Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 30 Apr 1974

Vol. 272 No. 3

Local Elections (Petitions and Disqualifications) Bill, 1974: Second Stage.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The House will recall that I indicated on 4th April that I proposed bringing in legislation which would allow certain categories of local authority employees to become members of local authorities without forfeiting their employment. I indicated that I hoped the Oireachtas would see fit to pass the measure in time to enable its provisions to apply in relation to the forthcoming local elections. These provisions are contained in sections 23 and 24 of the present Bill.

The Bill falls into two parts: sections 1 to 22 deal with election petitions and the remaining sections with the removal of membership disqualifications and related matters. The individual provisions of the Bill are dealt with in the explanatory memorandum circulated with it.

The former procedure for dealing with local election petitions was contained mainly in two 19th century British enactments. Under this law the court for the trial of a local election petition consisted of a barrister appointed by the judges on the rota for the trial of parliamentary election petitions. In February, 1961, the High Court ruled that this election court was unconstitutional on the grounds that it purported to exercise judicial powers in criminal matters and that this is a function the exercise of which by authorities other than the courts is expressly prohibited by the Constitution.

The Bill proposes that local election petitions will be tried by the Circuit Court. The system generally will be similar to that which existed under the former law but outdated and non-essential procedures have been modernised or removed. In particular, the petition procedure has been tailored to suit the system of proportional representation while the previous procedure was related to the straight vote system. This Bill does not deal with petitions relating to parliamentary elections. Unlike the law dealing with local election petitions the parliamentary petitions law has not been found to be unconstitutional and appears to work relatively satisfactorily.

Deputies will probably attach greater importance to the sections of the Bill dealing with the removal of barriers to local authority membership. The disqualification of aliens is contained in the Local Government (Application of Enactments) Order, 1898. At that time the expression "alien" apparently meant "a subject of a foreign state who was not born within the allegiance of the Crown"; it is now taken to mean anybody who is not an Irish citizen. Non-citizens have the right to vote at local elections and it is only logical that they should also have the right to become a member of a local authority if they enjoy sufficient popular support in their area.

The disqualification for membership of local authorities on persons in holy orders and ministers of religion goes back to 1840. This disqualification would appear to contravene the provision in the Constitution which states that: "The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status". At present there is a double barrier which prevents a local authority employee becoming a member of the local authority. First, a person is disqualified for membership if he holds any paid office or place of profit under or in the gift of the authority, other than the office of mayor. This applies also to committees of agriculture and vocational education committees. Secondly, the Local Government Act, 1955, provides that no person may hold any office of profit under or be employed for remuneration by or under a local authority while he is a member of that authority. If a person resigns his membership of the local authority the restriction on employment continues for a year or until his ordinary term of office would have expired. Similar provisions apply to committees of agriculture and vocational education committees.

Under this Bill, the electoral disqualification will be removed altogether and provision is made whereby the restriction on employment of members may be lifted in relation to particular classes of employees. Orders will be made by the appropriate Ministers specifying the classes of employees which will be so exempted. This will provide a flexible arrangement under which each category can be considered on its merits. 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.

My intention would be to remove the restriction on employment in relation to all employees who are not officers—these are in the main manual workers—and in relation to all officers other than certain categories whose duties are such that it would be inappropriate to remove the restriction in their case. The offices in relation to which the restriction would still apply would in general be all administrative staff down to but not including the rank of clerical officer, all professional staff, library staff from the level of assistant librarian upwards, certain officers of fire brigades, certain outdoor offices of clerk-of-works, inspector and assistant inspector and the grades of rate collector, rent collector, rate inspector, housing welfare officer, social worker, and, where employed under county councils and county borough councils, assistance officer and superintendent assistance officer. These are the categories of office on which the restriction would remain.

The principal classes of offices from which the restriction would be lifted are the grades of clerical officer, library assistant, branch librarian, storekeeper and draughtsman. As already mentioned, it would be lifted also from all employees who are not officers. To reduce the matter to figures it is estimated that of the 30,000 persons employed by local authorities, only about 3,000 will remain subject to the restriction on employment under the 1955 Act.

I am sure that Deputies will welcome this opening up of the field of eligibility for local authority membership. In bringing forward this measure the Government were guided by the principle enunciated by the Joint Committee on the Electoral Law 14 years ago. Dealing with membership of the Oireachtas, the committee stated in its final report: "It is of the utmost importance that the Legislature should be able to draw for its members from as wide a field as possible and only for the gravest and most compelling reasons for public policy should any individual be prevented from putting himself forward for election."

I think the House will agree that this view is also valid in relation to membership of local authorities. I commend the Bill to the House.

We seem to be giving the Minister a very easy run today because there is very little in this Bill which we want to question. The updating of the law relating to petitions is to be welcomed and we have no objection to it as such.

I want to raise one point in relation to section 19(2) which deals with the calling of witnesses. Subsection (1) states:

The court shall be entitled of its own volition, at any time during the trial of petition, to direct that a particular person shall be brought before the court and shall give evidence at the trial...

It goes on then to deal with costs. Subsection (2) states:

Subject to subsection (3) of this section, a person who is called as a witness at the trial of a petition shall not be excused from answering any question relating to any offence at or connected with the relevant local election on the ground that the answer thereto may incriminate or tend to incriminate him or on grounds of privilege...

I am advised that this may be introducing a new concept into Irish law. I should like the Minister to confirm whether this is so. Our law states that where a man is brought as a witness in this fashion he is not obliged to incriminate himself and he need not give evidence if he considers that such evidence will, in fact incriminate him. In America citizens are entitled to claim some kind of similar exemption under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. There is a provision which we have often seen operating in court cases over there. The same principle applies here but it does not seem to be recognised in this subsection in the Bill.

I am informed that this is a repetition of a previous enactment—granted it was a long time ago—but it is not a new provision.

If it is merely a repetition of that very old Act of 1840— is it?—I would ask the Minister before we come to Committee Stage to examine this and consult the Attorney General and the parliamentary draftsman and see if we should not apply the principle which generally applies in common law in this instance. If the Minister comes back to us on that on Committee Stage I shall be satisfied but there is room for improvement there.

As the Minister states in his explanatory memorandum the principle sections other than the tidying-up job in relation to petitions, deal with the removal of the disqualification on certain categories of employees from standing for election to local authorities. We have no objection to section 23 in which the disqualification from membership of local authorities is removed as it applied up to now against aliens or persons in holy orders or a minister of any religious denomination. I suppose there will be no great rush on the part of the clergy to present themselves as candidates but I agree that disqualification would seem to deny them part of their constitutional rights and I commend the Minister for updating the legislation and removing anomalies as he is doing here, and that is all it is. I suggest he should consider doing the same thing in relation to section 19 where I think that could now be deemed to be antiquated, the principle having been long established under common law.

Even after reading the explanatory memorandum, I am not too clear on the categories of employees which the Minister for Education would allow to stand for election and the categories on which the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries will remove the ban against standing for local elections. This is to be done by order, following the passing of the Bill in the Dáil. We are not now in a position to study these orders but I presume in view of the great haste with which the Minister has introduced the Bill he must already have his mind made up as to the categories involved. He himself has gone into some detail in elaborating on the various categories that will be included and excluded in relation to his own Department of Local Government but we have no similar information from the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries or the Minister for Education. When the Minister is replying will he be in a position to tell us what the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries proposes to do by order?

No, but I suggest that if it is possible to take the remaining stages tomorrow, we should be able, some time in the morning, to let Deputy Molloy have both lists of categories to which I think he is entitled.

If we had them before Committee Stage and had an opportunity to put down amendments, if these are necessary—they probably will not be necessary——

You can have them in the morning.

——that would be satisfactory, although the Minister knows many of our Members will be absent tomorrow morning attending the funeral of a former member of our staff.

Yes, and let me say how thoroughly sorry I am that occasion has arisen.

It may not be as convenient as it seems to accept these tomorrow morning for most of us.

It can be tomorrow afternoon.

If you circulate it so that we get it in the morning post that will be sufficient.

I shall ensure that Deputy Molloy gets a copy of it before we meet tomorrow and, perhaps, we could go ahead at 4 o'clock tomorrow on that basis?

We will make no commitment but we agree generally that this will probably be suitable.

I am sorry, a Cheann Comhairle, to interrupt but I am as anxious, as I am sure Deputy Molloy is, to ensure that this Bill goes through so that we can use it. That is why I am rushing it.

Naturally, we are all in favour of that but we want to avoid having our hands tied behind our backs. I am a little concerned about section 24 which authorises the various Ministers to make orders which will debar certain categories of employees from standing for local elections. I should have hoped the Minister would have included a provision that any orders made under this Bill would be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. One would have thought this would be common practice. It is extraordinary——

It is not extraordinary because in the Health Act, 1970, there is a similar provision. There is no provision made to have orders laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

It may not be extra-extraordinary but it is a little extraordinary, I suggest. I submit to the Minister that when he was in Opposition this was a principle which his side of the House would uphold, that they would oppose orders being made which did not come before the House. I think he would have gone as far as to say they should be made statutory instruments requiring a period of at least 21 sitting days before being adopted——

You did not listen to us.

I support that point of view——

Not now. I have always supported it. I was not involved in the Health Act. I do not know what orders under the Health Act the Minister refers to but one must remember that these orders could, in fact, by devious means be operated to the detriment of certain candidates.

In order to shorten the proceedings, may I say to Deputy Molloy that this refers to categories, not individuals.

But there could be an individual in one category. The Minister may throw his eyes up to heaven but we must try to perfect the legislation here. This is the only chance we get on this side of the House to influence it. It is quite possible that a person would be nominated as a candidate for a local election by a political party, that such a person is an employee of the Departments of Education or Agriculture and Fisheries, or Local Government and he could have been in a category from which no other candidate had been nominated by any other political party. A Minister by order could debar that category, thereby debarring that person from standing for election.

The Minister may not have seen this; I concede that it was not done intentionally but because of the power that can be wielded under these orders I think they should be placed before the Houses of the Oireachtas and we should have an opportunity of debating them here if we feel that is necessary. I appeal to the Minister before we take Committee Stage tomorrow to have an amendment to these various orders in section 24 and any other relevant orders under this Bill to provide that they be placed before each House of the Oireachtas.

Generally, we welcome the expansion of eligibility for local election to the various categories of employees. Many people will be anxious to know the categories. If a staff officer in a local authority had been allowed to stand it could prove very embarrassing for an elected member that a colleague beside him would be, in fact, the person deciding on housing allocations.

A staff officer is not eligible.

No, but I am saying it would have been embarrassing if he were. That is why we are anxious to know the categories in advance.

Not above clerical officers.

It is clear in the case of Local Government that staff officers will not be eligible to stand and the Minister has listed fairly clearly the categories still excluded. It is mostly manual workers and junior clerical officers who will make up the bulk of those eligible in these Departments. There will be people who would say that a person working in the housing section, even as a clerical officer, is in a position of certain influence, and certainly in a position to come by information which members of the authority would be anxious to have and would have to apply for. It could rightly be claimed that such a person, if a member of an authority, had information available to him which was not readily available to the other elected members. Being placed in such an advantageous position, he could curry favour with the electorate in his area. A situation could arise where the electorate could decide that it was a waste of time approaching any of the councillors about matters pertaining to the local authority other than the man who worked in the local authority office. That would be introducing a change of the environment in which local councillors have been operating. This change would be to the detriment of the standing of the local councillors in the community. Therefore, it should not be encouraged.

Manual workers are not involved in office work generally. Therefore, they cannot obtain valuable information on local authority proposals. There is still a danger when one councillor is in a more advantageous position of getting information than the others. That could be to the detriment of all.

I am very doubtful about that. A clerical officer would not be in a position to wield influence.

When a county councillor calls to the county council office he often deals with a clerical officer.

If a county councillor calls to a local authority office and is dealt with by a clerical officer, it shows that the local authority do not think very much of the councillor.

A councillor would be a very pompous individual if he was not satisfied to have his business dealt with by whichever member of the staff was available at the time.

I should like to see either of the Deputies opposite being dealt with by a clerical officer.

Deputy Molloy without interruption. The Minister will reply in due course.

I would be very happy when seeking information to get it from any member, at any level. I am surprised at the mentality which the Minister displayed when he said that he should not be satisfied to be dealt with by the people of a junior rank. Every member on the local authority staff is equal as far as I am concerned.

Everybody may not have the information the Deputy is seeking.

As the Minister knows, it is often people at the lower level who know more about what is going on than the manager, who is sometimes lost in a maze of happenings and is not aware of specific details.

I notice that when Deputy Molloy writes to the Department of Local Government he does not write to a clerical officer.

I do what most Deputies are advised to do when dealing with local authorities. I am sure the Minister has his way of doing that too. I have been quite successful to date.

We will not oppose this Bill. We do not feel, because we have fears about the abuse of this system, that that is sufficient reason for us to oppose it at this stage. This matter should be kept under review. I am glad to see the Minister nodding his head. He seems to agree that there might be reason to review that level of employee, especially staff, of local authorities working in their offices. I am not suggesting that those positions should be excluded at this stage. We are prepared to let the Bill pass and keep an eye on how it is operating. If we feel there are certain categories which should have been excluded and were not, we can then bring it to the notice of the House.

I welcome this Bill. It is important that as many people as possible should be eligible for election not alone to the county councils but to this House. I welcome also the statements made earlier by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and the Minister for Finance giving post office officials, et cetera an opportunity of becoming involved in active politics.

Section 24 of this Bill is, perhaps, the most important section because it widens the scope of those who will be eligible for entry to local authorities. It is wise, good and healthy to see so many people, approximately 27,000, according to the Minister's statement, who will now be eligible to become involved in local politics. This will ensure that these people will be able, at a later stage, to become involved in politics for entry to the Dáil and the Seanad. This Bill will enable a number of sitting councillors to be eligible for employment in local authorities. I am sure Deputy Molloy and the Minister will recognise the fact that because people were county councillors they were not able to become employees of local authorities.

I have been a back bencher in this House for the last five years. I have been a member of a local authority since 1967. It is important that local authority elections should be held every five years. Local elections were held in 1960 and the next local election did not take place until 1967. The next election will be held in 1974. Local elections could not be held last year because we had the general and the Presidential elections. It would have been very difficult to have held three elections in such a short time. It is not a good thing for a local election to be postponed for six, seven, eight or even nine years. This is not a criticism of the Minister because this has been going on for a number of years. It is important to have elections as regularly as possible, because of deaths, resignations and other changes. It is very important that more people be given an opportunity of using local elections as a launching platform for entry to this House.

I will make one personal observation. I believe the best Deputies in this House are people who have served an apprenticeship on local authorities. The Press say that some people are smothered by local matters. I do not believe this criticism is valid or fair. One can become involved in matters of national importance but for keeping in touch there is no better place than a local authority. At present there are many different groups putting forward points of view. They feel they are not in a position to get anywhere. One of the best ways for such a group to test the soundness of their ideas and the strength of their support is to put their ideas before the people at local elections.

I welcome section 24. Agricultural instructors in particular and vocational teachers were reluctant to become actively involved in politics because they felt it might be used against them. In this age of worker participation it is desirable that a person in a vocational school or an agricultural adviser should have a say in the running of his county. This would be healthy. Deputy Molloy pointed out some difficulties. There are difficulties in all legislation but difficulties can be surmounted. I agree that some people may manage to obtain a very marginal advantage over a competitor even in his own political party but that is a small thing and the beneficial effects of this Bill will far exceed the minor disadvantages that may arise. I notice there are some exemptions. Rate collectors are to be excluded. I do not see why.

They make up the register of electors.

It does not matter that much. The Minister could have let them in.

I agree that there are difficulties but many of those people are responsible people and this could be surmounted.

I welcome this Bill, I am sure it will have very beneficial effects and that in the near future we will have many people who are employed by local authorities as members of councils and Members of this House as well.

I thank Deputies for the way in which they have received the Bill. I should like to assure Deputy Molloy in respect of the points he has made in regard to the Departments of Agriculture and Fisheries and Education that I will endeavour to have the lists with me in the morning so that we can have a look at them. I will also consider the question of whether or not they should be put before the House in some subsequent debate. I think he agrees that the important thing at present is to get this legislation through because those who will be dealing with it and prospective candidates should know where they stand immediately. For that reason I should like to have it concluded as quickly as possible. I had hoped that it would be possible to get it through today but I accept that Deputy Molloy would like to have another look at it so if we can have it tomorrow I will try to get the information he requires and have it here in good time so that he can have a look at it before the House meets.

Can the Minister give an indication now whether he will bring forward an amendment that all these orders be placed before each House of the Oireachtas?

I will have a look at it but I would not like to give an undertaking.

If the Minister would do that it would not be necessary for me to do it.

What Deputy Molloy has in mind is a non-statutory order?

I would rather a statutory order.

I would not be prepared to put down a statutory order because this would mean upsetting the whole procedure.

A statutory order would create difficulties now because it would disqualify all those people from standing in the forthcoming local elections. In view of that, for the present I would be prepared to accept that they be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.

I do not see much objection to that. I will tell the Deputy tomorrow.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 1st May, 1974.
Barr
Roinn