When the debate was adjourned yesterday, I was putting the suggestion to the Minister that he might accept the amendment or at least inform us that he was prepared to consider it carefully and deal with it later on the Report Stage. Briefly, the purpose of the amendment is to empower the elected representatives to alter the names of streets or places. Power is given under existing Acts for them to initiate proposals, but the power to change the names of streets relies on a plebiscite being taken and the regulations made under the 1946 Act provided that a majority of four-sevenths of the ratepayers in a particular street must vote in favour of the change.
In this connection, I am advised that the plebiscite is strictly limited to the ratepayers. You may have a situation in a city or urban area where, while there might be a large number of residents in the particular street willing to agree to the change, because they are not clearly designated as ratepayers it is not possible to make a change.
I think the Minister will agree, on careful consideration of the matter, that local authorities—urban councils, councils of boroughs, etc.—do not lightly wish to alter the names of streets; but I think they should be afforded an opportunity of paying tribute by calling the principal streets of the cities or towns after people who have given their lives for this country.
We have a particular case in the City of Dublin where, on more than one occasion, efforts have been made by representatives of the organisations who fought for the liberty of our country to get the name of one of our principal streets changed, without avail. For some unknown reason, the majority of the rated occupiers in that particular street were not prepared to let the tribute be paid. I refer to a street leading from oue of our main railway stations, a street leading from Amiens Street up to O'Connell Street —Talbot Street. I think it will be remembered that a man famous in the struggle for independence gave his life for our country in that street. There is a memorial to his name in the form of a plaque in that street, but the street bears the name of Talbot Street, not the name of Seán Tracy Street. This street, I understand, was named as far back as 1821. It was named Talbot Street after a gentleman who bore the names Charles Chetwynd Talbot, 3rd Earl of Talbot, Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland from 1817 to 1821. It previously bore the name of Cope Street, North. Evidently the authorities at that time had some method of changing the name. I submit that the local authority in this case, the representatives of this city, should in a reasonable way be afforded an opportunity to change the name of that particular street.
In addition, I would make the general case. In our city we can by resolution call new highways and byways after people who served this nation. We had numerous cases of narrow residential streets, consisting of 20, 30 or 40 houses, connecting with no main highways, and we have been compelled when wishing to honour the city, by calling a highway after someone who has served the nation, to put his name on a small street such as I have described. I do not think that there would be any intention on the part of local authorities in Dublin, Cork, Limerick or any town or city in the country, to enter into an immediate race to change the names of all their streets but I do think that the local authority should have this power subject to the consent of the Minister. If the proposal, in any particular instance, appears to be frivolous the Minister would be there as a protection. In addition, the amendment proposes that residents in the street would have the right of appeal because the amendment provides that where four-sevenths of the ratepayers in a street object to changing the name of the street, they may appeal to the Minister. I put it to the Minister, and I hope he will listen to our appeal in this matter, that he should not take away from the elected representatives of the people in this Bill power and authority to record, in some permanent form, their recognition of the sacrifices of those who served the nation. Certainly in this particular case I think our amendment can almost stand or fall on the plea that under the present laws, and the regulations arising from these laws, even though each and every member of the Dublin Corporation or each and every member of this House feels that it would be right and proper to rename Talbot Street, Seán Tracy Street, it cannot be done because of the fact that two, three, four or half-a-dozen ratepayers can defy the wishes of the elected representatives, not only in the corporation but even in this House unless this provision is changed.
This situation possibly exists in other cities in the country and I think it is one that should be remedied. I believe that it is proposed to restore within a very short time to public representatives on the local level some authority. At the present moment public representatives on corporations, county councils, etc., have the right to strike rates, the right to take money off the ratepayers, but they have not the right to honour people who were not only prepared to, but who actually did, sacrifice their lives for this country. Surely it is a small thing to ask the Minister to agree to this amendment. I am aware that members, both on this side of the House and the other, would possibly have much more right than I to raise this matter because they are people who were personally acquainted with the man whose name each and every member of the corporation desires to honour in this fashion. I would ask the Minister to accept the amendment and to afford us this opportunity or, if not, to bring in an amendment on similar terms himself on the Report Stage.