Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Jun 1972

Vol. 73 No. 1

Local Elections Bill, 1972: Committee and Final Stages.

SECTION 1.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 2, line 18, to delete "twenty-one" and substitute "eighteen".

I would not have agreed to the amendment being taken immediately after tea had I realised that the tea break would finish at 7 o'clock because I had another meeting in the House which extended from 6.30 to 7.30 and which had to be adjourned because this house decided to resume at 7 o'clock.

The reason for the introduction of this amendment is because it has been, for a considerable length of time, the policy of my party to press for the introduction of the right to vote for 18 year olds and upwards in all elections. As the House knows, the Minister for Local Government recently agreed in the other House, in response to a Private Members Bill introduced by some Members of my Party, to have a referendum in the autumn of this year in order to allow the electorate to decide on the matter of giving votes at 18 in relation to Dáil and presidential elections and referenda.

As the House also knows the Constitution, as it stands at present, was careful to distinguish between those types of elections and local elections. It specifically excluded local elections from the proviso that only those of 21 years and upwards should be allowed to vote. We are all well aware that it requires no more than a simple amendment to the Acts of the Oireachtas to allow 18 year olds and upwards the right to vote in local elections. Obviously, the most appropriate time to implement this was when the Local Elections Bill, 1972, came before the Houses of the Oireachtas. For some strange reason, which, with respect, the Parliamentary Secretary has not explained very satisfactorily, the Government decided not to do so.

They have included section 1 in this Bill and it is, in my opinion, a section which will never be operated. When the Parliamentary Secretary replied to the Second Stage of this debate he made it very clear that in his personal opinion section 1 of this Bill will be amended before any opportunity to implement it arises. It is the strangest form of Government to introduce a section, which in the words of the Parliamentary Secretary whose task it is to bring it before the House will never be implemented. The Parliamentary Secretary said very clearly on several occasions that 18 year olds and upwards will be allowed to vote in the next local elections. In order that that should happen section 1 will require to be amended.

It was the submission of some Senators, notably Senator Honan and the Parliamentary Secretary, that it would be wrong to include 18 year olds in this Bill in anticipation of the outcome of the referendum which is due to take place in the autumn and that it would be better to wait and allow the electorate to voice their opinion on this matter in relation to other elections before deciding whether or not to allow 18 year olds to vote in the local elections.

When the Parliamentary Secretary was replying to the debate, in response to a somewhat unruly interruption of mine, in which I asked if it was in anticipation of the referendum he had decided to instruct those who would be compiling the electoral register to take note of the people of 18 to 21 years in each household, he very courteously replied that it was in anticipation of the result of the referendum that the compilers of the draft electoral register would be instructed to take note of those people.

Senator Reynolds said earlier in the debate that you cannot have it both ways: you cannot stand up and say it is wrong to include 18-year-olds in this Bill in anticipation of the decision of the Irish people in the autumn referendum, and then say: "In anticipation of the decision of the Irish people in the autumn referendum, we intend instructing the compilers of the draft electoral register in September to take note of all those of 18 to 21 years of age currently living in the State".

Consequently, in those simple examples, and in the course of the debate this afternoon, with respect, both the Parliamentary Secretary and Senator Honan contradicted themselves and gave the lie to their own arguments. It is the intention to anticipate the referendum result by taking note of all those of 18. Yet, for some reason, the Parliamentary Secretary will not agree to anticipate the referendum result by having, in section 1, the right for people of 18 years and over to vote in local elections. What it amounts to at present is that if, as we all expect, the autumn referendum proposals are agreed to, the Parliamentary Secretary, or his Minister, or somebody else will have to come back here and to the other House and introduce an amendment to change section 1 of the Local Elections Bill, 1972.

Section 3 of the Bill, if agreed to, will ensure that no local election takes place before June, 1972. Consequently, depending on the result of the autumn referendum, section 1 will never and can never be implemented and will have to be amended before it can ever take legislative effect. That is bad parliamentary procedure, bad parliamentary draftsmanship, and bad thinking on the part of those who decided to introduce the Bill; it is merely following delaying tactics which are doing no more than holding up the time of the House. I would have thought that the obvious thing to do, if there was some marked reluctance to introduce the 18 years element at this stage, would be to drop section 1 completely from this Bill and to include it in one of the subsequent Local Government Bills which would be introduced into the Houses of the Oireachtas following the referendum.

I do not think there is any need to go into great detail as to why we feel those of 18 years and over should be afforded the right to vote. However, it is no harm to mention that in the opinion of the Government of the day they are entitled and expected, if they are wage earners, to pay taxes. Under the laws of the country, they are afforded the right to marry. If they are property owners, they would be expected to pay rates towards the cost of the administration of the local authority area in which they own the property.

Mr. Reynolds

They may drink in public houses.

Mr. Boland

They are entitled, as Senator Reynolds reminds me, to take a drink. They are entitled, and indeed exhorted, to join the Army and perhaps to lay down their lives on behalf of the country. Yet, at the same time, we have continued down through the years to disfranchise them. We can give them an opportunity to remedy that to some extent at present. For some strange reason, the Parliamentary Secretary appears reluctant to do so. I exhort the House to consider this amendment carefully. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider this reluctance to agree to it, in view of the fact that he has now admitted that he has taken certain steps in relation to the compilation of the electoral register. This is in anticipation of the referendum result and to agree to this amendment would be doing no more than to be consistent in anticipating that result in the same way.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government (Mr. Cunningham)

I am afraid Senator Boland has missed the whole purpose of section 1, which is to introduce one man, one vote. That is what section 1 does, and it is a very important purpose. I cannot understand the statement made by Senator Boland that section 1 will never be put into operation. This is completely misreading the purposes of section 1. The purposes of section 1 are to give one man one vote, and to do away with the property qualification, to delete this from our statutes. It happens that in the drafting of that amendment the age of 21 is inserted. This is drafting procedure rather than anything else. What section 1 is intended to do in this Bill is to give one man, one vote and the contribution made by the Senator misses that point completely, when he says that it is not necessary, that it will never be implemented. I certainly know that it will and it serves a useful purpose.

The Amendment of the Constitution Bill 1972 was referred to. It provides for a reduction of the voting age to 18 years. As I said, it has been introduced in Dáil Éireann, and it is hoped that it will be passed by both Houses during the present session. It is intended to put this proposal to the people in the referendum in the autumn. If the people approve of the change, a Bill will be brought in to make the consequential changes in the Dáil electoral law, and this Bill will also provide for a reduction of the voting age for local government elections.

In other words, it will not be necessary to bring in special legislation to do this one thing only. The legislation required to give the vote at 18 for local elections can be included in a Bill which will be consequential on the result of the referendum for votes at 18 for all elections and referenda. In accordance with this arrangement, provided of course that the people agree, persons aged 18 and upwards will be able to vote at every election, national or local, taking place after next April. The voting age for local elections could be reduced by ordinary legislation, but the Government's view is that the people should first be given the opportunity of deciding on the voting age for Dáil and presidential elections and referenda. It would be improper to anticipate the people's decision by reducing the age for local elections until the result of the referendum is known. In any event, under this Bill, the next local election will be held in June, 1973, and if the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill is enacted by the people and consequential legislation is enacted by the Oireachtas, persons aged 18 and upwards will be entitled to vote at these elections.

I thought Senator Dalgan Lyons's contribution was very relevant and logical. He is in favour of letting the people decide first, especially against the background that, even if this amendment were accepted, it would not alter the position. That is, giving votes to persons at 18 years at the next local election. I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Reynolds

I think Senator Boland is right about section 1. Section 1 clearly states:

A person shall be entitled to be registered as a local government elector in a local area if he has reached the age of twenty-one years and he was, on the qualifying date, ordinarily resident in that area.

The amendment means the insertion of 18 years instead of 21 years. As a politician I realise that, if votes were given at 18, Fine Gael would command the big majority of that vote. Of course, the Labour Party would probably claim the same thing. The Government party seem to be dragging their feet on this. Under the provisions of the Constitution it would be possible to give votes at 18 in local government elections without the need to have a referendum. It was not my party wrote the Constitution; the Government party produced that document, but they are inclined to run away from it when it suits them. Everything the Parliamentary Secretary has said here today clearly indicates to me that his party are not sincere about giving votes at 18.

Let us look at the effect it would have on the electorate if votes were given at 18. It would increase the number of the electorate in Dublin by 55,000. In the rest of Ireland it would increase the electorate by 95,000. That is a total increase of 150,000 votes. In other words, it would give a 7½ per cent increase outside Dublin and 11½ per cent increase in Dublin. I wonder if the Government are afraid of this number of votes coming in rather quickly. I am not saying they are. The Government party had the opportunity of giving these people the franchise in local government elections, but failed to do so.

Senator Boland has pointed out that a number of these people are paying income tax and a limited number of them might also be paying rates. They are by law at liberty to enter a public house and demand a drink. The have every right of a citizen except the right to vote.

The Fine Gael Party introduced votes at 18 in their policy as far back as 1965. Other parties followed that line since. The Parliamentary Secretary should give this some thought because, if you try to keep these people under, they could become dangerous. We have seen this happen in this country in other spheres. The Government now have the opportunity of giving them their just rights.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Senator Reynolds prompts me to remind him of an important piece of history in connection with the extension of the local government franchise. The last time the voting age in the local government franchise was reduced it was done by the Fianna Fáil Party and it gave a local government vote to every citizen, without property qualification, who had reached the age of 21.

Mr. Reynolds

There were other qualifications. Tell it all—do not half tell it.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

As a consequence of that every county council in Ireland elected a Fianna Fáil majority and the Fine Gael Party were almost wiped out.

Mr. Reynolds

Remember, on that point, you had to be a property owner. I happened to be a candidate at that time.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

You did not. In 1933 the Local Government Franchise Extension Act did not stipulate property owners. It provided that at the age of 21 a person was entitled to a local government vote.

Mr. Reynolds

A candidate had to be a property owner.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

You are talking about candidates, I am talking about——

An Cathaoirleach

Would the Senators address the Chair on matters relating to the Bill?

Mr. W. O'Brien

We are going to have a referendum in the autumn and naturally the two big parties, plus the Labour Party, would be in favour of the proposal in the referendum being carried. I wonder what our approach should be when we meet people and ask them to vote to accept the vote at 18. People will put the question: "Why ask us to do something that you yourselves as the Government or the Opposition, could have put through without a referendum. Would you not have trusted people at 18 to have a vote in local government elections and you ask us to put them in a much more important position by giving them a vote at 18 for Dáil Éireann." That would be a slightly embarrassing question for us all.

Mr. Honan

Section 1 reads:

A person shall be entitled to be registered as a local government elector in a local electoral area if he has reached the age of twenty-one years and he was, on the qualifying date, ordinarily resident in that area.

Mr. Reynolds

We want that changed to 18. That is the only difference.

Mr. Honan

The referendum will decide that one. The thing that puzzles me is this. In the case of an urban council, the electoral area is the area of the urban council. In the case of county councils, we have the well-known electoral areas.

Mr. Russell

The cities are wards.

Mr. Honan

The section states: "A person shall be entitled to be registered as a local government elector in the local election area...". What is the local election area?

(Interruptions.)

An Cathaoirleach

It would be more orderly if Senators would speak after each other rather than all together.

Mr. Honan

I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary: what is a local electoral area?

Mr. Reynolds

That has no bearing on the amendment.

An Cathaoirleach

The Chair was about to point this out. At the moment we are on the amendment, which is of a limited scope. If the Senator wishes to raise this point he can raise it on the section when we come to it.

Mr. J. Fitzgerald

There will be a referendum held in the autumn to give votes at 18 years for general elections presidential elections, referenda, and so on. This is not the brain child of any one party and no party should claim credit, as has already been done here this evening for being the pioneers of votes at 18. As Senator O'Brien has mentioned, when we go canvassing people to vote "yes" in the coming referenda, it can be pointed out to us that we had an opportunity in the Local Elections Bill, 1972, to show our sincerity by giving votes at 18 in the local elections. If by some strange quirk of fate the electorate decide we will not give the youth a vote at 18, will we use our powers here as legislators and give votes at 18 in local authority elections? Or does it mean, if this is defeated in the referendum, that it is the end of votes at 18 in local elections also?

Mr. Russell

One of the reasons given by the Parliamentary Secretary for refusing to accept Senator Boland's amendment was that it was unnecessary. If this amendment is not accepted and inserted in the Bill, we will be placed in the Gilbertian situation in which, if the Dáil adjourns in July and does not reconvene until October, in the interim period the register will be compiled about the middle of September and young people between the ages of 18 and 21 years will be noted. I do not know what "noting" means but that was the Parliamentary Secretary's own expression.

If this amendment is inserted in the Bill and is passed into law, they will be included in the register as of right. This is an important difference. I do not understand what "noting" means. It appears to me there will be two lists, one a register of those aged 21 years and upwards and a register of notees, between 18 and 21 years. The feeling is general on all sides of this House tonight that the amendment will be carried and we will by law be giving votes to all our citizens of 18 years and over. To be consistent and show our beliefs to the electorate, we, in both Houses of the Oireachtas, should show a lead by including this right in the Bill.

Mr. Boland

I was pleased that the Chair gently reminded Senator Honan that his contribution was relevant to the section and not the amendment. With respect, the same remarks might have been addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary when he rose to reply to me. I know well what the effect of section 1 is and, despite his remarks, I repeat that in view of what he stated before the tea break—that people of 18 years and upwards will vote in the next local elections—section 1, as it now stands, will never be operated.

Section 1 applies its provisions to people of 21 years and upwards. We all confidently expect that that part of section 1 which refers to people of 21 years and upwards will have to be changed. It is ludicrous to introduce a section into a Bill which Members on every side of the House expect will be changed before it can be brought into operation.

Senator Russell has made an equally relevant point: that those who compile the electoral register are paid on a head count basis depending on the number of people they have on the register. If they, in September, are to compile a register of people between the ages of 18 and 21 years who at the time they compiled that list had no right to vote in any election, how does the Parlaimentary Secretary envisage they will be paid for this additional work? Presumably, it will be one of those neat retrospective pieces of payment we all abhor but which so often happen.

The provisions of section 1 will never be implemented: it applies to those of 21 years and upwards and we all expect it will have to apply to those of 18 years and upwards. Surely the neater way of legislating now is to introduce the provision for 18 year olds and also copperfasten the position regarding the compilation of the electoral register. I fail to see the logic of the Parliamentary Secretary's attitude in this regard.

Ruairí Brugha

In his speech the Parliamentary Secretary refers to the compilation of the register and states that it will include those of 18 years and upwards if the referendum is approved by the people. It is indicated in his speech that it will automatically include them for the purpose of local elections.

Mr. Boland

Do you mean by amending this section which we are discussing?

Ruairí Brugha

Yes.

Mr. Boland

When the Parliamentary Secretary was speaking earlier, he said an amending Bill would have to be introduced to amend the section.

Ruairí Brugha

To cover the presidential elections, the ordinary elections and it will also include local elections.

Mr. Cunningham

There will be a Bill consequential on the successful result of the referendum. If the people decide to have votes at 18 years, there will be an amending Bill for general elections, presidential elections and referenda. When that is being done, the local elections can be covered by a section in the same Bill.

When local authorities get down to dealing with the draft register, the rate collectors who do this work will make a list of those between the ages of 18 and 21 years. After the referendum and when the legislation is passed, these people will be included in the registers which will be published on 1st April and become effective on 15th April.

Mr. Russell

The yearly checking on the register is not so good. The same people are put down year after year. There is no assurance that all those between the years of 18 and 21 are even down on a noted list.

Mr. Cunningham

We have the same complaints in regard to the 21s to 71s or 81s, that they are not all on the register. This is something we are up against. It may happen that in the proposed list of the 18s to 21s the position will be the same and there will be omissions. That is all I wish to say at the moment.

Mr. Reynolds

When the rate collectors go out to compile the register they will say the Government are not sincere about giving people votes at 18 years of age. They will say: "Why should we bother our heads putting their names on the register because we can take it that the referendum will not be carried?"

Mr. Russell

They have no legal right to be on the register.

Mr. Reynolds

I know. The Government are not sincere about giving them the right to have a vote.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Did you not say that they get paid on a head count?

Mr. Reynolds

I did not say it. If they are being paid on a head count, suppose they put in somebody who at the moment is 20 years of age and that person is taken off on revision. Are they paid on that name? I do not know how they are paid. I could see a weakness in the preparation of this register for the reasons Senator Russell has mentioned. We all seem to be hoping —some of us half-heartedly—that the referendum will be carried; but, as Senators Fitzgerald and O'Brien have suggested, suppose the referendum is not carried. If the referendum is defeated, which is possible—the Irish people can do many things—do we then take it that people for whom we have the right to legislate, that is, the local government electorate, will be given the vote at 18 years.

Mr. Cunningham

I want to deal with the question of sincerity. It has been raised twice by Senator Reynolds. First he said the Government were not sincere in this matter of votes at 18 years. He then instances cases where it could be alleged that this was so. I wish to state categorically that the Government are sincere in this.

A Bill has been introduced in the Dáil today. It is hoped to have this Bill through in this session in order to allow for a referendum. Senators have raised the question in relation to the referendum—"What will we tell people who are going to ask why did you not do this job when you could either in Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann?" Could I suggest to these Senators that the answer is that persons of 18 years will have votes at the next local elections? It is important, when a change such as this is being made in respect of other elections, that the wish of the people should be the guiding factor. It could be done now, but I share the view of the Government that we should wait to get the views of the people, especially when anticipating the views of the people does not give a single vote to a local government elector more quickly. By waiting we put ourselves in the position that we will have ascertained the will of the people. If the referendum is carried we will have legislation and the people of 18 years will have votes in June, 1973.

Mr. Boland

Could I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if people of 18 years will have the right to stand as candidate?

Mr. Cunningham

No.

Ruairí Brugha

Senator Reynolds has said that the rate collectors, when they are doing the compiling, would say to themselves the Government are not in favour of votes at 18 years. If he turns to page 2 of the Parliamentary Secretary's introductory speech he will find that it states the Government's position is that they favour votes at 18 years for all elections. If, according to Senator Reynolds, rate collectors are going to say this, they will not be saying it because the Parliamentary Secretary failed to make clear that the Government favour votes at 18 years.

Mr. Reynolds

What I said was that the rate collectors and the other people who compile the register would not take the Government as being serious about giving votes at 18 years. It took a long time to drag this out of the Government. We ultimately got them to commit themselves to give votes at 18 years to the section of the community who vote in a local government election. We have the right in this Parliament to give these people a vote, but we are failing to do so. If we want to get this referendum carried the first thing we must do is give a lead to the Irish people. Other people may have a different interpretation of the last referendum, but if the Fine Gael Party had not given a lead to the Irish people I wonder what would have happened. It was perhaps against our better judgment that we supported the Government in this, but we gave the lead to the people which we thought they required. I feel the same today—that there is an obligation on the Government to give a lead if they feel votes should be given at 18 years.

Ruairí Brugha

Could I ask Senator Reynolds a question?

Mr. Reynolds

There is no obligation on me to answer any questions.

Ruairí Brugha

He does not have to answer.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Sheldon)

As long as the Senator asks it through the Chair.

Ruairí Brugha

The Senator is asking the Parliamentary Secretary to accept an amendment to reduce the voting age from 21 to 18 years. Where would Senator Reynolds and his party stand if the people voted against in this forthcoming referendum.

Mr. Reynolds

That is the mind of the Government party. There is the answer. Is it the people or the party who count?

Micheál Cranitch

I have listened to argument and counter argument and still cannot see where it is leading. At the moment the relevant age is 21 years. That is and will be the relevant age for voting until such time as the people of this State by a majority vote decide at a referendum in the autumn that it should be reduced to 18 years. The Minister would stultify himself if he attempted to change that figure of 21 years at the moment. He would be trying to bring in what one might call a regulation by anticipation.

Mr. Russell

I would be prepared to accept the Parliamentary Secretary's argument in good faith. I would accept that the Government are committed to giving votes to people of 18 years and over. The only point I take issue with him is that, if the Government are sincere about this, surely they should take steps now to ensure that in the compilation of the register next September the 18 years old and over have a right to be on that register. As I understand the arrangement at the moment, there will be two types of voters on the electoral register. There will be the people who have a constitutional right to vote at 21 years of age and upwards and there will be a list of noted persons between 18 and 21.

I would suggest in all sincerity to the Parliamentary Secretary that where a rate collector, his assistant or his deputy is asked to compile a register on these lines that register will not be properly compiled, because you are dividing the electors into two—those who have a contitutional right and those who have no constitutional right. We all agree that the referendum will be successful. It is only right and proper that this amendment should be accepted to ensure that the 18 years and over have a right to be listed in the register in the middle of September otherwise, they will not have a legal right to do so. They will be left to the mercy of the rate collectors or their assistants to put them on the register.

The rate collector can say to himself: "If the Government are committed to that and they feel so strongly about it, why do they not give these people a legal right to be put on the register?" They are merely on a noted list at the moment.

Mr. Cunningham

I should like to clear up this point. Rate collectors will be instructed and paid to list over 18's. What Senator Russell is talking about as a register, is a draft register. It will be displayed, as draft registers always are, in public places and will be subject to appeals for additions or deletions. The 18's to 21's will have the same right as anybody to ensure that they will be on that draft register. They will be issued with forms of appeal if their names are not on and if they want to appeal to have their names included, they may do so. When that draft register is compiled, it will be as obligatory on a rate collector to put on a 19-year-old as it will be to put on a 90-year-old. He will be paid the same for doing so. It will be his duty to do so.

Election workers of all parties, as they always do, will go through the same procedure of scrutinising of draft registers to ensure that names which should be included will be included. I should like to clarify that point, because it is not going to be the lackadaisical sort of exercise that some of the Senators have indicated it may be.

Question put: "That the word proposed to be deleted stand."

The Committee divided: Tá, 26; Níl, 11.

Tá

• Brennan, John J.
• Brugha, Ruairí.
• Cranitch, Mícheál C.
• Crinion, Brendan.
• Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
• Farrell, Joseph.
• Farrell, Peggy.
• Fitzsimons, Patrick.
• Gallanagh, Michael.
• Garrett, Jack.
• Honan, Dermot P.
• Keegan, Seán.
• Keery, Neville.
• Killilea, Mark.
• McElgunn, Farrell.
• McGlinchey, Bernard.
• McGowan, Patrick.
• Nash, John J.
• Norton, Patrick.
• O'Callaghan, Cornelius K.
• Ó Maoláin, Tomás.
• O'Sullivan, Terry.
• Ryan, Eoin.
• Ryan, Patrick W.
• Ryan, William.
• Sheldon, W.A.W.

Níl

• Belton, Richard.
• Butler, Pierce.
• Desmond, Eileen.
• Dooge, James C.I.
• Lyons, Michael D.
• Mannion, John M.
• O'Brien, Andy.
• O'Brien, William.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• Reynolds, Patrick J.
• Russell, G.E.

Tellers:—Tá: Senators Brennan and J. Farrell; Níl: Senators W O'Brien and Reynolds.

Question declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Boland

I asked, in relation to section 2, subsection (1) (b) which stipulates——

Mr. Cunningham

I understand there is a division in the Dáil.

Acting Chairman

Would the Senator like to wait until the Parliamentary Secretary returns to the House?

Mr. Boland

Yes.

Mr. Reynolds

Section 2 (1) (b) reads:

within five years either before or since his election or being so chosen or appointed, he has been adjudicated bankrupt, or made an arrangement with his creditors.

Senator Boland's view and my view differ on this. I feel that a man who is a bankrupt should not be entitled to be a member of a local authority. I do not suppose I will get much support for that view in this House but it actually means that a man who is not capable of running his own business could be allowed to sit on a local authority and contribute towards the running of the business of that local authority—such as the collection of rates, the distribution of moneys and so on. I believe Senator Boland's point was the opposite.

Mr. Cunningham

The idea behind this section is to give the people the widest possible choice of candidates. If the electors at the local elections have a bankrupt going forward as a candidate and wish to vote for him that is fair enough but I agree that there is a problem in the case of a person who, in mid-term, becomes a bankrupt. It is quite possible that the electorate might lose confidence in him as a result and might not elect him again. There is something to be said for looking at this matter again but, as I indicated in the Dáil, there is a consolidation Bill dealing with disqualifications generally in respect of all elections. I prefer to have this matter dealt with in that Bill rather than here.

Mr. Reynolds

My point is clear enough then. A person elected prior to becoming a bankrupt and who became a bankrupt in mid-term might, according to the new proposals, be removed from office. It is not necessarily agreed that he still continues in office under this section.

Mr. Cunningham

Under this Bill he will continue in office. However, there is something to be said for dealing with this in the general context of disqualification, which will be dealt with in a Consolidation Bill in the future, and I hope fairly soon.

Mr. Boland

I asked a question earlier, on the Second Stage, concerning paragraph (b) in relation to the five-year period, either before or since a person's election. I merely inquired why the five years was stipulated in view of the fact that in the same Bill we are extending the lifetime of the local authority to six years. Is it necessary at all to stipulate a five year period? It might have been better to say: "Within the lifetime of the local authority, vocational education committee, or county committee of agriculture, to which he had been elected." Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would clear up that point.

Mr. Cunningham

It is purely a question of drafting.

Mr. Boland

If that is the case, it could happen that a member of a local authority, a vocational education committee, or a county committee of agriculture, who becomes bankrupt between now and June, 1973, would be disqualified from the position he held. This would be my reading of it. The provisions of this section would not apply to him because it would have been longer than five years since his election; he would have been a member of the authority concerned for longer than five years.

Mr. Cunningham

No. That is not so. When this Bill is passed, disqualification of bankrupts disappears completely.

Mr. Boland

It disappears completely in relation to his becoming a bankrupt within five years of his election. The point that I am making is that every member of a local authority for the next 12 months would be in his sixth year as a member of that local authority.

Mr. Cunningham

No. The disqualification is disappearing completely. The reference to five years was contained in the old legislation and it is simply being removed in this.

Mr. Boland

The first subsection of section 2, paragraph (b), specifically refers to a five-year period. Obviously, the reason it does is that the Applications of Enactments Order, 1898, in article 12, paragraph 4, sub-paragraph (c) says:

... has within five years before his election or since his election been convicted either on indictment or similarly of any crime.

Paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section 2 deletes the words "or has within or during the time aforesaid been adjudged bankrupt or made a composition or arrangement with his creditors". That relates only to the latter portion of sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 4 of article 12. A similar wording has been followed in subsection (1) of section 2. That wording says very clearly:

A person shall not be disqualified for being elected, chosen, appointed or being a member of a local authority, a vocational education committee or a county committee of agriculture because...

Then the terms of paragraph (a) are set out. Subsection (b) reads:

...within five years either before or since his election or being so chosen or appointed, he has been adjudicated bankrupt, or made an arrangement with his creditors.

Translating the provisions of that subsection to those who were elected in the local elections of 1967, a five-year period from them would take them quite by coincidence exactly today, because on this day five years ago the local elections were held.

If that subsection had operated in 1967, a person who became a bankrupt within five years of his election— in other words, within five years of his election on 28th June, 1967—would not be disqualified. But section 3 of this Bill extends the lifetime of every local authority, vocational education committee and county committee of agriculture for a further period of one year. On first reading—I may be wrong and I should like to hear the explanation of it—it would appear to me that the provisions of subsection (1), paragraph (b) of section 2 will not apply for the next 12 months, because the period mentioned is only a five-year period. Indeed, if at any time in the future the lifetime of a local authority were extended beyond a five-year span, the protection to people who became bankrupt would no longer apply once they had served a full five years from the date of their being "elected, chosen, appointed or being a member." This is the reason I originally asked why the period of five years had been specified, rather than saying the lifetime of the authority to which he had been "elected, chosen, appointed or being a member of," or saying "or such longer period as the local authority happens to be left in being". It appears to me that for the next 12 months the bankruptcy provisions which the Parliamentary Secretary is seeking to eliminate will, in fact, continue in being.

Mr. Cunningham

No. That is not so. The wording of the section may appear complicated and it may be reasonably asked why the same effect could not be achieved by a simple repeal of the relevant provisions of the Schedule to the 1898 Order. This part of the 1898 Order is applied to vocational education committees and county committees of agriculture by the Vocational Education (Amendment) Act, 1944, and the Agriculture (Amendment) Act, 1944, respectively. In the event of a simple repeal of these provisions there would be an element of doubt as to whether the repeal would be effective for vocational education committees and county committees of agriculture. These bodies are not local authorities for the purpose of the present Bill. For this reason it is considered desirable to declare in subsection (1) that receipt of general assistance and bankruptcy no longer disqualify a person for membership of a local authority, a vocational education committee or a county committee of agriculture.

Subsection (2) makes the consequential modification in the provisions of the 1898 order. Even if a simple repeal could meet the situation, it is desirable that a change in the conditions for membership of local authorities, which is a matter of some importance, should be effected in a positive declaratory way rather than negatively by way of repeal.

The section was, of course, prepared by the parliamentary draftsman. We have full confidence in his technical competence and there is no doubt but that the section, as drafted, accomplishes the desired objective.

Mr. J. Boland

I have no doubt that it accomplished the desired objective and I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for having read out that. It accomplishes the desired objective in relation to the normal life of a local authority, which is five years. I am suggesting that the five years, which is specified in the earlier enactments, has been repeated here because five years is the life of a local authority at present. As it happens we are extending the lifetime of a local authority by one year. It does not seem to me, under any interpretation of subsection (1) of section 2, that a person who becomes bankrupt between now and June, 1973, can save himself from disqualification. The Parliamentary Secretary is trying to assist in this regard by explaining it to me but, with respect, I do not think that he has made the position clear to the House yet.

Mr. Cunningham

As I see it, the position is that these committees are not local authorities, and while part of the section could be left out as far as local authorities are concerned, there is some doubt as to whether it would then cover vocational education committees or county committees of agriculture, which are not local authorities. Therefore, it was necessary to draft it in this way to make doubly sure that what was in mind would be achieved.

Mr. Boland

Why within five years? Most people who are members of vocation educational committees now were appointed to such committee approximately four years and 11 months ago. This provision means that, if they become bankrupt within five years of having been appointed to that vocational education committee, they will not be disqualified. By direct implication it would mean that if one happens to be a member of that committee for longer than five years he may still be disqualified under the terms of the previous enactment. As it happens, we are extending in another part of the Bill the lifetime of vocational education committees, along with other local bodies for a period of 12 months.

It appears to me that someone who falls bankrupt in the next 12 months and who happens to be a member of either a local authority, a vocational education committee or a county committee of agriculture can now be disqualified as heretofore. I am merely making the point. I hope I am wrong. I hope that no Member of this House who is a member of a local authority, a vocational education committee or a county committee of agriculture becomes bankrupt in the next 12 months. I want to assure the House that I will do the best I can to ensure that it does not happen to me. Nonetheless, I do not think that this is going to cover anybody who is unfortunate enough to fall into that position in the next 12 months.

Mr. Cunningham

I think the same thing has happened to the Senator as happened to myself on first reading this. The five year period has nothing to do with the lifetime of a local authority. It arises from the section in a previous enactment, which specified that a person is disqualified if he became bankrupt within the previous five years. The five year period referred to the individual bankruptcy rather than to any lifetime period of a local authority. It has nothing to do with the life of the local authority. It relates to a five year period from the date of bankruptcy.

Mr. Boland

The Parliamentary Secretary is right. I have found the previous enactment. It is the Application of Enactments Order, 1898. It was that order that specified the five year period. At that time I do not think there were five year periods in the lifetime of local authorities. I think they were shorter. Nonetheless, that wording has been repeated in subsection (1) of section 2. Also coincidentally the ordinary lifetime of a local authority now, in normal circumstances, before the Parliamentary Secretary and his predecessors started changing it about, is five years. If the Parliamentary Secretary reads the thing carefully it says—

...within five years either before or since his election...

In other words, if he was elected in 1967, that covers the period back to 1962 and that is the portion that refers to "before his election or since his election." It means five years from 1967, which brings us to the 28th June, 1972 which is today. We are extending the lifetime of local authorities today by another period of 12 months and it appears to me that, consequently, the members of local authorities for this further period are not covered by this provision.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I was just beginning to get a grasp of it when you started that again.

Mr. Cunningham

If he were a bankrupt now he would not be a member of a local authority, so what the Senator has said does not apply.

Mr. Boland

It is agreed, but any fellow who becomes a bankrupt in the next 12 months is going to feel very sore about it.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Mr. Boland

I move amendment No. 2:

In subsection (1), page 3, line 4, before "An election" to insert "An election of members of Dublin Corporation and Bray Urban District Council shall be held in July, 1972, and".

This amendment refers to the discussion which took place earlier today on the Second Stage in relation to the fact that at present, and for the past number of years, there has been no local authority in existence in the city of Dublin or in Bray Urban District Council. The section itself extends the lifetime of local authorities throughout the country for a further 12 months. The effect of the amendment would be to agree to the extension of the lifetime of all other local authorities for that period, but to insist that an election should now take place to elect new members to Dublin Corporation and Bray Urban District Council, and that those elections should take place next month—July, 1972.

We feel that this is an eminently reasonable amendment in view of the fact that the electorate and the population in both areas have been deprived of their democratically elected councils for a number of years. It would help the House if we did not go into the pros and cons of why there is not now a democratically elected council in those areas. Every reasonably minded person in the Chamber will agree that it is unfortunate. I happen to be chairman for another ten days of a rather large local authority, whose boundaries are contiguous to the boundaries of Dublin Corporation, in other words Dublin County Council. I appreciate acutely the loss to the city of Dublin and to the tourist drive generally of having no lord mayor in Dublin.

We should have some dignatory representing the city who would welcome visitors and officials at city receptions and for this reason it would be worthwhile having these elections once again.

Of equal importance, we would have restored to Dublin city 45 or more members who would represent the views of the ordinary man-in-the-street and give him the confidence of knowing he has an opportunity of presenting his grievance and his point of view. The city commissioner merely places a bureaucratic stamp on the previously made bureaucratic decisions.

I state this as someone who has a good deal of contact with a number of the officials concerned who are public servants of the highest order but who are themselves unhappy and discomfited because there is no city council to whom they can turn as a last resort and who will judge what is right and wrong for the city of Dublin.

This situation applies in the urban district of Bray and if Senator Gallanagh were present in the House now, he would wax eloquent on the need for an urban council to be restored to Bray. Senator Gallanagh was deeply implicated in the affairs which led up to the unfortunate dissolution of the urban district council in that area. The Parliamentary Secretary pointed out the power lies with the Minister under the 1941 Act to decide at any stage to convene elections in any area where a local authority have been dissolved and that this amendment was superfluous. As I pointed out to the Parliamentary Secretary, the Minister has not exercised that power. I would be happy to withdraw this amendment on the undertaking from the Parliamentary Secretary that he would try to persuade his Minister to use his powers under the 1941 Act to convene these elections. The Parliamentary Secretary has quite honestly told the House that he is not in a position to give that undertaking.

Consequently, we believed that this was one of the first opportunities that had been presented to this House to put forward that point of view that the democratically elected councils for their area should be restored to Dublin city and to Bray town. Those councils were elected five years ago today. They have been dissolved.

Mr. Killilea

It was not the Minister who dissolved them. You failed to do your job.

Mr. Boland

If the sun was out, poor Senator Killilea would have more on his mind, as he would be occupied again with the bikinis in Salthill. There are no sun and no bikinis and we are all upset.

Mr. Killilea

I thought you were a member of Dublin Corporation and that you failed to do your duty.

Mr. Boland

No, sir.

Mr. Killilea

I thought you were elected. I am sorry.

Mr. Boland

I was never a member of Dublin Corporation in the same way that Senator Killilea was never a member of Galway Corporation, who were responsible for the administration of the beach in Salthill, County Galway. That does not stop him from interfering with what the girls should wear. May we go back to section 3 of the Local Elections Bill, 1972?

Mr. Killilea

Senator Boland should not interfere with Dublin Corporation when he is not a member.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Killilea should not be interrupting.

Mr. Boland

Since Dublin Corporation were abolished, I, as one of the public representatives in an adjoining area, have been given a tremendous amount of extra work to do. The people naturally turn to their elected public representatives. It has become apparent to me, as it must be apparent to anyone with a genuine interest in public life, that the loss of a city council in the major city is a serious loss to the prestige of the city, the prestige of the country, and to the people who are involved in the promotion of tourism.

Mr. Killilea

Why did they not strike a rate?

Mr. Boland

There are many in this Chamber who could speak at some length on this topic. I began by saying: "Let us not go into the reasons why this city council is no longer in existence." All of us who are genuinely interested in Dublin city and county and in the promotion of our tourist industry, and in the improvement of the prestige of a city for which many of us here have a genuine love, regret very sincerely that this council are not in existence. If the Parliamentary Secretary could agree to this amendment it would be most welcome to many people.

Mr. Reynolds

I support Senator Boland on this for many reasons. Perhaps the people concerned did not stand up to their responsibilities but Dublin Corporation have been abolished for approximately two and a half years and Bray Urban Council for a shorter period. They have paid the price and the people whom they represented have also paid the price. How much further do we go to penalise people for doing wrong? We have all done wrong during our lifetime. As was stated by somebody, if a person wished to write down the good he has done, his forehead might hold it, but if he wished to write down the wrongs he had done, the biggest wall in this House might not hold all.

There is no need for a corporation for planning permission, et cetera. Decisions will be made by officials who have not got the grassroots understanding which the elected representatives would have. There is need for a lord mayor at public functions. Tourists usually make inquiries about the lord mayor and the Mansion House, and it would not be in any way weak for the Department of Local Government to allow the local elections to be held for Dublin Corporation in this present year in the month of July.

For that reason I would earnestly appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to see if he could influence the Minister for Local Government to restore Dublin Corporation and Bray Urban Council. Under the present Act it will be only a year until we have local elections. Why continue the fight? Nobody wins a fight that is drawn out too long.

Mr. Russell

I wish to say a word on this. I hope I will not be accused of interfering in the affairs of the defunct Dublin City Council. One point has been overlooked. It has not been adverted to in any of the comments that have been made for or against the abolition of Dublin City Council and Bray Urban District Council, and that is the loss to the citizens of both areas. The elected councillors may or may not have been right or wrong in what they did. The Minister decided to abolish them. So far as I am aware there is no legislation providing that the Minister must order elections at any particular time. It is within the power of the Minister to decide when there will be a fresh election in these two electoral areas. This section of the Act needs careful examination on behalf of the citizens of Dublin and of the electors of Bray Urban District Council.

The Minister decided that the representatives of both bodies acted wrongly and irresponsibly. Other public representatives, who did not share the views of the person who voted not to strike an adequate rate on that occasion, have said time and again that they acted irresponsibly. The only one way to decide whether they acted irresponsibly or not is to call fresh elections. After a stipulated period—say, of two years—the Minister should be obliged to call fresh elections and let the citizens of Dublin and the residents of Bray urban district decide if their public representatives acted irresponsibly or wrongly. They are the people who in the long run pay the piper.

In all this we are forgetting that it is not the will of a Minister or the irresponsibility of a public representative that is the issue, but the democratic rights of the people of Dublin and Bray. They are being completely overlooked in this whole issue. Whether the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to accept the amendment or not, I would urge on him and, through him, on the Minister for Local Government to ensure that the democratic rights of the citizens of Dublin and Bray are restored soon. Let them decide. If they think that one group acted irresponsibly and those on the other side acted responsibly, let them refuse to elect the people whom they think acted wrongly in the matter. That is democracy in action.

I agree with both Senator Boland and Senator Reynolds that the loss of the Lord Mayor of Dublin extends far beyond the confines of the city, particularly in regard to our tourists from overseas. This year—for reasons I do not wish to go into now—we are dependent more than ever on tourists from the United States of America. We have done everything we can to encourage American tourists to come here and they have come here in greater numbers than ever before. The one key man in any American city is the mayor. American citizens coming here find it extraordinary that the capital city of Ireland does not have a first citizen, a lord mayor, or any single person available to extend to them the normal courtesies. It is a defect that should be remedied at the earliest possible date. If the councillors and aldermen were abolished and the mayor could stay on in office, if necessary with the agreement of the Minister, that would do something to repair the damage that has been done. It has damaged the image of the city of Dublin.

Professor Quinlan

I wish to support the present amendment in the strongest possible terms. I cannot understand why the Government are so reluctant to make this obvious gesture to the democratic rights of this city at a time when we are genuinely trying to show how much we value democracy here and how much we value and guard the right of the majority in any community to express their point of view and to have their clearly defined role. The fact that the Government did not like how the corporation acted some four or five years ago is no reason for the Government to deny this democratic right to the citizens of Dublin. We might pass off what happened four years ago as an effective if illegal process, in the position in which the corporation and other similar bodies found themselves —having little or no power and yet being faced with the odium of having to pass on rate increases. The services have to be provided and the rates have to go up to pay for them. This was a type of local protest and it is time now for the Government to restore the council. It ill becomes the Government to lecture any group on democracy if they are not prepared to take the lead themselves.

It is appalling to think that our capital city is without its lord mayor as its representative on ceremonial occasions. I would go so far as to urge the present commissioner to cease his functions at an early stage as a contribution to restoring the corporation and the democratic rights in Dublin. I appeal to the Government to let us have immediate action on this. When it comes to democracy action always speaks much louder than theory.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Does Senator Quinlan forget that his own city was deprived of its lord mayor for many years and not by the Fianna Fáil Government?

Professor Quinlan

Past wrongs do not make the present ones right.

Mr. Cunningham

These amendments would require the Minister to hold local elections in Dublin city and Bray during next month. Section 45 of the Local Government Act, 1941, requires the Minister to fix a date for new elections in these areas and the date selected must be within five years after the removal from office. The Minister could select any day in that five year period. If he considered it desirable to hold elections in Dublin and Bray next month he has ample power under the Act of 1941 to do so. The amendment is therefore unnecessary. It would be inappropriate to hold new elections in Dublin and Bray until further consideration has been given to the future shape of local government in these areas. In Dublin particularly there is a pressing need for overhaul of local government structure and existing legal boundaries between city and county have become increasingly irrelevant. Therefore, it is not the time for the election of a new city council. I cannot, therefore, accept this amendment.

I have here a very long list of councils, urban councils, county councils, and corporations where the same thing has happened down the years. By and large they were restored at the next following local elections throughout the country. This has been the practice generally. The main argument is that there will be in a Bill, which will come before Dáil Éireann, proposals to reorganise the local government structure in Dublin city and county. Everyone admits that it is necessary to do this. I do not think it would be the right thing to have elections next month and elect members of the corporation for an 11-month period. This is the main reason why I cannot accept this amendment.

Mr. Reynolds

They could give them a six-year period.

Mr. Cunningham

There is already sufficient provision in the 1941 Act to do this if it were felt now or at a future date that it was desirable to do so.

Professor Quinlan

Surely if the Minister contemplates sweeping changes in the administration of Dublin city and county then there should be some responsible body at local government level which the Minister and the Government would regard as speaking for the citizens of that area. I cannot think of a better way of getting those representatives together than having the elections immediately. It is the most potent argument that could be advanced for having the elections. A consultative body is urgently needed in view of the changes that are being contemplated.

Mr. Boland

The point made by Senator Quinlan is a very good one. The Minister has unfortunately brought into the argument the suggested changes in the local government structure in the areas of Dublin city, Dublin county and Dún Laoghaire Borough. The Parliamentary Secretary will know well that when the Minister went to have discussions with representatives from local authorities throughout the country in relation to the White Paper, he found himself in extreme difficulty when he came to the Dublin area. Dublin County Council reluctantly sent representatives to meet him, because we felt we had the entitlement to be received on our own. We therefore reluctantly sent representatives to a meeting, along with the representatives from the Balbriggan Town Commissioners and the Borough of Dún Laoghaire. But there was no representative present at that meeting, nobody to speak for and no voice to speak on behalf of the people of the city of Dublin.

This is the very point Senator Quinlan is making. If the proposed sweeping changes are the reason for not having an election to re-instate the Dublin Corporation, then the Minister is saying that these sweeping changes will take place without having a single democratically elected person to speak on behalf of the citizens of Dublin city. Indeed, it was an embarrassment to all of us at that meeting—and, I should like to think that it was an embarrassment to the Minister also— that, while he was hearing the views of the members of my council, the members of Dún Laoghaire Borough and the members of the Town Commissioners in Balbriggan, there was nobody to advance counter-arguments and perhaps to agree with some of the arguments of behalf of the people of Dublin city.

It is quite obvious that the Parliamentary Secretary's hands are tied in this regard and that the decision not to have these elections has been taken at a level, with all due respects to him, higher than his. It is tremendously unfortunate, and if the reason that is being advanced is the genuine reason then it is doubly unfortunate. If, as Senator Quinlan says, that is the case, then this is the time, more so than ever before, when there should be democratically elected people to speak on behalf of the citizens of the present greater Dublin area.

When the Parliamentary Secretary says that everybody is agreed on the sweeping changes which are needed in the greater Dublin area he is perhaps overgeneralising.

Mr. Cunningham

I did not say that.

Mr. Boland

We are all in agreement that some sort of change is necessary, but we are all in very great disagreement as to what that change should be. I am unhappy and upset at the Parliamentary Secretary's remarks, because they would seem to indicate that in fact a firm decision in relation to the Dublin area has been taken arising out of the White Paper. It is wrong that that should have been announced in a roundabout way talking on section 3 of the Local Elections Bill, 1972. Perhaps, as a result of this, we will get some firmer information as to what will happen in Dublin city and Dún Laoghaire and Dublin County Council in the next couple of weeks. It is certainly to be welcomed and is overdue.

Mr. W. O'Brien

Other authorities which were abolished previously were restored at the end of their statutory life. I think an additional penalty is being imposed on the people of Dublin. Local authorities have been given an extension of life. Dublin has suffered sufficiently and the city council should be restored.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I was astonished to hear Senator Boland say that at this meeting he referred to there was not a voice to speak for Dublin city and that there was no democratically elected representative to consult. I wonder has he forgotten that there are a couple of dozen democratically elected Deputies of all parties representing the city of Dublin who are easily available for consultation when required.

Mr. Boland

If we were to take Senator Ó Maoláin's point to its logical conclusion there would be no need whatsoever for local authorities, because the democratically elected dozens of Dáil Deputies could speak and voice the opinions of the electors whom they adequately represent. But in local affairs, as distinct from national affairs, I believe there is a special need for local authorities. I am sure Senator Ó Maoláin agrees with me on that. I am sure that our colleagues who represent Dublin city in the Dáil would be the first to regret the fact that there is no longer a city council in Dublin. Having read the Dáil debates, I know that some of Senator Ó Maoláin's own colleagues there are unhappy.

Mr. Honan

The reasons for the abolition are important, too.

Mr. Boland

It is particularly unfortunate if we are contemplating sweeping changes. The Parliamentary Secretary says there is general agreement. How can we have general agreement when there is no Dublin City Council to voice its opinion? There is no city council to voice an opinion on behalf of the 600,000 to 700,000 who now live in the city of Dublin. How can we say then that there is general agreement that sweeping changes in the local authority structure in the Dublin area are necessary?

Of course, changes are necessary, but I do not agree with the changes the Minister envisages. Virtually everybody involved in local authority in the Dublin area would feel that changes of some type are necessary. Nobody has been able to detail, speaking on behalf of the democratically elected Dublin Corporation, the necessary changes.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Senator Boland has answered himself. Most of the Members of the Dáil who represent the city of Dublin have also been members of the local authority here, the Dublin Corporation. Surely if anybody is acquainted with local problems, it is these Members of the Dáil who were members of the corporation. These, as we already said, are easily available for consultation.

They were democratically elected; they are in daily touch with the people of the city of Dublin and are in as good a position to throw light on the problems of the city of Dublin, with which they have been dealing—not alone in the Dáil but on the local council—as any other person who could be called upon. Senator Boland will agree that there could be no doubt whatever that if the Minister, his Department or anyone who is designing this new structure requires any information on the problems involved in the restructuring of Dublin and its local organisation, then that information can be obtained without much trouble from the elected representatives in the Dáil.

Mr. Boland

Fewer than half the Deputies representative of the city at present, were members of the corporation.

Mr. Killilea

On a point of explanation, is it not also true that there are three men in Dáil Éireann who were members of Dublin County Council, of which Senator Boland has at the moment the privilege of being chairman, and who were also members of Dublin Corporation? I thought Senator Boland had as much on his shoulders as some of those people, because I assumed that, along with being on Dublin County Council, he was also on Dublin Corporation.

Mr. Reynolds

He has no chips on his shoulder.

Mr. Killilea

I thought he was a far more valuable man than he obviously is.

Mr. Boland

One full member of Dublin County Council was also a member of Dublin Corporation—one member, not three.

Mr. Killilea

We cannot go into names here, but there was more than one.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Section 3 agreed to.

SECTION 4.

Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Reynolds

What does section 4 mean?

Mr. Cunningham

Under existing law appointments of school attendance committees are due to be made this year. The committees are appointed partly by the Minister for Education and partly by the local authorities. The purpose of this section is to postpone the appointments until next year so that the members to be appointed by the local authorities will be selected by the incoming councillors elected in the 1973 local elections. Section 10 of the School Attendance Act, 1926, as amended, provides for the appointment of school attendance committees for Cork County Borough, Dublin County Borough, Waterford County Borough and Dún Laoghaire Borough. The committees consist in general of 11 members each, except in the case of Waterford, where the membership is ten. They are charged with the enforcement of the School Attendance Act in those areas. In other areas the enforcement authority are the Garda Síochána. The Minister for Education appoints five members of each committee and the remainder are appointed by the local authority for the area.

Appointments are made quinquennially and the intention is that they would be made in the years in which local elections take place, so that the selection will be made by newly-elected councillors. By putting the local elections back to 1973, this Bill breaks a five yearly pattern of local elections. It is, therefore, desirable that the appointment of school attendance committees should be postponed for a similar period. The present school attendance committees took up office on 1st January, 1968. Their successors will be due to take up office on 1st January, 1973. Under this section, the date of taking up office will be postponed until 1st January, 1974.

Mr. Russell

Is the period of office of members of local authorities on statutory bodies automatically extended, for example, on harbour boards and health authorities, are they automatically extended for the year?

Mr. Cunningham

Yes. This follows from section 3.

Mr. Reynolds

I did not understand what section 4 meant, not living in an urban area or in the areas which were mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary. In the other areas throughout the country, the School Attendance Act is enforced by the Garda Síochána, and this seems to place on them an unfair burden. The Parliamentary Secretary might be well advised to consider the setting up of some type of committee by the local authorities. I do not know if I am within my rights on this question but that is my passing comment.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator has made his point and also the point that he was out of order, with which I agree.

Mr. Cunningham

That would be for the Minister for Education.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.