Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 3 Jun 1953

Vol. 139 No. 5

Local Elections Bill, 1953—Report.

Mr. Sweetman

I move Amendment No. 1:—

In page 2, Section 2, to delete sub-section (4).

Last night, when discussing this Bill, the Minister indicated that he was notvery clear as to what exactly were the respective effects of Section 2 (4) and Section 6. I have put down this amendment to enable the Minister to clarify his own mind and the mind of the House. As I understand it, the effect of this sub-section is that it in fact gives power to the Minister to make dissolution Orders after the passing of this Act, and to make Orders for elections in respect of bodies dissolved both prior to and subsequent to the passing of this Act. If that is not the position, then I should like the Minister to tell us what is the position.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Smith)

I cannot understand what the Deputy is coming at.

Mr. Sweetman

I am coming at this, that the Minister last night gave three different explanations of what this sub-section meant. I have put down the amendment for the purpose of giving the Minister an opportunity of giving the House one explanation which, we hope, will be authoritative on which we can rely.

Mr. Smith

If I were to accept this amendment, it would mean, as I understand it, that the Minister for Local Government would be robbed of the power which he has under the Act of 1941 to hold an election at any time inside of the legal period where, say, a local body had been dissolved. That being so, I naturally could not accept an amendment which would have that effect.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister knows that yesterday he said that the power to order an election vested in him under Section 6 of this Bill and not under Section 2.

Mr. Smith

I have no recollection of making any such statement as that.

Mr. Norton

May I put this point to the Minister? I understand that the Dublin Corporation decided to make arrangements for the holding of corporation elections this year. Is the corporation entitled to go ahead with that decision and to take all necessary steps to give effect to it up to the datefrom which they are prevented from doing so by this Act? Will anything they do in furtherance of holding the election not be authorised by the Minister under the rather remarkable and unexplained amendment which he endeavoured to unravel to the House last night?

Mr. Smith

This Bill will validate their actions irrespective of whether they make preparations or do not.

Mr. Norton

Is the position, then, that they can go along on the assumptian that this Bill is not law and can take other necessary steps to have the elections held even if this Bill, for example, sustains some delay in the Seanad or because the Government is beaten at the forthcoming general elections?

Mr. Smith

That is so.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Sweetman

I move amendment No. 2:—

In page 2, Section 2, sub-section (5), to delete the words "matter or thing" wherever they occur.

Yesterday, the Minister said that he was not able to answer the question put to him by Deputy Norton, and that he did not know what "matter or thing" was other than an act. If that is so, we can delete the words "matter or thing" from the section and everyone will be perfectly happy.

Mr. Smith

I did not know, until I looked it up since, how justified I was in saying that I had some difficulty in distinguishing between "act, matter or thing". I happened to meet a lawyer to-day, and I posed the same question to him. I said that I had a Bill in the House last night, and that the question was shot at me as to what was meant by "act, matter or thing". The lawyer in question paused for a long time, and then he said: "I would not like to be asked, suddenly, at short notice, what that phrase meant." It appears that this expression has been used in quite a number of Acts.

Mr. Sweetman

Without anybody knowing what it means?

Mr. Smith

It appears in all the County Management Acts. It appeared in the County Administration Bill and also in the Local Government Act. It is like many of those things—you know what it means and yet if you are called upon to explain exactly what it means it is not such an easy task.

Mr. Morrissey

The Minister is not in a position to enlighten the House. He cannot give a specific answer to the question put by Deputy Norton or put in the amendment by Deputy Sweetman—not even after, I presume, consulting the Attorney-General. Not merely is the Minister not able to give the information to the House, but the Attorney-General apparently is not able to give the information to the Minister. It is all right to put something obnoxious or objectionable into the Bill if you understand what you are doing, but to put something into the Bill that no one can explain seems to me to be the height of absurdity.

Mr. Smith

For the benefit of the House, I will give what a lawyer has told me this means.

Mr. Sweetman

That is what the Minister was asked to do at first.

Mr. Smith

He says: "This sub-section was drafted in the hallowed and time-honoured phraseology of Indemnity Acts. An examination of the Law Reports by my officers has not brought to light any judicial interpretation of the difference, if difference there be, in the shades of meaning between these three words ‘act, matter or thing.' I must therefore put forward my view of the distinction with due humility. My view is this. An act is something positive and active; matters or things, on the other hand, may be passive; but that this distinction would commend itself to a court is another question."

General Mulcahy

We can all accept, I take it, that this is a nice little bit of timely Elizabethan spice.

Mr. Norton

It shows all the evidence of a very clever and intelligent administration. Is it any wonder that the courts are cluttered up with cases?

Mr. Sweetman

After that definition, I think we should have the words knocked out. However, I wish to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Sweetman

I move amendment No. 3:—

In page 2, section 2, sub-section (5), to delete the words "which was done or" and the words "done or" where they twice occur.

The Minister indicated yesterday that he wanted this section for the purpose of covering acts of omission, but he was unable to tell us yesterday why he wanted it in respect of acts done. I could approve of the reason why he wanted it for acts of omission, but I cannot understand it in respect of acts done; so I thought I would give him an opportunity of explaining what he was not able to explain yesterday.

Mr. Norton

Has the Minister access to the same legal opinion?

Mr. Smith

I want to cover acts of commission as well as acts of omission. If the Deputy's amendment were accepted, only acts of omission would be covered.

Mr. Sweetman

Could the Minister give an example of an act of commission that requires to be covered?

Mr. Morrissey

The act of commission would seem to be one where the office of a local authority carried out their legal obligations.

Mr. Smith

This year, in the normal way with the law as it stands, is election year. The law provides that during an election year it is not necessary for a local body to make preparations for the holding of the annual meeting for the election of chairmen, mayors and so on, as the law already provides that after an election the elected body or elected members will come together on a specified date, 14 days after the election, and proceed to elect their chairman and so on. As things are now, some councils in anticipation of the passage of this Bill into law aremaking arrangements for the holding of these elections—though the law as it stands now does not require them to do so. Some councils, on the other hand, are not making any arrangements at all. There you have different acts, an act of commission and an act of omission. As I explained at the outset, the acceptance of this amendment would mean covering only one and I want to ensure that the Bill will cover both.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question—"That the Bill as amended be received for final consideration"— put and declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle

When is it proposed to take the Fifth Stage?

Mr. Smith

Will you give it to me now?

Mr. Sweetman

I think next Tuesday should do.

Mr. Morrissey

I am inclined to hold this over until Tuesday. It is not going to make any difference to the Minister now. There is no time factor in it now that is not already covered or that the Minister does not purport to cover. There are one or two sub-sections yet on which the Minister might usefully go back again to his legal advisers. There is no difference between giving it to-day and giving it on Tuesday next, now that the time factor has been covered, or that the Minister hopes it is covered.

Mr. Smith

I do not want to press the matter, but I think it would be reasonable to give it to me now.

Mr. Morrissey

Rather than be charged with being unreasonable, we will give it now.

General Mulcahy

The fact remains that the Minister has come in and, in flagrant opposition to every Party and every Deputy other than those attached to his own Party, he has forced this Bill through the House.

Mr. Smith

I often did that before.

General Mulcahy

He has done it in circumstances in which the electorateof this country is being completely outraged from the point of view of voicing their opinions on the one hand and from the point of view of suffering in their interests on the other hand, because suffer they will.

Mr. Smith

Having said that much, will you give me all stages now?

General Mulcahy

I do not want to put myself or anyone else into the position in which we were put by Deputies on the far side in relation to the Health Bill. They are whispering and sniggering that measures are accepted that are anathema to all of them.

Mr. Smith

I am not talking about the Health Bill now. We have discussed this at great length. Will you not give it?

Mr. Sweetman

On Tuesday.

Fifth Stage ordered for Tuesday next.