Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Jul 1965

Vol. 217 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Local Elections Bill, 1965: Second and Subsequent Stages.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The main purpose of the Bill is to postpone until 1966 the local elections which, under existing legislation, are due to be held this year and to extend the term of office of existing members of local authorities. I think it will be generally agreed that it is inconvenient, and in some respects undesirable, that a general election to Dáil Éireann and elections of members of local authorities should be held within the same calendar year. In particular, the substantial proportion of the members of the House who are also members of local authorities would hardly welcome such a double campaign.

We had general elections to the Dáil in 1932 and 1933 and in these years some county borough councils were elected. Apart from this, however, local elections have never been held in a year in which a general election took place. Indeed, on quite a number of previous occasions local elections were postponed because general elections were held in the years fixed by statute for local elections. This happened in 1932, 1933, 1937, 1938 and 1948.

The law relating to local elections originally provided that they should be held at intervals of three years. Over the past 43 years ten Acts have been passed by the Oireachtas postponing local elections and during that period only eight such elections have been held. The average interval between has, therefore, been slightly more than five years.

The Local Elections Act, 1953, formally altered the statutory period between elections from three years to five years. Local elections took place in 1945, 1950, 1955 and 1960. The Bill provides for the re-establishment of this pattern after the postponement now proposed and section I stipulates that local elections shall be held in 1970 and quinquennially thereafter.

The Bill will also have the effect of postponing until 1966 the elections of members for certain bodies appointed wholly or in part by local authorities and for re-establishing the quinquennial pattern of these elections as and from 1970. These bodies include health authorities, committees of agriculture, vocational education committees, harbour authorities, drainage committees, etc.

Since the Local Elections Act, 1927, local authorities have been accustomed to hold their annual or quarterly meetings in a non-election year during the period between 23rd June and 1st July. At these meetings they elect the lord mayor, mayor, chairman and vice-chairman and nominate members to serve for the ensuing year on certain committees and other public bodies. Local authorities were notified last month of my intention to submit this Bill to the Oireachtas for consideration and they were advised in the circumstances to make arrangements to hold their annual or quarterly meetings this year within the normal period. Sections 6 and 7 of the Bill propose to validate the action of the authorities in connection with the meetings.

The 1927 Act also laid down that local elections should be held within the period from 23rd June to 1st July. This was changed by the Electoral Act, 1963, which enables the Minister for Local Government to fix any day within an election year to be polling day at local elections. A corresponding degree of flexibility is being applied by sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 of this Bill to the election and term of office of certain bodies on which local authorities have a stututory right of representation. The bodies in question are vocational education and school attendance committees, the Lough Corrib Navigation Trustees and harbour authorities.

I submit the Bill for the approval of the House.

We on this side of the House are in general agreement with the proposals in the Bill. At the same time, it is no harm to say that I believe this postponement is meeting with anything but universal acceptance throughout the country. Many people are seriously concerned about the way rates have rocketed during the past four or five years. They are concerned, too, that there is such a backlog in house building and while the rates contain a large element of the expense of the health services, the health services have not in any way been improved.

Nevertheless, I think it is quite a sensible thing to postpone the elections for another year even if many people are anxious to have an opportunity to express their dissatisfaction with the way local government matters have gone during the past few years. Members of the House who are also members of local authorities have had their fill of elections for one year. Active supporters, I think, also have had enough. I have come across one public representative who takes quite a poor view of the decision to postpone the elections. Surprisingly, he is a man who has gone through general elections as an unsuccessful candidate. He feels it has always been recognised that members of local authorities were elected for fixed periods and that after such periods, the people who elected them should have an opportunity of passing judgment on them, of deciding whether or not they were doing their jobs. He feels it is something the Government and the Members of the Dáil should not be allowed to alter just at will.

I disagree with this view in the circumstances in which we find ourselves—Deputies have fought no fewer than six by-elections and a general election. It is always well, where possible, to avoid the disruption and expense of two elections in the same year. I hope that, if and when the local elections are being held next year, they will be held in conjunction with the Presidential election so that we shall not have two elections in the one year. It would be desirable to have the local elections held in the same month of the year for which they are arranged. I do not like flexibility which allows local elections to be held at any time during the year. People are entitled to know, and their knowing will not injure anybody, that elections, as an established practice, will be held in a certain month, be it May, June or any other month.

It is a good thing that provision is made to revert to quinquennial elections. Members of school attendance committees in future will be elected for five-year periods instead of three. I am surprised this has not always been so. Have I read the Bill properly when I say that the present school attendance committees will automatically remain in office until after the local elections next year?

That is so.

It is sensible, as are the general provisions of the Bill.

I was amazed to find that a simple Bill of this description, just postponing the local elections for a year, could not be drafted without reference to no fewer than six Acts of Parliament. I took a quick look at the Bill when I got it and found that to read it properly, I should have to refer to five Acts. When I got home and had another look at it, I found I was one short. Then, when I came to make a critical examination of the Bill, I found this passage in section 5:

The Minister for Transport and Power may—

(a) with respect to subsection (8) of section 7, subsection (10) of section 10, subsections (1) and (2) of section 14, subsections (1) and (2) of section 20, subsection (3) of section 31, subsection (1) of section 32 and subsection (1) of section 33 and section 27 of the Harbours Act, 1946—by regulations substitute a different day for the second Thursday in the month of October referred to in those subsections and that section.

Is it not possible to overcome that sort of thing when drafting legislation? It baffles anybody who has not got a legal training. One must wade to the bottom of the section to find that it deals with something quite simple. When making simple amendments of this kind, we should not make it necessary to refer back to so many sections and subsections of previous statutes.

I have no objection to the postponement of the elections. However, perhaps it is rather a pity the Minister did not hold the local elections this year because those of us engaged in politics find that once we have the election machine geared to a certain speed, it is easier to keep it at that speed than to try to restart it after 12 months. The Minister's experience may not be the same as mine. If it had been, he would have decided to hold the elections this year. As Deputy Clinton said, people are sick and tired of elections and will welcome this change.

I also agree with Deputy Clinton that the elections being held next year should coincide with the Presidential election. I further agree that an effort should be made to have local elections held at a fixed date each year, not at a busy time of year. If avoidable, such elections should not be held during the holiday period or during the harvest or sowing periods, when people find it awkward to go out to vote. Perhaps one of these days we shall decide to hold these elections on Sunday when more people may be able to vote.

The Minister should seriously attempt to have local elections held on a fixed date in the year they are due to take place. This may not make any difference to the exalted position of the harbour commissioners to whom Deputy Clinton referred when quoting section 5. I do not think we should be so scrupulous in referring to so many Acts and so many sections and subsections of Acts for the purpose of ensuring that these people are appointed in a proper way. There is procedure for appointing them in a far more democratic way.

As I said at the outset, we have no objection to the postponement. When the elections are finally fixed, I hope we shall be informed in good time. I suggest that at the earliest possible time the Minister should set the date for the local elections so that all will know and be enabled to make preparations. We should all endeavour through local elections to get the best possible material and we can do that only if we are given plenty of notice.

I expect that this will not be a very contentious Bill and that it will not hold up the House for as long as the Finance Bill or the Succession Bill did, but it is an important Bill because local elections are important matters. We cannot expect the ordinary people to think local elections are important if we treat them lightly and simply say as short a time as possible before an election that the election will take place or seem to push the date of elections around to suit the whims of certain individuals.

The Minister was very wise in postponing the elections because it will give us a little more time to get our message across to the people and to try to arouse them from the apathy which besets them at local election time.

In my area, where there are about 40,000 voters, in the last election there was a 20 per cent poll. The area I represent is as well organised as any in the country. How we can excite the people's enthusiasm, I do not know. A member of a local authority who does his job is the salt of political life. I would suggest to the Minister—perhaps I am out of order—that this is a very good opportunity to try out the single seat constituency. If it were done in local elections, the member elected for a much smaller area would be able to get to know all the people in the area and give them really good service.

The Bill is very short, so there is not much one can criticise or praise in it but I do think that the order should go forth from this House that any mistakes or omissions in the last register of electors should be corrected before the elections take place. We have to show the people that we are quite serious about the matter and that we do want them to vote, to return to the local council good representatives and to make them realise that if they take an interest in the work of councillors and aldermen they can do a tremendous amount of good for their own areas and the country generally.

There is one other matter that I would ask the Minister to consider, that is, that a candidate in local elections should be given free postage.

I am afraid that does not arise on this Bill. The question of free postage cannot be discussed on a Bill to postpone local elections.

All right. I agree with the Minister and I hope the public will use the next election to return good candidates and that the electorate will come out and show by the act of voting that they appreciate the unpaid work which their representatives do.

Contrary to what the two first speakers seem to think, I would be all for the local elections having been held if that had been possible and they would be over and done with now for the next five years. However, as the House is probably aware, the advent of the Cork Borough Boundary Confirmation Order Bill that was before the House became somewhat involved and it was not possible to have the elections without leaving Cork as it was and then trying to rectify the situation by bringing in special legislation to enable a special election to be held for the ensuing four years, which would have been even more onerous.

Deputy Corry will be very pleased to hear that it has had that effect.

In so far as section 5 is concerned, if I had any ways and means of putting this in a form that would appear intelligible to the ordinary layman, that is the way he would have got it, but I can only take the assurance that I am given that, due to the complications of the Harbours Act, it is necessary to have this jumble of words which, I am assured, gives us the power to do the things that we intended to do through these nominations to the harbour boards. I am sorry that is the way it has to appear but there is nothing that I could do about it.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill put through Committee and reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.
Top
Share