I asked for permission to raise on the Adjournment tonight the question of the action taken by the Minister for Local Government in relation to certain objections to the employment of an individual, Mr. William Davis, on the referendum counting staff for the Laois-Offaly constituency. I did so because I believe this to be an instance of petty political victimisation. I believe it to be an example and an instance of an effort to use the jackboot and the big stick against a defenceless officer who ordinarily might be expected to do nothing about it. The officer concerned, Mr. William Davis, has been in the public service for 45 years. He is in the position of assistant to the country registrar in Laois. He is a person who in his own right commands respect throughout the County Laois and a person who has given exemplary service in every possible respect. In addition, he is a person whose word is regarded as his bond. He is generally known to be a man of integrity and, indeed, a person who would do harm to himself rather than in any way perform an act which might be dishonest or transgress in any respect the very high principles by which he lives.
Having said that, I should add that for as long as I can remember election counts in Laois-Offaly, Mr. William Davis has been an integral part of every count that has taken place in the constituency. He has done it cheerfully, he has done it well and he has been the recipient of many tributes from those who waged battle as candidates and who either won or lost in the elections. That is his background.
On polling day for the referendum, on the 16th October, a telephone call came to the Court House in Portlaoise and the person telephoning sought to communicate with the county registrar. The telephone was answered by the registrar and as a result the registrar was asked to be in his office to receive another telephone call. I understand, although I am not in a position to establish it, that the county registrar was then informed that the person speaking to him was speaking on the express instructions of the Minister for Local Government to transmit to him, the county registrar, as the local returning officer, the direct order of the Minister for Local Government, that Mr. Davis be not employed on the counting staff in Portlaoise on the following day.
I do know that following a communication received by the county registrar Mr. Davis was informed that the county registrar was precluded by the Minister for Local Government from employing him on the staff the following day. He naturally was concerned to know whether a charge had been brought against him, whether his honour was being impugned, or whether some suggestion had been made which affected the principles by which he lived. He could get no information. He was merely informed that this order had been issued and, of course, not unnaturally he made a simple request that the order might be put in writing.
I may say that when I learned on polling day of this development I was shocked, shocked to think that any Minister on whatever information he might be acting, could so grossly interfere in the affairs of a constituency. I may say that as the rumours spread a very sharp reaction took place amongst those who were expected to count the votes the following day. That reaction might easily have led to a situation in which the Minister for Local Government himself might have had to go down to Portlaoise and count the votes.
