Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 3 Jun 1948

Vol. 35 No. 3

Local Elections Bill, 1948—Committee and Final Stages.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Mr. Hawkins

I move amendment No. 1:—

In sub-section (1), paragraph (a), in line 30 and in line 33, to delete the figures "1950" and substitute instead in each place the figures "1949".

In discussing this Bill yesterday, several viewpoints were put forward and I feel safe in saying that many of the Senators who spoke had a very vague idea of what is really contained in the Bill. One would assume that this Bill was the Bill to which the Minister made reference, for handing back to local authorities various powers. There is nothing contained in it but the fixing of a new date for the local elections, which the Minister suggests should be held not later than the 30th September, 1950. So far, he has not shown here or in the other House any substantial reason to convince me that any other year would not be as suitable as 1950. In the ordinary course, these elections are due to be held this month. Last night the Minister asked the House to give all sections of the Bill and informed us that, if it did not pass through the House this week, nominations for the local elections would have to take place and the elections would proceed in the ordinary course. If a case can be made —which I doubt—that it is not good to hold the local elections in a year in which there is a general election and if we agree that it would not be well to have them this year, I am not convinced that it would not be in the best interests of all concerned that they be held this time 12 months. Why are we asked to hold them in 1950? Are we to assume that in 1949 we will have a general election? We know that in 1952 we will have a Presidential election, but that has nothing to do with the present Bill except that it strengthens the argument that we should have the local elections next year.

The Minister and speakers opposed to this amendment probably will remind us that, when our Party were the Government, some short time before the general election we passed through this House a Bill making provision for the holding of the elections in 1950. I concede that and agree with it, but the events that have taken place since the general election strengthens all the more my argument. Certain events have taken place and in order that the pulse of the people might be felt in regard to those events, there is no better way, apart from a general election, than the local elections.

Senator Baxter yesterday evening spent a considerable time in attempting to lecture me and members of this Party as to what our approach should be in these matters. I stated here on the first occasion that a Minister of the new Government came before this House, that our policy would be to be helpful where we think it is in the national interest, but we are going to be critical as far as we can in order to fill the rôle in which we have been placed. Although this House when first conceived and up to recently was not regarded as Government and Opposition, quite recently that Opposition has been brought about. In place of having a really vocational Seanad, we have Parties referred to as for or against the Government. That being so, we are only fulfilling our obligations when we put forward these amendments and it is wrong for the Minister or any member of his Party to take it that, because we speak out our feelings on these matters, we are not as helpful as we should be

It has been put forward that it is essential to defer the elections until 1950 in order to give the Minister ample time to bring in a measure to hand back to local authorities the powers which they originally had. Surely the Minister is not serious in stating that it will take two years to draft a Bill to hand back to the local authorities the powers taken from them under the County Management Act? It would be only a Bill of one section.

A Senator

No.

Mr. Hawkins

I hear some Senator say that that is not correct. I would like to remind those Senators who are making much play at present about the handing back of these powers that the Minister has not stated that he proposes to hand them all back. That being so, I can conceive that it will take him some time to make up his mind as to which powers he should not hand back.

In view of recent events, there is no argument the Minister put forward which would convince me that there is anything to be achieved by deferring the local elections from June, 1948, to on or before September 1st, 1950. Senator Baxter also made a flippant remark that we of this Party have had enough of elections. There is no Party in any State in the world, I suppose, who have appreciated elections and who have maintained through many difficulties the right of the people to exercise the franchise, as this Party which we represent. I would remind Senator Baxter and the other Senators who may jeer at this remark, of the very useful national service that the local elections rendered in 1934, when by the votes of the people the elected local representatives maintained for the people of this country the general right to exercise the franchise. We now have a different set of circumstances. Is the Party to which the Minister for Local Government belongs afraid or ashamed to face the people in a local election?

Mr. Duffy

Certainly not.

Mr. Hawkins

Is the Party to which any of the other Ministers belong afraid to face the issue at present? If not, why not accept my proposal and have the local elections, and allow the people to elect their local authorities for the next three years? It is all the more essential that those elections should be held as early as possible if the many programmes that were prepared before the present Government took office are going to be put into operation—if there is to be progress in housing, drainage and other projects on which local authorities are engaged. No member of a local authority who feels that his term of office is going to expire at a certain time and no council in the same position is going to provide for a long-period programme, if they are not assured that the elections will take place within a certain period.

I do not think it is necessary to argue at any length on the advisability of the House accepting this amendment. If it is not accepted, the various Parties who compose the Government are not prepared to face the local elections. From my own knowledge and from statements made to me, I believe that one of the principal reasons why they have helped to bring about the present inter-Party Government is a fear amongst certain elements in those Parties of a general election, if that inter-Party Government was not formed. With that knowledge, I and many other people throughout the country genuinely feel that the proposal to deprive the people of the opportunity of electing their local authorities until 1950 is brought in from the same fear, that is, fear of the verdict of the people.

Mr. Duffy

Senator Hawkins need not feel any anxiety that anybody on this side of the House is going to question his right to put down any amendment he thinks proper to any Bill that comes before us. If the Senator feels that this Bill needs amendment, I think he would be neglecting his duty if he failed to submit proper amendments for the consideration of the House, so there need be no anxiety about that. I do not propose to follow him over the political speech which he has just made. Speeches of the kind were foreign to this House during the past four or five years. Members who were here in the previous Seanad will remember that the time of this House was occupied very largely in what one may describe as a scientific examination of the legislation sent here from the Dáil, and the object, particularly of those who were then in opposition, was to draw the attention of Ministers and of the House itself to what appeared to be defects in the Bills which reached us in the hope that they would be remedied and that our legislation would be improved and strengthened. I think that if an analysis were made of the Bills which were examined in this House during the past four years it would be found that a very great number of valuable amendments were inserted in them by the House, amendments which Ministers in leaving the House approved of very warmly. I think that most Ministers expressed their gratitude to the House for the manner which the legislation they were in charge of was dealt with here.

Senator Hawkins, I think, judging by his speech, intends to pursue a totally different line. He wants to tell us his view, or the view of his Party, about elections in general, including general elections, about inter-Party Government, the desire to avoid elections and that kind of thing. I think one may describe that as just whistling in passing by the graveyard to keep one's courage up. This Bill gives no ground for that kind of speech. The issue here is a simple one. It is: shall the Minister be authorised to defer the holding of local government elections for a period of approximately two years, or shall he be compelled to hold them during the next 12 months? The Minister for Local Government in the previous Government came here last December with a motion not to defer the elections for six or 12 months but for two years. This House passed a Bill through all stages in December which had for its main purpose the postponement of all the local government elections until 1950. Senator Hawkins never said one word about the Presidential elections in 1952——

Mr. Hawkins

I did.

Mr. Duffy

——at that time. He was silent in December, but he is vocal in June. He has changed across to the other side of the House at his own request, and he deplores the fact that, in recent times this House has taken on a political as distinct from a vocational colour. The fault is that of Senator Hawkins and his friends who insisted on the 19th February that they would change places in this House and would sit on this side no longer. We did not want the change. They forced it.

Mr. Hawkins

Was there ever such a ridiculous statement made by a responsible Senator?

Mr. Quirke

Who said he was responsible?

Mr. Duffy

The Senator is not contradicting me; he is only uttering exclamation marks. The present Minister is doing something which the recent Minister for Local Government would not do. The present Minister is taking power in this Bill to have two elections in 1948. He is going to have an election in the County Dublin, and an election in County Kerry, in 1948. Senator Hawkins has been trying to create the impression that those of us on this side of the House who support the Bill are running away from elections, while the fact is that provision is being made for the holding of elections in two constituencies, two very large areas involving four Parliamentary constituencies in which no elections would be held were it not for this measure.

I think the amendment is unreasonable. There are very few people in this House who would more readily support an amendment than I would. I do suggest, however, that there is no point in compelling the Minister to hold an election in 1949, whether he is ready or not. Let us face this fact, that the reason for the postponement of the local elections is not to avoid a verdict by the people on local administration. It is the only thing on which they can give a verdict in the local elections. The reason is to enable the Minister, with the aid of the two Houses of the Oireachtas to enact legislation which will, in fact, change the whole character of local government administration in this country. If the amendment were adopted by this House and accepted by the Dáil, and if we found the Minister for Local Government coming here with a local government Bill of considerable dimensions—Senators can wipe out of their minds this notion of a one-clause Bill that Senator Hawkins spoke about— and asking us to give him all stages of it in the one day because he wanted the local elections held before the 30th September, 1949, Senator Hawkins would very quickly forget the speech he made here to-day and would lambaste anybody who thought that the Minister should have his Bill in order to prevent chaos.

Let us be reasonable and say to the Minister: "hold the elections at the earliest possible date, bring in your legislation for the recasting of local government administration as soon as possible, give both Houses an opportunity of discussing it freely and fully, have your local elections as soon as possible," but let us not tie ourselves or tie the Minister, since we know that is utterly impracticable. I urge the House to reject the amendment.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Murphy)

I regret that it is not possible to accept this amendment. Senators, I think, are not unaware of that intention, because it was more or less indicated on the Second Reading of the Bill yesterday. May I remind the mover of the amendment that the section, as it stands, does not necessarily mean that the elections will be postponed until 1950. The provision in the Bill is that they may be postponed until 1950. The purpose of retaining a discretion to be exercised by the Minister in connection with this matter has already, I think, been fairly fully explained. Clearly, the complete overhaul and revision of the City and County Management Acts is not a matter that can be dealt with in a short time. The changes proposed could not possibly be made in a one-clause Bill. It may be that the measure dealing with them will be a far reaching one in many respects. Senators are aware of the inevitable delays that take place almost invariably in the preparation of Bills, and in arranging the legislative programme for dealing with Bills. I think it will be fully realised that I am simply taking steps to provide against any difficulties arising out of this matter afterwards. I feel in a very peculiar position. It might be that, later on, in introducing extensive proposals arising out of the County Management Acts they might have to be rushed before provision had been made for the local election.

As I said yesterday, I think it is quite important that those provisions for the alteration of the County Management Acts should be passed into law, and not only that but that time should be allowed for their study before the local elections so that there would be no misconceptions whatever as to the rights and duties of the elected representatives when they resume control of the local bodies. I do not intend to follow Senator Hawkins into a discussion upon major political issues. I do not know that there is any need for me to comment on the statements he has made beyond this, that the provision in the section is that the local elections should be held in Kerry and in County Dublin in 1948. These elections will afford a reasonable opportunity to test public opinion. It seems to me to be rather inconsistent for Senator Hawkins, by a later amendment, to seek to have the date postponed to 1949. The reasons which I have given in connection with this whole matter are perfectly valid. I have no sinister or political schemes in mind. I am simply asking that this provision be made in connection with the local elections. It arises out of a very full discussion that took place in the Dáil, and I have felt bound to give effect to the decision that was reached there. I think I would find myself in a rather peculiar position if, on the flimsy arguments advanced by the mover of the amendment, I were to reverse that decision now.

Mr. Hawkins

I cannot say that I am satisfied with the manner in which the Minister has met this amendment. At the outset, I asked that we should have a clear statement from him as to why the election should be held in 1950 rather than 1949. He has not made any case. He has put forward the argument that it may take a long time to bring about the changes contemplated by the new Bill, but there is nothing in this Bill or in what the Minister has said to prevent the Minister coming here, in August, 1950, introducing his Bill and having it rushed through, any more than there is anything to prevent the Minister introducing his Bill in 1949 and having it put through the House.

I agree that if we are going to give back these powers to the local authorities the people at large should be aware of the authority and responsibility to be placed on the members of these bodies, but there is nothing in what the Minister has said to show that there is any obligation on him to introduce the measure at any particular time, or to give these people sufficient information in advance of what his Bill will contain. For that reason, I am convinced that the proposal that those who went forward three years ago for a term of three years should now be asked to continue membership for a further two years, without any good reason being advanced, takes from the people the right they have under the law to elect their representatives every three years. No case has been made for deferring the giving of the people's verdict and I, therefore, propose to press the amendment.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 17; Níl, 33.

Tá.

• Campbell, Seán P.
• Clarkin, Andrew S.
• Colgan, Michael.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Fitzsimons, Patrick.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Gibbons, Seán.
• Goulding, Seán.
• Hawkins, Frederick.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Hearne, Michael.
• Honan, Thomas V.
• O Buachalla, Liam.
• O'Dwyer, Martin.
• Nic Phiarais, Maighréad M.
• Quinn, Martin.
• Quirke, William.

Níl.

• Anthony, Richard S.
• Baxter, Patrick F.
• Bennett, George C.
• Burke, Denis.
• Burke, Robert M.
• Butler, Eleanor G.
• Butler, John.
• Counihan, John J.
• Crosbie, James.
• Dockrell, Henry M.
• Douglas, James G.
• Duffy, Luke J.
• Fearon, William R.
• Finan, John.
• Hayes, Michael.
• Ireland, Denis L.
• Lavery, Cecil P.L.
• McCartan, Patrick.
• McCrea, James J.
• McGee, James T.
• McGuire, Edward A.
• Meighan, John J.
• O'Brien, George
• O'Connell, Thomas J.
• O'Farrell, Séamus.
• Orpen, Edward R.R.
• Ruane, Seán T.
• Ryan, Jeremiah.
• Smyth, Michael.
• Stanford, William B.
• Summerfield, Frederick M.
• Sweetman, Edmund T.
• Woulfe, Patrick.

Tellers:—Tá: Senators Hearne and Hawkins; Níl: Senators Crosbie and Smith.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. O'Dwyer

I move amendment No. 2:—

In sub-section (1), paragraph (c), in lines 39 and 41, to delete the word "triennial" and substitute therefor the word "quinquennial".

This amendment does not affect the term of office of the present members of local bodies. It refers only to the future term of office of members of these bodies. I ask the Minister to consider the amendment very carefully because I feel sure that, if he examines the question, he will find what has been my experience, that the overwhelming majority of the people are satisfied that a term of three years is too short. We all agree that the holding of frequent elections has a very disturbing influence upon the public. Nobody likes them, because they are upsetting to business and very costly. Local elections are only a little less troublesome and disturbing in their effect upon the public life than Dáil elections, and it is not desirable that they should be held more frequently than is necessary to ensure proper representation.

There is another point which we may have overlooked, that local elections are likely to have an effect on the life of the national Government. Suppose a Government has been elected with an overwhelming majority and appears likely to continue for its full term of five years, as is most desirable in the case of any Government. If local elections take place a year or two afterwards, it is quite possible that the decision might be quite different, because it very frequently happens that local elections are decided more on personalities than on politics, but it might nevertheless be a sign that the Government had lost the confidence of the people, and, although in the ordinary course, that Government would have carried on for its full term, it will not feel in a position to do so and in all probability will go to the country again long before the expiration of its full term. That will not be so likely to happen if the life of local bodies is extended.

We must also remember the effect on the personnel of these local bodies of frequent elections. It is most desirable that the best type of person, really public-spirited and intelligent people, should be got into these bodies. We never ask ourselves what sacrifices we expect of these people. We expect them, practically without reward, to travel long distances—I am referring especially now to the county councils —week after week to do their public duties, and, as a matter of fact, the ordinary county councillor who is a member of the various sub-committees connected with the council gives more time to the public service than members of this House.

Unlike the members of this House, these people are subjected to a great deal of trouble in the shape of canvassing for positions and so on, and this is likely to be aggravated in the future. On top of all this, we ask these people who have volunteered for public service to take on themselves again the canvassing for votes which they had to endure three years previously and to stump their constituencies hat in hand seeking votes. We must realise that it will be very hard to get the type of people we want on these bodies in these circumstances. I often wonder how it is that any person of the right type goes forward in these elections. I think that if the Minister examines this he will see that there are very weighty reasons for his accepting the amendment. Even if he thinks that the five-year term is too long there is certainly an overwhelming case for a compromise on four years. I think he will meet with general assent on that point and I ask him to consider the matter very carefully.

Mr. Duffy

I am afraid that Senator O'Dwyer is going to be in trouble with his Front Bench if he keeps on with these notions. Senator Hawkins began by making a case for local elections every three years.

Mr. Hawkins

Oh, no.

Mr. Duffy

Very well, then, we will straighten this matter out eventually.

Mr. O'Dwyer

On a point of order, I would like to explain that——

Mr. Duffy

That is not a point of order, I submit.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator may, however, make an explanation, if the Senator gives way.

Mr. O'Dwyer

My amendment had no reference at all to the present councils.

Mr. Duffy

The Seanad had better be clear what is before it. The Bill continues, as a matter of law, the practice of 50 years in having councils elected for terms of three years. So far as I know, that has been the law, not always observed, it is true, from 1898 down to the present day. We are entitled to expect local elections every three years and we have been working on the assumption that we would have local elections every three years during the past 50 years. This is the first time, so far as I know, that the case has been made in either House of the Oireachtas that the three-year period is too frequent. I am pretty certain that there are few people connected with public administration who will subscribe to the views of Senator O'Dwyer that elections should be held only once every five years. He compared the local elections and the interest they arouse with the Dáil elections. One would imagine that Dáil elections are held only every five years, but in fact we have had seven Dáil elections in the past 16 years, in other words, we have had a Dáil election almost once every two years. The local authorities that will emerge as the result of this Bill will have amongst other functions the important matter of determining elections to the Seanad. It seems to me rather incomprehensible to suggest that while we have had Dáil elections on the average every two years——

Mr. Baxter

That is all ended now.

Mr. Hawkins

There will be no more elections if you can manage it.

Mr. Duffy

We have had a fair share of them in the past 16 years but at any rate I cannot see a case now for suggesting that the local elections must be held only once in every five years. Senator O'Dwyer was very unfair to the local councillors in complaining about the serious task which they encounter in canvassing and all this hard work they do to secure their election to the county council. Surely it is a voluntary task. Every person who seeks election to a county council voluntarily offers his services to the people without fee or reward or he is assumed to offer his services without fee or reward or the hope of fee or reward.

Mr. Hearne

On a point of correction, that is not so. I am sure the Senator realises that a person can be nominated to a council without his prior knowledge or consent, under the existing law.

Mr. Duffy

Yes, I believe that is true but there again there is nothing in the Bill or the amendment to prevent that. If a person is so nominated some reasonable time will elapse before the closing date to give a person an opportunity of withdrawing. There are circumstances where people were nominated without their consent but in such cases would the persons spend all this money canvassing for votes if they were nominated against their will? I do not think it is a good case for suggesting that a person should be elected for five years merely because he worked hard and spent a lot of money in securing his election. I would urge that unless there is some special reason for making a change we should not depart from the practice that has been observed for 50 years, the practice of having local elections every three years, and I urge on Senator O'Dwyer not to press his amendment.

Mr. Quinn

I wish to support this amendment. I am greatly afraid that Senator Duffy has not followed local elections very carefully during the past 50 years. I have been a member of local bodies and I know exactly what has happened. In 1913 there were local elections and there were not any again until 1920. There was one held on the 1st June, 1920 but the next local election was not held until the 1st June, 1935. Then there was an election in 1928 but from 1928 until 1934 there was no local election and from 1934 to 1942 there was no local election.

Mr. Anthony

Why?

Mr. Quinn

I do not know the reason but I am stating facts because I am a member of a board.

Mr. Anthony

Is that the reason?

Mr. Quinn

I do not think it is fair to ask me for the reasons why. My opinion is that the period of three years is very short. I know that in the case of the town commissioners in my own county the local elections cost the full amount of money they were allowed to strike for the purpose on the rates. It cost them the full amount to elect the town commissioners and they had no funds for other purposes except by borrowing. After all, the difference between three years and five years is not so great. We have had instances down the years where the life of local bodies was prolonged and even this very day the Minister for Local Government comes in here and asks us to extend the life of the present councils for two years making their term five years in all. If there is a case for making the life of the present councils one of five years why should not the next councils be elected for five years? I think it would be very unreasonable for the Minister not to accept Senator O'Dwyer's wishes.

Mr. Douglas

Speaking entirely for myself, I must say that I am impressed by the arguments put forward by the two Senators who urged that the local authorities should be elected for a term of five years. I have an open mind on the matter but at the same time I think it should be considered carefully by both Houses when the new Bill comes along. Obviously it cannot be dealt with in this Bill. As the last Senator pointed out, this Bill makes a term of five years possible in the case of the present bodies. I think the question of a change should be considered. I am not so sure that five years is not too long but there may be a case for four years. I am inclined to think that three years is rather short, particularly for men who have been elected on local bodies for the first time. They are only beginning to understand their work after three years. It may be said, of course, that they can be re-elected, but there is no principle involved. As I have said, it cannot be changed by this Bill but it should be considered and I am glad that Senator O'Dwyer raised the matter.

Mr. Murphy

I believe that even if the principle of this amendment was generally accepted it could not be incorporated in the Bill by way of an amendment and that it would need at least a completely new section to deal with it. While I have given this matter consideration when the Bill was being prepared and while I examined the matter carefully and gave myself some time to consider the matter I am inclined to the view that it was a wise and proper safeguard to have a provision in the Bill for the determination of local issues by way of election every three years.

It is a practice that has been continued in law since 1898 and, even though Senator Quinn is perfectly right in saying that that practice has been departed from during long intervals in that period, I think the principle remains and I think the principle is good. I am not sure that it helps as much as Senators may think the standard of local administration or even the degree of interest in local affairs to have prolonged periods of office or, at any rate, periods longer than three years. However, that is a matter on which I have no strong views or prejudices and, as I have already indicated, another measure will be introduced at a later stage in which it may be possible to have this matter discussed and, while I cannot give any undertaking on that matter, it may be possible to have this principle raised again and perhaps even agreed to.

I would desire as far as possible to meet the views of members of the Seanad in this matter and I am and would be impressed in a special way by the arguments of members of the Seanad, no matter in what quarter of the House they may be, who have been associated with local authorities. Perhaps I should say that one of the reasons that caused the provision for a triennial election to be endorsed again in this Bill was the fact that during the three-year period that will follow from the next local election there will be ample opportunity of judging the success, the advance made, under the changes that will take place generally in local government. Whether the wisdom that could be obtained during that period would be increased over a longer period or not, I cannot say. I personally think the triennial elections the better arrangement but I do not feel that I have any specialised knowledge in this matter that would enable me to lay down principles and ask everybody else to accept them. I promise to consider this matter in conjunction with any future legislation introduced in this connection.

Mr. O'Dwyer

I am quite satisfied with the Minister's explanation. This Bill, being only a temporary measure, there would be time enough to provide for the object sought in the amendment. As Senator Douglas has said, this does not enshrine a principle; it is only a question of expediency and efficiency. If the Minister would consider it on that line, I would be satisfied. With your leave, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Section 2 agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach

Amendment No. 3 is I think, consequential on amendment No. 1.

Amendment No. 3 not moved.

Sections 3 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 7.

Question proposed: "That Section 7 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. O'Reilly

I am not too sure as to what is the position in regard to the disqualification of members of a local authority and I would like to hear from the Minister why this section appears in this measure. As far as I understand, and I have some experience of Parliamentary and local elections, a man from Donegal could be nominated for the Dáil to represent County Cork.

Mr. Hayes

He would not have much chance.

Mr. Quirke

If it were the other way, he might.

Mr. O'Reilly

A Cork man might have a chance of being elected in Donegal. Still, a Donegal man could be nominated for County Cork. He might not be elected. I am trying to find out what is the position. Does the same position not apply in regard to membership of a local authority? Could a Cork man not be nominated for the Dublin County Council? If not, why not? If it is not so, it is one of the legacies of local government law from the days of the Grand Jury that was imposed on us by an alien administration. I am sure the Minister has quite a new approach to that matter. He will be able to tell us exactly what is the position. If necessary, he might consider amending the law in future legislation, if not in this measure, to ensure that there is the same scope for membership of a local authority as there is for membership of the Dáil. I see no reason why a man who is nominated by two valid electors within the constituency should not be elected. If a man from Dublin should be nominated for the Cork County Council by the specified number of nominees, who are valid electors, I see no reason why he should not be elected to the Cork County Council.

Mr. Murphy

I am afraid I cannot give the Senator any promise that I would consider that matter or that I would have any sympathy with it. Local affairs are local affairs and I think that requires local representatives with local knowledge. Apart altogether from the possibility or likelihood that a situation could arise in local administration that the present position would be regarded as an impediment to persons offering themselves for local elections—I see no possibility of that occurring—the simple provision is that the person who is duly nominated must be an elector or the owner, as far as I remember, of some property in the electoral area in which he goes forward. The very nature of the work of local councils and the business of local councils presupposes a qualification of that kind. We have made sufficient advance in throwing the election of local bodies open to the widest possible number of people by extending the franchise to all the persons eligible to vote in the Dáil election and I certainly cannot promise to give any consideration to this matter because, in fact, I think the existing position ought to be maintained.

Mr. O'Reilly

I am not suggesting that there should be any change. I raised the point because I wanted to know what the position is. I had not exactly in mind the case I outlined of the man from Donegal being elected in Cork or the man from Cork being elected in Donegal. Counties are divided in administrative units, county electoral areas. Suppose a man lives in a particular county electoral area and is nominated for the local authority to which he is qualified to be elected to represent a county electoral area other than the county electoral area in which he lives, how far does this qualification give him the right or deprive him of the right of being elected to represent a particular county electoral area other than the one in which he lives and is registered to be elected in?

Mr. Murphy

He is not so qualified. The qualification does not extend outside the county electoral area in which he resides and is an elector.

Mr. O'Reilly

That is a thing that the Minister should consider. I agree that the measure of representation is widened but you may have the case of a man living in a town which is in one particular county electoral area being asked to represent another county electoral area. I have known of such cases to arise. It is a thing, as far as I can see, that is not closely attended to or watched because, as far as nomination papers are concerned at local elections, it would appear that the only necessary qualification that is strictly looked into by returning officers is that the people who signed the nomination paper, other than the candidate, are correctly registered on the register. I do think there is need for some widening, if, as the Minister states, a man who is living in one county electoral area could not be elected to any other county electoral area of the same local authority. That is my point.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 8 to 12, inclusive, and Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Agreed to take the Fourth Stage to-day.

Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—agreed to.

Agreed to take the Fifth Stage to-day.

Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—agreed to.

Ordered: That the Bill be returned to the Dáil.