This Bill was sent to the Seanad on 7th June, 1933, and rejected. The statutory period defined under Article 38A of the Constitution expired in December last. The case for the Bill has already been made.
Public Business. - Local Government (Dublin) Bill, 1935—Second Stage.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
The object of this Bill is to abolish the Commercial Register. I have already expressed my views on that proposal and I do not want to repeat them in any detail. My object in rising is to find out whether, on Committee Stage, the Government would be prepared to consider amendments to the Bill which would make some provision for limited companies on the ordinary register. Before the Commercial Register was instituted in Dublin, the position was that partnerships carrying on business were entitled to votes. Limited companies had no votes although, in many cases, they paid very high rates. It is recognised nowdays that the advantages of a limited company, whether public or private, over a partnership are very considerable. The old law, which provided for votes for partnerships but not for limited companies, was passed at a time when limited companies were comparatively few. Now, the limited company is the usual form of business organisation. We have had very considerable industrial development in the last few years and the increase in the number of limited companies is not confined to Dublin. This bill deals with Dublin and I should like to have the principle I have mentioned embodied in it. I respectfully suggest to the Government that when they abolish the Commercial Register—this Bill is going to be passed whether we like it or not— it is reasonable that some provision should be made whereby limited companies carrying on business and paying rates should have some voice in the election of representatives on the local councils. A company in which I am personally interested was previously a partnership. Including the manager, who resided on the premises, that concern had five votes on the ordinary register. When it was converted into a limited company, it had no vote. When the Commercial Register was introduced, it happened that it got five votes, based on the valuation of its property. Under this Bill, the company will have no representation, although it is paying rates and is very much interested in the welfare of the city. I suggest to the Government that, now that the Bill is going to be passed into law and the Commercial Register, to which they object, abolished, they should consider whether the Bill should not be amended by consent—which is quite possible under the Constitution—so as to make some provision for votes for limited companies. We are dealing now with the city of Dublin but the principle will apply to other areas because factories are being started in a number of the smaller towns.
Mr. Healy
An bhfuil cead again cupla focal a rá ar an gceist seo?
Certainly.
Mr. Healy
I am one of those who have some experience of commercial representation in the city of Dublin and I must say I am very glad it is to go. When provision was made for commercial representation in the city, it was understood that the commercial representatives would confine themselves to commercial matters. But what have they done? They have acted as the tail end of a political party. Practically every vote cast by those representatives at the Dublin Municipal Council has been cast as part of a political party.
Is that why they are being abolished?
Mr. Healy
What is the sense of that interruption from my intelligent colleague, Senator Counihan? I desire to deal with the point raised by Senator Douglas. He complains of lack of representation on the part of public companies. Is he not a private citizen and will he not be entitled to a vote, as such, even though he be a shareholder in a public company? Do these interests want double representation? Democratic ideas are going ahead nowadays. The Senator is entitled to exercise the franchise and he should be satisfied to have a vote as a private citizen.
What the Senator says is not a correct representation of the position. Unless the citizen concerned resides in the same area in which the company is operating, he has no vote in that area.
Unfortunately, the Minister for Local Government and Public Health is engaged in the other House. I cannot give any pledges and my feeling is that an amendment such as that indicated by Senator Douglas would hardly be welcomed. I can only convey an account of what occurred here to the Minister for Local Government and Senator Douglas's point will, no doubt, have his consideration. If Senator Douglas desires to put down an amendment for Committee Stage, I take it that there is nothing to prevent his doing so.
Question put and declared carried.
Committee Stage fixed for 20th March.