I move: "That leave be given to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to amend the law relating to local government franchise and to the registration of local government electors." This is a motion for leave to introduce the Local Government (Extension of Franchise) Bill, 1934. On the 12th July last, the question that the Bill of 1933 "Be now read a Second Time" was declared to be defeated. The Bill for which leave is now sought is the same Bill as that previously before the Seanad, with certain alterations, without which the original Bill would not fully achieve its object. The alteration suggested in the new Bill is one which refers to the date. The original Bill purposed to make the extended franchise cover those qualified on the 15th November last. The new Bill aims at doing so, too, but verbal change in the terms of the Bill is necessary to make this effective. This Bill, as Senators will remember, was before the House for its Second Reading on 12th July last. It embodied a right that the Government feel should be afforded to all the ordinary adult voters in the country to enable them to take part and to vote in local elections. We feel that it is quite anomalous that voters who have the right to vote at the parliamentary elections for Deputies to the Dáil should be deprived of the right to vote at elections for the local authorities. It is for that reason and to give the widest possible franchise to all the adults of the country that this measure was introduced. I do not feel that any real argument can be put up against the measure as it was drafted. I feel that in these days, when we are hearing so much about democracy and the democratic rights of the people, that it is absurd——
Local Government (Extension of Franchise) Bill, 1934—First Stage.
Is it in order to make a Second Reading speech on the introduction of a Bill?
Cathaoirleach
It is in order for the Minister to make an introductory statement.
I am quite willing to defer anything that might seem like a Second Reading speech until the Second Stage of the Bill has been reached. I assume it is reasonable to give the facts as to why this Bill has been reintroduced here to-day. If I have gone beyond such reasons it is for you, a Chathaoirligh, to rule me out.
Cathaoirleach
If this motion is not opposed, then there will be a Second Reading naturally. If it is opposed you will have a further opportunity of making any statement you desire.
Recently the attitude of mind of the country received a new light on the question of adult suffrage, and the rights of all adult electors to be entitled to exercise the franchise at the local elections. It is for that reason that we feel that it is due to this House and to the Oireachtas generally that members should get an opportunity of reconsidering their attitude as expressed on the 12th July last. The leader of the Opposition stated on April 15th, according to the Press reports that "they were at a great disadvantage that the youth had not got a vote at these elections. It is our purpose to give the youth of this country a say, not only in national affairs, but in local affairs too." I may say that I entirely agree with that view. I feel that it is the logical thing to expect that, with that view being expressed by the leader of the Opposition throughout the country, the Government should give the opportunity which he seems to seek by the statement he has made. Following that statement the Minister for Local Government clearly intimated through the Press that he was prepared to remove this disadvantage which had been referred to, and he promised to give the Seanad an opportunity of reconsidering its decision at the earliest moment. That really accounts for the introduction of the measure here to-day.
It is only fair, perhaps, to point out that after the statement which I have quoted was made, the newspapers carried a further statement, and in that the leader of the Opposition made it clear that he was not prepared to exercise any pressure either on the Dáil or on the Seanad to have this measure carried into effect. I would suggest that there are many things on which we do not seek to exercise pressure, but when that suggestion is made, I feel that those of his loyal supporters who are members of this House will be only too glad to avail themselves of the opportunity to bring into effect what he clearly intimated. He goes on to say further in his statement:—
"My proposals for giving youth a voice and responsibility in connection with local government will be presented in a very different spirit and a very different way from Mr. O'Kelly's, and they will commend themselves to the country for the reason that they will associate youth with these matters in a spirit of unification and construction."
I find it somewhat difficult to analyse just what that means. It is either too vague or too subtle for me. I do not know in what sense it is meant. The Minister for Local Government, in bringing this measure here, and the Government in presenting this measure in both Houses, had very definitely in mind the extension of the franchise on purely democratic grounds because we feel it is an intrinsic right of the youth of the country to have a voice in the election of those who are responsible for all branches of administration in the country. I feel that the quotations which I have given, and the spirit in which we have interpreted these quotations, are an adequate reason and justification for the Seanad changing its view of July 12th last year. If an additional reason were needed, perhaps one further quotation from the statement of the leader of the Opposition might be read. It is this:—
"Since last autumn the position in the country has so changed and the Blue Shirts have grown so strong, that adult suffrage would now be much more favourable to us than to the present Government."
That is a statement on which I do not profess to be in a position to express an opinion. It is a matter of opinion. It is a matter which can only be decided when the different candidates go before the country at the next election. It will be decided by the votes of the people and since Gen. O'Duffy feels that it will be to the advantage of his Party to have the widest extension of franchise and that he wants the youth of the country to be represented and to have votes in that election, I feel the last argument against this Bill being introduced here has been made. Whatever the result, in how far his opinion is justified or otherwise, we are prepared to stand for this principle not because it may be to our advantage but because we believe it is intrinsically the right thing that in these elections, the fullest possible franchise should be exercised. It has to be remembered that this question of the extension of the franchise to adults over 21 years has been under consideration right back to 1922 or 1923, and it has always been felt that adult suffrage was the only fair basis of representation. Moreover, I feel, as I have said already, that those people who are competent to vote for the election of Deputies to the Dáil are surely equally competent and entitled to vote for the election of people to local bodies. That is all I have to say in justification for the introduction of this measure to-day. I think that if the matter is looked at reasonably, from the point of view of its merits and in view of the statements and challenges that have been thrown out, the Seanad has no alternative but to give this Bill a First Reading and to pass it as it left the Dáil. It is the only justification we can have from those Senators who have lectured us on democracy, as to the dangers of a dictatorship and all the rest. Here is a test of democracy, a test as to whether they really believe in democratic rule or not.
I desire to oppose the First Reading of this Bill.
Cathaoirleach
Very good. The procedure is that the Minister for Lands should have an opportunity of explaining the measure. I desire to know from the Minister if he wishes to give any further explanation.
I think I have given all the explanation that is necessary on the motion for leave to introduce. The procedure, according to our Standing Orders, is that one speech is allowed on each side.
Cathaoirleach
That is so.
Does that mean that only one person can speak on each side?
Cathaoirleach
Yes.
Has there been any decision as to who that person is to be?
Cathaoirleach
I have to take it that the Senator who rises to oppose the First Reading of a Bill would naturally be the person to make the statement opposing.
I would like to know if I am in order?
Cathaoirleach
You are quite in order, Senator.
May I ask: whom does Senator Wilson represent?
I will explain that.
Cathaoirleach
I did not ask the Senator to explain. Senator Wilson.
Excuse me, Sir, for a moment. Am I to understand that no more speeches will be allowed except the speeches of the Minister for Lands and Senator Wilson?
Cathaoirleach
That is the position.
Well, now——
Cathaoirleach
That is the position.
That is the position, but I wish——
Cathaoirleach
You must not wish, Senator. Senator Wilson.
——to dissociate myself from that procedure.
Cathaoirleach
Order, please. Senator Wilson.
I do not wish to make a speech. My purpose in rising is to ask a question which I think is quite pertinent. I was not in the House when the Minister for Lands rose to move his motion. The question that I wish to ask is this: Is this Bill identical with the Bill which was rejected by the Seanad in July, 1933?
May I answer that question? It is exactly the same except as regards the phrase which makes the necessary change of date. The only change is one merely of phraseology.
This Bill, as the Minister for Lands has said, was before the Seanad ten months ago. It occupied the time of the House for a couple of days. The pros and cons of the measure were fully discussed. All the arguments for and against were gone into at great length. In the meantime, nothing has happened in the sphere of local government to cause a change in the ratepayers' point of view. It has always been maintained as a good, sound principle of democracy that whoever pays the piper ought to have the calling of the tune. The people who have the right to elect persons to these local boards are the people who have to provide the money to enable the local services to be carried on. They are the most responsible people in the country—people who are not likely to go wrong. I have no reason whatever for opposing anything in the nature of a test for the Government, as regards getting the mind of the people, by means of an election. If the Government are desirous of finding out what the people at the present time think of them then the proper course for them is to have an election on a parliamentary issue and not to bring politics into local government, which should be concerned entirely with economical administration and good service: good service in return for the money that has to be paid by people who can very ill afford it at the present time.
The intrinsic right of youth to govern has been quoted in support of the introduction of this measure. My answer is that if the youth of 21, if all irresponsible young fellows, are to be allowed to vote, then let us give that right to every youth: to the whole population, from babies up. Senators know very well that the only people who pay rates in this country are householders. It may be argued that indirectly other people pay. I think that the present basis of representation for local bodies is the best you can have. It was introduced in the old days when we were part of the United Kingdom. It has been my experience that it is very difficult to improve on British legislation. I am not saying that changes should not be made in cases where it is found desirable to make them. In the case of these local bodies the moneys which they disburse are contributed by the ratepayers. As to the people who should be elected to these local boards. I hold that is essentially a question for the ratepayers and for them alone. These were the reasons I gave ten months ago in opposition to the Bill that was then before the House. I think this Bill is really political strategy on the part of the Executive —to bring in something so that if, perhaps, they are beaten at the polls when the local government elections take place they can have some excuse. For these reasons, I am opposing the introduction of this Bill. I hope the House will support me in my endeavour and, therefore, keep the position as it is.
Tá
- Chléirigh, Caitlín Bean Uí.
- Comyn, Michael, K.C.
- Connolly, Joseph.
- Duffy, Michael.
- Farren, Thomas.
- Foran, Thomas.
- Johnson, Thomas.
- Keyes, Raphael P.
- MacEllin, Seán E.
- MacKean, James.
- Moore, Colonel.
- O'Farrell, John T.
- O'Neill, L.
- Phaoraigh, Siobhán Bean an.
- Quirke, William.
- Robinson, David L.
- Robinson, Séumas.
Níl
- Bagwell, John.
- Barniville, Dr. Henry L.
- Bellingham, Sir Edward.
- Bigger, Sir Edward Coey.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Brown, Samuel L., K.C.
- Browne, Miss Kathleen.
- Costello, Mrs.
- Counihan, John C.
- Douglas, James G.
- Duggan, E.J.
- Fanning, Michael.
- O'Hanlon, M.F.
- O'Rourke, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Dr. William.
- Garahan, Hugh.
- Gogarty, Dr. O. St. J.
- Griffith, Sir John Purser.
- Guinness, Henry S.
- Hickie, Major-General Sir William.
- Keane, Sir John.
- Kennedy, Cornelius.
- McGillycuddy of the Reeks, The.
- MacLoughlin, John.
- Milroy, Seán.
- Moran, James.
- O'Connor, Joseph.
- Staines, Michael.
- Toal, Thomas.
- Wilson, Richard.