This is a Bill that needs to be brought before both Houses of the Oireachtas and discussed in a legitimate and open fashion. It is a Bill which has, I know, been worked on in the Department of Local Government for some time. It should be open to positive amendment and improvement by the people best equipped to deal with a Bill of this kind—practising politicians who are Members of the Dáil and the Seanad. It is ideally a Bill that we should have here for deep and mature consideration. It is the very type of Bill that should not be rushed through the House.
The Leader of the House, Senator O'Higgins, made an outrageous comparison when he compared the urgency surrounding this Bill with the urgency surrounding the passage of the Offences Against the State Bill which is still an Act and still being implemented as law by the present Government. Matters dealing with the security of the State surmount everything else in importance. These matters have, inevitably, to be rushed through the Houses of Parliament in this and in every other democratic country. That is an essential and fundamental matter in which everything else is dropped, as it were, in the interests of the overall security of the State.
This is not that type of Bill. Let us get that clear. This is a practical Bill of some importance. Most of it is welcome but it can be improved, added to and given mature consideration by this House. That is the purpose of this House and the Dáil is also there for the same purpose. It can be rounded into a legislative measure that can give real effect and improvement to our local government structure. Why the rush in regard to it? The local elections can be held without it. There is no doubt about that. There is no compelling reason why we should sit here and pass this Bill by 2 o'clock because nominations for the local elections are imminent. The local elections can proceed. We do not want this Bill for that purpose.
We, on this side, have some positive amendments to the Bill which we consider would improve it. I mentioned one amendment when we were discussing the Order of Business. I received my telegram this morning— I was away yesterday evening—and I just flicked through the Bill and immediately I saw a number of positive matters which I suggest could be improved. The Seanad should fulfil its proper function by having a day on Committee Stage and allow Senators to put forward amendments and to make a case for the amendments. I am sure they would be met by the Minister.
I suggest that we have a sensible Second Stage debate today, adjourn for a week—as we always do—have a Committee Stage debate, adjourn for another week, have a Report Stage debate and let the local elections proceed accordingly. I should like to hear, straightforwardly, from the Minister, can the local elections proceed without this Bill? They can. There really is no answer to that. The Minister knows as well as I know that this is true, that the local elections can proceed without this Bill. Why can we not have a sensible, practical debate about this measure, suggest improvements, put down amendments and have them debated? This is what the legislative process is all about. This is why we are taking a stand on this issue. We want this Bill debated in a normal, sensible, practical way by this House as a legislative Chamber. We see no need whatever for the unseemly rush.
If the Minister states that he must have the Bill in order that the local government elections take place, that is a different day's work. There is logic in that. I can say in answer to that, it is due to Government incompetence that the Bill is brought in on the eve of the local elections. At least there is a logic in the situation if the Minister can tell me that he needs this Bill in order that people can be nominated for the local elections or in order that local elections take place. I would criticise that attitude and say that if it is so important and urgent, why did the Minister not bring in the Bill much earlier than this? However, I would grant the Minister and the Government some credit for logic in that if they want the Bill urgently in order that the local elections can take place that is a point of view. There may have been incompetence, there may have been stupid delays, or mismanagement of the country's affairs in regard to the legislative programme before the Houses of the Oireachtas. It may have been any of these things but it is understandable and we can have a debate about it. The Minister has a point of view if the Bill is necessary for the purpose of nomination and election in regard to local authorities.
The date for the local elections has been fixed for 18th June. We appreciate that nominations are imminent. If this Bill is needed for that purpose, the Minister should make that case and we could debate that matter. But this Bill is not necessary for that purpose. This is a Bill rectifying a number of anomalies in local government legislation and qualifications that have existed over a number of years. As I said earlier, in broad principle I agree with the Bill. It is a Bill that can be improved very substantially. Members of the Seanad are entitled to put forward their points of view as to how it can be improved. We can have a sensible Second Stage debate today, the Committee Stage next week and the Report Stage the following week. The Bill is not necessary for the purpose of local elections. Why the haste?
I should like to say that there is something in the Minister's temperament that I do not like. I do not understand the reasons. We had the same attitude in regard to the Constituencies Bill. A very reasonable amendment, which the Minister conceded in the Dáil as having merit, was not adopted in this House. We, on this side, made it plain that it was just one amendment which we considered highly reasonable, and which the Minister by implication agreed in the Dáil as reasonable, and yet it was not accepted. This is an extraordinary attitude. I pointed out, when I was speaking on the Order of Business, that again, even at this late stage, there is no reason why a reasonable amendment or amendments could not be adopted by the Minister. There is no difficulty, the printing press is standing by, in getting a reasonable amendment put in. I should like to know, why the rush? Why the unseemly haste? Is this a matter of a Minister of State bulldozing for the sake of bulldozing? I can understand the Minister bulldozing, it has to be done sometimes in the public interest. Where the security of the State is involved it is very understandable. Why this attitude, having Senators summoned by telegram, to have the whole Bill finished by 2 o'clock in the afternoon? It must be law by then. Why, especially when, and I reiterate the point, it is not necessary for the purpose of nomination or the holding of local elections?
The Bill itself in many respects is one that is necessary as I have stated already. Certainly the statutory procedure for questioning a local election by petition to the Circuit Court has been necessary for some time, since the High Court ruling in 1961. It is a matter, which the Minister knows, that is a very unlikely sort of occurence; it is basically a legal tidying up of the whole procedure relating to local petitions that existed in various pieces of legislation dating back to the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882 and the Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1884. The procedure of petition was found in 1961 to be unconstitutional in that there was a particular tribunal appointed under these Acts that was exercising judicial power, and the court found in 1961 that this was a judicial procedure appropriate to the courts rather than to any particular non-judicial tribunal. It is a welcome improvement.
I want to put the matter in perspective: that is all that is about. A main part of the early sections of the Bill relate precisely to this area of electoral petition. It is a legal matter of tidying up the law in accordance with the High Court decision. It is not of any great importance but it is welcome. It is making judicial a matter that should be judicial, bringing within the compass of the Circuit Court a matter that was there under a non-judicial tribunal. That is all there is to it. I should like to know, just as a matter of interest, taking a layman's attitude instead of a lawyer's attitude, when was the last petition. I certainly have no recollection of any such petition under the old statutory procedure in recent years although there may have been one or two. I want to put the matter in perspective, that it is just making legal and constitutional what was held by the High Court specifically in 1961 to be unconstitutional, by reason of vesting this particular petition procedure in a non-judicial tribunal. What we are doing now is vesting it in the Circuit Court. This is hardly a matter that should be bulldozed through the Seanad before 2 o'clock in the afternoon. It is a matter on which we could have some excellent advice from legal, constitutional lawyers and academic Members of the House. It is a matter in which the Seanad could go in some detail at its leisure and perhaps suggest improvements. I cannot suggest any improvement but, other Members of the House, particularly Independent Members with some expertise in this area, might have improvements to suggest. However, there is no great reason why we should be rushing that aspect of the Bill before 2 o'clock.
The petition procedure is not likely to be invoked after these local elections because it was not invoked after the last local elections nor under the previous local elections.
Then, there is the removal of disqualification for membership of local authorities in the case of ministers of religion. This is a welcome improvement. It is one of the healthier features of European life that clerics of all denominations are entitled to stand for and sit not only on local authorities but in the Houses of Parliament. This was an outdated procedure dating back to an age of prejudice. I welcome its removal. It may not be of great moment. I cannot see many of our clerics seeking election to local authorities. This might happen in four or eight years' time. It is not a matter of such urgency to summon the Seanad by telegram and seek to have legislation passed before 2 o'clock today. It is not a bulldozing matter that clerics be made eligible for membership of local authorities. I welcome this without understanding the urgency.
The third main matter in the Bill is to remove the disqualification for membership of local authorities, committees of agriculture and vocational education committees on the grounds of being an alien or of holding an office of profit or being employed under the body concerned.
The fourth matter in the Bill is to provide a procedure whereby categories of employees of local authorities, committees of agriculture and vocational education committees may become members of the authority employing them without forfeiting their employment. This is an area in which practical amendments may be put down. We have positive views concerning this and practical amendments which we hope can be formulated during the week and put down on Committee Stage next week.
I welcome the extension set out by the Minister in his speech in the categories involved who are not officers. It is clear this can be done. It concerns mainly manual workers and officers in local authorities where there is no conflict between their duties and their representation or local authorities. That is agreed. With regard to the area of conflict between duty and membership, certain views were put forward in the Dáil. In this House we wish to put forward some views also. We can outline them in general principle on the Second Stage and they can be specified more positively in an amendment on Committee Stage next week.
I am proceeding with this debate on the basis that we are not finishing at 2 o'clock, that we are having a Second Stage debate today, that we are having a Committee Stage debate next week and a Report Stage debate the following week. This is legislation which should be considered in a deliberative and constructive manner by the House. I am disregarding the outrageous notice that a serious Bill, which requires mature consideration, needs to be bulldozed through before 2 o'clock today. I will treat the matter on its merits.
If I received any indication from the Minister that this Bill was necessary in order that the local elections be held on 18th June, in order that nominations should take place and that the election should proceed, I would go along with him. Having made my contribution, I would agree to all Stages going through this House if he tells me that this is essential and that the local elections cannot take place otherwise. Having had no indication to that effect I will proceed to deal with this Bill on the basis that we are now on the Second Stage, that we will have Committee Stage next week and Report Stage the following week. On that approach to the Bill I should like to discuss the question of qualification. In the Minister's introductory speech he emphasised that in regard to extending the range of qualifications:
The intention is that generally the restriction would be lifted for all employees except those holding fairly senior posts and others involved in policy matters.
He rightly goes on to state:
... all officers other than certain categories whose duties are such that it would be inappropriate to remove the restriction in their case.
They should be allowed to stand for local elections and allowed to sit on local authority bodies. He goes on to state:
The offices in relation to which the restriction would still apply that is where conflict exists between duty and membership would in general be all administrative staff down to but not including the rank of clerical officer, all town clerks, all professional staff, library staff, down to and including the level of assistant librarian, certain officers of fire brigades, certain outdoor offices of clerk of works, inspector and assistant inspector and analogous grades, rate collector, rent collector, rate inspector, rent inspector, housing welfare officer, means investigation officer, social worker, and, where employed on the county councils and county borough councils, assistance officer and superintendent assistance officer.
The Minister is aware that we in this House may have a different view on how an amendment should be phrased on Committee Stage. On the previous Bill concerning the constituencies, we put down amendments which were not quite in line with the Dáil amendments. We would have to consider the amendments put down by Deputy Molloy. The first amendment is the one which concerns us. The Minister refused to accept it on Report Stage and Committee Stage in the Dáil. It relates to the clerical officer category of employment in local authorities.
The Minister has served for some time on local authorities. He is fully aware that a clerical officer in a local authority has a very valid area of discretion and decision-making in regard to pertinent matters relating to local government. These concern administration under various headings. In reading the Dáil debates it appeared the Minister decried the fact that county council or corporation members would have to consult a clerical officer in regard to certain matters. He apparently felt that the councillor concerned should go to some higher authority within the county council administration who would deal with his affairs.
I was a member of a local authority and this was not my experience. In many cases one was concerned about injustices being done in regard to road matters, and particularly health and housing. If a matter can be rectified quickly one does not automatically go to the county manager and the county secretary. As a Minister representing a constituency I have gone in and discussed matters of this nature with a clerical officer in the health or housing sections of a local authority. The Minister is well aware that this is common practice on the part of local authority members.
The clerical officer has a real part to play. He happens to be a person who is handling files and who could give information to a member of a local authority, and who can and does draft the letter which eventually goes up for the secretary's signature, or the county manager's signature. It is at clerical officer level in many cases in local authorities that the basic decisions are taken. Are we to have a situation in which that person can become a member of his or her local authority, a person intimately involved in an aspect of administration which basically affects many people's lives and interests?
I shall take housing as one example. If a clerical officer in the housing section of a local authority is amenable, he can exercise a very real and positive discretion in regard to making decisions. We could have a situation in which if that person—to put it at its extreme aspect, and that is written into the Bill—became a member of a local authority, he could be phrasing, or dictating, or suggesting, the sort of reply that should go to councillor A. Clerical officer A can help to decide in regard to a housing matter what county councillor A wants to hear. That is what the Bill means as it now stands. A clerical officer in Limerick County Council or Meath County Council, in the housing section of these local authorities or in any area, can, if he or she becomes a member of the local authority, be in a position in which he or she is deciding on housing allocations. That will be of importance as far as that clerical officer's constituents are concerned vis-a-vis membership of a local authority. Is that desirable or undersirable.
I would ask the Minister to meet a positive point of view here. He has put down a number of categories that are excluded for the very reason I have mentioned—a real conflict of interest—and many of these categories do not have anything like the discretionary power or the same interest in a sensitive area concerning the public or concerning representation on local authorities which clerical officers have.
Let us take library staff for an example. The Minister is as well aware as I am of the position of library staff. Library staffing is not a matter of day to day political interest. It is an important cultural matter beyond politics, and a matter that does not need to be dealt with in this manner of exclusion. I do not see the logic in excluding library people and including clerical officers. I should imagine that the clerical officer in the housing section of any local authority has a far higher degree of conflict of interest than any member of the staff of the library right up to the top librarian position in any local authority. The whole library area is excluded from politics. I cannot imagine a situation in which any member of the library staff, right up to the rank of librarian, would in any way be involved in a day-to-day conflict vis-a-vis membership of a local authority. I respect the Minister's wisdom in the matter. The point I want to make is that a clerical officer in a housing department of any local authority is in a far more sensitive area than a librarian in charge of the library system of a local authority.
I could make the same point in regard to rate collectors. I am not making the point there because I can see wisdom in the exclusion of rate collectors. I am trying to be totally fair and dispassionate here. I see wisdom in excluding anybody concerned with the handling of money. In that respect I agree with the exclusion of everybody in the rate collecting, rent collecting and assistance officer category. The Minister is absolutely right to exclude these people. There is an obvious and straightforward conflict here and, on that aspect, the Bill is welcome. I do not understand why people who can be in a very sensitive position as clerical officers are not added to the list of exclusions. I made my position quite clear on the Order of Business. Would the Minister intervene in the debate at this stage and indicate that he will bring in an amendment along the lines suggested by Deputy Molloy in the Dáil in which he proposed that in page 12, lines 42 and 43, a new subsection should be included, subsection (2)? I quote:
An order made under this section shall not exclude an employee who is a member of the administrative staff down to and including the rank of clerical officer from the operation of section 21 (1) of the Local Government Act, 1955.
Deputy Molloy had a further amendment down which I will not press at this stage. If we could get an indication now that an amendment along the lines suggested by Deputy Molloy will be accepted, I would then recommend to the members of my group that we give the Minister all Stages today, even though the procedure is highly undesirable.
If the Minister is going to flout parliamentary democracy in a Bill which is not essential for the purpose of nomination and for the purpose of holding the local elections, we will also say that the Minister will go through the Parliamentary mill. That is what Houses of Parliament are for. The Minister will sit here and hear out the Second Stage. He will sit here in a week's time and hear out the Committee Stage. He will sit here the week after that and hear out the Report Stage. We will have practical amendments of the kind I mentioned put down to him.
I should like some eludication from the Minister on the question of vocational teachers. Representations have been made to me in regard to vocational teachers being allowed to sit on vocational education bodies. Has the Minister had any representations in that regard? There is a strong case that they should be represented on vocational education bodies. I appreciate that the restriction is being lifted as stated by the Minister:
The Minister for Education would propose to lift the restriction in relation to all employees of vocational education committees who are not officers, clerical staff up to and including clerical officer and vocational teachers.
That permits vocational teachers to be members of a local authority. Does it permit them to be members of a vocational education committee? This is a matter on which strong representations have been made to me by members of the vocational teachers profession. In a situation in which national teachers are allowed to sit on vocational education committees at present, school managers and members of the clergy are allowed to sit on vocational education committees, secondary teachers are allowed to sit on vocational education committees why cannot vocational teachers be allowed to sit on vocational education committees?
The Minister may reply by saying that the secondary teacher or the primary teacher, or the clerical manager, is not employed by the vocational education committee. In these days of comprehensive education that seems to me—and I would anticipate this to be the official reply—to be rather spurious in its reasoning. As far as education today is concerned, it is all integrated and comprehensive. Primary, second and vocational levels are tending to be co-ordinated into a comprehensive scheme of education. Therefore, if secondary teachers, national teachers and school managers are all sitting on a vocational education committee and vocational teachers are excluded, that appears to be anomalous in this day and age. We are concerned with a Bill that is broadly a liberalising measure and I would ask the Minister to look into what type of amendment can be devised to allow vocational teachers, not alone to be members of local authorities as is guaranteed under the Bill, but also to be members of a vocational education committee on which they can give advice from their own expertise and knowledge. It is a matter which, if we are allowed to have a proper Committee Stage, we will certainly be considering between now and Committee Stage.
That is a matter which was not raised in the Dáil to any great extent and about which I would be personally concerned with here having got very strong representations from the body representing vocational teachers. I also, have had very strong representations from a number of vocational teachers who are anxious to make a contribution towards this area of education. They are especially qualified to make a contribution which is at the moment being given by national and secondary teachers and clerical managers. An amendment of section 24 could be devised to meet this aspect which I have mentioned. Again, that is a matter which we should like to consider between now and Committee Stage— an amendment to section 24 that would incorporate this category of people and allow them to sit on vocational education committees. It is rather interesting that I do not hear members of the Labour Party being active in this particular cause, because, as I say, the trade union representing vocational teachers have approached me in the matter. A number of their members have also approached me on the desirability of allowing them to be members of vocational education committees.
The other matter which I would ask the Minister to consider very seriously, which was debated at length in the Dáil, is the real desirability of incorporating an amendment on the lines of the amendment suggested by Deputy Molloy in the other House related to clerical officers. They have a very real function in a very sensitive area of local democracy, and having regard to the list of people whom the Minister has excluded from eligibility, this particular category would certainly merit exclusion. I mentioned the extreme case of some members of library staffs who are excluded. I see no sensitivity whatever in 99.9 per cent of their relations with the general public. I see an awful lot of sensitivity and a high degree of danger, of conflict of interest, in regard to the relationship existing between clerical officers in sensitive areas, such as housing departments of local authorities, and the general public and members of local authorities—a very real danger and a conflict of interest where you have a clerical officer in that situation who is also a member of a local authority where he or she is concerned with the allocation of houses and he or she happens to be a member of the local authority as well, concerned with the allocation of houses. I do not have to spell out in a political chamber the very real degree of conflict which can arise in that sort of relationship.
Again, I want to emphasise that if the Minister is reasonable we will be reasonable. I do not understand the rush, what the bulldozing is about or why this Bill has to be passed before 2 o'clock. If the Minister, for some obscure reason, wants the Bill before 2 o'clock, we will give it to him if he gives an assurance of an amendment along the lines I have mentioned relating to clerical officers.