Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 15 May 1974

Vol. 78 No. 3

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

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Tully)

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 provisions of the Bill are dealt with very fully in the explanatory memorandum circulated with it.

The procedure for dealing with local election petitions was contained mainly in the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, and the Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1884. Under this law the court for the trial of a local election petition consisted of a barrister, of at least 15 years' standing, appointed by the judges on a 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 the exercise of such powers by authorities other than the courts is expressly prohibited by the Constitution.

Under the Bill, local election petitions will be tried by the Circuit Court. The system generally will be similar to that which existed under the former law. The new system will be specifically related to proportional representation and some outdated procedures will be dropped. The Bill does not deal with parliamentary election petitions. This particular branch of the law has not been found to be unconstitutional and appeared to work relatively satisfactorily.

The Bill will remove the disqualifications for membership of a local authority on the grounds of being an alien, a person in holy orders or holding an office of profit under the authority. The disqualification of aliens is contained in the Local Government (Application of Enactments) Order, 1898. Aliens have the right to vote at local elections and it is only logical that they should also have the right to become members of a local authority if they enjoy sufficient popular support. The disqualification for membership of local authorities on persons in holy orders and ministers of religion which goes back to 1840 appears to contravene Article 44.2.3º of the Constitution which provides that: "The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status".

There is a double barrier which prevents a local authority employee becoming a member of the local authority. 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. In addition, 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.

Under the 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. Each such order will be a statutory instrument and will be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and may be annulled by resolution of either House within 21 sitting days after being so laid. Any order proposed to be made on or after 1st July, 1975 will require approval in draft by both House of the Oireachtas before it can be made. 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 town clerks, all professional staff, library staff down to and including the level of assistant librarian, certain officers of fire brigades, certain outdoor offices of clerk of works, inspector and assistant inspector and analogous grades, rate collector, rent collector, rate inspector, rent inspector, housing welfare officer, means investigation officer, social worker, and, where employed under county councils and county borough councils, assistance officer and superintendent assistance officer. These are the categories of officer 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.

The Minister for Education would propose to lift the restriction in relation to all employees of vocational education committees who are not officers, clerical staff up to and including clerical officer and vocational teachers. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries would lift the restriction for all employees of committees of agriculture except professional staff and clerical staff above the rank of clerical officer.

I am sure that Senators will welcome this opening up of the field of eligibility for local authority membership which is in line with the general principle enunciated by the Joint Committee on the Electoral Law 14 years ago in relation to membership of the Oireachtas, that an individual should be prevented from putting himself forward for election only for the gravest and most compelling reasons of public policy.

Mr. Lenihan

This is a Bill that needs to be brought before both Houses of the Oireachtas and discussed in a legitimate and open fashion. It is a Bill which has, I know, been worked on in the Department of Local Government for some time. It should be open to positive amendment and improvement by the people best equipped to deal with a Bill of this kind—practising politicians who are Members of the Dáil and the Seanad. It is ideally a Bill that we should have here for deep and mature consideration. It is the very type of Bill that should not be rushed through the House.

The Leader of the House, Senator O'Higgins, made an outrageous comparison when he compared the urgency surrounding this Bill with the urgency surrounding the passage of the Offences Against the State Bill which is still an Act and still being implemented as law by the present Government. Matters dealing with the security of the State surmount everything else in importance. These matters have, inevitably, to be rushed through the Houses of Parliament in this and in every other democratic country. That is an essential and fundamental matter in which everything else is dropped, as it were, in the interests of the overall security of the State.

This is not that type of Bill. Let us get that clear. This is a practical Bill of some importance. Most of it is welcome but it can be improved, added to and given mature consideration by this House. That is the purpose of this House and the Dáil is also there for the same purpose. It can be rounded into a legislative measure that can give real effect and improvement to our local government structure. Why the rush in regard to it? The local elections can be held without it. There is no doubt about that. There is no compelling reason why we should sit here and pass this Bill by 2 o'clock because nominations for the local elections are imminent. The local elections can proceed. We do not want this Bill for that purpose.

We, on this side, have some positive amendments to the Bill which we consider would improve it. I mentioned one amendment when we were discussing the Order of Business. I received my telegram this morning— I was away yesterday evening—and I just flicked through the Bill and immediately I saw a number of positive matters which I suggest could be improved. The Seanad should fulfil its proper function by having a day on Committee Stage and allow Senators to put forward amendments and to make a case for the amendments. I am sure they would be met by the Minister.

I suggest that we have a sensible Second Stage debate today, adjourn for a week—as we always do—have a Committee Stage debate, adjourn for another week, have a Report Stage debate and let the local elections proceed accordingly. I should like to hear, straightforwardly, from the Minister, can the local elections proceed without this Bill? They can. There really is no answer to that. The Minister knows as well as I know that this is true, that the local elections can proceed without this Bill. Why can we not have a sensible, practical debate about this measure, suggest improvements, put down amendments and have them debated? This is what the legislative process is all about. This is why we are taking a stand on this issue. We want this Bill debated in a normal, sensible, practical way by this House as a legislative Chamber. We see no need whatever for the unseemly rush.

If the Minister states that he must have the Bill in order that the local government elections take place, that is a different day's work. There is logic in that. I can say in answer to that, it is due to Government incompetence that the Bill is brought in on the eve of the local elections. At least there is a logic in the situation if the Minister can tell me that he needs this Bill in order that people can be nominated for the local elections or in order that local elections take place. I would criticise that attitude and say that if it is so important and urgent, why did the Minister not bring in the Bill much earlier than this? However, I would grant the Minister and the Government some credit for logic in that if they want the Bill urgently in order that the local elections can take place that is a point of view. There may have been incompetence, there may have been stupid delays, or mismanagement of the country's affairs in regard to the legislative programme before the Houses of the Oireachtas. It may have been any of these things but it is understandable and we can have a debate about it. The Minister has a point of view if the Bill is necessary for the purpose of nomination and election in regard to local authorities.

The date for the local elections has been fixed for 18th June. We appreciate that nominations are imminent. If this Bill is needed for that purpose, the Minister should make that case and we could debate that matter. But this Bill is not necessary for that purpose. This is a Bill rectifying a number of anomalies in local government legislation and qualifications that have existed over a number of years. As I said earlier, in broad principle I agree with the Bill. It is a Bill that can be improved very substantially. Members of the Seanad are entitled to put forward their points of view as to how it can be improved. We can have a sensible Second Stage debate today, the Committee Stage next week and the Report Stage the following week. The Bill is not necessary for the purpose of local elections. Why the haste?

I should like to say that there is something in the Minister's temperament that I do not like. I do not understand the reasons. We had the same attitude in regard to the Constituencies Bill. A very reasonable amendment, which the Minister conceded in the Dáil as having merit, was not adopted in this House. We, on this side, made it plain that it was just one amendment which we considered highly reasonable, and which the Minister by implication agreed in the Dáil as reasonable, and yet it was not accepted. This is an extraordinary attitude. I pointed out, when I was speaking on the Order of Business, that again, even at this late stage, there is no reason why a reasonable amendment or amendments could not be adopted by the Minister. There is no difficulty, the printing press is standing by, in getting a reasonable amendment put in. I should like to know, why the rush? Why the unseemly haste? Is this a matter of a Minister of State bulldozing for the sake of bulldozing? I can understand the Minister bulldozing, it has to be done sometimes in the public interest. Where the security of the State is involved it is very understandable. Why this attitude, having Senators summoned by telegram, to have the whole Bill finished by 2 o'clock in the afternoon? It must be law by then. Why, especially when, and I reiterate the point, it is not necessary for the purpose of nomination or the holding of local elections?

The Bill itself in many respects is one that is necessary as I have stated already. Certainly the statutory procedure for questioning a local election by petition to the Circuit Court has been necessary for some time, since the High Court ruling in 1961. It is a matter, which the Minister knows, that is a very unlikely sort of occurence; it is basically a legal tidying up of the whole procedure relating to local petitions that existed in various pieces of legislation dating back to the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882 and the Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1884. The procedure of petition was found in 1961 to be unconstitutional in that there was a particular tribunal appointed under these Acts that was exercising judicial power, and the court found in 1961 that this was a judicial procedure appropriate to the courts rather than to any particular non-judicial tribunal. It is a welcome improvement.

I want to put the matter in perspective: that is all that is about. A main part of the early sections of the Bill relate precisely to this area of electoral petition. It is a legal matter of tidying up the law in accordance with the High Court decision. It is not of any great importance but it is welcome. It is making judicial a matter that should be judicial, bringing within the compass of the Circuit Court a matter that was there under a non-judicial tribunal. That is all there is to it. I should like to know, just as a matter of interest, taking a layman's attitude instead of a lawyer's attitude, when was the last petition. I certainly have no recollection of any such petition under the old statutory procedure in recent years although there may have been one or two. I want to put the matter in perspective, that it is just making legal and constitutional what was held by the High Court specifically in 1961 to be unconstitutional, by reason of vesting this particular petition procedure in a non-judicial tribunal. What we are doing now is vesting it in the Circuit Court. This is hardly a matter that should be bulldozed through the Seanad before 2 o'clock in the afternoon. It is a matter on which we could have some excellent advice from legal, constitutional lawyers and academic Members of the House. It is a matter in which the Seanad could go in some detail at its leisure and perhaps suggest improvements. I cannot suggest any improvement but, other Members of the House, particularly Independent Members with some expertise in this area, might have improvements to suggest. However, there is no great reason why we should be rushing that aspect of the Bill before 2 o'clock.

The petition procedure is not likely to be invoked after these local elections because it was not invoked after the last local elections nor under the previous local elections.

Then, there is the removal of disqualification for membership of local authorities in the case of ministers of religion. This is a welcome improvement. It is one of the healthier features of European life that clerics of all denominations are entitled to stand for and sit not only on local authorities but in the Houses of Parliament. This was an outdated procedure dating back to an age of prejudice. I welcome its removal. It may not be of great moment. I cannot see many of our clerics seeking election to local authorities. This might happen in four or eight years' time. It is not a matter of such urgency to summon the Seanad by telegram and seek to have legislation passed before 2 o'clock today. It is not a bulldozing matter that clerics be made eligible for membership of local authorities. I welcome this without understanding the urgency.

The third main matter in the Bill is to remove the disqualification for membership of local authorities, committees of agriculture and vocational education committees on the grounds of being an alien or of holding an office of profit or being employed under the body concerned.

The fourth matter in the Bill is to provide a procedure whereby categories of employees of local authorities, committees of agriculture and vocational education committees may become members of the authority employing them without forfeiting their employment. This is an area in which practical amendments may be put down. We have positive views concerning this and practical amendments which we hope can be formulated during the week and put down on Committee Stage next week.

I welcome the extension set out by the Minister in his speech in the categories involved who are not officers. It is clear this can be done. It concerns mainly manual workers and officers in local authorities where there is no conflict between their duties and their representation or local authorities. That is agreed. With regard to the area of conflict between duty and membership, certain views were put forward in the Dáil. In this House we wish to put forward some views also. We can outline them in general principle on the Second Stage and they can be specified more positively in an amendment on Committee Stage next week.

I am proceeding with this debate on the basis that we are not finishing at 2 o'clock, that we are having a Second Stage debate today, that we are having a Committee Stage debate next week and a Report Stage debate the following week. This is legislation which should be considered in a deliberative and constructive manner by the House. I am disregarding the outrageous notice that a serious Bill, which requires mature consideration, needs to be bulldozed through before 2 o'clock today. I will treat the matter on its merits.

If I received any indication from the Minister that this Bill was necessary in order that the local elections be held on 18th June, in order that nominations should take place and that the election should proceed, I would go along with him. Having made my contribution, I would agree to all Stages going through this House if he tells me that this is essential and that the local elections cannot take place otherwise. Having had no indication to that effect I will proceed to deal with this Bill on the basis that we are now on the Second Stage, that we will have Committee Stage next week and Report Stage the following week. On that approach to the Bill I should like to discuss the question of qualification. In the Minister's introductory speech he emphasised that in regard to extending the range of qualifications:

The intention is that generally the restriction would be lifted for all employees except those holding fairly senior posts and others involved in policy matters.

He rightly goes on to state:

... all officers other than certain categories whose duties are such that it would be inappropriate to remove the restriction in their case.

They should be allowed to stand for local elections and allowed to sit on local authority bodies. He goes on to state:

The offices in relation to which the restriction would still apply that is where conflict exists between duty and membership would in general be all administrative staff down to but not including the rank of clerical officer, all town clerks, all professional staff, library staff, down to and including the level of assistant librarian, certain officers of fire brigades, certain outdoor offices of clerk of works, inspector and assistant inspector and analogous grades, rate collector, rent collector, rate inspector, rent inspector, housing welfare officer, means investigation officer, social worker, and, where employed on the county councils and county borough councils, assistance officer and superintendent assistance officer.

The Minister is aware that we in this House may have a different view on how an amendment should be phrased on Committee Stage. On the previous Bill concerning the constituencies, we put down amendments which were not quite in line with the Dáil amendments. We would have to consider the amendments put down by Deputy Molloy. The first amendment is the one which concerns us. The Minister refused to accept it on Report Stage and Committee Stage in the Dáil. It relates to the clerical officer category of employment in local authorities.

The Minister has served for some time on local authorities. He is fully aware that a clerical officer in a local authority has a very valid area of discretion and decision-making in regard to pertinent matters relating to local government. These concern administration under various headings. In reading the Dáil debates it appeared the Minister decried the fact that county council or corporation members would have to consult a clerical officer in regard to certain matters. He apparently felt that the councillor concerned should go to some higher authority within the county council administration who would deal with his affairs.

I was a member of a local authority and this was not my experience. In many cases one was concerned about injustices being done in regard to road matters, and particularly health and housing. If a matter can be rectified quickly one does not automatically go to the county manager and the county secretary. As a Minister representing a constituency I have gone in and discussed matters of this nature with a clerical officer in the health or housing sections of a local authority. The Minister is well aware that this is common practice on the part of local authority members.

The clerical officer has a real part to play. He happens to be a person who is handling files and who could give information to a member of a local authority, and who can and does draft the letter which eventually goes up for the secretary's signature, or the county manager's signature. It is at clerical officer level in many cases in local authorities that the basic decisions are taken. Are we to have a situation in which that person can become a member of his or her local authority, a person intimately involved in an aspect of administration which basically affects many people's lives and interests?

I shall take housing as one example. If a clerical officer in the housing section of a local authority is amenable, he can exercise a very real and positive discretion in regard to making decisions. We could have a situation in which if that person—to put it at its extreme aspect, and that is written into the Bill—became a member of a local authority, he could be phrasing, or dictating, or suggesting, the sort of reply that should go to councillor A. Clerical officer A can help to decide in regard to a housing matter what county councillor A wants to hear. That is what the Bill means as it now stands. A clerical officer in Limerick County Council or Meath County Council, in the housing section of these local authorities or in any area, can, if he or she becomes a member of the local authority, be in a position in which he or she is deciding on housing allocations. That will be of importance as far as that clerical officer's constituents are concerned vis-a-vis membership of a local authority. Is that desirable or undersirable.

I would ask the Minister to meet a positive point of view here. He has put down a number of categories that are excluded for the very reason I have mentioned—a real conflict of interest—and many of these categories do not have anything like the discretionary power or the same interest in a sensitive area concerning the public or concerning representation on local authorities which clerical officers have.

Let us take library staff for an example. The Minister is as well aware as I am of the position of library staff. Library staffing is not a matter of day to day political interest. It is an important cultural matter beyond politics, and a matter that does not need to be dealt with in this manner of exclusion. I do not see the logic in excluding library people and including clerical officers. I should imagine that the clerical officer in the housing section of any local authority has a far higher degree of conflict of interest than any member of the staff of the library right up to the top librarian position in any local authority. The whole library area is excluded from politics. I cannot imagine a situation in which any member of the library staff, right up to the rank of librarian, would in any way be involved in a day-to-day conflict vis-a-vis membership of a local authority. I respect the Minister's wisdom in the matter. The point I want to make is that a clerical officer in a housing department of any local authority is in a far more sensitive area than a librarian in charge of the library system of a local authority.

I could make the same point in regard to rate collectors. I am not making the point there because I can see wisdom in the exclusion of rate collectors. I am trying to be totally fair and dispassionate here. I see wisdom in excluding anybody concerned with the handling of money. In that respect I agree with the exclusion of everybody in the rate collecting, rent collecting and assistance officer category. The Minister is absolutely right to exclude these people. There is an obvious and straightforward conflict here and, on that aspect, the Bill is welcome. I do not understand why people who can be in a very sensitive position as clerical officers are not added to the list of exclusions. I made my position quite clear on the Order of Business. Would the Minister intervene in the debate at this stage and indicate that he will bring in an amendment along the lines suggested by Deputy Molloy in the Dáil in which he proposed that in page 12, lines 42 and 43, a new subsection should be included, subsection (2)? I quote:

An order made under this section shall not exclude an employee who is a member of the administrative staff down to and including the rank of clerical officer from the operation of section 21 (1) of the Local Government Act, 1955.

Deputy Molloy had a further amendment down which I will not press at this stage. If we could get an indication now that an amendment along the lines suggested by Deputy Molloy will be accepted, I would then recommend to the members of my group that we give the Minister all Stages today, even though the procedure is highly undesirable.

If the Minister is going to flout parliamentary democracy in a Bill which is not essential for the purpose of nomination and for the purpose of holding the local elections, we will also say that the Minister will go through the Parliamentary mill. That is what Houses of Parliament are for. The Minister will sit here and hear out the Second Stage. He will sit here in a week's time and hear out the Committee Stage. He will sit here the week after that and hear out the Report Stage. We will have practical amendments of the kind I mentioned put down to him.

I should like some eludication from the Minister on the question of vocational teachers. Representations have been made to me in regard to vocational teachers being allowed to sit on vocational education bodies. Has the Minister had any representations in that regard? There is a strong case that they should be represented on vocational education bodies. I appreciate that the restriction is being lifted as stated by the Minister:

The Minister for Education would propose to lift the restriction in relation to all employees of vocational education committees who are not officers, clerical staff up to and including clerical officer and vocational teachers.

That permits vocational teachers to be members of a local authority. Does it permit them to be members of a vocational education committee? This is a matter on which strong representations have been made to me by members of the vocational teachers profession. In a situation in which national teachers are allowed to sit on vocational education committees at present, school managers and members of the clergy are allowed to sit on vocational education committees, secondary teachers are allowed to sit on vocational education committees why cannot vocational teachers be allowed to sit on vocational education committees?

The Minister may reply by saying that the secondary teacher or the primary teacher, or the clerical manager, is not employed by the vocational education committee. In these days of comprehensive education that seems to me—and I would anticipate this to be the official reply—to be rather spurious in its reasoning. As far as education today is concerned, it is all integrated and comprehensive. Primary, second and vocational levels are tending to be co-ordinated into a comprehensive scheme of education. Therefore, if secondary teachers, national teachers and school managers are all sitting on a vocational education committee and vocational teachers are excluded, that appears to be anomalous in this day and age. We are concerned with a Bill that is broadly a liberalising measure and I would ask the Minister to look into what type of amendment can be devised to allow vocational teachers, not alone to be members of local authorities as is guaranteed under the Bill, but also to be members of a vocational education committee on which they can give advice from their own expertise and knowledge. It is a matter which, if we are allowed to have a proper Committee Stage, we will certainly be considering between now and Committee Stage.

That is a matter which was not raised in the Dáil to any great extent and about which I would be personally concerned with here having got very strong representations from the body representing vocational teachers. I also, have had very strong representations from a number of vocational teachers who are anxious to make a contribution towards this area of education. They are especially qualified to make a contribution which is at the moment being given by national and secondary teachers and clerical managers. An amendment of section 24 could be devised to meet this aspect which I have mentioned. Again, that is a matter which we should like to consider between now and Committee Stage— an amendment to section 24 that would incorporate this category of people and allow them to sit on vocational education committees. It is rather interesting that I do not hear members of the Labour Party being active in this particular cause, because, as I say, the trade union representing vocational teachers have approached me in the matter. A number of their members have also approached me on the desirability of allowing them to be members of vocational education committees.

The other matter which I would ask the Minister to consider very seriously, which was debated at length in the Dáil, is the real desirability of incorporating an amendment on the lines of the amendment suggested by Deputy Molloy in the other House related to clerical officers. They have a very real function in a very sensitive area of local democracy, and having regard to the list of people whom the Minister has excluded from eligibility, this particular category would certainly merit exclusion. I mentioned the extreme case of some members of library staffs who are excluded. I see no sensitivity whatever in 99.9 per cent of their relations with the general public. I see an awful lot of sensitivity and a high degree of danger, of conflict of interest, in regard to the relationship existing between clerical officers in sensitive areas, such as housing departments of local authorities, and the general public and members of local authorities—a very real danger and a conflict of interest where you have a clerical officer in that situation who is also a member of a local authority where he or she is concerned with the allocation of houses and he or she happens to be a member of the local authority as well, concerned with the allocation of houses. I do not have to spell out in a political chamber the very real degree of conflict which can arise in that sort of relationship.

Again, I want to emphasise that if the Minister is reasonable we will be reasonable. I do not understand the rush, what the bulldozing is about or why this Bill has to be passed before 2 o'clock. If the Minister, for some obscure reason, wants the Bill before 2 o'clock, we will give it to him if he gives an assurance of an amendment along the lines I have mentioned relating to clerical officers.

Mr. Dolan

First of all, I should like to refer to something which happened here this morning. The Leader of the House referred to the urgency for this Bill. I also want to protest because the Seanad has been summoned by telegram. I know there is nothing unusual in that and that public representatives should be prepared for urgent meetings, but it is unreasonable to expect Members to get here at such short notice to debate an important issue such as this. This is something which should not have happened. We consider this a very important piece of legislation. I want to register a protest in that respect. I came from Killeshandra. It was easy enough for me to get here. Nevertheless, I only got here on time.

Reference has been made to previous occasions when the Houses of the Oireachtas were got together by telegram. That is not unusual, but I think the comparisons which were made were very unfair. The only time I can recall being summoned here by telegram was to discuss some important piece of legislation pertaining to the State itself. This is certainly not in this category.

Secondly, to arrive here and learn that this must be through by 2 o'clock was something which would shake the confidence of anybody in the usefulness of the second House of the Oireachtas, or, indeed, of parliamentary procedure in general. No attempt whatever should be made at any time to prevent elected representatives of either House of the Oireachtas from debating any matter pertaining to important legislation. This certainly is an attempt to do that. I cannot see any urgency whatever in this piece of legislation. If it is contended that there was urgency, surely there was 18 months of this present Government's activity in which to prepare and present this legislation to either House of the Oireachtas. That has not been done. An attempt has now been made to rush through this at a very late hour.

I freely admit that anything any Minister can do at any time to improve the general structure of local authorities and increase their efficiency in any way is to be commended. If an attempt has been made here— and rightly so, I think—to extend local authority candidature to a wider category and to enable more categories of people to offer themselves in local elections, that is to be commended. County council work has become so complicated and so involved that it requires a fair standard of intelligence for representatives to keep abreast of present day legislation and to keep themselves sufficiently well informed to be able to take part in an intelligent way in affairs at local level. The tendency has been more or less to give them extra power. I would go a long way with that reasoning because the people who are working and have lived all their lives in a locality are closely in touch with the people among whom they live and work. They certainly would have a tremendous grasp of the problems that are important to their electors.

I can see no earthly reason whatever for this unnatural rush in this piece of legislation. The fact is that we have not had local government elections for the past seven years. It was evident to the Government that elections would be held this year and they should accordingly have made legislative provision for them. It was up to the Minister, if he had these changes in mind, to have brought in this piece of legislation 12 months ago, if it was so important and meant so much to local authorities and to the people in general. There is no valid reason whatever why they did not bring in this piece of legislation at an earlier date. My main protest is that, having discussed the Bill in Dáil Éireann, they should come along and expect us to rush it through in a day. If it is so important, it should not be bulldozed and steamrolled through the second House of the Oireachtas in a matter of hours.

One would think these are the only local government elections to be held in the future. I cannot see why failure to enact this Bill today should affect the present local elections that are planned, because this legislation would in no way interfere with the holding of the elections. The election date has already been set. I admit that nominations are due on Thursday but it would not make any difference whatever except that those categories listed here by the Minister would be excluded. That has been happening for a long time. Surely, in making a choice between these categories, he should have known that there would have been some opposition while, in the main, there would be general agreement. The wider you make the field and the greater choice you give the people, the better, probably, for legislation and the better performance you will get.

At the same time it is asking quite a bit to expect everybody here to sit mute and to allow this to pass through in a matter of a couple of hours. I am almost sure—not that I deem myself a prophet—that very few Members of the Government will take part in this debate in any form. The reason for that will be that they were probably asked to keep as mute as mice in a church. They will keep their mouths closed tightly so that nothing will delay this Bill in so far as the deadline of 2 o'clock is concerned. I will also admit freely that there are many Members of the Government— despite the fact that they may not agree with me politically—who are intelligent people. I would welcome some contributions from the people on the other side of the House. Indeed I know many of them on the other side of the House who are old and respected members of local authorities. They have given very good service on them; they know local government from A to Z. I am sure the same could be said of the Minister himself whom I know to have served a long period in his native County Meath and he rendered good service there.

What worries us on this side of the House is that, in so far as we can see, no amendments are to be allowed on this piece of legislation. In other words, the Minister and the Government are saying simply "The people in the second House of the Oireachtas have nothing worth while to contribute on this debate; there is no use in our asking or allowing them submit any amendments; it seems their intelligence would not be fit to do that. For that reason we will ask them to steamroll this through by 2 o'clock today or, if not, we will do as we have done on many previous occasions—use the guillotine and put it through whether you like it or not". I do not think that is good for democracy or legislation in any shape or form.

In so far as the Bill itself is concerned, I suppose the first part of it will be accepted. There may be room for further improvement and so on. But it is an endeavour to improve the legislation and, as such, should be welcomed. I also welcome the fact that ministers of various types of religion are being allowed to stand as candidates in county council elections. It is only correct that they should have this right as citizens and individuals in this State. We all must admit that they are a highly intelligent body of men on all sides and that they would be very close in many respects to the needs of community. Their contributions and deliberations would be very enlightened and very welcome.

In my own county we have had a clergyman, Canon P. O'Reilly, who has been chairman of our vocational committee for 40 years. He has given tremendous service and certainly is very close to happenings in so far as vocational education is concerned. Senators who go to vocational congresses will have noticed Canon McCarthy of Athlone, Fr. Breen of Bray and various other clergymen taking part in the deliberations of congress and indeed acting as chairman. Bishop Hevener, D.D. of Monaghan is another who comes to mind. They have at all times put up a tremendous performance. Their assistance has been highly valued and their contributions respected. Therefore this section; which allows clergymen of all denominations if they so wish to offer themselves for election in local government elections, is to be welcomed. I suppose the ban in this respect may have gone back to the evil days in the history of our State. As the Leader of our Party has already said, it is a fact that ministers and clergymen of all denominations not alone in this country but in other countries in Europe have been playing a very prominent part in the politics of their various countries. It is only right that they should be allowed to do so.

I do not take issue whatever with that part of the legislation. But I must say emphatically that I am not in favour of the proposal to allow certain clerical officers to become members of a local authority. I have the height of respect for the clerical staff in my own authority in county Cavan, Clerical workers in many grades of government and county council offices all over the country do excellent work. They are highly qualified and perform their tasks very diligently and efficiently. But I respectfully submit that this proposal is placing them in a very invidious position. I do not believe it will help in any way towards increasing the respect and confidence that the ordinary worker and citizen would have for these clerical officers if they are now to be allowed become members of local authorities. I have been 24 years in Cavan County Council during which time I have been dealing with many matters from the health services to hospitals—before they went out of our control—and rural improvement schemes which form a great and varied part of our work in the county council.

County Cavan is a county with a great number of small lakes, hills and twisty roads; it also has a great proportion of lanes. We have to deal a few times a week with clients who come to us regarding rural improvement schemes. On these rural improvement schemes, as the Minister well knows, there is a local contribution apart from the contribution made by the county council. Certain officers of the county council and personnel go out, inspect these schemes and come to a decision in a legitimate way and fair-minded manner.

Very recently I had a woman from Gowra South, in Bawnboy, where a Mr. Kevin McCaffey, a Mr. O'Reilly and a few others joined together to have a particular lane tarred. In doing that the county council made an assessment of what the scheme would cost. They said that the local people would have to pay so much money. There is nothing wrong with that. Indeed I am sure the local people have accepted it. This is the nature of the scheme since its inception. It means that somebody in the county council offices has decided that this is to be the local contribution. This is the point with which I take issue.

At present nobody has any fault whatever to find with the efficiency or integrity of any of the people in the county councils dealing with this particular matter. But it happens to be a rather sensitive matter because a local contribution is involved. The amount of the local contribution depends on the decisions made in the county council. I am not going to say what clerical officer does that but if I write to a county council, to the manager or to the secretary, on any of these schemes or, indeed, on other problems I am not sure where that letter goes to.

It may go right down the line to the clerical officer who will have to deal with it. He will say "Séamus Dolan from Killeshandra has been making inquiries about a rural improvement scheme down in Gowra South, Bawnboy, Glangevlin or Blacklion. There is nothing wrong with that." If the person dealing with that is a county councillor, in Séamus Dolan's area or in anybody else's area, is it not only fair to assume, human nature being what it is, that somebody will have suspicions. Somebody will say: "If you have a good pull with that clerical officer you will get your local contribution reduced so far as the rural improvement scheme is concerned. If you are not nice to him you will certainly get the hammer. You will not be able to get your scheme on for such an amount." This is the position into which we as a legislative body are going to put ourselves. I do not think we should advocate legislation that would do anything like that. I am not trying to insinuate or suggest that people in local authorities are in any way dishonest. I simply want to say that the temptations are there and will be there.

Surely there is a wide enough choice for selecting people from any walk in life without having to take in people who are dealing financially with matters such as these. Finance, as every Senator knows, down through the history of the world has been a very tricky problem. There have been temptations since the world was created. Human nature is human nature. Even though that individual or that clerical officer is as straight as a gun barrel he would leave himself open to criticism no matter what way he made the decision. Somebody is bound to suggest that he was doing it for such a political client, because he was Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or Labour. I think we should not do something like that in this day and age.

I emphatically protest against any legislation that will allow such people to stand for local authorities. I do not think we are encroaching in any way on their rights. There are in every State, every Government and in every county council certain officers and people in whom the State always has implicit trust. It does not matter whether the Government change from one year to another these loyal civil servants in all walks, areas and offices remain steadfast. They remain working on behalf of the State in the employment of whatever Government are in office. It is to their credit that down the years, irrespective of what change of Government took place in this country, men of the calibre of clerical officers and all other officials who are in these positions have shown a tremendous fidelity and loyalty to the State.

I do not think there will be any great rush by any of them into these jobs because they know the position fairly well. It is bound in one way or another to affect them. As a matter of fact, all civil servants and all clerical officers have some friends here and there. One can be put in a very awkward position if somebody comes along and asks: "What about my housing grant? I was docked a few pounds there, I thought I should have got so much."

I deal a lot with housing grants in my county as there has been a lot of house building there, renovation of old houses and building of new ones. There is no doubt that in relation to almost every housing grant you have to communicate with the county council on the matter. The present position is that a farmer will get £450 for a new house and £450 from the local authority. There is a certain scaling down carried out by each local authority. There are cases in which one must make a decision and say that particular person is not going to get exactly that. I know we have auditors in all these places who can check and recheck. At the same time, the official would be within his legitimate duties where he makes a decision and it would be accepted.

If somebody goes to him, tries to put him in an awkward position and tries to use the intimacy and friendly relations which he has with him to try to persuade him to lean slightly in his favour, that is wrong. If it takes place, it will be to the detriment of the ordinary citizen. The person I would like to protect here and whom all public representatives should protect is the underdog, the ordinary person who has very little or nothing to live on, the man with the large family who is struggling to keep his head above water, the man who is unable to get education for his children. These are the types of people that I have been championing all my life, the under-priviliged classes, in particular, because we have a duty to them. I come from an area where thousands lived on small farms and where there were no post-primary educational facilities of any kind within a radius of 46 miles of where I was born. It is a scandalous situation for anybody to have to admit but it is true. Any public representative must be free. If he is a good representative, he will criticise the officials at all levels if it is necessary. We cannot be mealy-mouthed or softhearted about it. We must criticise the officials if we feel that what is being done is not for the betterment of the downtrodden people. That is the attitude I have adopted all my life.

The officials are well able to stand up to it. I think that the ordinary country person going into a county council office in Tipperary or in Donegal has not got the same standing and is not treated in the same way as an elected representative. An individual may call at some of our offices when the manager is away as often happens—our manager often attends regional development authority meetings with me in Dundalk and Drogheda—somebody else from lower down the line is stepped up and he becomes the temporary county manager for a time. Then there is an assistant manager or a secretary and they are also taken from the lower grades. The result is that the clerical officer is also stepped up. When the manager returns, these people revert to their previous positions. He might be the person that the individual who came in from the country and who had a grievance met and had to deal with his problem. When he went into this official he found out that he was the local county councillor, that he was the county councillor, who did not profess the same type of politics he did, that he was the county councillor who was the agent outside the school trying to get an opposition county councillor elected. I ask what faith could any individual have in a performance such as this. The Minister has made the selection very wide. He has put a lot of categories into this; he has extended very liberally, and justly so, because he will bring in extra people. At the same time, I think that he has gone a little bit too far, particularly when he includes somebody of the status of a clerical officer.

I do not want people in the rural areas to have suspicions as to what might be happening in our offices in County Cavan. I do not want to have to point a finger and say: "That person works in the council offices as a staff officer or something else. She or he has access to all the letters that Séamus Dolan writes into the county council and knows exactly what I have been looking for". That is not fair to me or to any other county councillor irrespective of what politics he or she has. I would not like to see any type of legislation introduced that would lower in any way the standards and efficiency of the county councils or the respect which the people have for them. In circumstances such as these I do not think any staff officer or clerical officer will attempt to offer his services.

As I said at the beginning, in a Bill such as this anything that helps to improve the standards and structures of local government is to be commended. I am not endeavouring to tear this legislation asunder. I am trying to ensure that the legislation we pass here will be of the utmost benefit to the community in general. We will not do ourselves any good by trying to steamroll it through in a matter of an hour or two in this House. Reasonable amendments such as the one we have already suggested should be accepted. Any fair-minded Minister or Government would accept it. After all, this is legislation that will last for quite a while, and it should be designed to improve the character of local government. As I said at the beginning, people who offer themselves for election are few and far between. There is not that great a number of candidates to rush into the field when elections are announced. As we all know, politics is a very uncertain life. It is really a dedication, and the men and women who offer themselves for it do so in the belief that they can help to provide legislation that will be for the betterment of the community as a whole. That is the real reason why most people enter politics. Irrespective of how hard they work, and how much good they do, it has been the experience of many politicians all down through history that they are eventually disregarded. They are not rewarded in any way whatever and are left out by people who once cheered them on to victory. This is the sad part of it. People who enter politics have very little home life. They are away every night at meetings. They are away every day at county council meetings, vocational meetings, agricultural meetings and various sub-committees and useful types of gatherings set up by county councils, the Government and other people and designed to improve the lot of the ordinary people who cannot attend.

It is very fair and reasonable that the Minister would give a wide choice in this respect and that he would not prevent people from offering themselves for election if he is completely satisfied that that would not infringe the right of those whom those elected representatives were going to serve. We have to be very careful in this amendment in regard to the clerical officer. County councillors have a very important part to play in the administration of various schemes. They are now members not alone of county councils but of various regional organisations such as the rural development association, the north-eastern development association, health boards and various other boards that have been set up and that are doing tremendous work. It is very important that we would get people of a very high calibre, but we also have to seek people who will be dedicated to this very important aspect of political life.

We have had good service in the past. There may have been some faults regarding the set-up of local government in the past, but in the main county councillors all over Ireland have given a fair performance down through the years. They have been straightforward, diligent, hardworking men who were unpaid and who sacrificed many days during their lives to work for the betterment of their fellowmen. They have, as I know, visited hospitals when they could have been at home doing their own work. They have helped people who have been in various forms of trouble and people who did not know their rights and did not know the right approach. For that reason, it is good to see that many more people are being allowed to offer their services. In particular I am pleased with the provision that allows road workers to offer themselves as county council candidates. They are a type of worker to whom sufficient respect has not been given in the past. They have never got credit for the tremendous job they have done. They have realigned and rebuilt the roads in a very short period. They are as highly skilled in their professions as engineers or anybody in any other profession, because road making and road building even in the days of the Romans was a very skilled operation.

In driving from one end of this country to the other one is impressed by the excellent way in which our workers have attempted to improve the alignment and surface of our roads with the limited money that is available.

I am glad to see that the day has come when a road worker can now offer himself as a candidate in a county council election. This has been long overdue. I have known some of these men who have had to leave their homes at six o'clock in the morning in order to reach their place of employment at eight o'clock. That was in the bad old days when the pay was very bad and there was no wet time allowance, no shelter and so forth. These were the people who were out all of the time in wind, snow and rain. It is a good gesture now that they are allowed to stand for election. I know some of them who are offering themselves for election. They are very intelligent people and are very well acquainted with what is happening in rural Ireland and in the cities. They are very down to earth, and nobody knows better than they do about rising prices and the various things that are happening at present. For that reason I hope that when the new county councils are elected, those men will have representation on them.

There are other categories of people in the employment of county councils such as fire brigade men. They give a great service. They are very intelligent too. The man who drives a fire engine and goes to extinguish a fire is a highly skilled individual and is a person that must be looked up to. I am glad that he has been given this opportunity. He has to make decisions. He has to be well versed in first-aid and he must know where hydrants are and how water pumps work. He must know something about saving people from burning buildings. He certainly should be a very intelligent type. He may not have university degrees or any such recognised qualifications but the main reason for this, probably, is that he or his people had not the money to send him to university; he certainly has the brains. That has often happened in the past. I hope that position will be rectified; it is being rectified at present when people with four honours can get to university. I am glad to see that a man working with the fire brigade may now have a university degree if he so wishes.

Members of local authorities who work on committees of agriculture are, to my mind, in a very important category of county councillors. In aiming to get as wide a panel of candidates as possible the Minister is doing the right thing. Agriculture has been the cinderella industry of this country for a long period. It was not the fault of the committees of agriculture that the farmers did not change their ways. Perhaps it was due to the general thinking of the times and how difficult it is to get people, especially in the farming sphere, to change their methods. The farmer was very conservative and was not willing to change for the sake of change and irrespective of how many agricultural officers came to visit him, he had his own opinion and he usually worked on it. Sometimes he suffered a loss by doing that; sometimes he was on the right side. Now science has come to his aid and agriculture has expanded immensely; the cow population has increased and in various ways the standard of agriculture in the country has improved enormously. I cannot say the same for the prices of cattle and pigs, but that is beside the point.

I welcome anything that will ensure that we will have a good representation on a committee of agriculture. As at present constituted committees of agriculture are more or less dominated by elected members of the county council. For that reason it is important that there should be many farmer candidates on the panel, people who are well up in agriculture, people who have served in agricultural colleges, who have visited countries abroad and have some idea of the methods and means employed in progressive countries and people who have a fair idea of cattle and pigs and poultry and those things that constitute the main bulk of our agricultural output. I think, too, people who work in milk processing factories and places like that should also have a fair chance of being on the panel for election if they wish.

There are other committees on which county councillors serve such as the library committee which was referred to by Senator Brennan. Libraries in this country are few and far between except for county council libraries. Many people in rural Ireland have not had the facilities in the past of availing of good books with which to augment their education and to widen their outlook on life in general. Lately, most county councils have adopted a new scheme for schools and the county councillors are well aware of this. This had to come before the county councillors and their decision had to be in favour of granting such facilities. After a second meeting I am glad to say I was one of the persons who persuaded our county council to adopt this library scheme which will be of tremendous benefit to the children of County Cavan. It is important that the people working in the library, if they so wish, should have some idea what goes on at those meetings. The librarian is present. It is important that county councillors should know what libraries do and what benefits they give.

These are only some of the many committees on which county councillors serve. I should also mention another important area in which county councillors are very interested and in which they can do an enormous amount of good for their own locality and that is the regional tourist board. It is important that each county council be allowed to send a member to the board and that that member should be interested in tourism, know exactly what it taking place at meetings and he should pinpoint the needs for improvement in his own locality.

I am merely outlining some of the things in which county councillors have taken a tremendous interest down the years. I am endeavouring to point out to the Government that we on this side of the House are dissatisfied with the undue haste which necessitated the summoning of the Seanad by telegram to pass legislation that is not urgent in any shape or form. Secondly, I want to protest emphatically against this part of the legislation which allows people who are clerical officers to offer themselves as county council candidates. I hope I will have an opportunity on Committee Stage, or next week when our amendment will be debated in this House, to speak again.

Mr. Horgan

I welcome this Bill for one main reason, that is that it removes from vocational teachers a burden under which they have laboured and sweated for a very long time now. I would emphatically reject suggestions made on this side of the House that this Bill is not an urgent Bill.

As far as members of the vocational teaching profession are concerned, this is an urgent Bill. They have been carrying this burden with increasing dissatisfaction over a long number of years. Senator O'Higgins has referred in the debate on the Order of Business and the Minister referred during his opening speech to certain changes that have been necessary since the Joint Committee On Electoral Law reported some 14 years ago.

I should like to bring it to the attention of the House that the disability under which vocational teachers have been labouring was first put on the Statute Books over 30 years ago almost to this day. In recent years the volume of opposition and criticism of this from vocational teachers has been growing, and with very good reason. Any vocational teacher who sees coming up next month the first set of local elections for seven years and then sees people attempting to deprive them of a right which they have not been able to exercise for 30 years would be very angry.

It is largely from that point of view that I am in favour of this Bill. I agree with the urgency of it. I would go so far as to say I would not vote against the guillotine motion, depending on the calibre of the contributions from this side of the House. I must say that they have not done a great deal of good to my blood pressure for the past two hours. I might even vote for it. We must be sensible and logical about this. For the last 30 years or so we have been treating vocational teachers as children. We refused to allow them very much trust. We have refused to allow them any effective role in the management and control of the schools in which they work. The teachers are the most important people in those schools.

We have had the situation in which teachers and any and every other branch of the profession can and have been members of vocational education committees. In a situation in which the vocational system was effectively in competition with other sectors of the educational system, and this is a situation which has obtained for some time after the introduction of the Donagh O'Malley free education scheme, there existed a situation in which managers and teachers of secondary schools were sitting in judgment on vocational schools with which their schools were in competition.

I do not wish to draw the analogy too far but it is similar to members of the board of one company being allowed a free seat on the board of a rival company. Things have not gone quite as far along the lines towards comprehensive education as Senator Lenihan might wish. Teachers in this category have been entitled to and have exercised such rights even though they have in many cases, with due respect to the acting Cathaoirleach, been slow to accept any public involvement in our systems of education, systems which are increasingly, and in some cases, entirely, funded from public money. The changes being made in this Bill will reinforce the value of the committee system as it appertains to school management.

I can assure Senator Lenihan that there is no reason for him, or anyone else, to put down an amendment to section 24 in order to ensure that a teacher whose disqualification from candidacy has been removed can also be a member of a local authority. According to the Minister's speech this is not a matter for legislation; it is a matter for an order to be made by him and by the Minister for Education. We have the assurance of the Minister that both he and the Minister for Education are in agreement on this. The only point for clarification is whether these orders will be made at such a time so that they will become effective for the current round of local elections. I warmly welcome this development. Vocational teachers have been waiting for this for years.

The other main objection to the Bill from this side of the House was in regard to clerical officers. I am astonished by the assumptions which appear to lie behind this objection. The main assumption is that local government is the most fertile breeding ground for corruption that we have. We are not all blue-eyed, innocent boys. We are all aware that in every large organisation, in every bureaucracy there is the possibility of corruption and the actual occurrence of corruption. What I cannot understand is the assumption of speakers on this side of the House that corruption is the norm and that anybody who is doing his job honestly and capably is an exception. Is this something to do with the quality of life about which we have heard so much recently? Is it true that after more than half a century of independence we still cannot trust our public servants? If we are stating this, we are stating that we cannot trust ourselves.

We are passing judgment on ourselves as an immature society, unwilling to trust others, unwilling to allow people to exercise responsibility and accurately their legitimate function in society. I see no substance in Senator Lenihan's point to amend section 24 of the Bill and I see any possible amendment dealing with clerical officers as being founded on an attitude of distrust and contempt for the whole processes of local government, which should be rejected by this House.

Mr. Keegan

I welcome an opportunity of making some comments on this piece of legislation. I sympathise with Senator Horgan if this debate puts up his blood pressure but that is his worry.

Whenever legislation is introduced broadening the area of qualification for candidature at a local election there are bound to be objections. There is bound to be opposition when one endeavours to draw the line and debar certain categories of individuals from seeking public office. The Minister can expect criticism because of the method he has adopted in drawing the line. A rate collector should not be debarred. He is involved with the people and is not concerned with the inside activities of any local government or the policy-making decisions of any county manager or county secretary. It is unfortunate that this Bill at this stage does not include some provision increasing the power of members of local authorities.

The role of the county councillor is not fully appreciated. His work has increased four-fold over the past 15 to 20 years. There have been excessive demands made on his time. He should have been granted additional powers because of his involvement. I ask the Minister to consider this if he is considering local government reform. County councillors should be entrusted with more powers. They have given valuable service irrespective of Senator Horgan's statement or the statements of any other Senator about corruption.

All that has gone by the board for the past 40 years. There is no such thing as corruption at local authority level. There could be no advantage from it and it is non-existent. I was 21 years of age when elected to the Westmeath County Council in 1955. I have never witnessed any effort to introduce any form of corruption.

I disagree with the Minister on his method of segregation with regard to the classes of people who may offer themselves for local elections. In debarring rate collectors was he influenced by some situation in his own area or was it a general decision? To include clerical officers and debar other members is not the most correct method of opening up the area of qualification. In dealing with qualification we must bear in mind that we have come a long way in the past 50 years. In the old days one had to be a justice of the peace before offering oneself to what was the old board of guardians. One had to have a specific land valuation and be a householder and a ratepayer before having the right to vote.

However, gradual, slow changes have taken place over the years. The right to vote at local authority level was extended to all sections of the community. There was the limited franchise but now there is a situation where all electors have the right to vote at local elections. This is desirable because of the problems which are handled by the local authorities and because of their involvement.

I agree that every effort must be made to ensure that the people have an opportunity of electing the best talent made available to them. I would say that there are not that many running wild today in an effort to seek election because many of them know the amount of time which must be given to a local authority; they know that sacrifices must be made. I am disappointed that the Minister in introducing the Bill did not see fit to offer some form of remuneration to the county councillor for the amount of time he must give to both local and public service.

The inclusion of clergy and other categories who can seek election is to be welcomed. However, do not think that many clergymen will go before the people and seek election through the ballot boxes because they will not want to divide their communities. Suppose my parish priest offered himself for election, and he is affiliated to a political party and I am his opponent, it is only natural to expect that I will never again have the same regard for him as I have while he is neutral and a non-participant in party politics. The clergy themselves will realise that and they will want to ensure at all times that they enjoy the confidence of their flock. If they are prepared to allow themselves to go forward as members of a political party then they can expect to be treated in the same way as I am or anybody else is treated. They can also expect to become as thick-skinned as many of us are because politics give a human being the skin of a rhinoceros. However, they are free to become members of the various political parties if they so desire.

We could have a situation where all local authorities—in theory, this is worth debate, though, in practice, it may never happen—could be constituted of members of the staff of that local authority. I do not know whether that would be good for the people. I believe there must be a balance with regard to the professions of all members of a council. Because of the divergence of views and, different shades of opinion a balance is desirable.

With regard to the clerical officer's involvement in policy-making decision in the county council, I would have no objection to his inclusion if the ordinary elected members could become more involved in policy-making decisions or have the real power. As matters stand at the moment the real power rests with the county manager who, in turn, delegates certain functions to the county engineer, the county secretary, the staff officer in housing, and so on. Therefore, in order to open up the entire field of local government, it is both necessary and desirable to give additional powers with regard to policy-making decisions to the elected members.

I am glad that vocational teachers will have an opportunity of making their views known. Teachers are involved in education; they are involved in the teaching of our children. They know that changes are necessary. They know how to deal with the various types of pupils—the intelligent, the slow learner, the backward or mentally retarded pupil. In their capacity as teachers they know all those problems and they will now be able to air their opinions at local authority level. Of course, over the years we have had the opinions of those people because they have always expressed their opinions in one way or another. I am not particularly worried about their inclusion at party political level. Indeed, so many vocational teachers never offered themselves for urban councils as are offering on this occasion. In my county alone at least six came forward seeking nomination. It is only right that they be given the opportunity of expressing themselves. For a long time national teachers have enjoyed privileges vocational teachers did not have; the vocational teacher was regarded in many ways as a second-class citizen. The fact that he will now enjoy the same status as the national teacher is to be welcomed.

The efforts made in this Bill to allow the clerical officer stand as a candidate and exclude other categories are wrong. The Minister should have opened up the entire field and then the dissatisfaction of those who have been debarred would be removed forever. You have the rate collector and the home assistance officer, who is now a health inspector; all these should be allowed to contest elections. If that were done all categories would be involved and a situation would be created in which a better local authority would be attained because of the inclusion of all shades of opinion. When the clerical officer is elected he will be in a privileged position because he will be doing the groundwork for the county manager, the county engineer, the local area engineer and the housing officer. Those of us involved in local authorities know that the two principal areas in which problems arise are housing and roads. The engineer's clerk, who would be involved with a big area, would have access to all the councillor's representations. Assuming an engineer's clerk gets elected to the Westmeath County Council, he would have access to every complaint that I would make with regard to roads, bog drains, boreens, local improvement schemes, all forms of sanitary services, all planning applications and all other activities associated with the work and duties of an engineer. Therefore, the engineer's clerk is at the hub of activities. He is in a privileged position to know everything that is going on. He has prior information with regard to when a particular bog road will be tarred and rolled, when a dangerous bend will be removed, when a junction will be improved. He has prior information with regard to when sewerage will be extended to some scheme of houses and he will be able to pass the message along to all the constituents perhaps a week ahead of the county councillor who had been asked to make representations and speed up some particular works necessary in that particular area. So far as the main political parties are concerned I think it will cut both ways.

In fairness to everybody, clerical officers should have been excluded when the Minister has allowed so many other public officers and local officials to be excluded from the Bill. I feel the Minister could have done more in this Bill to bring home to the people the full role of the county councillor. That role is never properly understood by the people. The councillor is treated as a messenger boy. He gets nothing except his travelling expenses and subsistence allowance.

The officials are well-paid for their work. They know the amount of work the county councillor is involved in. I doubt if many of them will go forward for election because of the fact that they will not receive any additional remuneration for all the additional duties which are part and parcel of the role of the county councillor. Therefore I would mention again the position of the clerical officer. He is at the hub of the activities of local government, particularly those officers involved in sections dealing with housing and roads, engineers, clerks, and so on.

The road worker has been included. He is not involved in policy-making decisions or in the representations of various councillors. He would have very little inside information which he could use to his own party's advantage or to the disadvantage of his opponents. Therefore the only people who would have an advantage in this case would be the clerical officers attached to the various offices of the local authority. Such an officer is in a privileged position. If 20 clerical officers offered themselves for election to any local authority and succeeded in being elected they could dominate the entire activities of that local authority and could swamp their opponents and have them completely isolated from the people so far as the work of that local authority is concerned.

I would ask the Minister, who always claimed to be a realist, and his Parliamentary Secretary, who is a member of a local authority and also likes to be regarded as a realist, to have a second look at this Bill. After all, their predecessors accepted amendments from the Opposition groups. The present Government should be realistic on this occasion and act in a similar manner.

A very important task performed by the county councillor has not been mentioned here today. That is the election of Members of this House. That is the prime function of the county councillor. It is something he does, is expected to do and has been doing over the years without fear or favour. It is important that the role of the county councillor should be fully debated in this House.

I object to any attempts by the Minister to restrict debate in this House which is, in turn, elected by the county council, Councillors have the majority vote with regard to Seanad elections and a greater say in this Assembly than anybody else because of the fact that they elect the Members of the Seanad. No effort should be made to sidestep the important issue or curb the democratic process. That is what we are doing on this occasion. We are exercising our democratic right to debate this Bill. All Members of this House should be allowed to debate this Bill freely. If it is true that the Government side have been asked not to speak, that is to be regretted. It is against the public good and the normal functioning of the democratic process.

There is nothing more I wish to say on this Bill except that I doubt very much if aliens should be allowed to offer themselves for election. In other countries one has to be a citizen of that country before one has the right to offer oneself for election. This is not the case in this Bill. I do not think that is right. Aliens should be expected to become Irish citizens, enjoy the status of Irishmen, uphold the Constitution of this country, and obey all the laws every Irishman is expected to obey.

This Bill is a step forward in many ways. I dislike a particular paragraph which contains the words "corrupt and illegal practice". I have been a member of a local authority since I was 21 years of age and I have no knowledge whatsoever of any corrupt or illegal practice being operated or carried on by any members of local authorities. Possibly it has taken place; I do not know. The standing of the majority of members of local authorities is unquestionable. Their integrity is beyond question. I would be saddened and sorry if anybody tried to brand our local authority members as being involved in any form of skulduggery or any form of corruption. I do not think it exists. It may have been the case in the past when members of the local authorities voted for rate collectors, county managers, the county secretary or the medical officer. Corruption may have taken place then. But with the establishment of the Local Appointments Commission all that has gone. The best-qualified men are appointed to all the posts.

There are only one or two categories where members of local authorities still appoint staff. They are concerned with vocational education committees and county committees of agriculture. Voting still exists for such appointments. With regard to the vocational education committee I am glad to say that they have set up an interview board, comprised of teachers, CEOs from outside areas and members of the local authority. That interview board does an excelcent job. It always seems to select the best candidates for the post. Many local authorities still appoint temporary agricultural officers by vote. The candidate who can mount the best lobby is always successful. It is always ensured that the candidates have full qualifications. That is only right. Permanent agricultural advisers are appointed by the appointments commission and the elected member has no say whatsoever with regard to their selection. I think the day is gone when corruption or favouritism can occur in this community. That is only as it should be.

That is all I can say on the Bill except that again I would appeal to the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary that, if they want to demonstrate their realism, they should have a second look and accept the amendments we are pressing.

Mr. M.D. Higgins

I simply want to say that I very much agreed with Senator Horgan when he welcomed this Bill in so far as it extends participation in decision-making in education to vocational teachers. I think vocational teachers—and other Senators have said this—have a contribution to make to the vocational education committee.

Many members of the Opposition, practically all the people who have spoken, welcome the Bill except for this category of clerical officer. I know from listening to the speeches that Members are not reflecting their experience of any particular clerical officers in any particular local authority but an impression is given by the speeches here, and given particularly by the speeches in the Dáil, that clerical officers are a peculiar category, a peculiar——

Mr. Keegan

They are privileged, not peculiar.

Mr. M.D. Higgins

Human frailty has been described as something which applies to the human condition generally but clerical officers would appear, by implication at least, to be particularly prone to human frailty. I would suggest that something else comes across in the speeches as well. Not only are they frail but they are extraordinarily energetic frail people, if one thinks of Deputy Cunningham's description of the clerical officer who might become a county councillor. Speaking on the 9th May, column 1177 of the Dáil Official Report, he had this to say:

He can deliver by word of mouth, or by telephone, or by any other means, the glad tidings to the lucky tenant appointed. He can be the bearer of the good news of the supplementary grant of £230 through his efforts as a county councillor and not as a clerical officer.

Later on the clerical officer cum county councillor is on his bicycle. Deputy Cunningham went on:

Again he gets out his bicycle. He is a county councillor and the poor widow on the side of the hill is notified that, due to his activities as a member of the county council, and due to the pressure he put on, he was able to get her and her children a medical card. The other county councillors will be notified by letter a week later.

With the greatest of respect for this point of view, I would suggest that it is a very pessimistic view of local government. It suggests that members of local authorities will blatantly use information and access to information as an unreasonable source of power. Remember we are speaking about legislation of the future. If we presume that local government in the future is going to be a cross between a competition for the dissemination of information and a bicycle race up a mountain distributing letters and telegrams, we should say so. I should like to think it is something else. All Members of this House and of the other House are willing to concede that local government needs to be reformed generally. The people who have served in local authorities have served well. At the same time I think people's attitudes are changing. People are seeing that simple, crude patronage no longer applies. The simple abuse of access to information would simply not work.

It would be very unfortunate if the impression were to be given, either in this House or in the other House that clerical officers have this peculiar mentality and that they hold it to a degree more pronounced than in the rest of the community in general. For example, this suggestion that the clerical officer will be dashing out in the evening. Obviously he would have to do it by evening. There is going to be a lot of night travelling delivering his messages of goodwill about particular favours granted.

It is also somewhat insulting to the electorate. The electorate would, I think, very quickly see through this new peculiar band of night-riders who delivered good news and could use their votes accordingly. Again there is a certain inconsistency in the speeches in the other House, too. It was pointed out that not many clerical officers would offer themselves for election. Why then the objection?

The details of potential abuse were mentioned. I think that what is involved in this Bill are principles rather than potential malpractice. We should address ourselves to the principles involved. I think all Members of the House are agreed on most of the sections. I particularly welcome the section dealing with the participation of vocational teachers in local authorities and I hope in the vocational education committees.

It is rather sad that those in favour of amending the section dealing with clerical officers have such a pessimistic view of politics at local government level, particularly with regard to the future. They have welcomed into the mainstream of decision-making members of religious orders. If they are willing to extend such a charity to professional people in religion, surely they should not be reluctant to extend the same charity or judgment to people involved in the clerical service? I think it is a bit fanciful to suggest that the public would accept a local authority composed entirely of clerical officers. The public are a bit better than that. To summarise that point, it can be said that it is a very pessimistic view of political decision-making generally. It is a particularly pessimistic view of people involved in local authority service.

Deputy Molloy, when he spoke on this Bill, clearly indicated what he had in mind regarding clerical officers. On the 9th May, at column 1306 of the Dáil Official Report, he said:

The Minister is depriving the community of its right to elect representatives who will act as a buffer between them and the bureaucrats.

This acceptance of an inevitable division between, on the one hand, clerical officers, who are considered as bureaucrats, and elected representatives, who are considered to have a monopoly of democratic principles, is again a very pessimistic view of the future relationship between elected representatives and people who happen to be earning their living working for a local authority.

All in all it is unfortunate that so much should be made of so little and that we would not be willing to see the urgency of extending rights in the general matter of participation and decision-making rather than quibbling and making unfounded suggestions concerning one category of workers within the local authority service.

Mr. Sanfey

On a point of order, the Leader of the House made it very clear this morning that there was an element of great urgency about this Bill. I think the question should be now put.

An Leas-Cathaoirleach

I am not prepared to accept your motion, Senator Sanfey. Senator McGlinchey.

Mr. McGlinchey

I realise that there is urgency about this Bill. It is a pity that the Minister did not co-operate a little more with the Fianna Fáil Party in this matter. With a few exceptions the Bill is a very good one. Indeed I welcome most of its provisions. A month or two ago it was stated that the ban would also be lifted on rate collectors. I met a rate collector about five weeks ago outside Leinster House. He told me that he was selected as a candidate for the county council in County Meath by the Fianna Fáil Party. His actual words were that he "would drive the Labour candidate into the ground". The Labour candidate, I understand, is a son of the Minister. I do not know if that is the reason the division was changed.

I think it was a pity that rate collectors were not included because I cannot see that they could affect the position in any way by standing for the county council. I listened to Senator Michael D. Higgins and I came to the conclusion that if he was sincere in what he was saying he must be politically naïve. Having listened to him I do not believe he was sincere or that he believed what he was saying. If he devotes a few more years to the rough and tumble of Galway politics he might change his views. He appeared to be astounded that a county councillor, whether he is a clerical officer or not, would pass on information before his colleagues.

When he was speaking I thought of a story that a former official of Dublin County Council used to tell about the late, and indeed highly respected Labour Deputy in Dáil Éireann, Seán Dunne. Apparently a Dublin committee—possibly it was a housing committee—used meet and the allocation of tenancies would be disclosed—this is going back 20 or 25 years. This official was present one day at a meeting in Balbriggan when the names were disclosed, and one by one councillors from the various parties left the meeting and rushed to Balbriggan with the news. When they arrived they discovered that in the centre, at the monument, was a notice announcing the tenancies and it was signed by the late Deputy Seán Dunne. Apparently he was quicker than the rest. He left the meeting but he did not rush to Balbriggan. He telephoned from the office to his friend who was waiting in Balbriggan and he already had the letter signed. I am not criticising him by the way. I thought it was a very good move. In doing so he stole a march on the rest of his colleagues in Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, and possibly in Labour. It was a shrewd move and I often thought that many of us would do the same if the opportunity presented itself. We are all human, and if we can score a political point on a political foe or a political colleague I think we would do so. That is why I believe it is very serious indeed that clerical officers are included in this Bill. Our objection is not a political one because the clerical officer could come from any party.

With nominations opening tomorrow I do not believe there will be any clerical officers nominated so late in the day. I am not aware of any in my county and I would think that is the situation in most counties. That is why I feel the Minister should at this stage have withdrawn this provision, given it a lot more thought and, if he felt it was right, brought it in in an amending Bill at a later stage. It does not affect this particular election. Why would I object to a clerical officer being a member of a local authority? Like Senator Keegan, I have been a member of a local authority since I was 21 years of age. I have now 19 years' experience in this field.

The Parliamentary Secretary is a member of a county council and I am sure he will agree with me that frequently county councillors come together irrespective of their political viewpoints and take a line completely opposed to that of the county manager and his officials. I will give one example as far as Donegal is concerned. We have a scheme—and I am sure most counties have it—of building specific instance cottages in the rural parts of the county. We have found that the county manager and his officials are completely opposed to the building of these cottages. They appear to believe that people should be forced into towns and villages against their will. My council have an unwritten agreement—in fact we never reached agreement, it just came into being—that if any councillor, irrespective of his political viewpoint, tables a section 4 motion directing the county manager to build an SI cottage then we all support it, bearing in mind, of course, that there is no priority scheme for applicants. I can say that on dozens of occasions during the last seven years I have voted for section 4 motions of this kind tabled by Deputy Harte and he has done the same for motions tabled by me. We believe that the manager is wrong.

There is in this particular case a question of principle as far as we are concerned. I wonder what attitude a junior clerical officer would take if he were a member of the county council? Would he vote against the policy of the county manager, the county secretary and his officials if he disagreed with them or would he say to himself that he simply could not afford to antagonise the senior officials of the county council in any way because they can help him in his efforts to get promotion? In order to get promotion a clerical officer has to sit for interview. We must bear in mind that there are many occasions when the manager is in a position to help an official. He can, for example, appoint him an acting town clerk to gain experience. Indeed, most of the officials I know from Donegal who got promotion—and there are many of them throughout the country, county managers, county secretaries, county accountants—began their line of promotion by being appointed acting town clerks. It was the experience they gained in that particular field which later earned them their promotion. There are many other ways in which the manager and the secretary can help a young junior clerical officer. The election of a clerical officer to a county council would place him in an impossible position. The Minister is very wrong to include this provision in the Bill. There is no doubt that senior officials of the council could pressure such an officer.

I read with interest a few weeks ago a speech by Deputy Harte suggesting that if Fianna Fáil got an overall majority in the local elections in my county they would obstruct the Government and that possibly the grants to which my county would be entitled would not be forthcoming. I recall when we were in office on many, many occasions the Fine Gael Party voted that the rate in my county should not be struck. I recall many bitter arguments about this. This was tactical obstruction by Fine Gael. That is not the point that I am trying to make.

If a Fine Gael clerical officer was a member of the county council and was under instructions from his party to vote against the striking of the rate, would he not again find himself in an impossible position so far as the officials are concerned?

Let us take, for instance, road grants. County engineers may want more money spent on the main roads than on the county roads. At times, they may want money transferred from one fund to another. This can raise serious argument of a non-political nature, indeed, of a parochial nature. What line would the clerical officer who may be working in the engineering department take in this matter? Again, I feel he would be placed in an impossible position. To get back to Senator Michael O'Higgins who apparently believes there is no political skulduggery in Irish politics.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Just to clarify a point, I think you are referring to Senator Michael D. Higgins.

Mr. McGlinchey

I am sorry. I am mixed up. I am referring to Senator Higgins all the time. He believes there is no skulduggery in Irish politics. I do not know if he is a candidate in the forthcoming elections, but I feel that if he is and is elected and spends some time in Galway County Council he will change his views. We have a system in Donegal which may or may not obtain in other counties whereby the councillors for the electoral area receive a notice from the county council seven days before tenants are informed of their appointment to new houses. This applies only on the county council. Letterkenny Urban Council, of which I am also a member, did away with this years ago. Here we have a situation where six councillors have seven days' notice in writing before the tenants are appointed. I can stand here and say clearly and categorically that in all my years as a member of Donegal County Council I have never written to the tenants informing them that they were appointed and trying to give them the impression that I was responsible. On every single occasion on which a housing scheme was allocated in my electoral area, I can also state clearly, truthfully and categorically that Deputy Harte did, either by telephone, or by writing, and in most cases by writing.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator should not make an allegation about a Deputy when he is not here to answer the allegation.

Mr. McGlinchey

I am not actually making an allegation.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

You are.

Mr. McGlinchey

This is practical politics, and it is not an allegation. It is not meant as such. The people who received the notices know this. Deputy Harte knows this; and I know this. As I say I am not attacking him for it. The point I am trying to make is——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

You are naming Deputy Harte. He is not in the Chamber to reply. Would the Senator make his case without naming people?

Mr. McGlinchey

I hope it will not be too long until Deputy Harte will be in the Chamber to reply. The point I am arriving at is that the clerical officer could go one better than Deputy Harte, because he could know, before any councillor, before any notices were sent out, that those tenants had been appointed. Despite what Senator Michael D. Higgins has said, I believe that many clerical officers, or many councillors fighting for their political survival, fighting for their political existence, would be tempted to use information of this kind.

The section dealing with this matter will not benefit any particular political party. I should imagine that if a particular party selected a clerical officer the other party would select another clerical officer and that is where the trouble would really begin. Consider the situation where you would have a Fine Gael clerical officer and a Fianna Fáil clerical officer on the one county council. Here you really would have political "hatchetry" at its best. No matter what the Parliamentary Secretary might say, I believe deep in his heart he would agree with me, because he is a good, tough, Kerry politician who knows what this game of politics is all about.

I am quite certain—I would be the first to admit it—that if I had a colleague in my party who was a clerical officer on the county council I would use him to the best advantage possible. I believe that public representatives of all political parties would do the same. Some, of course, would put their hands on their hearts and say: "Me? No; never".

I should like to get back to the seven days' notice in case someone would use what I have now said. The principal reason why I have never notified tenants is this. I recall—I think it was in 1965, a few days before the general election; it may have been in 1961, but I think it was 1965—that a housing scheme was allocated in the town of Ramelton in County Donegal. I received the letter giving me seven days' notice. I must confess that I had my hand out to ring the Secretary of the local Fianna Fáil Cumann. I put down the telephone again and I said: "Eighty applicants, eight successful. I will not get involved." A phone call came to the same town from the Deputy I have just mentioned passing on this information. I remember at a Fianna Fáil victory meeting referring to this in Ramelton and saying that I had nothing whatsoever to do with the eight or ten people getting their houses. All I had to say was that I was responsible for the houses being built.

I remember on another occasion in the town of Lifford being summoned to a protest meeting on a Good Friday a few years ago where all the unsuccessful applicants had gathered to protest at their failure to get houses. The Deputy I have just mentioned did not attend that meeting because he had, in fact, on this occasion written a letter to all the successful applicants. He found it impossible then to meet the unsuccessful applicants.

This is where the clerical officer could use his position. As I said earlier it would become much more serious if you had a clerical officer from each political party. I believe that there could be underhand work of a very serious nature affecting most of the people in any county. It is not politically contentious. The advantages and disadvantages lie with all political parties.

Before the Minister came in I had expressed the belief that as nominations open tomorrow, the likelihood of any clerical officer being nominated on this occasion is very remote indeed. It is a pity that he would not consider withdrawing this provision at this stage. When he would have given it more consideration and decided it was right, he could bring in amending legislation at a later stage. If this Bill is passed, the day is not far distant when this Minister or some other Minister or some other Government will change it. They will discover from experience that it is wrong.

Some years ago we passed legislation, or possibly draft regulations, allowing patients in mental institutions to vote in the institutions. The Labour Party put down a motion after that election calling on the Government to change this procedure. The Government accepted that motion. While I agreed with the original proposal, I found from experience that this could lead to great abuse. On the day of that election, I was there with my associates and we were the only party who acted on that occasion. It was quite obvious that the procedure was wrong and that a mistake had been made. The Government of the time were wise to accept the proposal of the Labour Party.

Something similar will happen here. The Minister will discover that if a clerical officer is elected situations will develop which will make things impossible for him and for his colleagues. It may be hard, then, during the lifetime of the local authority to bring in amending legislation. This provision is wrong. While I agree that the Bill itself is good—most of it is very welcome and should prove beneficial to all—it is a pity that this particular reference to clerical officers should be left in.

Mr. Brosnan

Like other Senators I have not had much opportunity to study this Bill. For that reason I intend to be brief. Like most of my colleagues in the Fianna Fáil Party I welcome this Bill with the sole exception of the provision removing the restriction on clerical officers. The Minister, while removing the restriction from clerical officers, retains the restriction on various categories of officers in the employment of local authorities such as town clerks, library staff, certain officers of fire brigades, certain outdoor offices of clerks of works, inspectors and rate and rent collectors. These are in a privileged position in the employment of local authorities. Why does the Minister distinguish and discriminate between a clerical officer working for the county council and a clerk of works working for the county council? Is this not an admission on the part of the Minister that these people are in a position of influence where they can be accused of abusing the privilege of their office? That argument also applies to a clerical officer.

Senator Horgan and Senator M. D. Higgins accused the speakers on this side of the House of attributing unworthy motives to would-be employees of county councils, urban councils or corporations who are also members of the local authority. Senator Horgan is not a member of a local authority. I do not know if Senator M.D. Higgins is, but if they were they would think otherwise. It has been pointed out by Senator Lenihan and other Senators on this side of the House that clerical officers employed by the county council are human and are in the privileged position of having prior knowledge and information with regard to the allocation of houses, the allocation of grants, housing loans and so forth. In the health boards they are in a position to advise and assist in the allocation and the distribution of medical cards. They would be in a strong position, knowing the ropes and having prior information, to assist people waiting for admission to hospital. In every aspect of local government a clerical officer would be in a very advantageous position. No matter how honest he might be, and even if he were above using this privileged position and his prior knowledge to any political advantage, he would still be blamed for it and accused of it.

I should like to know what the position would be if a member of the staff of a local authority, through the instruments which he would be able to wield over the other members of the authority, gained a position of power in the local authority with his own party or even as an independent. I could visualise a member of the county council or a member of the corporation becoming the chairman of the county council or a mayor or a Lord Mayor. What would the position be when Jack, the county councillor, would be better than his master, the manager or the assistant manager, as the case may be. I am sure a situation like that would almost be inevitable if clerical officers were elected to the county council or, the corporation. There would be a conflict of interests between the boss, the manager, and a member of his staff. Would the Minister, in replying, throw some light on a situation like that?

Unlike my colleague, Senator Keegan, I welcome the provision about aliens. In the context of the European Common Market we should be more liberal in our approach to aliens and, in particular, to citizens of the Common Market countries. I have come across quite a number of English people in the vicinity of Cork city and in Youghal; they are always aggrieved and they do not hesitate to express their grievance that they can only vote in local elections. They feel that they are only second-rate citizens. The provision in this Bill removing the restriction from aliens should go a long way towards removing the grievance. In parts of west Cork and in Kerry there is a very large German colony. Most of these people are in very responsible and influential positions. They make a considerable contribution towards the economy. They are ratepayers and taxpayers. It is only fair that they should be in a position to be elected to a local authority. The fact that they are aliens certainly would make it more difficult for them to become elected to a local authority, and it would be more meritorious on their part if they were elected.

Senator Horgan and Senator Higgins both welcomed the removal of the restriction on vocational teachers. It was Senator Lenihan who said these people still had a grievance, that they were prevented from becoming members of vocational committees. I understood Senator Lenihan to say that; perhaps the Minister would clarify the matter. If that is so, it is unjust. Vocational teachers because of their training and qualifications would be admirably qualified to act as members of vocational education committees. If that restriction still applies, I would appeal to the Minister to reconsider that aspect of it.

I welcome the change in the procedure for presenting petitions. The fact that the matter is now in the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court is a step forward. There is one criticism I should like to make on section 20 in regard to witnesses. This section dealing with the evidence of witnesses in the hearing of a petition was debated in the Dáil at length. There seemed to be a serious departure from one of the fundamental rules of law with regard to the admission of evidence. 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 questions 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;

Perhaps the Minister in his reply would clarify that matter for me.

Mr. Tully

The only thing I can say is that——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Just a minute, Minister. I take it——

Mr. Yeats

There are still a number of Senators who wish to speak.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Yes, but I must say they have been very slow to rise.

Mr. Hanafin

I was on my feet.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

This debate has been going on for some time. I think the urgency of the matter is understood and was explained fully by me this morning. In the circumstances I would propose that the question be now put.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I accept the motion. The question is: "That the question be now put."

Mr. Hanafin

On a point of order.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am referring to Standing Order No. 44.

Mr. Lenihan

What motion?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The question is: "That the question be now put."

Mr. Hanafin

Am I not allowed——

Mr. Yeats

Is the Chair satisfied that this question has been adequately discussed and that it is no infringement of the right of a minority laid down in this Standing Order?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair is satisfied. Senator Yeats is well conversant with Standing Order No. 44. I do not allow any debate on the question: "That the question be now put." I have accepted the proposal by Senator M.J. O'Higgins. The question is: "That the question be now put."

Mr. Hanafin

On a point of order.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is not a point of order.

Mr. Hanafin

It is a point of order. I was on my feet before Senator O'Higgins rose to speak. Am I not to be allowed to speak on this very important Bill?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I have accepted the motion.

Question put: "That the question be now put."

The Seanad divided: Tá, 26; Níl, 16.

Tá

• Barrett, Jack.
• Blennerhassett, John.
• Boland, John.
• Burton, Philip.
• Butler, Pierce.
• Deasy, Austin.
• Farrelly, Denis.
• Fitzgerald, Jack.
• Halligan, Brendan.
• Harte, John.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Kerrigan, Patrick.
• Kilbride, Thomas.
• Lyons, Michael Dalgan.
• McAuliffe, Timothy.
• McCartin, John Joseph.
• Mannion, John M.
• Markey, Bernard.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Mullen, Michael.
• O'Brien, William.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Toole, Patrick.
• Sanfey, James W.
• Walsh, Mary.
• Whyte, Liam.

Níl

• Aylward, Bob.
• Brennan, John J.
• Brosnan, Seán.
• Browne, Patrick (Fad).
• Cowen, Bernard.
• Dolan, Seamus.
• Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
• Garrett, Jack.
• Hanafin, Des.
• Keegan, Seán.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• McGlinchey, Bernard.
• Ryan, Eoin.
• Ryan, William.
• Yeats, Michael B.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Sanfey and Halligan; Níl, Senators W. Ryan and Garrett.

Question declared carried.

Question put: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The Seanad divided: Tá, 26; Níl 16.

Tá

• Barrett, Jack.
• Blennerhassett, John.
• Boland, John.
• Burton, Philip.
• Butler, Pierce.
• Deasy, Austin.
• Farrelly, Denis.
• FitzGerald, Alexis.
• Halligan, Brendan.
• Harte, John.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Kerrigan, Patrick.
• Kilbride, Thomas.
• Lyons, Michael Dalgan.
• McAuliffe, Timothy.
• McCartin, John Joseph.
• Mannion, John M.
• Markey, Bernard.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Mullen, Michael.
• O'Brien, William.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Toole, Patrick.
• Sanfey, James W.
• Walsh, Mary.
• Whyte, Liam.

Níl

• Aylward, Bob.
• Brennan, John J.
• Brosnan, Seán.
• Browne, Patrick (Fad).
• Cowen, Bernard.
• Dolan, Séamus.
• Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
• Garrett, Jack.
• Hanafin, Des.
• Keegan, Seán.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• McGlinchey, Bernard.
• Ryan, Eoin.
• Ryan, William.
• Yeats, Michael B.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Sanfey and Halligan; Níl, Senators W. Ryan, and Garrett.

Question declared carried.