asked the Minister for Local Government whether he instructed the returning officer for the Laois-Offaly constituency not to employ a named officer on his counting staff at the counting of votes on the referendum; how such instruction was conveyed; and when and under what authority he purported to act.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Laois-Offaly Referendum Count.
34.
I issued no such instruction.
Arising out of the Minister's reply, did I understand the Minister to say that he issued no such instruction?
That is right.
Is the Minister not aware that the county registrar in Laois on Polling Day, 16th October last, received a communication from the Custom House, from the Minister's Department, that an officer spoke to him saying he was transmitting by telephone the Minister's express instruction to the effect that an esteemed member of the staff in Portlaoise, William Davis, was not to be employed on the counting staff the following day. Is the Minister saying no such telephone conversation took place? If so, can the Minister indicate why subsequently, on the 17th October, a document issued from the Minister's Department confirming the telephone conversation?
A telephone conversation as specified by the Deputy did not take place and neither did a letter confirming that such conversation took place issue. I understand that on the 16th October certain objections were lodged to the employment of a particular individual who had shown himself to be at least incompetent on a previous occasion. These objections were conveyed to the returning officer. The returning officer decided himself that he would not employ this man on the count on this occasion and asked that a letter setting out the objections be sent to him. A letter was sent to him setting out the objections.
Will the Minister indicate by whom or from what source the objection came to this official?
I was not asked.
I am asking now.
If the Deputy wants to know let him put down a question.
I am suggesting that the Minister ought to be in a position to indicate from whom and from what source or perhaps Deputy Lalor behind him might indicate——
Some people who had experience of the grave errors made in the distribution of surplus votes by the person concerned in the local election.
Surely the Minister is aware that the public officer concerned has been responsible for the counts in the constituency for the last 30 years. He is a person of standing and integrity in the county of Laois and the only fault he could have in the Minister's eyes is that his politics are not the politics of the Minister. This was a gross act of victimisation on the Minister's direct instructions interfering with the returning officer's staff at Port-laoighise.
It may be true that the person concerned has considerable experience of election counts. That could be, but he does not know how to count votes under the present system. There was no instruction given by me or any officer of my Department. The objections made were notified to the returning officer and the returning officer decided not to employ him.
Would the Minister indicate why this instruction was given to the officer at the 11th hour?
An instruction was not given to the registrar or anybody else.
Is the Minister saying no direction was given to the registrar on Wednesday, 16th October, at 4.45 p.m.?
I have said that three times already — that no instruction was given.
In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I wish to raise the question again on the Adjournment.
The Deputy will not be able to raise it today. There is another Question on the Adjournment today. The Deputy will have to give the Chair notice.
I wanted to ask the Minister about computers but he will not be there long enough.