Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 18 Dec 1947

Vol. 34 No. 20

Local Elections Bill, 1947—Committee and Final Stages.

Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Amendment No. 1 not moved.

I move amendment No. 2:—

In page 3, sub-section (3), paragraph (d), to delete sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iv).

This section is concerned with the arrangement of local electoral areas and, in making arrangements, the Minister is required to have regard to certain matters. In particular, in paragraph (d) this provision is set out:—

"As regards local electoral areas in relation to which none of the foregoing paragraphs of this sub-section is applicable, the order shall be so framed that due regard is given to...."

Then there are four specific considerations set out. One is "the rateable valuation of such areas respectively", and another is, "the general character of such areas respectively". I have no idea what is meant by the last sub-paragraph—"the general character of such areas respectively". But the other sub-paragraph relating to the rateable valuation of the electoral areas is pretty clear. Obviously, it is intended that in the allocation of electoral areas it is not merely the number of voters in a proposed area that will be considered. Equally important is the consideration which, under this Bill, must be given to the rateable valuation of the proposed electoral area. That seems to me to raise a question as to whether we are departing from the principle that governed our electoral laws over a period of 25 years.

The arrangement of electoral areas in everything pertaining to elections tended more and more over those years to consider the number of electors or the number of persons residing in the area, and in more recent years the present Government extended the franchise so as to include in the voters' list men and women of 21 years and over in respect of local as well as Parliamentary elections. This is clearly a departure from that habit of thought. On the direction of the present Minister for Local Government, in future when electoral areas are being created attention must be given to the rateable valuation of the area. Whether that means that the area must be large if the rateable valuation is low or that the electoral area shall be small if the rateable valuation relative to the country generally is high, I do not know. There has been no explanation of these two sub-paragraphs.

I join issue with the Minister, however, in relation to the principle set out in the Bill irrespective of how that principle is applied. I am opposed to the mapping out of an electoral area in relation to its valuation. I consider that the electoral area should be a convenient one, convenient so far as service to the public is concerned; an area of such a kind as can be served by the person elected to represent it, because, under the Bill, only one person will be elected for any area except in the case of cities. This provision is not restricted merely to rural areas. It applies equally in city areas. Therefore, in an area, let us say, like Rathmines or Rathgar, the Minister may, if he thinks fit, create a relatively small district for the purpose of having a representative on the city council.

In another area, let us say, a poor district, the Minister may create a relatively large area. The result of that can easily be that in wealthy districts, three councillors may represent 5,000 electors and in poor districts three councillors may represent 15,000 electors. If that is not the purpose of the section I do not know why it is there at all. Unless it is intended to be used to give weight to the representation of wealthy areas at the expense of poorer areas, it seems to me that this provision in the Bill serves no purpose.

One can see how this works in practice. Assuming, for instance, that the poorer areas are working-class areas in which there are working-class houses and families, this section can be used to limit their representation on the city council just as it can be used to expand representation on the city council for those areas in which there are important residents and highly-rated properties. That same principle will be applied, no doubt, in the rural areas and again you will find that in poorer districts 15,000 people probably will be electing one councillor, whereas in wealthy areas in which there are large farms and extensively rated properties 3,000 or 4,000 people will elect one councillor. That system is bound to lead to disproportionate representation. The representation of the wealthy areas will be out of all proportion to the representation of the poorer areas so that the character of the councils, as we know them, will be changed, and changed in a manner that I personally dislike, in a manner that I do not think should receive the approval of this House.

I am afraid the Senator has misunderstood the purpose and the intention of the provisions of paragraph (d), sub-section (3). I think he was also addressing himself to sub-section (5) of the section. The idea is not to give the Minister power to do all these occult and nefarious things that the Senator suggested. The idea is to give the Minister a certain amount of elbow room, to keep him outside the strait-jacket of a mathematical formula, as it would be if the Minister were to have regard only to numbers. The Oireachtas has found need to do that in relation to a very much graver matter than this, in relation to the constitution of Dáil Éireann—in relation to the delimiting of constituencies for the purpose of electing members of Dáil Eireann. The Oireachtas has considered that it would be wise, in fact that it would be necessary, to give to whoever was responsible for the defining of constituencies and the delimiting of their boundaries a very wide discretion because the Constitution provides—I should say not the Oireachtas but the people in this case—that representation may be on the basis of not less than one member for every 30,000 of the population and not more than one member for every 20,000 of the population.

It is possible to adopt that sort of criterion in the case of the Oireachtas because we are dealing with the country as a whole, with only one entity. But, when we come to consider local authorities, we are dealing with corporate entities of all sizes and descriptions and therefore we cannot simply apply the same sort of device of fixing a minimum and a maximum number for limiting representation. We have to try to find some other considerations to which the Minister will have regard if he is going to propound a scheme which will be practicable. That is why we have these other matters brought in.

If the electoral areas were to be framed entirely on the basis of population, we should have exactly the same anomalies as we would have if we were to say that the State was to be divided into 40 constituencies each having exactly the same population. We can see where that would lead us. We would have some part of a constituency in Dublin City, some parts in Dublin County, some parts in three counties, some constituencies divided by a mountain and so on. It is precisely to avoid that sort of thing in relation to the constitution of local electoral areas that these provisions have been brought in.

If the Senator had considered these provisions he would see that some of them will neutralise others. If we have to give consideration not merely to the number of local government electors, but also to the rateable valuation of such an area, we can also consider these factors in relation to a poor county or a sparsely populated district, say, a mountainous district. We can consider the general character of the unit as a whole so that we shall try to constitute electoral areas which will have some sort of common characteristic to bind them together, some sort of common interest which will constitute them rational units. That is the general idea in the proposal which, I think, particularly in sub-section (5), is not at all a novel one. In the last Local Government (Dublin) Act, an Act which increased the membership of the Dublin Corporation and gave the Minister power to divide the city into electoral areas, we had precisely the same provisions as we have embodied in this section. That is to say, that due regard was to be given not merely to the number of local government electors registered in each area, but also to the rateable valuations in each of the areas respectively. On the basis there laid down, I made an Order dividing the city for municipal purposes into eight electoral areas.

I am sorry—nine electoral areas. I have not heard that there was any suggestion that these areas were either gerrymandered, as they say, or that they had been improperly drawn. I think, on the contrary—I say it with all modesty because, as everybody knows, a great part of the work in matters of this sort is done by my officers, not so much by the Minister—it has been found that the new areas were from many points of view much more satisfactory than those which they superseded. The general purpose of this is not to do anything wrong, not to do anything secretly or occultly, but to give the responsible Minister the power to act in a rational and reasonable way when he comes to divide a county into district electoral areas.

I ask the Senator not to press the amendment. Though I would like to see this Bill on the Statute Book if I could, I would have no strong objection, in principle at any rate, to accepting amendment No. 4. I would be prepared to do that, though I can see, from the point of view of the demand on Parliamentary time, that there might be objection. However, I would not be disposed to press that objection and, if the Senator would withdraw amendments Nos. 2 and 3, I will accept amendment No. 4, which will give the Oireachtas an opportunity of deciding, or at least adjudicating, should an allegation be made that the Minister has exercised his functions under this Bill improperly.

I think the Minister has met my case reasonably and I do not propose to press this amendment. I would like to say, however, for the benefit of the members of the House who had the patience to listen to this discussion, that we are here embarking on something new, a scheme of single-member constituencies. In the cities they will be three-member constituencies. I think the Minister will probably recall that when the Local Government Act of 1945 was going through I raised the same point. The Minister met the objection I then raised by giving an undertaking, as an aside perhaps, but at least he did say it, that there would be no three-member constituencies in Dublin and we left it at that. Subsequently he did make an Order fixing the constituencies for local government purposes at five. While I have no reason to make any criticism of the manner in which that Act was implemented, I know that there has been criticism in relation to the central area. There are nine areas and one is Dublin Central, and a number of people have raised objections—I have not examined the objections but I know that they have been made— that that central area is weighted in favour of rateable valuation as against the population.

That can be shown not to be well-founded.

I do not want to argue. The Minister's proposal meets my case reasonably well; that is to say, he is agreeable to accept the amendment, which requires the Orders made under the Act to be tabled. That gives both Houses an opportunity of examining the matter. I am willing to withdraw my amendment if the House agrees.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
The following amendment was agreed to:—
4. In page 4, before sub-section (9) to insert the following new sub-section:—
(9) An Order made under this section shall not come into force or have effect until it has been laid before each House of the Oireachtas and has been confirmed by resolution of each such House—(Senator Duffy).
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 3.

If I may say so, I do not think amendment No. 5 submitted by Senator Duffy to this section is necessary. The subject-matter of the amendment is already covered by the requirements of the existing rules. Under the existing rules a scheme is published and any recommendations made are considered by the Minister and the scheme, as a result, may be amended.

I accept that.

Amendment No. 5 not moved.

I move amendment No. 6:—

In page 5, before sub-section (9) to insert the following new sub-section:—

(9) The functions of the council of a county or corporation, or the council of a county borough under this section shall be reserved functions for the purposes of the County Management Acts, 1940 and 1942, and for the purposes of the Act or Acts relating to the management of any county borough.

Perhaps the Minister will accept this amendment. It is drawn in the same terms as similar provisions in other Acts.

I think Senator Duffy is under a misconception, because these are already reserved functions under the County Management Acts; they are the reserved functions of the county councils.

I think I should confirm that. Under paragraph 12 of the Second Schedule to the County Management Act of 1940, all functions relating to Parliamentary and local elections are reserved functions. There is a similar provision in Section 51 of the Local Government (Dublin) Act, 1930.

Can the Minister tell me if the appointment of polling stations would come within the provisions?

That is quite common all over the country. The councils select the polling stations and objections can be made by individual members. These are considered and very often upheld.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.

I move amendment No. 7:—

At the end of paragraph (b), line 11, page 6, to add the following words "or is a director or other officer of a limited liability company which is the occupier of premises within the functional area of the local authority".

This point was raised on the Second Stage. I raised two principal objections to the Bill. One has been met by the acceptance of Senator Duffy's amendment No. 4. The second one is dealt with in this amendment. Under this Bill you may have in the cities an extraordinary position by which the largest ratepayers who operate limited companies may find not only that they have no votes, which is another matter altogether, but that their representatives will not be able even to stand for election. I think that is a serious mistake. It was the policy of the present Government to reduce or discourage what was called commercial representation. There used to be a special representation of five and that was abolished by this Government. Be that right or wrong, I think this Bill is going too far. I can see a strong case in the case of the counties why the persons who stand for election should be actually inside the area but when you come to a city like Dublin, where the managers, principal staff or directors in very many cases reside just outside the city, in County Dublin, to preclude these persons from becoming members of the city council when in fact their principal business is in the functional area of the council and most of their time is spent within the functional area of the county, where they have a very vital interest, seems to me a mistake. I do not know that it was intentional. It certainly does not seem to me to be a fundamental portion of the Act at all. I rather take the view that it probably was accidental, that a principle which was intended for the counties, was applied also to the city for which, not only is there not a good case, but to which there is a very strong objection.

I do not say that my amendment is ideal but I think it would serve its purpose. If the person is a local government elector in any part of Ireland and if he is the director or other official of a limited company which has its business premises within the functional area, I think he should be eligible as a candidate. The question of votes for county councils, which is an entirely different matter, does not arise under this Bill. I have quite definite views on that but to go so far now as to prevent any of our leading business men from going into the city council would be a pity. I think it would be a great advantage if we could persuade more of them to go into it, and I am certainly against making difficulties for them.

I would like to join Senator Douglas in urging this amendment or the spirit of it on the Minister. It is often argued that more of the right type of men will not enter public life, particularly in the local councils. Here we purport under this Bill to make it impossible for men who might so be described to be elected on local councils. In our big cities, particularly Dublin, as has been pointed out by Senator Douglas, the residential area is outside the manufacturing area.

It applies also to Cork.

It does apply to Cork. To pass a Bill which arbitrarily excludes for all time, as long as the Bill is in operation, the owners of probably the biggest sources of employment in the city from figuring in the affairs of local administrative councils is something that the Minister himself would not wish to see happen. There is no need to make a long speech on it. The arguments are self-evident and I do hope the Minister will indicate that he can meet what we believe to be a reasonable suggestion.

I do not agree with either Senator Douglas or Senator Summerfield about this matter. I do not think a man should have a vote merely because he is a director or other officer of a limited company.

It is not a matter of voting.

I do not think that it should entitle him to become a member of the local authority of that area. I am sure there are several directors of various limited companies in this country who reside in England and elsewhere and why should they be eligible for election in the City of Dublin? If this were passed, I would be qualified to be a candidate for the Dublin Corporation.

You would be a good member.

I do not think it is right that I should be.

Are you an officer of a limited company in the city?

Yes, I am a director of a company that has business premises in the City of Dublin. The expression "other officer" is rather doubtful. For example, the secretary, surely, would have a vote if that were passed.

It is not a vote.

Would be entitled to be a candidate, also, the accountant or auditor of the firm who may reside anywhere—England, Scotland or anywhere else. If a man is a director and he lives in the city, he will have his residence there, presumably.

Or, if he has not his residence in the city, he will have it outside the city and will be eligible for membership of the local authority of that area.

He is not.

If he has a house there.

No, not if it is outside the city.

In the place where his residence is.

If he is the rated occupier of that premises, surely he is entitled to become a candidate for the county council.

For the county council, yes. I am sorry.

For the borough or the area in which the house is. I think that is quite enough for any person and I would say that this amendment ought not to be accepted.

With a great deal of diffidence I join in this. I think there is a good deal of substance in the case made by Senator Douglas and Senator Summerfield but the amendment itself is altogether too wide, and I think Senator O'Dea has put his finger on some of the flaws in it. I would ask the Minister to accept this in principle, that the directors of a concern that would be paying very heavy rates in the city here should be eligible to become candidates for election to the Dublin Corporation.

No matter where they live?

I think that is a reasonable request.

Even though they live in England?

I would not go altogether that far, but I would ask that they should be citizens of the State.

I pointed out, in reply to the interjection made quite legitimately by my friends Senator O'Dea and Senator Ó Buachalla, that it would be unwise to admit a person who happened to be a director of a concern irrespective of where he lived.

Those of us at the back of the House cannot hear a single word. I would appeal to you, Sir, to ask the Senators on the front bench to speak so that we can hear them.

If Senator MacGee came oftener he would probably realise that some of us talk quite a lot.

I do not miss more meetings than the Senator and I have something else to do as well.

I would suggest that if Senator MacGee wants to carry on in that strain he will get as good as he gives, either here or outside.

All we desire is to hear what is going on.

If the Senator has any contribution to make to the amendment, let him get up and make it. I am speaking to the amendment.

On a point of order, would you, Sir, ask these gentlemen on the front benches on both sides of the House to speak so that we in the back may hear what is, I am sure, worth listening to. We do not wish any offence whatever to the Senator or anybody else.

Are we quite finished now, Sir?

I hope so too. I also hope that we will hear the words of wisdom of Senator MacGee on this amendment. I put it to the Minister that if a person is a citizen of this country he has certain rights under the Constitution and if that person happens to be a director of a concern that is paying very heavy rates inside the functional area, say, of the Dublin Corporation, he should be by virtue of that fact eligible to stand as a candidate. I will immediately disagree with any one who suggests that by virtue of his being a director of a concern, solely because it pays rates, that he should be an elector.

It does not arise on this Bill.

I know. I am merely making the point that I would not agree. There is a good deal of substance in what Senator Summerfield and Senator Douglas said, but the amendment is altogether too wide. If it is pressed to a division I will have to vote against it as it stands.

I recognise, though it was not intentional, that the amendment—I may say that I had not the drafting of it—is too wide. When I look at the section, I find that the amendment could possibly include a person who is not otherwise a local government elector. I am not prepared to go even as far as Senator Hearne because I think a person should be a local government elector. If a person is a local government elector, is living, say, in the County Dublin and is willing to give his time by serving on the Dublin Corporation, I think he should not be excluded if he happens to be taking an active part—I am avoiding technical terms—in a business which happens to be a limited liability company, and, therefore, has no local government electors registered for it. I see no objection to such a person serving on the Dublin Corporation. I do see an objection if he happens to live in Galway, or if you have the case of the far-fetched auditor living in Scotland and referred to by Senator O'Dea. It would not worry me a great deal if auditors who live in Scotland were excluded. In any case, I would not be in favour of that.

I think the Minister might see that there is some point in this, and that he might produce something for the Report Stage. I do not think that it would cost his Department more than a few minutes to put this proposal into shape. It is a little difficult to know where exactly to insert it in the Bill. I tacked it on to paragraph (b). From the point of view of simplicity, it might be better to confine it to directors, though, personally, I should like to include active managers. I see difficulties there, too. We are not concerned with auditors. I must confess that, in cases where the secretary also acts as manager, I should also like to see him included. Such men have very wide practical experience and could render very valuable service as members of a local body. Perhaps it might meet the case if the amendment were on these lines "or who is registered as a local government elector in any other area and who is a director of a limited liability company which is the occupier of premises within the functional area."

I think there is something to be said in principle for this amendment. The real purpose of the section was to ensure that individuals elected to local authorities should have some interest in the functional area of a local authority. That is the reason why we provide, in the case of a county, that a person must live in the area which he is elected to represent. In the case of a corporation, we have inserted a condition here that he must be registered as a local government elector for the functional area of the local authority—a corporation or urban authority as the case may be.

I agree that perhaps we have gone too far, because we did not intend to exclude from sitting on a council any person who had a real business or commercial interest in the city. Naturally, he would have an interest in the welfare of the city and of its inhabitants. I do not think there would be any great objection to allowing a person to be qualified upon some such basis as that because, after all, the last word as to who will represent them will rest with the electors.

If the local government electors decide that a person who is a director or a senior officer of a company which is of such importance that the welfare of the city is bound up with its welfare, would fittingly represent them on the corporation, I do not see any objection in principle to it. I can see some difficulty in drafting a provision, even to give effect to that principle, which would not be open to abuse. For instance, if we are going to say a director of a company, do we mean the director of any sort of company? You can register a company for a comparatively small sum and the capital need not be more than nominal. It is not just so easy as it appears at first sight to give effect to that.

Why not take the rateable value?

That might be an approach to it. I am only anxious to see what we can do to give effect to the principle and to safeguard it against abuse. There was a time when, under some of the old property qualifications, a person could qualify to be a member of a local authority if he happened to have a hen-house somewhere down the country. Well, we do not want that, but that, in short, is the difficulty. There is another difficulty arising from the fact that very often the active element in a concern is not a director who would seek municipal honours but an officer, servant or employee of the company. Where are we going to stop? Are we going to constitute a class of servants who are to be privileged under this section? Is that class to be composed of managers only or managers and secretaries only, or of managers, secretaries or accountants? Again, are we to introduce this invidious distinction, where he is an accountant, that he is being paid £3 per week? I do not think any of them are paid £3 per week now, but there was a time when they would be paid as little as that, or must we say that the accountant is a man whose salary is £800 or £900 per year? The trouble is that I am prepared to concede the principle of this, but I would like some advice and some guidance to get me out of the difficulty of drafting a section which, while admitting the principle, will not leave it open to abuse.

I have no sympathy at all with the idea that a man is to be despised because he has only £150 per year. All the people residing in Dublin will be eligible as candidates, and they will not need to have £150 per year. I think the difficulty about the limited company is quite negligible as long as they are the occupiers of premises. All the other people who are voters in the city will be eligible but they will not get elected. I do not see any conceivable danger that the people of Dublin are going to elect additional undesirable people by means of this provision. Take the case of a small, despised company with small premises in Dublin. If the director lives in Rathmines, Ailesbury Road, Ringsend or Irishtown or in the Coombe, he will be quite eligible, but if it so happens that he lives some distance out on the Stillorgan Road or in Mount Merrion, then he becomes not eligible. I was born in the City of Dublin and lived most of my life in it. Up to a couple of years ago, I would have been quite eligible even under this Bill, but now that I have gone across the border line I am not eligible. I may say that I have not the slightest intention of standing for the Dublin Corporation. All my financial and other interests, during my whole life, have been in the City of Dublin.

I do not know the exact number of members of the present corporation who will become ineligible under this Bill, but there are several businessmen—and they are not confined to one Party, as I know—who will become ineligible for the next election, if the Bill is passed as it is. I will not mention names, but I know there are some two or three, and in fact I think there are more.

I think nearly all of them are engaged in business and I suggest to the Minister therefore that this is not a matter in which enormous care is necessary. All that is necessary is a reasonable provision. You are only including them as being eligible to be candidates. You are not going to get them elected. You are including a number of people as eligible just because they are residing within the area—whether they are desirable, rich or poor does not matter. There are some very rich people living within the boundary, and some very poor people just outside who would have business interests inside, so that no class matter arises. It would be sufficient for present purposes if the Minister confined it to persons who are directors —they can be comparatively easily made directors, if they want to stand— and if he stipulates that they must be local government electors in some other part of Ireland. If he wants to make it narrower they could be local government electors within a particular city, but it is simpler to make it refer to Ireland. If, however, he would like to prevent Senator O'Dea from going forward, let him make it Dublin—or Cork, Waterford or Galway.

My only interest in this is that it has been pointed out to me down where I live, north of the Boyne, that there were seven members in Dublin who would be excluded. I am sorry to offend Senator Hearne—I did not know what line he was taking—but I think the Minister should be impressed by the fact that seven citizens would be disqualified.

I should not like to see this confined to company directors, that such people should be eligible as candidates for the Dublin Corporation merely because they have a business in the city and live outside the city. If you are going to make a special class of company directors, I would certainly oppose any amendment to that effect. I can see, however, a reasonable case for some such proposal and if it included business people with interests in the city, such as publicans and drapers, who may live in the country— or even street traders—everyone being put on the same level, I should agree.

I should be inclined, in principle, to agree, but where it is a partnership and where they have a premises, they will be registered as electors. It is only in the case of limited companies that they are not. If I do not operate through a limited company, but through a partnership with my brother or sons or others, we could all have our names registered and be entitled to stand.

There are two aspects of this which require some more consideration before a decision is reached. Let me take the smaller aspect first. The question must be decided when a nomination is made as to whether the person is or is not qualified as a candidate. The returning officer, whoever he may be, must decide whether a person in Dublin, Cork, Galway or Ardee, is qualified to be nominated as a candidate, and unless we can get some more precise language than is used in the amendment, I can see the difficulty of the returning officer when he has to decide whether a person is qualified by virtue of his being a director or an official of a company. Must there not be some method of establishing that fact in advance? We get back to where we were earlier to-day with the nominating bodies and the question of qualifications being established to the satisfaction of the returning officer that a candidate is in fact a person to be nominated for a council, either for a city council or county council. It does not arise in the case of a county council.

It could.

In the main, it will not arise, but it can arise, and we must take account of the fact that it may. Therefore, the first thing we ought to get clear in our minds is this: Can we get a definition which will enable the bringing in of a special class of candidates who will not be defined in relation to residence, and, if so, how can we get language to express what we want so as to make it clear to the returning officer who is entitled to be nominated, and, at the same time, to keep the group—I dislike the word "class" in this connection—as small as we desire it to be.

The second aspect is this matter of residence generally. That, I think, has been an old issue. I have not looked it up for many years and I cannot say that I am familiar now with the law in relation to the qualification of candidates, but I think that, roughly speaking, in the county electoral areas, a person to qualify as a candidate should have a residence or property qualification. If a person resided in the area for which he was being nominated, he was qualified to be a candidate, or if he had property in the area for which he was being nominated, he was entitled to be a candidate. Even that limitation was abused. I remember some instances of people taking a tumble-down shack, a house from which the roof had been removed, for a penny or threepence a week a few months before the election, so that they could qualify as property owners in the electoral areas for which they became candidates. I could cite one particular instance which would be known to a number of people here in which that transaction took place—a person who desired to be nominated as a candidate renting a house or the walls of a house for 2/6 a year. He was then a rated occupier in the particular area and thereby qualified to be a candidate in that area.

In the City of Dublin, however, a somewhat different procedure existed. I am speaking subject to correction, because I do not quite remember the facts, but I think that the position approximately was that if a person held property in Dublin, he was entitled to be a candidate for the corporation, or, if he held property in an adjoining area or resided in an adjoining area, he was entitled to be a candidate. My recollection is that people who resided, say, in Dún Laoghaire Borough, were eligible to be candidates and were, in fact, elected to be members of the Dublin Corporation, without having any property qualification within the city.

When I read this Bill originally, I imagined that it was intended to get rid of that practice, because a person may have an important interest in the Borough of Dún Laoghaire or in the County Dublin outside the borough, but have no interest in the Dublin Corporation. It is conceivable that a person might be a director of a company in Dublin without having any abiding interest in the Corporation of Dublin or in the citizens of Dublin. A company is not necessarily the owner of property in Dublin. It may have a rented office in Dublin and own no property whatever, not even pay rates in Dublin. If the directors of that company are eligible for election to the corporation, I do not see why a man employed by a company in the City of Dublin, who happens to live outside in Dún Laoghaire or in Swords or Balbriggan, should be disqualified. I am not opposing the idea running through Senator Douglas's argument, except that I desire to bring to the notice of the House these other aspects of the matter, which are important and which, in my opinion, must receive consideration if we are to alter the provisions of the Bill in relation to the qualifications for city or county councils.

I was speaking of the old carpet bagger and that may have been picturesque but we have moved a long way from that when we come to this argument to-night. Really, why make these absurd restrictions as to who shall represent a man? Why should we spend this time—with this enormous mass of legislation before us —discussing this matter in a narrow parochial way? First of all, we may be sure there will not be too many people pressing forward to serve on local authorities, when we come to consider the little power they are allowed under our present law. In all conscience, if there is a person within the State, a registered local government elector, why should we not simplify the whole matter and allow him to sit anywhere within the State, if he is otherwise eligible as a candidate? Let us keep some sense of proportion. If there was going to be an avalanche of abuse—someone drew a picture of a person becoming a director in order to be eligible to sit on the corporation— there might be something in it, but it is fantastic that we are here seeking reasons, pretexts and difficulties.

Senator Duffy was perfectly right. The returning officer must see a proper qualification for the candidate; and what better qualification is there than that he is a local government elector? We may be sure that people are not going to come forward to represent the city, nor are the electors going to put them in office, unless they are suitable people; so why look at it in so narrow and so parochial a manner? Only a short time ago, a member of the House was telling me: "I have been chairman of an urban district council all my life"—he was an elderly man—"and now, for the first time, I am not eligible to sit on that urban district council, because I do not reside in the area, although I own very big interests in the area." Is not that fantastic? If they are sensible men and are Irish citizens, let them go forward as candidates anywhere within the State. They will not be going forward and seeking ways to abuse the power.

I would like to go so far as Senator Sir John Keane has gone, if it were not for the fact that I have to remember that this Bill is concerned with the government of local communities. Just as we do not welcome, for one reason or another, government by people over this State who live outside this country, I do not think that, in general, it is a good thing to accept the principle that any Tom, Dick or Harry who resides God knows where within the Twenty-Six Counties, is competent to sit on the council of an urban authority where he has no interest. I will concede at once that, if the person concerned has a real tangible interest in the local community, he is at least entitled to put himself before the electorate.

I would try to meet Senator Douglas's position to this extent that, if the person is not only a director of a company but is a local government elector for an adjacent area, he might be eligible. I think that would cover the cases we have in mind. I do not think we need make any special provision to deal with the point which Senator Hogan raised, because if a man occupies premises in his own right as an individual in the city he is a local government elector, no matter where he resides. It is only a particular person who is acting through a company and who does not occupy premises, who is concerned here. I am having an amendment drafted now which would be an agreed amendment, and if it would save us trouble in discussing the Bill on Report, perhaps the Cathaoirleach would accept it.

To put it in order, if the Minister would let me have a note on those lines, I will ask leave of the House to substitute it for mine.

It is being prepared at the moment. It will also meet the point raised by Senator Duffy, requiring the person purporting to be a director to provide a certificate that he is in fact a director of the company.

Before the Minister makes up his mind about this, might I implore him not to limit it to a director? What special importance has a director? There might be a partner.

Partners are not excluded under the Bill.

I might make it clear to Senator Sir John Keane that, under the law as it stands, a partner in a business, if he owns part of the business that occupies the premises, will be entitled to be registered and, therefore, will be eligible. It is only where it happens to be a limited company that the ineligibility arises. For simplicity, I think it is better to confine this to directors, as I see difficulties otherwise.

This will be the substitute amendment No. 7 (A):—

In Section 5, line 2, page 6, after the word "authority" to insert the word "or"; after sub-paragraph (b) to insert a new sub-paragraph as follows:—

(c) he is a director of a limited liability company occupying premises in the functional area of the local authority and is registered as a local government elector in the functional area of a local authority adjacent to the first-mentioned functional area;

and to add to the section a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) The nomination of a candidate to whom sub-paragraph (c) applies shall be deemed to have been withdrawn unless before the close of the time for nomination a certificate under the seal of the company is lodged with the returning officer that such candidate is a director of the company.

I would be quite satisfied, and if the House will allow me, I will move that. I withdraw mine and ask leave of the House to move it.

I take it that the House agrees to that.

Amendment 7 (A) agreed to.
Amendment 7, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."

I wonder does the Minister think that there is, in fact, any strong case for requiring candidates who are nominated for a local authority to deposit the sum of £10. I am not terribly worried as to whether this section stands or not, but I would like to draw attention to the fact that the councillor, whether a city councillor, a town councillor or a county councillor, does not receive any remuneration for his services under the new Seanad Electoral Act and there will be few, if any, compensations for the office of councillor. I have a feeling that there is not anything coming to a councillor which will induce a rush of candidates except in exceptional circumstances or that there is a large body of the public anxious to serve their local community by becoming members of the council. It may be that there are occasionally freak candidates and it may be the view of the Minister in placing a fee of £10 on the candidates that he would keep out freak candidates. But I can recall half a dozen instances of genuine freak candidates heading the poll. I remember in Cork some years ago the university students picked up a gentleman who was a well-known character in the city and nominated him and he headed the poll in the district in which he was a candidate. I can remember that years and years ago another such gentleman headed the poll in Galway. He was as rich as Dives so that the deposit did not matter to him, and he was in no danger of losing it. I wonder whether this section requiring a candidate to find a deposit fee of £10 serves any useful purpose. I have no particularly strong feelings on the matter, but I would ask the Minister to reflect on it.

If the Bill did not contain this provision regarding a deposit of £10, I would have urged the Minister to place some such provision in the Bill which would amend the existing Bill, which is most unsatisfactory. At present it is possible for a person to be nominated for a local authority in a local election without his knowledge or consent. I was faced with a rather difficult situation in Longford at the time of the last local election. There was a very popular person who was elected with two and a half quotas at every election since he became a candidate, and some people who took a very poor view of the response proposed to nominate another candidate of the same name who was utterly unsuitable. I use the words "utterly unsuitable" advisedly. The proposal of having a person elected as a joke between two candidates is deplorable. If they have to put up £10—even though there may be a possibility that they will get it back—if there is any risk of losing it, you will find that these gentlemen will be slow to attempt anything like that.

I congratulate Senator Hearne and emphasise everything he said. I had rather a similar experience myself in Dundalk and I think that Senator Duffy, with whom I am more often in agreement than with Senator Hearne or the Minister, would be advised to soft-pedal.

I have no strong feelings in the matter.

There have been several instances such as those spoken of by Senator Hearne and Senator McGee and it is time that we stopped this play-acting by irresponsible people. We cannot afford to have local government elections made a joke. While this may not be entirely effective, it will make people think twice before playing practical jokes on the local authorities or on the ratepayers, because anything of this kind involves the ratepayers in unnecessary expense.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
The following amendment appeared on the Order Paper in the name of Senator Duffy:—
In page 7, line 4, after the word "filled" to insert the words "by co-option".

I do not know whether this is strictly necessary but I put it down in case the matter would be overlooked.

It is not necessary.

In dealing with the filling of an occasional vacancy, I do not know whether it is necessary to insert the words "by co-option" or not. I have not looked up the multiplicity of Acts dealing with local government and there may be a clause regarding filling a vacancy by co-option. If there is, this is not necessary.

There is no other way in which they could fill it.

Amendment not moved.
Sections 9 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: "That Section 14 stand part of the Bill."

For the purpose of getting information, I take it that the method of election of members of county committees is not changed and that the old areas will stand?

Sections 14 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule and Title agreed to.
Bill reported with two amendments.

When is it proposed to take the next stage?

Senators

Now.

It is proposed to take the next stage now. I am not raising any objection to that but I have an amendment here which was not moved on the section in Committee.

It is not necessary. That is a reserved function for the purposes of the Act.

I want information. I want to know the position. If we are going to take the Report Stage now I propose to move the amendment for the purpose of hearing the comment. I have no objection to our taking the Fourth Stage now.

I would like to go on record as protesting against the fact that an amendment is going to be moved on the Report Stage which stood on the Committee Stage over the names of two Senators who took a vigorous part in the Second Reading of this Bill. I think it is unfair that when that amendment was reached it had to be passed over by this House because there was no one here to move it.

I am not apologising for being unable to be present. I think it is not necessary for me to say to the House that neither Senator Hearne nor anybody gives better attendance than I do. I was called away urgently and it would seem that Senator Sweetman was too. I was not aware that this Bill would be taken so quickly. I consider it rather unbecoming, to say the least of it, of Senator Hearne——

It was the next item on our Order Paper. I protest vigorously against this play-acting.

I resent any suggestion of play-acting.

Agreed: That the Fourth Stage be taken now.

I move the following amendment:—

Before sub-section (2), in page 4, to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) Before making such an Order, the Minister shall send to the local authority the draft of the Order proposed to be made and shall consider any representations made by the local authority in respect thereof. The making of such representations shall be a reserved function for the purposes of the County Management Acts, 1940 and 1942, and for the purposes of the Act or Acts relating to the management of any county borough.

I debated this section on the Second Reading. The Minister nods, I think, and says that the amendment is unnecessary. My purpose in raising this matter is to get information. If the Minister tells me that the amendment will be carried into effect—that before any Order is made determining the areas that in future are going to be local government areas this draft Order will be sent to the local authorities—we will know where we stand. I cannot conceive how the Minister's executives are going to sit in the Custom House and draft an Order determining the boundaries of local areas without consultation with the local people. It is impossible to do so. There are all sorts of considerations. I consider it necessary to have this amendment embodied in the section. I want to hear the Minister on that.

I think the Senator has expressed the best argument himself to support my contention that the amendment which he proposes is unnecessary. First of all, from the practical point of view, the electoral areas could not be determined except in consultation with the officers of the council and of the county. It is unnecessary, also, in so far as it proposes to make any part of the procedure a reserved function. All matters relating to Parliamentary and local elections are already reserved functions under the Act of 1940. Surely this amendment is unnecessary in view of the amendment which I have accepted from Senator Duffy. I have accepted his amendment which provides that any Order made under Section 2 shall not come into force or have effect until it has been laid before each House of the Oireachtas and has been confirmed by resolution of each such House. On that basis, it is quite clear that the Minister will take care to invite the views of the local authority before he proceeds to make an Order and that he will listen to any representations they may wish to make or to any views they may care to express. Otherwise we will have to run the gamut of a debate in both Houses of the Oireachtas. No Minister, with all the pressure there is normally on a Minister's time, is going to refrain from doing anything which would obviate a debate in this House upon any Order he makes.

The reason why I feel so strongly about the matter is that both of the Senators concerned are members of local authorities. There is often talk about lack of policy on the part of local authorities because of the County Management Act. Here we have two leading members of this House, both of them members of local authorities, who do not know the position. In 1942, when there was a reorganisation of the county electoral districts, the representation in County Longford, in common with that of county councils all over the Twenty-Six Counties, was reduced. In my particular county the representation was reduced from 26 to 21.

The Minister sent a draft Order to the county council which the county council considered. They agreed with the principle but, after discussing the matter, they passed a resolution asking the Minister to reduce the number in each of the existing electoral areas by one rather than to re-align the existing areas, that is, a total reduction of five. They requested that the existing areas should be allowed to stand but that the representation be reduced by one in each area. I may say to the credit of the Minister that almost by return of post the resolution was approved and a new Order was made complying with the wishes of the Longford County Council as set out in the resolution submitted to the Minister. That happened in 1942. We are not theorising. The Minister is not theorising when he says that it will be done.

He reduced it by one in all five?

He reduced it by five— one in each area.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question: "That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

I just want to reiterate my point of view with regard to this Bill. I have already stressed it on the Second Reading. Senator Hearne seems to be all hot and bothered. Some of us here, according to him, do not take our responsibilities sufficiently seriously and we are not sufficiently well informed. I think his comments on my amendment which has not been moved are very unbecoming. He says he has had experience in Longford. He implies that I have not had experience in my own county. I do not know that there is any obligation on the Minister to do this. There is no obligation upon him under this Bill to do it.

May I say this——

You can reply to me later. In my view this rearrangement of areas is a fundamental flaw in the Bill. In my county and in the Northern counties generally it is going to eliminate a minority which has had representation on our local authorities for a very long time. In my view it is doing away with the principles of proportional representation. I believe that it is impossible to confine the activities of representatives to the very small areas in which they are expected to function under this Bill. It is, of course, very largely a waste of time to discuss machinery for local government because the responsibilities of local authorities to-day have been whittled down until their functions are merely a matter of pretence. I speak from experience. I read other local papers. I know what the county council in Longford does. I know what the county council in Leitrim does. I know what the county councils in Monaghan and elsewhere do. It may please the Minister and his executives to continue with what he calls this reorganisation of constituencies.

From the point of view of improvement of local government I do not think it is going to mean anything whatever. I think it is going to make for more small-mindedness in local government. The Minister is now going to break up homogeneous areas from the point of view of roads and drainage and other problems. That is the Minister's way of doing it, but I can quite see other people, when they come along, repealing the provisions of this Bill that we are asked to pass here to-night.

I do not believe in taking up the time of the House talking upon matters in which we have no hope of winning eventually. I would suggest to the Minister what we do not suggest to the race-horse—do not go too fast.

I am astounded at the argument put forward by Senator Baxter and I do not know whether Senator McGee's was an unqualified "plumper" in support of him or not, or whether he was hedging out of loyalty to a neighbouring county——

I never do that.

But one would think we had no local government in this country and no experience of local authorities prior to the year 1919 when this system was, so to speak, tried out on the dog. I remember when local government in this country was a very vigorous element in the life of the community. I think—and this is a consideration which moved me to introduce this Bill—that one of the principal reasons why we have not the same intense local interest in local government to-day that we had hitherto is because the element of personal responsibility for a particular locality was taken out of local government. It was taken out when we gave to local authorities areas as large as many large Parliamentary constituencies and which to-day are in some counties larger than the whole of other counties within the Twenty-Six Counties. That has made it virtually impossible for the man who has his own business to attend to public affairs and to devote to public affairs the amount of time they require unless he is prepared to neglect his own business.

For that reason I think that by reestablishing the more intimate association which used to exist between the county council and a particular area, and by limiting the number of people who will have first call upon his services to a reasonable number, and limiting the area which he will have to look after and reducing it to a reasonable size, I believe that we shall get a better type of candidate, a more alert and vigorous type of businessman, a more alert and vigorous type of farmer and worker coming forward to represent the people of a particular area. They will be the people generally regarded as leaders in their own parish or group of parishes. I may be wrong in that. It is an experiment. I do not claim to be infallible. But I do know that there is at the present time some malaise so far as local government is concerned; and, for good or ill, I am trying to revive interest among the people in their own local affairs. I think that this Bill will tend to do that, despite what Senator Baxter has said in opposition to the Bill. The extraordinary thing is that in the other House—where I think there are more members of local authorities than there are here—there was no opposition whatever to this particular provision in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.
Ordered: "That the Bill be returned to the Dail."
Barr
Roinn