Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Feb 1967

Vol. 226 No. 8

Private Members' Business. - Local Government (Dublin) Bill, 1967: Second Stage (Resumed) and Subsequent Stages.

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

Mr. Ryan

As I said before the debate was adjourned, we in Fine Gael are in favour of having a rearrangement of the electoral areas for the Dublin Corporation in Dublin if the purpose of the rearrangement is to bring about a situation in which there is equality in the number of electors in the various electoral areas. We do, however, have a certain amount of fear regarding the blank powers which the Minister is seeking. We do not think it is any defence to say that the Minister already has immense, uncurtailed powers in relation to fixing electoral areas in other parts of the country, particularly in the boroughs of Cork, Limerick and Waterford. We think the kind of legislation which the bureaucrat is anxious to get from this House is something that this House should be reluctant to give, that is, legislation which gives Ministers complete power to arrange things to their own satisfaction, because a situation invariably arises then that this House is, in fact, not making the law; all this House is doing is permitting other people to make the law.

We do not think it is any adequate safeguard to provide, as the Minister is providing, that any Orders which he makes under this Bill must be laid on the Table of the House so that they may be rescinded, if this House so decides, within seven Dáil days of the Orders being put on the Table.

I am not making any specific allegation as to what the present Minister or the present Government may do when I say that it is wrong to give a power of that kind to a Minister because the Minister of the day could well gerrymander the electoral areas to his own Party advantage and there would be no prospect of upsetting the gerrymandering arrangement as long as the Minister had a majority in the House and, clearly, he would not be Minister unless he had a majority in the House. Therefore, there is absolutely no protection whatever against gerrymandering in the powers the Minister already has in relation to some boroughs and is now seeking in relation to Dublin. We think that is wrong.

The Constitution has a safeguard in relation to this because in the Constitution it is specifically set out that there must be an equality in the ratio between population and Deputies and that this must as far as practicable— and that is the phrase used in the Constitution—apply. Some years ago we were told in this House that it was not practicable to have an equality in the ratio between Deputies and electors and as a result, it required only two-thirds the number of votes in the west of Ireland to elect a Deputy as it took along the eastern seaboard. The people who decided that here in the first instance were the Dáil and because the Government of the day had a majority, they were able to force through the Electoral Act of 1959 which had a gross inequality of electors or of population to Deputies. It required to be challenged in the courts and it was challenged in the courts, and the courts held that this Oireachtas had not arranged the constituencies in such a way as to secure as far as practicable an equality between the population and the Deputies.

It is desirable that that protection should be there because not only must we have a scheme which respects the principle of one man, one vote but we must also have a system which ensures that it is one man, one vote and to every man an equal vote and that when the people of Dublin are going to elect their councillors to represent them on Dublin Corporation, every person ought to go in the knowledge that his vote has exactly the same influence, has the same power and the same effect as the vote of anybody else. That cannot be done unless we respect the equality which ought to exist between the number of electors in the various electoral areas.

On figures which I got in reply to Dáil Question No. 24 today, we discover that the number of electors for the Dublin Corporation on the current 1966-67 register is 321, 363. This, divided between the nine electoral areas which we have at the present time, would give an average of 35,707 per area. We find that under the present system which the Minister is quite rightly seeking to amend because we have inequality, we have three constituencies where the number of electors far exceeds that figure and we have six constituencies in which the number of electors is under that figure. One of them, I suppose, can be regarded as being fair and as near as practicable to what should be the average, that is, the No. 3 area, which has 35,117, only 500 under the average of 35,707. The No. 1 area, to which the Minister makes reference in his explanatory memorandum, has 21,200 over the average of 35,707 which ought to apply. In the No. 5 area, which covers Ballyfermot and Drimnagh, there are 4,300 over the average and in the No. 7 area, which covers Crumlin, Kimmage, Rathfarnham and churchtown, there are 9,500 over the average.

The effect of that is that these people are to some extent disfranchised. They have less political power. They have less say in determining the complexion of Dublin Corporation than have people in any electoral area where the number of electors is less than what ought to be the average.

Again taking the constituencies which have fewer than what ought to be the average, you have at the top, again the area to which the Minister makes reference in his explanatory memorandum, the No. 9 area, which is primarily the South City area and also taking in part of the centre of the city just north of the Liffey. We find that they have 20,306 under the average of 35,000 and other areas, the No. 2 area, 5,200 under the average; No. 4 area, 3,300; No. 6 area, 2,900; No. 8 area, 3,700 under the average of what ought to apply.

This has clearly created a situation in which there is no equality of electoral power in Dublin and, therefore, we welcome a change of heart on the part of the Minister but we do say that this is the wrong time to bring in this reform. Again and again, the Minister—not this Minister but his predecessors, his colleagues in the present Government—were asked by ourselves on the Fine Gael side of the House to take the steps necessary to bring about an equality of electoral strength. We regret that this was not done long ago. However, it is now about to be done but we have not yet got from the Minister, and we think it is the least we should have got in his opening statement, any indication as to when he proposes to make the amending orders. We are now, according to the information we got from the Minister last week, scarcely four months away from the next local elections which will be held in June and even with the best of goodwill and speed in this House and in the Seanad, this Bill will not become an Act for some time and after that the Minister will have to make the necessary orders. It is treating the electorate with very scant consideration and treating would-be councillors with no consideration to be bringing in a measure of this kind right on the eve of an election. The time to bring in amending legislation of this kind was after the 1960 local elections and certainly long before the period at which the outgoing council ought to have terminated, and that was away back in 1960.

Mr. Boland

The Deputy would not like them postponed again?

Mr. Ryan

No. I would prefer to see the amendment brought into operation as soon as possible, but it is only proper that we should protest that it was not done sooner and that we should protest that it should be done right on the eve of the elections.

We think it is rather ironic, too, that the existing City Council were not consulted about the matter. Indeed I made inquiries in the City Hall this week and it seems that there has been no notification whatever from the Department of Local Government to those responsible for the compilation of the register about the new electoral boundaries. That is a very casual way to treat the people responsible for the compilation and the making up of the register.

It is rather ironic that the City Council are consulted sometimes at great length in relation to matters over which they have no control and they are not consulted in a matter of this kind over which, admittedly, they have no control but of which they have considerable knowledge. Take, for instance, the long debate in relation to the Minister's demand that rents be increased. The City Council have no power whatever in relation to that matter and one wonders why they were consulted at all. The explanation is probably that by having these consultations and by having discussion on it amongst the councillors, an effort was made to create a facade of democracy; the impression was created, and deliberately created, that the council had some say in the determination of rents.

As I say, there was no legal necessity for consulting them. There was no practical benefit which could flow from consulting them, because the Minister and the Manager are a law unto themselves in this regard. The exercise was indulged in to create a facade of democracy and to try to put the blame on people who are completely innocent. However, here where one could reasonably have expected the Department of Local Government to consult the council, no effort whatever was made to consult them. Even members of the Minister's party were quite surprised to receive information recently that this change was to be brought into operation.

I share with others who have spoken here today regarding the office of alderman the feeling that it is an anachronism. As far as I know—if I am wrong, I should like the Minister to correct me—an alderman has no power that a councillor has not got. They have exactly equal powers. In Belfast, the title of alderman is conferred on the senior member in an electoral area, that is to say, the member who has been longest serving on the council, but that does not apply here. Here an alderman is a person who has been at the top of the poll, the first elected. Why we should bother to continue this anachronism into the second half of the twentieth century, I do not know. It reminds me of the two systems of legal punishment which still exist, although in practice there is absolutely no difference between them. One is a system of ordinary imprisonment and the other, a system of penal servitude. People have the idea that penal servitude is a system of punishment which imposes much greater pain and suffering than what can be imposed through ordinary imprisonment. In practice, there is no difference between them. Likewise in relation to office, powers and privileges, there is no distinction between an alderman and a councillor except that one gets the title of alderman and is entitled to wear a piece of gold braid at the end of the municipal garment.

I should also like the Minister to explain another piece of anachronistic legal verbiage. When deeds are sealed, they are reported to be sealed in the name of the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the City of Dublin. The poor councillor as such gets no mention at all.

Mr. Boland

I always thought they were the burgesses.

Mr. Ryan

The burgesses are the ratepayers, the people who pay the money, but they are not, under our system of local government, the people who call the tune. All councillors are burgesses to that extent, but they are left out of this beautiful recital that is made in the name of the Lord Mayor——

Mr. Boland

They forget "the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor."

Mr. Ryan

Perhaps it does appear in the title. However, I am sure all our Lord Mayors have been "right honourable" and Ministers would not query their right to be so described. I should like the Minister to explain more about the power he is seeking in the Bill to determine the number of aldermen. At the moment we have nine because we have nine electoral areas, but as I understand the law— I hope the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—there is no restriction on the number of electoral areas which may appear, short of the necessity to have not fewer than five. Once he has five areas, he can have any number of other areas. I am not sure whether he is under an obligation to apply proportional representation which would require a minimum of three seats, but he probably is. Am I right in thinking the Minister would be free, if he wished, to have 15 areas with three councillors apiece or he could break it up any way he wished, so long as the total amounted to 45?

I would hope the Minister would agree to an amendment which would indicate that Oireachtas Éireann wanted the equality of voters to be preserved and wanted him to have regard in the preparation of electoral areas to the principle that there should be not only one man, one vote but equality of voting power as well. I expect that is the Minister's intention, but that is not good enough. If the Minister wants to do otherwise, if he wants to gerrymander, he can do it under the Bill which he is asking this House to approve.

I would earnestly ask the Members of the Dáil and particularly those on the City Council, not to give any Minister this power, which is undesirable. This House should ensure that the rights of individuals are protected and the only way in which we can do that is to ensure that no legislation goes out from this House which gives the Minister freedom to do as he wishes. It is much better to say: "You may do as you wish as long as you respect the rights of individuals who should have an equal say in local government". What we are doing here is saying: "You can arrange it anyway you like and as long as you have a majority in the Dáil, then the Government can put it through". That is not democracy. If the people of Limerick, Cork and Waterford have done it, there is no reason why the Dublin jackeens should do the same.

We ought to insist that the people of Dublin should have their rights preserved. It is only by doing that we will prevent the situation which has arisen whereby it takes four times as many people to elect a councillor out in Raheny and Killester as it does to elect a person to represent the people here in this area where the Dáil is situated. It is only by writing in an obligation to have regard to equality of votes that we will ensure that that situation does not arise again.

Mr. Moore

I am glad to note that the Fine Gael Party welcome the re-arrangement of seats in the city area. I do not know what the Minister will do eventually but I should like to see 45 single seat areas. This can be done even without touching the present system of voting. At the moment there are nine areas and apart from No. 9 area, which has a very small electorate, all the areas have huge electorates and it is almost impossible for any alderman or councillor to represent the area as efficiently as he would like. I have every confidence that the Minister will do a good job of re-arranging, but, whatever he does, he will be criticised for it by the Opposition.

Deputy Ryan referred to possible gerrymandering. But, if you examine local elections, you will find that very often political schools of thought are ignored by the voters, who are inclined to vote on the basis of personality rather than political affiliations. Your next-door neighbour, even though opposed to you politically, may vote for you in a municipal election, while he may not do so in a general election. I think Deputy Ryan's fears on this point are groundless.

Deputy Dunne gave an exhibition of Jansenism and Calvinism. Indeed, I can picture him when he becomes a city councillor, as he is likely to do, coming in like Cromwell, crying "Away with this bauble", doing away with the Lord Mayor's chains, the councillors' hats and all the rest. But will the council be any better for all his suggestions? He has the socialist tendency of seeking equality in everything. He suggests we should not have aldermen. He would have our city councillors distinguished by numbers, while Big Brother looks down from the gallery. Why does he not propose the abolition of the City Council itself? It was founded by the Normans; there was an admixture of Saxons and at one time, believe it or not, an Irishman could not be a member of it. But things have changed since then and today any resident of this city, irrespective of property rights and of whether he is wealthy or poor, is entitled to membership of the City Council.

Deputy Dunne disputes the right of the public to elect their aldermen. If they pick somebody to be an alderman, why should we deprive them of that right? I have heard members of the City Council say that the Lord Major should be elected by the public. It is rather contradictory when you hear people say they will not trust the public to elect an alderman. Perhaps it does not matter a lot whether those on the council are aldermen or councillors, but I believe we should maintain the alderman rank until such time as some intelligent argument for its abolition is put forward. Those in public life do not always command the respect they deserve. Those who give their time, day and night, in local authorities to serve their fellow-men without remuneration are certainly deserving of respect, and anything we can do to give them a bit of prestige we should do. We should in this national Assembly record our thanks to the hundreds of men and women who have served on local councils for the past seven years and to those who are prepared to carry on. Despite the fact that one Party has guillotined those over 50, I think we will get sufficient people, even over 50, to serve on the council. In my Party it was always ability that counted, and not age. I would ask the Minister to consider the suggestions I have made, because I think they would make for better government.

Mr. Larkin

I spoke in this House some time ago about the need for change in the municipal electoral areas and I also spoke on that subject in the corporation. I am glad the Minister has been convinced of that need, even if his predecessor was not. The situation that has developed in Dublin since 1960 is completely ludicrous so far as the number of voters required to elect a councillor for an area is concerned. The Minister mentioned that in one area five councillors were elected by 15,000 electors while in another area—admittedly, an extreme case— five councillors had to go before a miniature Dáil electorate of 56,000 voters.

In addition, I pointed out that the majority of the councillors on Dublin Corporation are not Members of this House. Deputies may have problems, but at least they are paid allowances. By virtue of their activities as councillors, they may or may not enhance their prospects of being re-elected. But those who are not Members of this House and are in an area with 56,000 voters, a wide, spread-out area with ten or 15 parishes, residents' associations, tenants' associations and ratepayers' groups, find the problem a very difficult one indeed. Most of them endeavour to meet their responsibilities to the best of their ability; but they must face not only the difficulty of getting around but very heavy out-of-pocket expenses.

I am glad the Minister has seen the need to make some changes. I also pointed out that since 1960 the growth of housing, both public and private, on the perimeter of Dublin was making the problem even more difficult. I welcome the Bill in so far as it will have the effect of re-arranging the boundaries. The Minister has not made it clear at this point whether it is his intention to make this change by varying the boundaries of the existing nine municipal areas. The Bill refers to the requirement to have not fewer than five municipal areas. The Minister did not indicate whether he was thinking in terms of varying the actual number of areas at the same time as re-arranging the boundaries. This is a matter the Minister should give the House an opportunity of discussing now.

I fear I must disagree with Deputy Ryan, not on the principle that the House should be entitled to deal fully with the arrangement of the representation of these areas, but, because of the time factor involved, I should be inclined to take the risk that the Minister would not be too unfair in arranging the boundaries of the municipal areas. If he does not act fairly and equitably, we shall have an opportunity of commenting—but only commenting — if the matter is brought before us. At the same time, having regard to the present position of the House, I think the Minister could get away with his intention, even if some other machinery were to be devised for a prolonged examination and discussion of the proposal. Having regard to the fact that the boundary divisions are well overdue and that he has announced that local elections will take place this year, and almost the exact date of them, it is, and I agree with the Minister, imperative that this matter should not be unduly delayed.

I see no reason, however, to write into the Bill a provision for the position of alderman. If that section is dropped by the Minister, he can still, if he only changes the existing boundaries, elect five councillors for each area. The only difference would be that one of them would not be called an alderman. With all due respect to my colleagues in the House, I say that as far as the corporation is concerned alderman means only somebody who is first elected. Does a Deputy who is first elected get any particular title? He is just a Deputy the same as other Deputies in the area. An alderman may be—I do not say any of them are—a person elected who does not bother to turn up to council meetings, who does not even know there is a committee meeting which he should attend, and yet he is distinguished in somebody's eyes as being in some way privileged as against the other four councillors in the area who try to work very hard for their constituents. attending regularly at committee and council meetings. In the eves of people who do not know the situation, the alderman is distinct from a councillor.

I suspect the main reason, as the Minister has said, is that this is in line with procedure in other parts of the country. That is not necessarily a valid reason. It might well mean there would be some added expenditure by the corporation in respect of stationery and perhaps legal documents that they have already ordered if the title of alderman were dropped. I think it is a pragmatic decision. They might have to rearrange some legal stationery and contracts if the term were dropped. Apart from that, I see no merit in retaining a title that does not mean anything. "Alderman" means something in Belfast, in London and other British cities because both the election and responsibilities of aldermen are different from those of the councillors. "Alderman" did mean something in Dublin prior to the abolition of Dublin Corporation but when the corporation was restored, the term "alderman" failed to have any meaning. Therefore, the Minister might be well advised to consider deleting this section.

During the discussion, my colleague, Deputy Dunne, made some remarks regarding the robes of the corporation. I was a member of the corporation when these robes were introduced. I wore them as did many other people, distinguished members of the corporation. The main argument in favour of the robes was that on various formal occasions—there are not many to which the corporation are invited, mainly Easter Sunday, Christmas Masses and occasions possibly such as the death of a colleague—if the members of the Council turned out in robes, it would preserve an appearance of unity and also it did not matter how councillors were robed underneath. They might have a very fine lounge suit or morning dress, or just a jacket and trousers.

On certain occasions it is a fact that we turned out in robes in greater numbers. I have nothing against wearing uniforms, unlike, possibly, some Members of the House. Lots of people wear uniforms: children going to school, boy scouts, university students and, indeed, I know only very few people who as a principle never wore uniform. I have the honour to bear the name of two who did not wear uniform going to dances but they just did not believe in going to dances. Many people may make humorous remarks here about members of the City Council turning out in robes but the same people will trot out tonight or tomorrow night to the Gresham or some other place with stiff collars and black suits and they are just as much in uniform. They are complying with a different convention. People who do not want to wear robes in the corporation are not compelled to do so. While my colleague, Deputy Dunne, is entitled to make the remarks he made, on behalf of the other members of the corporation who see no harm in wearing these robes, I want to make my position clear. It does not matter if they wear dungarees. If you are an Irish dancer, you can wear the appropriate uniform without doing anyone a disservice, or lowering your own personal integrity.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think that question arises.

Mr. Larkin

I thought it necessary to make the comment. You were not here, Sir, for the earlier discussion and I wanted to be clear on it. The important thing about this Bill is the fact that it is now introduced. The Minister did not indicate his general intentions in respect to varying the boundaries. If the Bill goes through, he will have the power not only to amend the boundaries but to vary the number of areas. I want to ask him what his general views are in relation to the question of changing the number of municipal areas. There are nine at the moment, and under the Bill, he would have power to reduce this to five. I would suggest that in relation to any such operation regard should be had to the position of members of future city councils who will not be members of this House, and who, as the law stands at present, do not receive one penny remuneration for their services, or one halfpenny remuneration to cover the expenses borne by them in carrying out their duties as members of the City Council.

This may be a difficult problem for the Minister. As the law stands, we have municipal elections every five years, although we have now gone over that five years by two years. I do not know whether the Minister will have regard to the growth in the various areas when he is dealing with this matter. If we could be assured that the next municipal elections will be held five years after this one, the problem might not be too difficult, provided the areas are arranged on a reasonable and equitable basis. In the past few years, parts of the city have grown very rapidly, and in other parts, the population has remained static or been reduced. There has been a change in the situation as outlined by the Minister the other day.

I welcome the Bill in so far as it gives the Minister an opportunity of redressing the balance. I want to ask him if he will indicate whether it is his intention to retain the nine municipal areas in making the boundary revisions provided for in the Bill.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

I did not intend to speak on this Bill, but as one of the senior members of Dublin Corporation in this House I feel that perhaps I should add my voice to the voices of Deputies, councillors and others who are not councillors, who have already spoken. We do not oppose this Bill. I suppose we welcome it. It is probably necessary to alter the constituencies from time to time in pursuance of democratic and other usages. When the Minister is considering any changes like this, I should like him to consider seriously giving representation to the business community. That was always done in the past. Some time in the 1930s, the commercial register as such ceased. Because of the importance of business effort in Dublin, and in the whole country, I think it would be a good thing if a proportion of the membership of Dublin Corporation were specifically reserved for business representation. As I say, that used to be done. This would be an act of justice because a tremendous amount of money is levied on business people who have not any direct voice in the deliberations of the council as such. It would also be of benefit to the corporation.

Some references were made to aldermen. I cannot find anything in the explanatory memorandum which gives any hint that the Minister is contemplating any change in connection with the appointment of aldermen. Personally, I do not think it matters very much. As has been pointed out, aldermen fulfil no function as such. They do not take precedence in any particular way. The only thing I can think of is that when the roll is called in Dublin Corporation, the name of the alderman in each area is called out first. That delightful honour is about the only thing.

Mr. Larkin

Most of them are not there.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

The Deputy says that most of them are not there. I do not think that is fair because they are no more likely to be there or not there than any other councillor. They are neither better nor worse attenders than councillors, nor are they better or worse than councillors. They are the same as councillors. There is no specific difference. I suppose it follows an old custom, and perhaps there is something to be said for keeping them on. The day may come when it might be in the interests of the council to have a body of men who would speak for them. I do not know that there is any particular purpose served. I certainly do not want them done away with. I am quite neutral in the matter.

Mention has been made of the robes. One Deputy, who is not a member of Dublin Corporation at the moment, but who, I trust, will be at some future date, said an alderman had a yellow streak in him. He was referring to the yellow flash on the present aldermanic robes. The councillor's robes lack that band of gold. That is the only difference between the two. Some years ago the red robes, with the fur round the bottom——

Mr. Larkin

Ermine.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

Ermine is fur; I rather imagine it was rabbit. Anyway, I think those robes were much more colourful, but they were done away with and our present robes were substituted. Deputy Larkin argued that the robes covered a multitude of sartorial sins. In that respect, they are, I suppose, quite useful. I know I found them very useful during what was euphemistically referred to as "the emergency period" when we were all short of fuel. Attending church services in robes, in a cold cathedral, I was one up on the rest of the congregation because I had a coat and robes. They were very useful.

To come back to the change in the robes some years ago, these are beautiful robes made out of Irish poplin. However, to my mind, they are academic robes and not municipal robes. The change was made roughly 15 years ago and I think the idea was then that the old robes seemed too like the old judges' robes. That is not so. Perhaps there was a suspicion, too, that they were connected with a former Government in this country.

I should like to put it on record that the red robes worn by members of Dublin Corporation—other municipal bodies in Ireland still continue to wear them—are the universal badge of aldermen or councillors all over Europe. I believe the red robes derived from the red of imperial Rome, which was really called purple, but is considered to be red. It was the symbol of authority and members of councils throughout the whole of Europe wore these robes to denote they were in a position of authority. That was the reason for the red robes. I have a sneaking regard for them because they go back to the beginnings of history in Europe. They are the symbol of authority. The next time a change is being made, consideration might be given to the red robes of the past.

With regard to the changes proposed in this Bill, I hope there will be an equitable redistribution. I should like to make one point in relation to the area I represent, Area No. 9. This is almost entirely situated on the south side of the Liffey. In one of the recent Acts, the area was given a certain little bite across the Liffey, bounded by Capel Street, the Quays, O'Connell Street and Henry Street. I can assure the Minister that though that area comes into Area No. 9, it has absolutely nothing to do with it. Most of the people living in the area are hardly aware of the fact that they are part of Area No. 9 and a great number of them, I think, do not turn out to vote because they do not know the councillors. The councillors representing Area No. 9 are all South City councillors. These people were accustomed to North City councillors. In any re-alignment of that particular municipal area, the Minister should take note of the fact that the Liffey is a natural dividing line and mixing up the two representations is something the public do not understand. The councillors themselves are really not in a position to represent adequately the area in question because over 90 per cent of their problems have relation to the south side.

I trust the Minister will take note of what I have said with regard to Area No. 9 and also with regard to a commercial register for business people.

Mr. Andrews

A great deal of this discussion has centred round aldermen and criticism of the title "alderman". It has been generally agreed the title is empty and meaningless. As a Dublinman, though not a member of the Corporation, I feel that too many of the traditions of this city are being whittled away from the point of view of our titles or, from the point of view of our buildings, knocked down. I agree with the previous speaker that there is no reason why, since this title is an empty one, we should not keep it. I went to our excellent Library here and consulted both the Oxford Dictionary and Webster Dictionary, in relation to the definition of "alderman". "Alderman", in the Oxford Dictionary, is defined as a man who occupies the position held in an earlier stage of society by the ealdor, patriaarch or chief of the clan. It can be extended to mean the head of a guild. Then, of course, we have the aldress, the wife of the alderman, or the alderwoman. It is a pity, I think, that corporators called aldermen have to go back to their wives——

Mr. Ryan

What does the Deputy call the wife of a councillor, as a matter of interest?

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

As a matter of interest, is there any title?

Mr. Andrews

I do not think there is. I do not think there is any title for a Deputy's wife.

Mr. Ryan

The Minister is dealing with aldermen only.

Mr. Andrews

I appreciate that. This brings me to the point as to whether a woman elected to the council is called an alderman or an alderwoman.

Mr. Larkin

They are called aldermen.

Mr. Andrews

This is the position in which we find ourselves. Another derivative of the word "alderman" is aldermanique which has been described as a little alderman or young alderman. This would suit the new Fine Gael policy of having only people under 50 years of age contesting the local elections. We could then describe them as aldermaniques.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Or aldermanogue.

Mr. Andrews

On the question of gerrymandering, the Minister has clearly enunciated the principle of one man, one vote, and I do not see how he can be accused on those grounds of attempting to gerrymander any of the electoral wards which he is setting up under the Bill. I am sure that Deputy Ryan is full of political prejudice and I can understand his equation of the principle of one man, one vote with gerrymandering.

I would like to pay a special tribute to the members of Dublin Corporation and of Dublin County Council generally. They are voluntary workers and give their time free. They are civicminded and public-minded men, and I agree with Deputy Larkin when he suggests that the Minister should look into the question of giving them an allowance for their out-of-pocket expenses. From my own experience, I am aware of one of my colleagues haveing to make eight telephone calls in the one day and at 4d. per call, that is 2/8d. which he could ill afford. There is also the question of correspondence with the Minister, with the Town Hall and with constituents. These, and other out-of-pocket expenses, make up a considerable sum which the unpaid and civic-minded man has to pay up himself. I would ask the Minister to look into the general question of expenses for councillors. I would also reiterate my disagreement with the philistinic attitude of those who would cast away the last vestiges of our Dublin traditions. Let us keep our aldermen.

Mr. Boland

It is fairly clear that all sides of the House are agreed that the main thing being done in this small Bill is desirable and it only remains for me to deal with some of the points that have been raised. I do not think the suggestion that it would be possible to carry out any gerrymandering under the Bill was seriously made.

Mr. Ryan

It was.

Mr. Boland

Certainly I share to a certain extent the high opinion that Deputy Ryan appears to have of the efficiency of the Fianna Fáil organisation but, efficient as it is, I am quite convinced from my own experience that it would not be able to supply me with the information on which to base an attempt to gerrymander the city of Dublin. I do not think it possible for any organisation to say with certainty what way any section of the city will vote, whether it will be Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or Labour. I would not be able to attempt any redistribution of electoral areas with the object of benefiting my own Party more than others, despite my knowledge of the effectiveness of our organisation. It is only natural that Opposition Deputies would have an even higher opinion of the efficiency of our organisation than we have as they have been so accustomed to experiencing the effectiveness of that organisation at successive elections.

Deputy Sweetman asked me when the order specifying the new electoral areas would be made. I do not think it should take long to do that. The division of Dublin into electoral areas on the principle of one man, one vote, taking into account the fact that the wards are already defined, must be a very simple operation which could not be done in many different ways and it should not take long to make the order. I should hope, with the co-operation of the House and the Seanad, to be able to make the order and lay it before the Houses of the Oireachtas by the end of the present month. In making that forecast, I am assuming that this Bill will be passed by the Dáil today and by the Seanad next Wednesday, 22nd February. It could be signed by the President on 27th of the month and I would hope to be able to lay the order before the Houses of the Oireachtas immediately after that. In giving the House that timetable, I am assuming that the Bill will be given a speedy passage. If it were delayed here or in the Seanad, that timetable would also be delayed.

A lot of the discussion dealt with the subject of aldermen. As I explained in my opening speech, the position is that there is provision for the election of aldermen in all the boroughs except Dublin. Because the Electoral Act of 1963 repealed a particular section of the Local Government Act of 1930, the provision for the election of aldermen in Dublin city no longer exists. When the Bill came up, I was faced with the position of either providing for the election of aldermen in Dublin city or of ruling them out in Dublin, and Dublin only.

I share the opinions of most of the Deputies with regard to this title of alderman. It is only a title: it makes no sense and means nothing and it seems to me to be nonsense to have it. However, if I were to decide formally to abolish the position in Dublin, it would have delayed the Bill by a month because the title appears in our legal documents and it appears in other statutes, and provision would have to be made for the removal of the title of alderman in all these other things. Therefore I did not think it was worthwhile delaying the Bill for that. Certainly I see no point in it myself, and as I mentioned in my opening speech, there is a more general amending Bill being drafted, and if it is decided that it is important enough to bother getting rid of it, we might as well do it in a more comprehensive way and get rid of it altogether. Certainly I have no interest in the empty title of alderman. That is why I would not be prepared to accept a proposal to drop this provision from this Bill because it would mean delaying the Bill and possibly make it impracticable to revise the electoral areas in time for the local elections.

We had two views expressed about the wearing of robes, by Deputy Dunne, Deputy Larkin and Deputy Dockrell. Personally, I incline to the views of Deputy Dunne but there again it does not arise on this Bill, and I suppose it is not a matter of any great importance, either. Deputy Dunne asked if there was any intention of providing for a corporation with greater numbers. There is no provision in this Bill for it and it would require legislation, but I do not see a great deal of point in the case Deputy Dunne made. He maintained that a greater number of councillors would make for greater efficiency in representation, that each councillor would have a correspondingly smaller amount of work to do. I cannot understand how that would come about as a result of doing this. For instance, on the present basis of nine electoral areas, if they are revised so as to bring the representation into line, that would mean that each councillor would represent roughly one-ninth of the city's population, and even if you increased the number of councillors on that basis, the numbers of people each councillor would be representing would still be the same. Increasing the number of councillors, therefore, would not have the effect which Deputy Dunne suggested it would have.

Again, in regard to the suggestion that there might be some gerrymandering in this, I stated quite clearly that the whole purpose of this Bill is to make it possible for me to equate as far as possible the number of electors per councillor. I do not think that Deputies need have any fears in this regard. Recently there have been orders made in regard to a number of towns and cities. For example, Cork has been divided into six areas and the average of population per member in those six areas is: 3,524, 3,560, 3,560, 3,668, 3,672, and 3,600. In that case it is obvious that the representation has been arranged as equitably as it would be conceivably possible to do. Similarly, Dún Laoghaire has recently been divided into three areas where the number of electors per member is 2,115, 2,203, 2,094. I do not think that anybody could expect any greater degree of equality in representation than that. Therefore this power has not been abused in the past and I have already stated that the main purpose of the Bill is to enable the same thing to be done in Dublin. The scope for different revisions of the city is small since the wards are already defined and therefore Deputies need have no fear in this case.

Deputy Ryan referred to the fact that there has been no notification about the new boundaries to the corporation, who are at present engaged in the compilation of the register. The position is that there could not possibly have been any such notification because under the law as it stands, any such revision would have to take into account both valuation and population and I do not intend to do that. In this Bill, I am asking the House to give me authority not to have to take valuation into account. Therefore, they could not possibly have been notified and, in fact, cannot be notified until after the Bill has been passed.

Deputy Ryan also made a case that this revision should have taken place a considerable time ago, as near as possible to the last corporation election of 1960. However, since 1960, the number of electors in No. 1 electoral area has increased by 50 per cent, so that if the revision had been made in 1960, it would already be out of date and developing areas would still be out of line with other areas. The fact that this situation has developed so much since 1960, that the disparity in representation as between No. 1 and No. 9— which I think is the smallest—has developed so much since 1960, means that there is a stronger case for the Bill and it will be apparent to the House that this should be done.

Deputy Larkin wanted to know if there was any intention of reducing the number of areas to five.

Mr. Larkin

From nine as they are at present.

Mr. Boland

I certainly have no such intention. The idea of doing that did not occur to me and I would not see any point whatever in reducing the number of areas. If I were to do anything like that, I would be more inclined to go in the other direction, which Deputy Larkin must have in mind when he suggested that I should take into account the difficulty experienced by councillors in covering the areas as they stand at present. In this regard Deputy Dockrell referred to the fact that in the last revision of these electoral areas, No. 9 area was adjusted so as to take in portion of the city to the north of the Liffey. Certainly the idea of recognising the Liffey as a boundary commends itself to me, but if we were to do that—and obviously if it were to have been done the last time—it would not be possible to continue with nine five-seat areas. That was probably the difficulty the last time. I think my approach would be to try to adhere to ward boundaries and, in particular, to the boundary of the Liffey, but if I do that, obviously, there cannot be the same number of seats on the North and the South as 45 is the total. So it will be necessary, if we do that, to depart from the present layout of nine five-seat constituencies, to some extent at any rate.

I would be completely opposed to a revival of the position that obtained formerly in Dublin of giving special representation to the business community or to any other section of the community by some adjustment of the register of electors as was the position here before. The Joint Committee on Electoral Law considered this matter and, very rightly, rejected it. The position previously in Dublin was that of the 35 council members, five were commercial members. The registered commercial electors were individuals, partnerships, unincorporated associations or corporate bodies, resident in Saorstát Éireann. In the case of companies, their business had to be wholly or substantially managed or conducted in Saorstát Éireann, occupying premises of valuation £20 or over for professional, commercial, or industrial purposes. An elector had one vote for a valuation of up to £50, increasing by one vote, up to a maximum of six votes, for each £50 or fraction of £50 above this figure. The 1930 register was prepared from claims by eligible electors and contained 1,048 names out of a possible 2,500 approximately, and they had the power to elect five of the 35 council members.

It is with getting away from that type of representation that this Bill is primarily concerned and I certainly would be completely opposed to the suggestion of reviving it.

I think I have covered all the points that were raised and I would ask the House to pass the Bill.

Mr. Larkin

The Minister said it would not be his intention to reduce the number of areas. Might I comment? Any question of wards would be completely impossible because wards vary from wards with a population of 900 to wards with a population of 12,000.

Mr. Boland

What I wanted to say about wards was that I would try to avoid splitting wards as between different electoral areas. I would try to follow the boundaries of wards because that would be of assistance both to candidates and to those in charge of the compilation of the register.

Mr. Larkin

The Minister is indicating that he is not proposing to have less than nine areas?

Mr. Boland

No.

Mr. Larkin

May I, with respect, say that the other question of having 15 areas is, in my submission, completely ridiculous. Nine appears to be suitable.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill considered in Committee.

SECTION 1.

Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Ryan

On section 1, may I say in relation to what the Minister said on Second Stage, that the Minister has indicated the manner in which he has created electoral areas in Cork and Dún Laoghaire. If he achieves a similar equality so far as Dublin is concerned, he will not find us opposed to any arrangement he may make. I would have preferred to have the Committee Stage on another day in order to put down an amendment which would have imposed on the Minister the statutory obligation of preserving equality, but, in view of the Minister's undertaking, to bring about equality, so far as practicable, we are prepared to accept that he will do so and we can only await the result of his efforts. I do believe he will have great difficulty if he tries to preserve the wards as we know them now because, as Deputy Larkin mentioned, there are wards with 12,000 and wards with 800. I imagine his problem in both Cork and Dún Laoghaire was eased by not having to keep to wards. Ward boundaries in Dublin have little relationship to the existing distribution of population. If it is necessary to get away from wards in order to have equality, it would be better to do so rather than tie oneself to boundaries which may have some interesting historical significance but are not helpful in distributing the number of voters equally.

As to the question of aldermen, I did notice that we had in the 1963 Act a provision which abolished the aldermen in Dublin as we knew them, but it occurs to me that if we did not postpone the local elections in 1965 and 1966, there would be no aldermen in Dublin unless an order like this had been brought in. It does not seem to have occurred to anyone, certainly not to the holders, that their offices were in peril. Perhaps they might consider that the postponement of the local elections was to their advantage. Perhaps on the new council we will have two ranks—the aldermen and the younger men from Fine Gael.

Mr. Moore

The over 50s.

Mr. Larkin

The Minister has given us an assurance that his intention is to retain the nine areas. I mentioned the question of wards. It should be possible for the Minister to make a reasonably equitable re-arrangement of the areas. He has given us an assurance that that is his intention. Possibly the whole question of wards will have to be looked into at some stage because they are no longer realistic. If the Minister were to undertake to do it at this stage, the possibility is that due to the fact that wards are dealt with in all the documentation, inevitably the elections would be postponed and I would not press that matter except to say that with the nine areas it should be possible for the Minister at this stage to have at least fairly reasonable redistribution of the boundaries.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

I noticed with interest what the Minister said about the representation in the areas. He agreed with me that it was desirable not to have the areas of the north of the city pushed into the south. I have not had an opportunity to discuss it with my colleagues but I do not think there is anything sacrosanct in the nine electoral divisions. I do not think it matters that much. Once we are adopting as our criterion the population, we should follow that, irrespective of the present areas. If we are going to look for so many thousand electors to elect so many persons, then, obviously, we will have to change boundaries very considerably.

That brings us to the position that certain areas might have to have more than five, some areas might have to have less than five. We would be getting away from the principles which we follow in elections if we cut that down too much, but I would say to the Minister that there is not anything particularly sacrosanct in the nine electoral areas, each having an equality of numbers elected.

I am sorry the Minister did not see eye to eye with me on the commercial register. I was not at all thinking in terms of going back to exactly the same system as was adopted in the past. But I would commend this viewpoint to the Minister, namely, that the city of Dublin, any city, is composed both of citizens and of businesses. There is such a concentration of individuals in a city for purposes of business that it has been held in the past—sometimes perhaps too much—that the businesses were of such importance that they should at least be given a voice in the running of the area in which the businesses were placed, in the area to which they contributed such an enormous amount of the revenues that came in, and that under our present system we are enforcing on the business community a degree of taxation without representation.

Mr. Boland

In regard to what Deputy Ryan says, I feel confident that when the new representation of the electoral areas is put on the Table of the House, Deputies will agree that every possible effort has been made to arrive at equality of representation in the different areas. I agree that the idea of having nine electoral areas is not sacrosanct, and if we take the suggestion of Deputy Dockrell to take the Liffey as a boundary, that is, not to cross the Liffey with any electoral area, then obviously you cannot continue to have nine five-seat areas.

Mr. James Tully

Would the Minister not like 15 threes?

Mr. Boland

The total number of votes on the two sides of the city north and south, is not exactly the same, which is just as well; since we have an odd number of councillors in Dublin Corporation. I think it would be possible to adhere to the boundary of the Liffey and at the same time to achieve reasonably equal representation. However, this will involve some departure from the present system of nine five-seat areas, but I have no intention of going to either extreme, of going for 15 three-seats or of going for five nine-seats.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 2 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Mr. Ryan

The Minister said there was less case for this Bill some years ago than there is now. I have here the electorate figure for 1964, and that figure is not all that different from now. The No. 1 area at that time was 56,000; I think it is now 59,000. The number in the No. 9 area was 16,000 against 15,000. There was a very good case to be made some years ago for bringing in this amending legislation. I hope it is better late than never, so we shall not resist it.

Mr. Boland

Because it is later, it will be more up to date.

Mr. Ryan

Yes, perhaps that is so, but the Minister knows that an effort is now being made to concentrate population in the centre of the city in new flats, so maybe it will be out of date soon enough. One would hope that under this Bill when the Minister is taking unto himself liberal powers to determine the electoral areas, use will be made of the opportunity so that we shall not again have the situation to which I have referred. Therefore a year before the next following local elections a look should be had at the electoral areas to ensure that equality is maintained between the number of electors and the councillors.

Mr. James Tully

Perhaps the Minister would do the same for all other local authorities, because they are all nearly as lopsided as Dublin?

Mr. Boland

That would be a major job but I agree it is something that should be done. I do not think I could undertake to do much on the lines of what Deputy Ryan has suggested now. It would entail some degree of forecasting of the trend of population.

Mr. Ryan

Not now, but say, in 1971 it should be done again.

Mr. Boland

Yes, if necessary, certainly. In regard to Deputy Dockrell's point about business representation, the business community does, in fact, get representation on the Dublin Corporation under the present system.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

They do not.

Mr. Boland

Deputy Dockrell himself could be taken as an example.

Mr. Booth

It is only because enough businessmen do not go forward.

Mr. Boland

There is no reason whatever why the business community should not get representation under the present system, but I certainly would be very much opposed to making special arrangements.

Question put and agreed to.