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.