble or going to be given more responsibility. Senator Hayes has said that you can have two types of people going forward for places on local authorities. You can have people going forward out of a sense of citizenship, who are prepared to serve the people to the best of their ability, who want to mete out justice to all, doing their best for the poor and for the ratepayers within their ability, and generally trying to serve as good citizens, people who will desire to see that men who have executive responsibility and who are paid out of the ratepayers' money will give decent service to the people whose money they take and spend. You can then have another type—the people who will go forward, and, in that humiliating way of which we see so much to-day, do all the kow-towing that is being done, going from one official to another in order to secure rights for the people in their districts, rights to which they are perfectly entitled and which would be secured to them if these people were manly enough to see that the officials did their duty in a responsible way.

We expect people paid by the ratepayers to discharge their obligations to the ratepayers. I do not say that the officials of our local authorities are not doing their best, but I do say that the whole set-up is wrong and faulty. We have a whole set of officials costing in some counties more than £100,000, and no member of the local body has any authority whatever with regard to the work of these people or in regard to what they are paid, and if you have not got something to say about how much a man is paid, he will not mind very much about what you say about him afterwards. It is just an impossible situation. The county manager must keep in the good graces of the Minister. If the Minister wants something done, it must be done, regardless of what the members of local authorities or the ratepayers think. There is a complete lack of understanding and harmony in our whole local government set-up at present, and a great deal of it undoubtedly is bred in this political atmosphere which unfortunately surrounds the administration of public affairs.

I can say from my own experience that the great majority of local representatives to-day, regardless of their political beliefs, want to do the right thing, and it is at times more than exasperating—it is rather tragic—to see men on local authorities having to defend something which is a political decision which they feel they must defend, something which is against reason and common sense and the best interests of the people they represent. I wish we could try to extricate ourselves from this position. It is imperative for the well-being of local government and of national government in the future that we do so. I disagree totally with the managerial set-up—I do not want to say very much about this, although I might say a great deal —and, as Senator Hayes has said, we developed this system without any effort having been made beforehand to develop the type of executive necessary to work the system. You cannot get men to pop up every day to take charge of the administration of local affairs where £800,000 to £1,000,000 is being spent. In my own small, poor county, we are spending around £800,000 to-day —in Meath the expenditure is probably over £1,000,000 — and the authority which one little man has in relation to the expenditure of that tremendous sum is rather frightening.

The whole position with regard to local government is thoroughly unsatisfactory. It is extravagant in the extreme and there is in it the sort of divided control and responsibility which is very bad for local government itself and terribly bad for the people in it who are trying to serve. I do not know that the Custom House itself is above reproach.

Mr. Smith

It must be now anyhow.

Mr. Baxter

I do not want to be critical of any of our departmental organisations. I know many of the people in them individually and I have the greatest respect for them and for their ability but had the Minister introduced—he knows a good deal about local government, a knowledge which I am not denying to him, and he has been long enough associated with it to be able to tell us what improvements he would suggest in the legislative set-up as it is—a framework for the reorganisation of local government, we would then see if there was a justification for the introduction of this Bill. I, perhaps, would have a different point of view about it but one point which puzzles me is why decisions cannot be reached earlier in local government.

In our own county, only a week ago, we had a decision with regard to an amendment of the rate which reduced the grants but which, in addition, was notified at such a time as to cost the county council hundreds of pounds in relation to altering its demand notes and making changes in the preparatory accountancy necessary for the issue of the demand notes. If you have such things happening with regard to a decision on the distribution of the rate for the current year and people cannot make up their mind about it in time, one wonders when we are going to have an amendment of the local government legislation in the country which is required so badly.

I do not say that the question of the extension of the life of local authorities to five years is a matter which is not open to discussion, but I think the approach is wrong. I feel the local elections should have been held and the Minister should have come to the Oireachtas with a comprehensive Bill amending local government legislation generally, letting us see in the amendment of that legislation, apart altogether from this question of the decision to extend the life of the county councils, what other authority he was going to give back to the local representatives that would enable them to exercise control in local affairs which they do not exercise at the present time.

I do not know whether people who have no experience of local government are appreciative of the set-up as it is at present or not, but in the old days, before we had all this effort to amend legislation, all of which, I think, has been retrograde, you had the board of health, and you had the whole health organisation and the whole health set-up debated by people who were on the board of health and were actively interested in health matters. There is a great deal of discussion in different places about public health to-day, but there is very little discussion on public health at any county council meetings. There are many people here, on both sides of the House, who have experience of the work of county councils. I never see the county medical officer of health. Since I went on the county council I have never seen, except on one occasion, the county medical officer of health, the director of medical services. I do not know what happens everywhere else. Perhaps Senator Fitzsimons could tell us if that is the case in Meath.

Mr. Fitzsimons

It is the same.

Mr. Baxter

You have a set-up where the county manager is in the position to take a decision on a technical question in regard to roads in contradiction of what he is advised to do by the county engineer. Similarly, the same county manager can take a decision with regard to a medical question, and contradict what he is advised by the county medical officer of health is the thing that ought to be done.

This situation requires study and frank discussion. The people with experience on public bodies who go to meetings month after month do their best with problems that they think they have some obligation to discuss. The position that confronts these people now is such that I do not think in the future you will be able to maintain an interest in the right sort of people to go forward for election to local authorities. In addition, it is an impossible system to try to maintain that a county manager can administer the affairs of a county almost totally on his own responsibility. It cannot be done to the satisfaction of the people of the county, and it certainly cannot be done to the satisfaction of the local authority.

If we had been able, as I say, to encourage men with training, experience and education over a long period and put them into local administration, I might believe that they could be of considerable assistance, but I would never dream of having a situation, as we have at the moment, where the county manager is everything and does everything, and the local representatives who are elected by the ratepayers can hardly determine anything except the level of the rate which they must strike, and what can they do about that? They are given a demand, and if they decide that is to be reduced to a level which is within the competence of the ratepayers to pay, and if the manager is not satisfied, he can come in and tell them at another meeting that he is not satisfied and that he is going to fix the rate himself.

No matter what others think about this Bill, I am not satisfied with it. It is thoroughly undemocratic and no matter what authorities are quoted for having postponed elections in the past, I do not think it is a justification for the introduction of this Bill now. There is only one reason for it. If the Minister had produced something else to show us what his thoughts about this were, I would perhaps have some more kindly feelings about it. As it is, it is certainly not a measure I would support.

Mr. Colgan

I would like to congratulate the Minister at the outset on the introduction of this Bill. While we have not so far had what I term the rather dishonest arguments in this House that were used in the Dáil about the Fianna Fáil Party being afraid to face the electorate, I have not been convinced by the arguments used by either Senator Hayes or Senator Baxter. In spite of these arguments, they are just as anxious to avoid elections, either local or national, as we are and I feel there is a certain amount of dishonesty in using these arguments.

I was rather intrigued by Senator Hayes's statement that we should keep politics out of local councils. I feel, and I have discovered over the years, that when Parties are not in a position to maintain a certain strength on a council, they immediately raise the cry that politics should be kept out of the councils. Provided the Party is in a position to maintain a substantial number of members on a council, possibly a majority, there is never any question of keeping politics out of the council, but as soon as the numbers diminish the cry is invariably raised that politics should be kept out. Then you have people, disguised politicians, who come in as ratepayers or something else.

I supposed from Senator Baxter's remarks that he had County Cavan in mind. I sympathise with both him and the Minister if he has painted a fairly accurate picture of the state of affairs in Cavan. He pictured a number of sycophantic county councillors who went, hat in hand, to the officials of the county council looking for any crumbs that might fall from these officials, including the manager himself. I am speaking as a member of the Dublin Corporation, and I see nothing fundamentally wrong in the working of the managerial system in Dublin. You must remember the managerial system was introduced by the old Cumann na nGaedheal Government.

I was rather intrigued when I heard Senator Hayes speaking about local government control. That control has always been there. As a matter of fact, the Dublin Corporation kicked against that control in 1924 and was suppressed for six years. We had a foretaste of what might happen when three commissioners were appointed to run the city. The managerial system was not in vogue then. That was the forerunner of the managerial system. These gentlemen were put into the city.

Professor Hayes

They ran it very competently.

Mr. Colgan

They did. They went to Germany for people to build houses and to France for people to sweep up the streets. That was done at the expense of the people. They ran the city efficiently but at the expense of the people who should have been employed in the city. That is how they ran it, and that cannot be denied. They brought Germans to build houses and Frenchmen to sweep the streets. That is the position. In spite of all the criticism, Dublin Corporation is the biggest employer of labour in Dublin. All the money that is collected is spent in the city.

The manager in Dublin has certain rights and functions. He very rarely uses them without the advice of the councillors in general. There was some difficulty in regard to markets and he set up a marketing committee to advise him. He took the advice of the marketing committee. That is the way the system is run in Dublin. We have no objection to it. He does his job well and he does not do anything without consulting the councillors and in the main we are a fairly happy family in the corporation.

I was rather intrigued when Senator Baxter said that the present councillors were not representative of the people. I want to know what authority he has for that. Why should he say these people have lost the confidence of the people who elected them? In effect, he stated that they were no longer representative. That was one of his arguments why there should be new elections to the county council. The point he made, of course, was that the manager was dependent upon the good grace of the Minister for Local Government. That applied when the Dublin Corporation fell out of grace with the Minister for Local Government in 1924 and they were promptly suppressed. You cannot have a county council or a corporation working without some control from the Custom House, if you like. Someone must have the last word.

As a member of Dublin Corporation, my experience is that we are facilitated to a very great extent by the Custom House. The Custom House is not the bogey to us which it appears to be to Senator Baxter. It is about time that this question of the five-year period was settled. The election to Dublin Corporation was every three years and if one aspired to aldermanic dignity he was elected for five years so that the period of five years is nothing new, nor is there anything sacrosanct about the three years. A period of five years is a fair period. In regard to Dublin Corporation, I have seen the extension from 1939 to 1945 of the life of the corporation. I have seen it extended from 1945 to 1950. That also was a five-year period. I heard no argument then in this House that this suggestion was undemocratic. It was accepted as a normal and natural thing. We should have a five-year period. Everybody seems to agree with that. The only argument is that there should have been an election beforehand. I think the argument is futile and cannot be sustained. I think the Minister is doing right and I congratulate him.

Mr. Tunney

I am opposed to the proposed postponement of the elections or to the extension of the period of office of the present councils. The present councils were elected for three years and at the end of that period the people should be given an opportunity of electing new representatives. I express that view very strongly.

After very careful consideration, I consider the fact of having local elections, electing councillors and paying travelling expenses to councillors to attend meetings is the greatest waste of ratepayers' money that ever took place in any country. I challenge the Senator who has just spoken to deny the truth of the following statement. There are 45 members on the corporation and there is a Lord Mayor and all of them together have not sufficient power to appoint a chairman. I cannot understand with the Management Act as it is why county councillors are elected at all. They have no power. The only power they have is that they can strike a rate as demanded and they can appoint a rate collector. Other than that they have no more power than a lot of children attending school. After a quarter of a century of experience in public life I defy contradiction of that statement.

The county manager has complete authority. I say with all due respect to whoever is responsible, it is an insult that the people in whose hands is the power of electing a Government responsible to the nation should not be given power to elect local representatives. On the other hand, a lot can be said for the managerial system. Anything I say is no reflection on the managers I come in contact with. Nevertheless, I hold that county councillors and corporators as they are to-day are only a cloak for the manager. If he did wrong he can always say that they advised him to do so. The manager should be given responsibility and he should be made manage the affairs and see how far he would go. It is a stupid idea to bring councillors 30 or 40 miles and pay them travelling expenses to listen to the manager giving orders. That is really the most ridiculous thing in the present set-up.

I am 100 per cent. in agreement with every word spoken by Senator Baxter. The whole system of local government as it is to-day is an insult to the Irish people. I would make it one way or the other. I would appoint a county manager and I would have him a county manager to manage affairs. I would not tolerate this idea of having the name of holding elections. The Lord Mayor and members get robes for themselves with the manager's consent. The thing is really stupid.

I do not very often have to disagree with Senator Hayes, but I do say that I am in favour of people being elected on a political issue. I had experience of both sides and I will say this much, that if there is any hope of getting clean, good, local administration, it is from the political Parties, because after all they are not free to do what they like and have to answer to somebody, at least to their own political Party.

I am not opposed to people being elected on political issues. I am sorry to say that when people were elected on different methods and not tied to political Parties, things were not as good as they are now. That is my point of view which I hold very strongly. I feel that the whole system as it is to-day is wrong. If the people are good enough to elect Dáil Deputies to form a Government, they should be capable enough to elect local councils to administer the affairs of the county. If the county managers are to remain with the powers that they have, in complete authority, it is absolute waste of public money to hold local elections at all.

Mr. Burke

I believe that the Minister should have allowed local elections this year and that he should have given us for those elections the proposals which he has promised us on a number of occasions.

Mr. Smith

When?

Mr. Burke

Recently. "It was his intention as soon as possible to introduce certain proposals in regard to the managerial system", said Mr. Smith, Minister for Local Government, replying in the Dáil to the debate on the Second Stage of the Local Government Bill.

I think the Minister referred to many matters of dissatisfaction with regard to that Bill when he was speaking in the country, and that he referred rather pungently in Nenagh to the costs of local government. Be that as it may, he now proposes to take an additional two years, and I would like to ask him and his Department to use those two years in trying to give us a more mature and more developed form of local government than we have at the present moment.

The public representatives are given the minimum of power. We have attained political freedom in this country, but that freedom is of little benefit when our people are not allowed to use it; and unless our young men are encouraged to go into public bodies and allowed to perform functions of some benefit to the nation, you are not going to encourage them to be responsible citizens. When they reach their manhood and their maturity they ought to be asked to co-operate in the government of the country. At present the manager is almost all-powerful and even a unanimous decision of a council cannot upset the wishes of the manager. I suggest to the Minister that when he is going to bring in these proposals a two-thirds majority or a unanimous decision of a council ought to be a sufficient safeguard for the ratepayers, and that with such a majority or unanimous decision it should be mandatory on the manager to give effect to it.

There is another matter in which we understood that the councils were all-powerful, and that was the provision of money, but recently I have been informed that the manager can direct the appointment of an official, and even if the council hold that that official is not necessary it will be mandatory on them to provide the money. That is going a step further in reducing the power that the councils were supposed to have. At one time we understood that when we came together to strike our rates we could give the manager the amount of money which we wished to strike and indicate where a reduction was to take place. Now even if we indicate that reduction, if the manager says he wants an official he can bring in an order and have the official appointed, send it to the Local Appointments Commissioners and we will have to appoint him afterwards.

Without going into detail, I would like the Minister to try in the next two years to give us a system that all the people in the country will have more respect for. I am 21 years a member of a public body, and I think that many of the Minister's Party are as dissatisfied with the County Management Act as we are. Everyone believes you must have certain safeguards, but still if local government is not going to be a sham you must have responsibility. Otherwise we will be no more than children, and that would not make for good citizenship.

I want to reply to a couple of statements that were made. One of them was made by Senator Colgan, who said that Dublin Corporation was the biggest employer of labour and that its money was well spent because it was all spent in the city. I hope he did not mean that the spending of money was in itself a virtue, because if he does I must disagree with him. There are hundreds of people in this City of Dublin, widows and others, some of them living on pensions, who would spend that money much better. That money is a tax on industry, and would allow an industry to reduce its production costs and sell its goods cheaper if it did not have to carry that additional overhead. But I presume he did not mean that. I have heard people in public life talking about the spending of money in this way, but I think it is very unsound economics.

I also wish to point out to the Minister something which he also said in the reference I quoted earlier:—

"Continuing, the Minister said that when one has regard to the enormous extension of the services it was surprising that the increase in the rates should only amount to 140 per cent. as against an increase of 216 per cent. in national taxation."

I saw recent figures taken from one of our statistical abstracts and it showed that since 1932/33 local rates have increased enormously—from £3,500,000 in 1932/33 to £15,250,000 in the present year. That is an increase of almost 500 per cent. It shows conclusively to me that the County Management Act has not been in any way effective in seeing that we get good value for the money that is spent.

In the final analysis, the people who pay the rates are the best safeguard of public expenditure. Officials tend to make a rather soft existence for themselves. I believe that the working hours of local officials in this country are probably the shortest in the world. I found out recently that one of the most powerful countries in the world that has representatives here has working hours from nine to six on five days a week and I found that some of our local authorities' officials work from ten to five, five days a week, with a half day on Saturday. These are very short working hours. Some of those officials enjoy as much as 40 days' holidays in the year. It is no wonder that we would have an increase of almost 500 per cent. in our local expenditure when that is happening and the managers have not been effective in curbing that expenditure. I think I have developed these points adequately.

As Senator Baxter said, the Minister has had years of experience as a public representative and also as Minister for Local Government. We believe that he is aware of the necessity to improve the present system. I believe he would like to give back a considerable amount of the authority which the local representatives had in the past. One of the greatest things a man can have in this life and that improves his character and makes him a good citizen, is responsibility. The County Management Act stands indicted; it removed from our young men who went into local affairs that sense of responsibility which men had in the past. For that reason, the County Management Act, in the widespread state in which it came in, in 1934, has been a dismal failure.

Mr. Fitzsimons

It has been said here that the Minister had not been asked by anyone in any responsible position to extend the lifetime of public bodies. I have been a member of the Association of Municipal Bodies for a number of years and I know that in 1951 they passed a resolution asking the Minister to introduce legislation to extend the term of office to five years. They were afraid that he was not going to give effect to that resolution, so in Fermoy last year they again requested the Minister to take immediate action, as the local elections were due in June or September of this year. I take it the Minister has so acted because of that request. Because he has acted, certain Senators have said that he should not give any effect to the terms of that resolution.

I take it the members of the association have some experience in the public life of this country. Most of them have been in public life for 30, 20, or at least ten years. The General Council of County Councils has passed a similar resolution. Wherever I went —whether they be members of the Association of Municipal Bodies or of the General Council of County Councils, they were really glad that the Minister was going to give effect to the resolution that they passed over a long number of years. The people who have responsibility in administering local affairs know very well that the period of three years is too short. Very few councillors have served for three years.

As the Minister has said, from 1925 to 1928 there was a three-year period and then you had no election from 1928 to 1934. A certain amount of progress was made during those six years. We know that from 1934 to 1942 we had no local elections. We must admit that a big lot of progress was made during those eight years. We cannot be blind to the fact that during those eight years, because of the experience gained by councillors, something like 40,000 or 50,000 houses were erected. If we had elections every three years between 1934 and 1942, would we have made such progress? I think we would not. We had elections in 1942 and that brought us up to 1945. I wonder if the Minister could give us some indication —he may have some figures—of the progress made between 1942 and 1945. After the elections in 1945 we had none until 1950. I reckon that the Minister could show that in those five years between 1945 and 1950 there was more progress than between 1942 and 1945, simply and solely because the councillors administering local affairs were getting in on the system of local government that appertains in this country.

No matter what anyone says in this House and no matter how they may get away from the Bill, I cannot see how they can do anything else, when they discuss the Bill and the Bill only, but compliment the Minister for implementing the request and the resolution of the Municipal Bodies Association and of the General Council of County Councils. He is doing that and I wish to compliment him on doing it. No matter what has been said, the members of those associations know the Minister is doing the right thing. I am certain that the people who spoke against the Bill to-day are not speaking their own minds and that if they were at home in their own councils they would say what I am saying here.

Professor Stanford

The difference of opinion on this Bill seems to turn on one matter only. It is agreed that a five-year term is desirable, and the question seems to be whether an election should be held before the Bill is implemented or not. Senator Baxter said that the Government's decision was purely a political one. Senator Colgan very rightly pointed out that we are all in politics here, and to dismiss a Bill or a decision as purely political is meaningless for a politician.

I want, with your permission, Sir, to deal for a moment with the two levels of politics that are involved in the discussion of this Bill. I studied the debates in the Dáil and I came to certain conclusions which I venture to put before the House now. It seems to me that in the debates in the Dáil and in our debate here up to the present one can discern two distinct levels of politics. One we may call statesmanship. Politics at this level thinks and works simply in terms of justice and the greatest good of the greatest number. We are all here, I am certain, except the most cynical or the most hypocritical of us, trying at least to hold this as an ideal before ourselves in all that we do. It was the ideal that stirred Pearse and O'Connell as much as it stirred Thomas Davis and Grattan. If we in our debates in the Seanad and those who are debating in the Dáil lose sight completely of this higher level of politics we shall have cause in this country to be very sad indeed. Seriously, many people in this country are, I think, beginning to feel sad about the condition of national politics. That is why I speak like this now.

That is the higher level. The question then before us at that level is: Is this Bill a just Bill or is it not?

Now, there is another level. Only a very innocent person would deny that there is another current in Irish politics, another strong undercurrent that is tending to sweep us off our feet in the Legislature of this country. This is the politics of the struggle for power.

It would be wrong simply to call it Party politics. There is always a temptation for an Independent to speak slightingly of Party politics. It would be wrong. We Independents are just as much involved in this struggle for power in our way as the Party politicians are. In this lower level, ambition, pride, anger, envy, spite, misrepresentation flourish. Some honourable men withstand the temptation and are withstanding it in our Legislature. But the constant pressure of this undercurrent is engulfing men in this House and in the other House at present, who, I feel, were never engulfed in it so deeply before. Other people feel that, too. At its best, however, this lower level can be an honourable one. It is an honourable enough thing for men, who believe that they are the best men to govern the country best, to believe that they should get power and hold power. That is honourable enough. That is what every Government is determined to do—to get in and to stay in as long as they legitimately can. We might as well be realists about that and recognise it. There is nothing dishonourable in it. We must consider the Bill before us in the terms of that realism too.

Is this Bill justifiable at the higher level? Is it reasonable? Is it not unusual at the lower level? These are the questions which I ask myself. I think the question of justice is not quite clear here; but to judge from what has been said about resolutions of the various local government conferences, it seems just enough. The real question, then, is: Is it unusual for a Government to choose the time that suits it best for passing a Bill like this? I assume, for the moment, this is the time that suits Fianna Fáil best to pass this Bill. That assumption may be wrong. But even granting that, is it unreasonable, is it unusual, for any Government to put a just Bill through when it suits it best? I think not. Every Government in its time has done exactly that and nothing else. Only a Government of saints, for saints, by saints would do anything else. Perhaps the House will consider for a moment what it would be like in the Dáil if we had a Government of saints, for saints, by saints and a similar Opposition.

Imagine the gentlemen on the right of the Chair competing in humility, deference, reverence, patience and charity, with the men on the other side of the Chair. Actually, politics would probably tend to break down under the strain but it would be a welcome change for a while. Unhappily, it is a vision unlikely to be realised. Speaking seriously, it is tragic, the contrast between our Christian professions and our national politics in this Leinster House—and people are feeling it more and more. There is a mood coming over the country on that account which I think is a dangerous mood. How can it be stopped? How can we move towards this Government of saints, for saints, by saints? I will say one thing on that point and I mean it. It will not come by Oppositions demanding generosity, demanding charity, from the other side. Saintliness or even godliness or generosity never comes by demands. It will only come when either the Opposition or the Government, spontaneously and deliberately, act generously, magnanimously and charitably. I want to insist on that. I am utterly tired of reading in the debates of the other House demands from the Opposition for generosity from the Government, demands from the Government for generosity from the Opposition—but never the suggestion: we will deliberately give you this example of magnanimity or generosity; will you follow us? Our national politics will have to do something like that. There will have to be a giving of example, not a demanding in this matter. May I simply quote one example——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Dealing with the Bill?

Professor Stanford

Dealing with the Bill and keeping very closely to the spirit of the debate. During the war a submarine went down off the coast of America. A very difficult diving operation was necessary to recover the bodies of the dead and some valuable instruments in the submarine. It involved an extremely perilous diving operation. The captain of a certain ship was asked to choose some of his men to perform that difficult diving operation and he was given a week or so to decide. It was clear that there was a fifty-fifty chance of death or life for these men—about half and half. After a week, the captain decided that he would go down himself first—and he went down. That is what some of our politicians have to do. They will have to take that fifty-fifty chance of going out of office through generosity or magnanimity or sooner or later the country will face utter despair or frustration.

To sum up, and to return more closely to the Bill, I say that this Bill at the higher level is just. We all agree to that. I say that at the lower level it is simply what every Government has done in the past and will do in the future unless an unusual magnanimity so badly needed comes into our politics. It would be more generous on the Government's part to grant an election first. I would insist on that: it would be more generous. But we cannot demand generosity, and I simply say we will have to leave it. We have to hope that this Government or the next Government, whatever it may be, will set that necessary example. Otherwise the state of national and local politics will become—I suggest with all deference—almost desperate.

On the whole then, I would support the Minister's Bill as a gesture of confidence that in future either his Government or some other Government will take that lead in magnanimity which is so badly needed in this country.

Mr. Douglas

It would be very tempting to follow the last speaker, but I am not going to take the risk of having an argument with the Chair. I may, however, be allowed to mention that the Opposition in this case agreed to take all the stages of this Bill to-day —so it may be that things are not quite as bad in Irish politics as Senator Stanford thinks. I cannot follow him on the higher and lower levels, nor do I agree that it is usual for Governments to take Party advantage in relation to local elections; but it seems to me that, so far as this Bill is concerned, Senator Hayes was right when he said there were really two issues involved. One deals with the immediate present and the other with the future.

So far as I am personally concerned, I think the principle of making long extensions of the period of office of persons in local government or national government is bad, and generally theorists on democratic principle have taught and emphasised that it is highly undesirable, where a set of persons are elected to a public body for a period of time, that period should be extended, except in case of an emergency.

If my memory serves me aright, that principle is clearly accepted in our Constitution which provides that the Dáil cannot extend its own life, except for a short period—I think, for one year—in case of an emergency. In so far as there is a clear principle, it is, I think, that elections should not be postponed, unless there is an extremely good reason, and, where there is an extremely good reason, it should be for as short a period as possible.

I completely disagree with Senator Fitzsimons in his contention that the people who should be consulted and whose opinion is most important in relation to a matter of this kind are the people already elected and who would have to stand for election again. They are exactly the people who should have no say in the matter. If we are accepting responsibility here, we should not be interested in the fact that most members of local bodies—I think it applies to all, irrespective of Party—have no particular desire for an election this year, or next year, or possibly in 1955, if you want to know the truth. I think, therefore, that it is a bad principle. I do not attach the same importance to it in the case of local elections as I would in the case of the Dáil, but the principle is bad, and I think we should register our opinion that it is bad.

So far as the term of office is concerned—I am now speaking for myself and giving my own opinion—I am strongly in favour of a long term of office for members of a local body. We have to remember that their services are voluntary, and that, if they are to give good service, they must have a certain amount of experience, and I do not think that it makes for good government to have too frequent elections, in so far as the individual is concerned. Therefore, I am in favour of a five-year, or possibly a six-year period—I think I would prefer six years—for members of local bodies, but the drawback in that is that it does not give any adequate chance for the ratepayers or electors to express their opinion on matters of considerable importance which might arise in relation to local affairs. It would be a far better system if, say, in the case of Dublin, the various wards or constituencies which elect members to Dublin Corporation were divided into three and if every two years one-third of these constituencies elected a member. That would give every member of the corporation a period of six years and would provide for some measure of expression of opinion by the public and would not give any particular area too many elections. Whereas it is not the system we had before, it is something well worth considering because it would serve the two purposes of providing for a long enough term for a member to gain experience and responsibility and providing an opportunity of an expression of opinion by the electorate.

It would appear—and, no doubt, Senator Stanford is convinced—that the position at the moment is that one of the large Parties wants an election and the other does not, but I suggest that that really has nothing whatever to do with the Bill. No matter what they want, they should not be entitled to it, unless it is just and wise and proper, and I suggest that it would have been better and wiser for the Government to have allowed the elections to be held and, at the same time, to have introduced a Bill providing for a longer period. One of the drawbacks of the Bill is that it is brought in rather hastily and is obviously piecemeal. We have to deal with it in a hurry because the elections are due and I do not think that it has had, as a matter of principle, the consideration it should have had. It would have been very much better to have held the elections or to have postponed them for three or four months, if it was inconvenient to hold them immediately, and to have let a measure of this kind dealing with the future be debated at length in an effort to find the best possible system.

Senator Hayes expressed the view that it was a pity we had Party politics in local elections. So far as I can recollect, in 1922, at the time of the first Constitution, there was a very strong desire expressed on the part of a number of people that we should try to cut ourselves away from what was more or less the practice in Britain and that it should be possible to have local bodies who were concerned only with local politics. Be that as it may, we have to face the fact—I do not much care who is to blame; I think all sides are a little to blame— that it would be extremely difficult suddenly, except by a very general conviction on the part of all Parties, to get rid of members who owe allegiance to Party politics. I do not at all agree with Senator Tunney that the great virtue of that is that the people cannot act according to their own convictions. That, I would say, is one of the drawbacks, if it be true. I do not share his views in that regard at all, nor do I share the views of Senator Colgan who has some objection to persons whom he calls politicians disguised as ratepayers. I want to suggest to him that a politician may be a ratepayer. I happen to be one myself.

Mr. S.T. Ruane

So far as the principle of this Bill, extending the life of local bodies from three years to five years, is concerned, I am in full agreement with it. I am in agreement with it, because, from an experience gained over a quarter of a century, I have come to the conclusion that in many cases—there are exceptions, of course —new members of local bodies are only beginning to become familiar with procedure and able to take a useful and constructive part in the various discussions by the time the council has reached the end of its term of office. For that reason, I approve the principle of extending the life of councils from three to five years, but I do not approve of the intention of extending the life of the present councils for many reasons. I know that in the past, extensions similar to that now proposed have been given, but I submit that conditions are not now similar to the conditions which existed in the past.

Certain matters of legislation are going through the Parliament at present in which the electors are taking a very deep interest, and I am quite satisfied that they would like to have an opportunity of interrogating or sounding prospective candidates for election to the new councils as to what their views are on this contentious legislation at present going through the Houses of Parliament.

In regard to the statements which have been made about the attenuated powers of local bodies, I do agree that if the local bodies had more power, they might attract people of greater administrative ability than they do at present. At the same time they have power at least to register a protest. No matter how people on local bodies may be divided politically, there are issues where you can almost have unanimity amongst them. Eventually an impression could be made on the Government by such agreement to bring in changes which would give an extension of power to local bodies.

I feel that at certain meetings, especially the estimates meeting, from the very large amount of correspondence that is put before the council members, they would need almost the qualifications of a counsel to discuss these in a manner that would bring about desirable improvement. There was a time in the past—and I do not know who brought about the change— when a publication known as the Quarterly Statement Book used to be brought out by the different councils. That was a very informative publication and it gave to the various members of the council an idea as to activity and expenditure and the responsibilities of the various officials. Since that book ceased publication—I do not know whether it was as a result of an Order from the Government or a managerial order—councillors have been left with far less information as to the working of the different officials concerned, and therefore, unable to comment on the work performed.

As I said at the outset, a term of five years is short enough for any local body but I would like an election to take place through which the electors would know they were electing a council that would last for five years. The present members of county councils are people who went before the electorate giving them to understand that at the end of three years they would be able to render an account of their stewardship. They ought to get an opportunity of doing that. For that reason I do not agree with the suggestion of extending the life of the present councils before an election is held. Therefore, I do not approve of this Bill.

Mr. McGee

I think I was a guilty party in supporting a resolution on a particular occasion asking for this Bill. However, listening to some of my colleagues, I begin to think we were taking part in some disreputable action, coming in here to ask the Government to implement a Bill to keep county councillors in the job they are in for a further period. I would not be at all surprised if some of us would desire that legislation were introduced that would keep us in office for 25 years more.

I do not think the position is healthy in regard to local government and I think it springs from the fact that public bodies have suffered at the hands of the Department of Local Government over a number of years. I would be delighted if I could say it was all Fianna Fáil work, but my conscience is worrying me and I think Fine Gael sometimes showed its disrespect for public bodies. The general idea is to kick them about anyway at all; they will come up again because they have a good job and are very fond of it. The Department of Local Government is failing in its responsibility and has not shown the respect it ought to show to public bodies practically since the State was founded. Nobody can do anything right except the Minister.

Mr. Smith

Hear, hear!

Mr. McGee

I want to make it perfectly clear I am not limiting my remarks to the last five or ten years. It is quite a common thing to hear an official saying: "The Minister says". Public bodies should be allowed to do their job irrespective of what the Minister says. I think the Minister should wait until he is asked to say anything. If the Minister is going to keep the county councils going just as they are it would be a good idea to put them to the public every couple of years and it might enable us to dispense with some of those managers we also have who are the ruination of the country. Because of the system which is operated, the rates in every county are much higher than they ought to be. I am very pleased to say that sometimes able people are appointed. A great deal needs to be done in many matters connected with local administration. We must build many more houses and there are other needs calling for attention.

Greater freedom should be given to the members of local bodies. There is no necessity for a policeman at every meeting of a county council and that is really what some of them amount to.

The more I dwell on this Bill the more I am inclined to think that it is a terrible intrusion. It would be just the same as if the members of the Dáil brought in a Bill to have their term of office extended or if we in the Seanad brought in similar legislation. The system which operates in the Ireland of to-day, would not be tolerated 30 years ago. It does no credit to either of the political Parties. I wonder what would our President, Mr. Seán T. O'Ceallaigh, or Mr. W. T. Cosgrave think of the present set-up if they were in political life? They are men who were in public life with me 40 years ago and neither of them would ever dream of such a situation.

Again, let me say that county councillors should receive more respect from different Departments. In this regard I am not speaking about any Minister in particular. I must say that whenever I asked any Minister to look into any matter or to grant a reasonable request, immediate attention was always afforded or a very good reason given if a request could not be acceded to.

I deplore this idea of saying: "Give me another two years of office and I will be a good boy and do the right thing." This Bill should be let run its course and the elections that were to have been held should be held. I do not think they should be side-tracked because one political Party or another would be beaten. I do not blame the Fianna Fáil Party or the Fine Gael Party. There are plenty of independent men in the country who would go forward for election whether they are ratepayers, farmers or labourers. The people would be keen to see that the right men got in and that the job hunters were sent about their business.

Mr. Smith

Certainly this discussion has covered a very wide field. I thought this was a very simple measure but discussion upon it has covered every phase of local government. I admire the members of this House because of their capacity to cover the course in the very same sort of way as it was covered in the other House. Those who offered criticism of these proposals said their little pieces nicely. They came very near to agreeing with the Bill. It was the same in the other House. A five-year term was a reasonable term. In other words, what they said in this House on the matter and what they said in the other House was: "Well, now, this has happened ten times before in the last 30 years. Ten times before the election was extended from three to five years". They want to say now that every Minister who was responsible for bringing in a Bill to extend the period from three to five years was wrong and should not have done it and that they would have expected better from me in that I should not follow the bad example of my predecessors. That is a bit of a tribute to myself and I suppose I have to be thankful for it. Really, I would never think of expecting a gesture such as that. Senator McGee in his innocence—he is an innocent man, of course—suggested that since this Bill had dragged on so long on this particular occasion we should let things rest. It dragged on in the very same way in 1948.

In 1948, Senator Hayes proposed a special resolution which called upon the President, who was at one time the occupant of the office which I have the honour to occupy now, to sign a Bill to do the very same thing in 1948 that I am doing now. In as plausible a way as I can, I ask the Seanad to go through in 1953 the same performance so that the instrument we are trying to mould will be available to achieve the purpose for which it was forged.

I did not use the occasion of the introduction of this proposal to proclaim to the House that I was doing so in order to introduce other legislation. A Bill was promised in 1948. I think that on every one of the ten previous occasions when this law was amended a reason such as that given in 1948 was given, that some Bill dealing with local government matters was on the stocks and would be introduced. I said in the other House that I did not want to do that. I have always believed in the idea of a five-year period for local government bodies.

I came into the Dáil and said that the local government bodies had asked me for this—the representatives of the Municipal Authorities Association and the members of the General Council of County Councils. Senator McGee can regard the request made by these bodies as a mean, contemptible sort of a request inasmuch as they were asking for something which would extend their own political or representative lives. You may attribute any motives you like to them, but I am not going to quarrel with you.

As far as the provision of this simple measure is concerned, I agree that the life of a local body should be five years at least. I always believed that. When the then Minister for Local Government introduced a Bill which passed through all stages, with the exception of the presentation of its Final Stage in the Dáil after it had been amended in this House twice, I was one of those who induced them to include in that Bill a provision that the life of the local bodies would be five years.

Without going into any argument or performing the political tricks that were performed here and in the other House, I say I am standing over this question of extending the life of local bodies, the ones now in existence and the ones that will be elected for the years to come, to five years. Not only am I relying upon the requests that have been made to me by the bodies cited, but I know full well that in doing what I am doing I am meeting what is the common request as far as the people in the country are concerned.

I said before, and I will say it again, because I think this is what the ordinary man and woman in the country believes, elections are necessary. Elections are important and should be taken seriously. The people should participate in elections, whether national or local, but you can overdo elections, and it is not a good thing to have elections every other day. It is not necessary for the preservation of democracy.

Members of this House will remember that when the Management Act was extended to Cork City in 1929 provision was made that one-third of the members of the council went out each year and were replaced each year. That was thought to be a safeguard. The people who provided that system of election thought that that was a suitable and useful innovation. It was found a few years afterwards that it was unworkable because the people were tired of elections every year. I do not want to go into that, and I do not want to adopt a sort of parrot-like approach to this measure by saying that this principle is right, but it is not right now, or that it was right in 1948, but it is not right in 1952 or that it was all right in 1924 or in 1926, and so on.

I must say that that form of approach and that type of argument, in my view, will get us nowhere. I stand over this proposal, I believe in it, and it is supported by members of local bodies who are not a bit afraid of the electorate, because those sponsoring this measure have gone before the electorate on quite a number of occasions and, strange to say, many of them have been far more successful than some of those who would have you believe it is cowardice on our part to introduce these proposals now.

I have been told that if I had introduced some more comprehensive proposals in so far as local government matters are concerned it might have had a better reception, and I suppose that had to do with the attitude of those who spoke along those lines to the managerial system. In this approach, too, I think that public men and especially members of the local bodies are not doing themselves justice in always whining about this managerial system. You have heard some of the history of it, and if I repeat it, it is not because I want just to push over the introduction of the principle on some political Party that is in opposition to me over the years, but in order to show that Cumann na nGaedheal introduced the management system in Cork and Dublin and we extended it.

Senator McGee was in error when he said that the President, who was then Minister for Local Government and who had a long association with local bodies, was not in any way responsible for the introduction of this principle. As a matter of fact, I am sure that the President was Minister for Local Government when the managerial system was extended——

Mr. McGee

The County Management Act, I said.

Mr. Smith

It is the same thing.

Mr. McGee

It is a very different thing.

Mr. Smith

When the managerial system was extended from Cork and Dublin to Limerick, the President was then Minister for Local Government. I say it was introduced by Cumann na nGaedheal, extended by us, and at a later period extended to the whole countryside. At the time of its extension to the countryside I was a member of a local body, and there are members of my own Party who will be well able to recall what my attitude towards extension of the system was at the time. I had no enthusiasm in the world for it. At the same time I did not see how local government could be carried on unless some improvement was effected in the method of local administration.

I saw from my own experience that local services were extending at the time. The boards of health were responsible for the public health services. I saw that the expenditure of vast sums of money on public health schemes of all kinds, water, sewerage, building of labourers' cottages and so on, was in the hands of ten men, unpaid, who had to look after their own business, busy men who had to meet sometimes once a week to make decisions on very important matters. You know what some of those ten men would face. You know that you find in local bodies some who will give their services in a whole-hearted way and some in a very partial way. Some will attend meetings, sign the book and disappear. Some will attend meetings and sit until the meeting is concluded, until all the business is done.

As a member of one of those local bodies I found myself with a few others—sometimes with two, sometimes with less than a quorum—working into the late hours of the night making decisions upon questions affecting the ratepayers and taxpayers to the extent of thousands of pounds. Much and all as I would be hesitant when a question arose of relieving the local representatives of their powers and responsibilities, one would have to ask the question: "Can this thing continue having regard to the way in which these services are expanding?".

When I hear men who are members of this House and of the Dáil and of local bodies talking about the managerial system as if it has been clamped down on them by some set of men who are wedded to it, they are not doing themselves the simplest justice. I am asked here by Senator McGee to disregard entirely the advice tendered to me by the municipal bodies and the General Council of County Councils when they passed resolutions dealing with the extension of their own political life in a representative way. But when those bodies pass a resolution demanding an extension of their powers, which affects them just as intimately as the other, then according to Senator McGee I am to flout the expression of opinion in the one case and to follow it in the other.

This proposal represents the solid thought of the people of the country. If one were to sit and listen here to the arguments advanced and to regard those arguments as in any way helpful to any person seriously wishing to make a contribution to giving local bodies and their members all the power and dignity and responsibility they should have, consistent with their capacity, having regard to all the other circumstances to discharge that responsibility, one would be very disappointed, because you have that conflict of thought; and so much of it is based upon political reasoning and the desire to effect a score.

Mr. McGee

You are opening the way for a resolution.

Mr. Smith

I am not opening the way to some place where I would like to open the way. It is very hard to penetrate mass concrete.

Mr. McGee

Maybe in Dublin.

Mr. Smith

Yes. If I did mention in the course of the discussion in the other House the fact that it was my intention to introduce proposals to amend the Management Acts it was not with the intention or desire of cajoling the House into believing that it was for that reason I was asking for extension of the life of the councils. These proposals will come to the House, and my challenge now to the members of local bodies who are members of this Seanad or outside it is this: The Management Acts are there, with the division of function as between the manager and the local bodies set out—the reserved functions and the managerial functions. Would it not be a far more constructive thing if on some other more suitable occasion members of this House such as Senator McGee, who has been for many years the chairman of his own county council, and the councils themselves, would sit down some day and examine the Acts and point out what particular managerial functions they would have transferred by an amendment to be reserved functions? That would be something that would help the Minister to get ultimately a division as between the executive authority and the representative body.

Mr. McGee

Where did you get the division you have?

Mr. Smith

They were got in stages. They were designed by men who knew that perhaps they could be improved.

Mr. McGee

They were handed down by your predecessor.

Mr. Smith

Surely, Senator McGee is aware of what happened in 1929 in the case of Cork when there was provision for an election every year and after three or four or five years that was amended. It is only as a result of experience that an amendment is put into effect. There may be a number of things about which Senator McGee and myself might be in doubt, and it is only by trial that the doubt will be resolved. Those who introduced the managerial system first knew that, in the form in which it was introduced, it would have to be amended. It has been amended since, and the chances are that it will be amended now. In fact, I have decided on that, but only in a limited way.

If there is any body of public opinion or any group of public representatives who, instead of belittling themselves and their responsibility in this House on other occasions, will settle themselves down to what the law is now and show the House the way in which they think that law should be amended and bring in the amendments to effect that, they will be making a far more useful contribution than by simply whining here and in other places about these things "that are designed by political Parties" and so on. Political Parties have not only to face local bodies and meet their criticism but they have also to think in terms of the ordinary elector. The ordinary elector, when the managerial system was extended to the country, thought more enthusiastically about it than those of us who had more experience about its working in the city areas and of the disappointments that that change would bring when extended to the country.

Mr. McGee

Let them operate now and see what they would say.

Mr. Smith

Let the Senator operate, let his mind operate and suggest ways in which the law as it stands should be amended and we will see whether we can make any progress or not. This discussion has covered a very wide field. I have not even attempted to deal with all the points that have been raised and indeed I need not deal with any points, I suppose, other than those that were made against what is proposed in this measure. I have repeatedly stated my own attitude to what is proposed here. I am prepared to admit that, when a proposal of this nature is introduced, people will naturally attempt to make political capital and say: "You are afraid to face the electorate, the Government does not think this is a suitable occasion", and all that, but that does not matter. Sensible people will regard this as a sensible approach and will be entirely in favour of it.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take the remaining stages to-day.

Bill passed through Committee without amendment, reported, received for final consideration, and passed.

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 17 Jun 1953

Local Elections Bill, 1953—Second and Subsequent Stages.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 17 Jun 1953