Before we proceed may we have some information at this stage regarding the proposed grouping of amendments submitted by this side of the House?
Private Members' Business. - Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1973: Committee Stage (Resumed).
The Deputy will be aware it is the intention to announce the groupings when the debate on the Schedule begins.
The Chair will appreciate that it is important we know what the groupings are in advance. It would be rather late to wait until the debate on the amendments had begun or was just about to start.
The proposed groupings are: group A, amendments Nos. 1, 8, 9, 12, 20; group B, Nos. 2, 13, 16; group C, Nos. 3, 4, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17 and 18; group D, Nos. 5, 6, 7; amendment No. 19 which relates to the constituency of North Tipperary will be taken on its own.
Are we bound to accept these groupings at this stage? I should like to examine the groupings to see if we agree to them.
These groupings were discussed and agreed.
There is no question of agreement. The groupings were suggested but I have no confirmation that these would be the groupings to be put by the Chair who has stated that he would put the proposal for the groupings when we come to debate the amendments. The Chair acceded to my request now in giving me the exact groupings but I do not think we could accept that there has been any specific agreement. These are similar to the groupings which were given to me as being the possible groupings and now that the matter has been confirmed I should like to consider them because I have not given them much thought. I do not see why we should be bound to them at this stage.
The Deputy will appreciate that we will be dealing with the amendments when we come to the Schedule.
I take it there is no binding agreement on this.
This is what the Chair understood to have been the arrangement in the grouping of amendments. The Chair understood that these were agreed groupings.
I do not accept that they are agreed groupings. We can only agree on these things here on the floor of the House. It was suggested that these might be the groupings but it was never confirmed that these would be the groupings to be proposed. I am asking the Chair for confirmation that we will not be bound by these groupings.
Since we have not reached the amendments——
Therefore, there is nothing binding in these groupings?
All there are at the moment are suggested groupings of amendments.
That will do me, if it is only a suggestion.
If the Deputy has a point to make, perhaps he could make it later when it will be considered.
Later during the course of the debate or later this evening or tomorrow?
The Deputy might make the point to the Ceann Comhairle's Office.
When?
Before the amendments are taken.
SECTION 6.
Question again proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."
We still hold that our point in relation to the wording of subsection (1) is a valid one and we request the Minister to accept that suggestion. If he does so it will not be necessary for us to table an amendment on Report Stage. If he does not accept our suggestion to amend line 1 in page 3, would he let me know the position if a situation arose where such a direction was given by the Minister and was not complied with? Would an election subsequently held be a valid election?
The only comment I can make on the last remark of the Deputy is that that would be a matter for the courts to decide. I cannot understand why it should be suggested that there is a danger of some such thing happening. Let me repeat that we are simply asking that what has been tried and proved to be effective should be continued. I am advised that the effect of the amendment suggested by Deputy Molloy before 6 p.m. would be that every local authority responsible for drawing up a register would have to immediately draw such a register whether it was needed or not and continue to spend money drawing one up annually until the Dáil was dissolved. That is the reason for the peculiar wording which Deputy O'Malley objected to earlier. I said at the time I could not understand the reason for it but that I was sure it was the correct wording. I should like to make one comment on what Deputy Dowling said. He spoke for ten minutes and he seemed to misunderstand completely what the whole thing is about. I admit that most of the people speaking on the far side have been attempting to keep to the section but I think it is a little much when somebody objects to the wording:
the Minister may by direction provide for the entry of the name of that constituency in respect of the polling district or part of the polling district...
He claimed that this meant that major powers were being given to a Minister with which a Minister could not be trusted. I will leave it at that.
The Minister defeated his criticism of Deputy Dowling's contribution when he said that if the direction which the Minister is authorised to give under subsection (1) is not effective the only recourse is to the courts. The argument we have been making is, therefore, quite valid. Deputy Dowling made the point that this discretion of the Minister is a major one, not as minor as the Minister has tried to convey to the House. If it is only the court which can decide whether an election is valid because the Minister does not perform his functions under this section, then his argument against Deputy Dowling——
I do not think we should waste the time of the House on what Deputy Dowling suggested.
My point in raising this was to extract from the Minister some positive information as to the legislative machinery which would come into operation in circumstances in which the Minister did not exercise his powers. I am aware that in section 7 if the directions are not complied with it does not invalidate any subsequent election and that provision was made for that in the 1963 Act. I was wondering if the Minister could confirm whether a similar provision was made in any Electoral Act providing that an election held after the non-issue of a direction from the Minister could still be deemed to be valid without having to contest it in the courts. It seems strange that in section 7 of the Bill there is a guarantee that a subsequent election is still valid even though the provisions of subsection (1) have not been complied with but we have no such assurance in regard to section 6.
I understand that the possibility of something like this happening appears to be extremely unlikely and since it has never happened we do not consider it is necessary to provide for it now.
Is it not untidy legislation?
If the Deputy considers that it is untidy I would suggest that he would let us have the benefit of his wisdom in an amendment on Report Stage.
Does the Minister's smile water down the term "wisdom" as applied to me? One finds it difficult to interpret the Minister's smile from time to time. There are different purposes for which he can use it.
I should like to inquire from the Minister whether or not it is a fact that following the passing of this legislation the registers with which we are dealing under section 6 and which will be used for the purposes of general elections are the same registers which will be used for local elections. There are not two separate registers compiled and where there are persons not qualified to vote in a general election the fact that they can vote only in a local election is indicated. This would apply in the case of persons who are not citizens. This is marked specially in the register. It is the one register that is used for local and for general elections. There is an obvious necessity for this section arising from the possible passage of this Bill which makes provision for temporary arrangements regarding registers where constituencies are being changed. We know from the Minister's recent activities that electoral areas for local election are also in process of being changed, that some local authorities have already been informed by the Minister of the new electoral areas for the local elections next June. As far as I know, quite a number of local authorities had not been informed up to Monday of this week. So, if there are to be substantial changes in electoral areas for local elections could the Minister tell the House what provision he is making to meet that change in relation to the compilation of voters' registers.
Deputy Molloy has said that it is necessary to notify the local authorities. They asked to be notified as early as possible. Some suggested that they would like to know by mid-March. I have arranged that the decision in every case should be taken before the end of this month.
This week?
Tomorrow. All of them have already been notified and they have been registered in this House, as required. Deputy Molloy will find that by tomorrow every local authority will be aware of what exactly is being done. In most cases, as the Deputy knows, I asked the local authority to let me know what they thought should be done and where it seemed to be reasonable there was no change made or where they suggested something as reasonable, no matter who it was, if I felt the change should be made, I have made changes in some of them. They were aware, when I sent out notification, that I had the right to do it and would do it. This is beside the point. It has nothing to do with this Bill. It has been done and most local authorities will realise that what has been done was giving fair representation to everybody. Who gets elected after that is a matter for the electorate.
The point I was making is that a special section was deemed necessary in this Bill to facilitate the registration authorities in drawing up registers which would apply to changed constituencies. My question to the Minister was: is there any provision which will enable the registering authority to change the electoral areas for local elections?
The Deputy is going outside the scope of the section.
If it applies in the case of general elections where constituencies have been changed, it must apply also to local elections where constituencies have been changed.
Even though he is slightly off beam, I would like to tell Deputy Molloy that there is no necessity to introduce a separate section in the case of local elections. The new register comes into operation immediately, whereas in the case of Dáil elections it does not come into operation until the Dáil is dissolved. There is no complication at all. As soon as the arrangements are made the new register will apply to the election which we know will occur in June, after the date when the new registers will be out.
The draft register for 1974-75 has been prepared. The time for claims has closed. Adjudications are going on at the moment and in many counties may well have finished. Therefore, the final register for 1974-75 is now probably with the printers in the case of the great majority of local authorities, on the basis that they will be printed during the month of March and that they will be available and published early in April.
The draft register and the corrected register as corrected by the county registrar at the various hearings held in every county contains not alone the designation as set out in the section of the constituency that is involved but in the case of each individual register it also states the county or county borough electoral area the 400 or 500 persons or whatever number it is that are on that particular register are in. The Minister tells us he has made a lot of orders in the last few days changing a lot of county electoral areas. He has made one as far as County Limerick is concerned which is a disgrace. That is beside the point. I will deal with it later.
I do not know whether the Deputy saw it or not. He is only making a comment, chancing his arm.
Why does the Minister doubt that Deputy O'Malley could have seen it?
Because he could not see it.
He could not know what is in it?
I do not think he could.
Do the officials in Limerick know it?
Ask him.
Do they?
How would I know?
Deputy O'Malley, on the register of electors. Deputy Molloy must allow Deputy O'Malley to proceed.
Perhaps the Minister has changed his mind. I was relying on a letter from his official, T. Ó Leannáin, or something, reference F. 214/2/13, dated 20 Nollaig, 1973, to the Secretary, Limerick County Council, County Buildings, O'Connell Street, Limerick:
I am directed by the Minister for Local Government to refer to your letter of 13th December, 1973, about the revision of local electoral areas——
We are dealing with the register of electors.
I should like Deputy O'Malley to read that letter. I am sure he was hoping to be stopped before he got to the end of it.
I continue:
——and to invite your attention to the second paragraph of circular F. 9/1973 of 3rd August, 1973, which indicated that the Minister does not propose to alter total membership of councils in the present review. In making this decision the Minister had regard, among other things, to the fact that the statutory procedure for alteration of membership of councils is complicated and time consuming. In the case of county councils it involves representation to the Minister, the holding of a local enquiry and, if appropriate, the making of an order by the Minister. Apart, therefore, from questions related to the optimum size of councils, it is likely that the procedure for alteration of the membership of councils and the necessary consequential arrangements could not be completed in time for the local elections in June, 1974. In the circumstances the Minister regrets that he is unable to accede to the council's request.
The position in regard to representation in County Limerick is as follows:
|
Electoral Area |
Number of Members |
Population |
Population per Member |
Deviation from County average |
|
Bruff |
5 |
20,058 |
2,012 |
+30% |
|
Castleconnell |
6 |
15,153 |
2,526 |
–18% |
|
Kilmallock |
5 |
14,142 |
2,828 |
–8% |
|
Newcastle |
6 |
18,236 |
3,039 |
–1% |
|
Rathkeale |
5 |
15,709 |
3,141 |
+2% |
|
Totals |
27 |
83,298 |
3,085 |
The deviation from the average population—councillor ratio for the county which ranges from—18 per cent in the Castleconnell electoral area to +30 per cent in the Bruff electoral area must be regarded as excessive. As indicated in circular F. 9/1973 it is the Minister's intention that the more serious anomalies in local representation should be dealt with before the next local elections. He proposes, therefore, to revise the electoral areas in County Limerick by the transfer of the district electoral divisions of Ballybricken, Cahercorney, Caherelly, Fedamore, Hospital, Kilteely and Knockeiney from Bruff to Castleconnell electoral area and by the transfer of the district electoral division of Uregare from Bruff to Kilmallock electoral area.
Before making an order on this basis the Minister is prepared to consider any observations which your council may wish to offer in the matter provided such observations are submitted before the end of January.
Mise, le meas,
T. Ó Leannáin.
Has the Minister made an order in accordance with what is stated in that letter?
The Chair must point out that we are dealing with the register of electors in general at the moment.
We had a statement by the Minister on what he had done in relation to local electoral areas. I was endeavouring to make the point that the Limerick County Council have now printed or are in the processing of having printed a final print of their register for 1974-75. That would set out, as well as setting out the two different constituencies in Limerick, on each individual register Bruff electoral area or Kilmallock area or Castleconnell electoral area, as the case may be. Major changes have been made by the Minister as between the local electoral areas of Bruff and Castleconnell in County Limerick comprising parts of the constituencies of East and West Limerick. If the register is printed on the lines that the draft register was prepared and printed, that will mean that there will be an enormous number of mistakes in the headings in the registers in both East and West Limerick constituencies because of the fact that seven or eight divisions in the East Limerick constituency have been changed by order of the Minister.
I do not deny that the Minister has the power to do this. I may quibble with the manner in which he exercises that power. It has to be done from time to time. This is probably as good a time as any considering that there is an election coming up. Because of the situation which will exist under this proposed section 6, the registers in respect of the eight electoral divisions in County Limerick, which I referred to when I quoted from the letter from the Department to the Limerick County Council, will necessarily be defective. That will lead to considerable confusion, apart from the other consequential confusion which will arise in regard to the changes in polling places within these various electoral divisions when some people who are being moved into Castleconnell electoral area will find themselves in the position, unless some different scheme can be worked out between now and June, of having to vote in Bruff electoral area. People in East Limerick constituency will have to vote in the West Limerick constituency.
The point which Deputy Molloy made—that the local electoral register is the same as the national register except for the addition of certain names of non-nationals and some limited category of other people with "L" after their names—inevitably will lead to difficulty if there is no revision of these registers. I cannot understand the insistence of the Minister on the word "may" in the first line of page 3. It is possible that some Minister for Local Government was so deliberately perverse that he refused to make an order or to give a direction under this section or, alternatively, the Minister of the day and his officials forgot to make this direction. It could be that such a direction would not have been given. Deputy Molloy posed a pertinent question when he asked what the consequences will be. The whole problem could be got over by using the word "shall" or using the words which Deputy Molloy and I suggested in our amendment which is not before the House but which we will put before the House on the Report Stage.
I am sure that Deputy O'Malley is aware that there is a general presumption that an election is valid unless it is challenged in the court. This applies to numerous things that could happen. There is a case at present about a Mayo constituency. I am sure Deputy O'Malley is aware of it.
What is the reference to Mayo?
I am sorry if Deputy Molloy did not hear what I said. I said there is an issue in regard to an election in one of the Mayo constituencies being challenged. It happens from time to time. The only reason the draft electoral registers are sent out and election courts held is not to decide where anybody votes but to decide whether a person is entitled to vote. Deputy O'Malley has completely missed this point. A person is entitled to a vote if his name in supposed to be on the draft register or on the amended register.
As far as the drawing-up of the register is concerned, the local authorities are perfectly satisfied that they will have ample time to draw up and have printed the register for the new areas if they are informed this week. They will be able to do it in order to have it out long before the 14th of April. That is why this particular date was selected. With regard to the letter which Deputy O'Malley read out and which he said was scandalous——
You invited me to read it out.
Deputy O'Malley said scandalous decisions were taken. I wanted the letter in the Official Report. It was a statement by me to the Limerick County Council that I considered that it was necessary to ensure that there was so far as possible equal representation for each area.
There are many ways of doing it. The county council proposed three ways and the Minister did not pick any of them.
Deputy O'Malley subsequently agreed this had to be done. This is where I consider he is being slightly dishonest. He must be aware that Limerick County Council adopted the suggestion which was made by me.
After they got instructions to adopt it from the Minister. It was adopted on a party vote.
We are talking about democracy, local democracy and majority rules.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister without interruption. Will Deputy O'Malley please allow the Minister to speak?
Deputy O'Malley will not bluff his way out of this one. He attempted to say there was a scandalous decision given and he subsequently read out a letter which showed no such thing was done. He now has to admit that Limerick County Council decided that the suggestion made was a fair one and adopted it as their own.
On a party vote.
Does the Deputy dislike party politics?
The pressure was put on them.
Order, please. The Minister without interruption.
If Deputy O'Malley dislikes party politics he should not be in this House. There are people who like to use politics when it suits them and they like to twist around and say there is something wrong with them when it does not suit them. The facts are that Limerick County Council adopted by resolution the proposal which was made and considered it perfectly fair, as indeed it is. Deputy O'Malley asked why we should put in "shall" instead of "may". I told him that my advice is that this would simply complicate matters. If "shall" was put in it would insist that each year it would have to be done in a certain way. As it is it need not be issued until such time as a general election is declared.
This is the simple fact of it. If Deputy O'Malley and Deputy Molloy do not like it I invite them to put their ideas down before the next Stage. In the meantime I assure them I will have a very close look at it and if necessary put down an amendment. As of now I do not think such an amendment is necessary.
The Minister has changed his mind. He said before we interrupted business at 6 o'clock that what Deputy O'Malley and I were proposing was better.
Let me repeat now what I said. As a layman I thought that it appeared——
It is very difficult for us on this side to decide when the Minister is a layman.
Please allow the Minister to speak without barracking of this kind.
It does not matter to me what Deputy Molloy finds difficult. All his life he has been finding things difficult, particularly in politics, because I have been listening to some of the things he states and then he has to come along afterwards and admit that either the Press misreported him or he was misinterpreted by somebody. I am not a bit surprised he is getting confused when I say categorically that I said to Deputy O'Malley that as a layman I considered the suggestions he made as being more reasonable but that the expert advice I got was that the way in which it was in the Bill—and as it had been done for many years—was the correct way. The Bill was not written by me. It was originally written by the Fianna Fáil Government, although that is beside the point.
The Schedule is quite different.
It is not the Schedule we are dealing with, brother. We are dealing with section 6 of the Bill.
I am Deputy, not brother. The Minister is not at a Labour Party meeting.
That is so. Members shall be referred to as Deputies.
My apologies. I should not have called him brother. I apologise to Deputy Burke and myself for calling him brother. We are dealing with section 6 of the Bill which lays down something perfectly clear. As I said, if the Opposition want to propose an amendment for the next Stage they can do so. If they do, it will be considered, but as of now my advice is that it is perfectly all right as it is. I do not believe in making change just for change's sake.
The Minister has stated that he accepts the democratic decision of the elected councillors in relation to the confirmation of electoral areas for county council elections. He indicated this was so in the case of Limerick County Council arising out of the case mentioned by Deputy O'Malley. Could the Minister confirm if this acceptance of the democratic decision of the elected members of local authorities applies in every case?
I do not want to go into all of this because I am quite sure we will have another day at it. In every case where it appears reasonable that the tolerance was not overdone I accepted it but where the tolerance was completely overdone I did not and informed the local authorities why. That is perfectly fair. I do not want to widen this section in order to start talking about things which have no relevance to it.
I am happy the Minister has interpreted that references to what is happening in respect of the compilation of registers in respect of local election has a very definite bearing on the section under discussion. I suppose the Minister is not surprised at people on this side of the House taking issue with him over statements he makes. I am a member of the reformed Dublin local authority. At the request of the Minister we spent some time answering his invitation to prepare, as best we could, recommendations. These were agreed by all the members of the council. I understand an order was made by him today. I have no word of this nor have the council been invited to pass any judgment on it. The Minister has decided to change the recommendation made by the elected members. He has used the word "reasonable" and he suggests that what he has now done on the direction of his civil servants is superior to that suggested by the elected representatives. He said earlier, in respect of changes which were made, that these were made without any consultation with any political parties. I am sure the Minister wants to retain his reputation as an honest man. I suggest that what he has said in respect of the changes made regarding Dublin is not as he has indicated and that he had consultations—I do not know whether they were official and above board—with members of a certain political party. If he assures me later on that what I am saying is not in accordance with fact then I shall be happy to accept his word.
The 45 elected members of Dublin Corporation were restored to office by the present Minister. In so far as he recognised the advisability of having local representatives restored to Dublin city I commend him.
Is the Deputy talking about Dublin Corporation or the county council?
Dublin Corporation.
I will get to the county council.
The scope of the debate has been widened in the discussion but the Chair is concerned as to how the Deputy's remarks could be related to section 6 which deals with the temporary arrangement in respect of the register of electors.
I am developing the point made as to the connection between the register for the local constituency and that for the parliamentary constituency, and I was about to indicate that the changes which the Minister has imposed or would seek to impose on the Dublin Corporation in respect of local elections will lead to quite an amount of confusion. I have not got the wards of the Dáilcheantair at my disposal, but looking at what is proposed for the local authority area which I represent, I can see it being almost identical with the Dáilcheantair with two or three exceptions. I suggest that will lead to much more confusion in the mind of the elector and will also lead to certain difficulties in the matter of the compilation of the respective registers in regard to directing people as to the booth in which they will cast their vote. In replying to Deputy O'Malley about the changes made in the Limerick local authority area, the Minister consolidated his point by saying the local representatives had agreed to it. I would ask him to comment on the positions that would arise in respect of Dublin Corporation if at our next meeting we refuse to accept the recommendation he has made to us and what effect that will have on the compilation of the respective registers.
As far as the areas are concerned, Deputy Tunney is being slightly unfair, in that I went out of my way to try to ensure that the electoral areas and the Dáil constituencies would be as close as possible. It was not possible to fit them in exactly. Deputy Tunney's own constituency does fit in reasonably well, and it means that the people whom Deputy Tunney will represent in the Dáil will also, I expect, be represented by him in Dublin Corporation, and in very many more cases this will be the position. Dublin Corporation did suggest a different way, 10 fours and a five. It is not as fair or as easily recognised, as far as the ordinary person is concerned, as making them, the way I did, as close as possible to the Dáil constituency. Deputy Tunney poses the question to me: what happens if the Dublin commissioners refuse? They do not refuse. I did not make a recommendation. I made an order, as I am entitled to do. I might not have consulted them at all. In fact, there was a precedent where another Minister, a good many years ago, made an order without even asking the local authorities what they wanted. I asked them all and gave them since last August to decide what they wanted. I have authority to make the order and I made an order to which no reasonable man could object.
(Interruptions.)
I know Deputies opposite feel they must criticise. However, a reasonable job has been done and I think it should be accepted. When I was on the far side of the House—and I challenge anybody to deny this—I found on many occasions that I was in complete agreement with what the Minister was doing, no matter who he was, and with Deputy Lemass who is here tonight. I am quite sure he remembers that on more than one occasion I complimented him on things which he did because I thought they were right. I would suggest to the Fianna Fáil Opposition that a little bit of that would not do any harm at all, because they were not perfect. Maybe we are not perfect, but we are doing many things with which they must agree if they are fair at all. All I am saying to them is: do not knock everything because you are weakening your own case when you do this.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,
The Minister said he was being very reasonable in the matter and I will not deny that, but I am just gullible, naïve or plain stupid if I am to accept that the Minister made the order after consulting the city council.
What?
The Minister did not consult the commission.
He did consult them, but then he did the opposite.
At least they are there to be consulted, which is more than Deputy Molloy could say when he was Minister.
The point is that they were not consulted. When we had no city commission they could not be consulted. Now that we have a commission, we are not being consulted. At the moment the commission is comprised of members of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour, all good public representatives working hard in the City Hall on preparing a report for the Minister on the reorganisation of the local authorities. But today we find that the Minister has decided to change the electoral areas whereby there will be a clash between the Dáil register and the local register.
No.
I shall demonstrate this in a moment.
Five to three; 45 seats against 15 in the Dáil.
The Deputy must remember that the report made by the city commission, through the City Manager, was sent to the Minister after consultation between Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour Commissioners, and out of the blue the Minister changes it.
Is mine not better?
It is not a matter of being better or worse.
It is better.
In a democracy it is not. Here you had the city commissioners who worked on this plan and sent it to the Minister. I heard the Minister once say in the House that where a local authority prepared their own plan he would accept it.
No, where it was reasonable.
There was no political manoeuvering with us. The three parties agreed on this. The Minister has sowed doubt in our minds now that he did, in fact, consult one party.
If I consulted one party, I did something which the three parties disagreed with. Now there is a sort of suggestion that there was only one party, how do you——
Very well. Perhaps the Minister would tell us why the change.
Because I decided that it would be fairer to the citizens of Dublin to have their electoral areas as near as possible to the Dáil constituents.
But 45 Members thought differently.
Perhaps they did. I made the decision which I think is fair. If everybody disagreed with it on the corporation it must be right. I am not favouring one party or the other. The suggestion that I am is ridiculous.
(Interruptions.)
It is not very difficult to find something wrong with what the Minister does.
The Deputy is not here long enough to make that kind of comment. It would not come from his father who is a decent man.
The Minister says he tried to improve on the recommendation of the city commission.
I do not see what the commission has to do with this section which deals with a temporary arrangement in respect of the compilation of the register of electors.
That is what I am dealing with.
The Deputy is taking a long time to come to the point.
The Minister has confused us by his action. He says he is reasonable and I want to be reasonable also. In June when the local elections are held, will they be held on the new areas or the existing areas?
On the new areas.
Does the Minister need legislation for that?
No. The commissioners and the local authorities will be notified and the registers will be published within the next few weeks and will be in operation.
Would the Minister not think that for local government the smaller the area the better the representation?
The Deputy's Government abolished the corporation and there was no representation at all.
We are talking of the city commission.
And the Deputy is not on it.
When he goes this time I wish him the best of luck. Take Area No. 9 which will run from the city boundary at Merrion, along the Liffey right up into Rathmines. A member must cover all that area. The smaller the area, the better but, as the Minister has made an order I can do nothing about it. If the city commission rejected it, I presume the Minister would go ahead in any case.
I have made an order and the corporation either hold their elections on that order or they do not hold any elections at all.
Would the Minister not agree that it is not a case of democracy when 45 good men and true decide on a certain plan for this city for electoral areas and one Minister decides it will not be and he scrubs it?
It is the reverse because the Deputy's Minister scrubbed the 45 men.
The Minister is doing the same thing himself.
(Interruptions.)
I can only say how disappointed I am. At first, I believed the Minister would be reasonable but he is being most unreasonable and there is nothing I can do about it.
Consider the great help it will give you in your constituency to have the same area for both.
I think the Minister's action was wrong. The voice of 45 men should be louder than that of the Minister. It is not democratic.
The Minister has been speaking about making local electoral areas which will coincide with the Dáil constituencies as recommended in his Schedule.
In Dublin.
But in the very Schedule proposed here the Minister is bringing part of the city into County Dublin which negatives his argument because you have city and county dwellers in the one Dáil constituency with clashes between the Dublin City No. 3 area and the North County Dublin area and Dublin City No. 2 area. Despite that, the Minister seems to think that I am always attacking him. I have tremendous respect for much of the work he does but in this case I think he is wrong.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister talks on the basis that any reasonable man would accept what he suggests but there are many reasonable men who without attacking the Minister's personality could make a decision which would differ from the Minister's. The Minister said he reappointed the 45 commissioners and wrote asking them to give their suggestions as to how they would like to see the city area divided for a local election. They made a unanimous decision recommending a certain line of action. The Minister has rejected what was suggested and made his own order. I do not deny that he has power as Minister to do this but it appears to be in conflict with the stated aims of the Minister and the Government, aims which were stated in the recent White Paper on the restructuring of local government. It was stated there that the National Coalition Government would consider it a priority at all times that power be vested in the people and that local government be made truly democratic and relevant to their needs.
This Bill deals with the election of Members to this House. We cannot discuss the restructuring of local authorities on this section.
We have been discussing it for quite some time——
There will be scope for a full debate in respect of each constituency including Dublin city and county on the Schedule. Deputies must get back to the section under discussion and I cannot allow any further extraneous matter to be introduced. It is not in order.
May I say that it is not extraneous because section 6 speaks of the register of electors which is the same for Dáil and local government elections?
I have not heard the Deputy comment on this at all.
In section 6 subsection (1) it is stated——
Has the Deputy a point of view to express on the compilation of the register of electors? I will hear it.
The compiling of the registers is such that any decisions made by order of the Minister with regard to local electoral areas is also relevant to the register for the election under these new local electoral areas. This will be on the front of the register. It is causing great confusion in the minds of the public. We, on this side of the House, are trying to clarify this point and would like the Minister to co-operate with us.
It is in that context that I was quoting the Minister's statements and his desire for local government. The majority of people in Dublin are represented by the 45 members of the Dublin Corporation. These members were reinstated by a decision of the Minister. They came to a decision which would affect the register. The Minister, in direct contradiction of the stated aims of giving local say and local power, made the order from the Custom House declaring that Dublin will be divided in this way and no other way. This is not local representation and it is very vital to what we are discussing——
It would be more appropriate to discuss divisions in respect of the compilation of constituencies on the appropriate section.
This is the appropriate section.
In the opinion of the Chair it is not.
The register to be set up by the instruction of the Minister will be used at local and general elections. Section 6 decides how this register will appear. This is in contradiction with the decisions being made by the Minister with regard to Dublin and many other areas and without the co-operation of the——
The designation of areas will be dealt with on the Schedule.
That is what I am speaking about. Section 6 (1) reads:
Where a polling district or part of a polling district is situate in a constituency specified in the Schedule to this Act which is identical in area with none of the constituencies existing at the passing of this Act, the Minister may by direction—
in my opinion "may" should be "shall"
provide for the entry of the name of that constituency in respect of the polling district or part of the polling district, in every draft register, list of claimants, register of electors and list of corrections prepared under Part II of the Electoral Act, 1963, and published by a registration authority before the dissolution of Dáil Éireann which next occurs at the passing of this Act.
I submit that this is relevant in the context of the suggestions being made to the city of Dublin by the Minister. By his own decision the Minister is altering the register in such a way that there will be further confusion in the minds of the public as to what the situation is what area they are in, et cetera. The Minister has not carried out the intentions he expressed in his White Paper on Local Government Reform. I was——
Local government reform does not arise on this section.
Any decisions made by the Minister with regard to local——
The Deputy must not continually argue with the Chair. He must abide by my rulings.
I am not arguing. I am merely stating that the registers for electoral areas are used for local and general elections. Therefore, it is relevant to section 6 which speaks of the——
This is not relevant. The Chair decides these matters.
I realise that. I am asking for the indulgence of the Chair. I wish to discuss the local electoral areas in County Dublin. This will affect the publication and format of the register. The Minister in his circular, which Deputy O'Malley read earlier, spoke of the equal representation within each local authority. He conveniently decided not to relate one authority to another——
I explained that in my circular, which Deputy O'Malley read.
——and if the Minister had done it at that time, he could have held an inquiry and still had the election in June. He decided, for his own reasons, not to do that, despite the fact that gross injustice has been done to the people of Dublin.
The matter does not arise here.
The Minister made suggestions for Dublin County Council—which affect the composition of the register in the Dublin county area. By his directive he changed the Dundrum electoral area from a five-seat to a four-seat——
This clearly arises on the Schedule. The compilation of constituencies and the number of Members will arise on the Schedule. We shall debate each constituency separately. I assure the Deputy that he will get full scope at that time.
The Chair is always reasonable and I am grateful for that. Certain electoral areas will be altered and certain electoral divisions will be moved from one electoral area to another. This involves a change in the format of the register which will be used for local and general elections.
Earlier the Minister agreed with the proposed amendments to section 6 by Deputy O'Malley and Deputy Molloy. As a layman he saw merit in those amendments. He changed his mind on the recommendation of his officials. I should like to ask him to reconsider and stay with his original view. Their amendments tightened section 6 as it stands. The Minister sees that section 6, subsection (1) is very loose in its present form. It is the aim and the duty of an Opposition to assist the Minister and the Government in any way they can in getting legislation passed through the House. We feel, and the Minister has agreed, that the wording of this subsection is very loose in its present form. The Minister has made the point that the present form is the same as it was in previous Bills but this does not make it any more correct.
I believe the Deputy is right.
The Minister was on this side of the House at the time of the passing of the last Electoral Bill and if he was not conscientous enough at that time to contest these things he should not criticise us for doing so now. We are, as any Opposition should be, teasing such things out and putting forward our suggestions. We are trying to see that legislation as it goes through this House is straightforward and without ambiguities. In that regard we will assist the Government so far as possible in the tidying up of any legislation.
The Minister has stated that he can see certain merit on the points being made on this side of the House. Realising that, I feel the Minister should instruct his advisers to tighten up this subsection. He has already told us, and I accept, that his advisers are reasonable and astute men. The Minister in considering subsection (2) as it stands should consider the suggestion made that a further subsection should be added to section 6 to include an extension of the postal voting. It is obvious to all of us involved in political life that the postal voting register as it is compiled needs to be altered to include very necessary facilities for senior citizens, people in hospitals at the time of an election, commercial travellers and those unable to return to their homes to cast their votes. The case of the lighthouse keepers should also be considered.
The Minister has stated that he has considered this matter and that he had made a certain amount of progress in this regard but he has the opportunity now to add a further subsection to change the position in relation to postal voting. The Minister recognises that this is necessary but I feel it should be rectified before the next election so that those people will get the right they are entitled to. I hope the Minister will grasp the opportunity granted to him now and make these changes when it comes to Report Stage.
The Members of this House who were involved in the Monaghan by-election last year are conscious of the great need for the extension of the postal voting register. Voting in that by-election took place in appalling weather and old people had to be taken from hospitals and driven to all corners of the county to cast their votes. Surely such a system is unjust.
What about the people in the graveyards?
We left those to the Deputy's side and they made a great job of them. In Ballybay unfortunate old people were disturbed from the centrally heated atmosphere they were living in and brought in wheel chairs to the polling booth. Such a spectacle should be enough to encourage the Minister to amend this system.
It is obvious that in England postal voting is far more extensive than I have suggested. People who are not necessarily travellers or confined to hospital are in a position to obtain postal votes.
How did Enoch manage to get a postal vote?
I am coming to that.
Surely the Deputy could manage to get around to the American Presidential election also.
I had not thought of it but I might just do that.
There is a reference in the subsection to postal voters but it would hardly justify long debate on the subject or the reference to the system operating in other countries.
I merely want to show what is happening in other countries. This is particularly relevant now in the context of Europe because a big number of our people spend a lot of their time in Brussels on business. They are entitled to consideration and are entitled to express their views on any issue coming before the electorate. I would ask the Minister to bring in a further subsection to amend the list of postal voters to include the type of people I have mentioned. I know he has received representations from the Commercial Travellers Association asking him to do what I am now asking him to do. I know that he and his officials are working on it. He should make the change now because the local elections are coming up and people will be denied their right to vote because they are out of the country on business.
The Minister indicated earlier that he hoped to bring in such a Bill. He did not make a firm commitment. It would not take too much time to devise such a subsection. He need not specify all the various categories. The wording could be: an election having been called, be it a local election, a general election, or a referendum, any voter anxious to claim a postal vote can do so within five or ten days. This would remove the difficulty which the Minister apparently sees at the moment. It would be up to the individual voter to decide whether he wished to claim a postal vote.
In the past, four or five votes decided the representation from a particular constituency. There was the famous north-east case a couple of years ago, and there were others. In theory a postal vote could alter a decision of the electorate. The Minister said he is conscious of the need to give justice to the people who cannot vote at the moment. Another category that comes to mind is people who are confined to their homes because of illness. We have also seen pictures of couples who were married on the day of election going to the polling booth to vote but, in many cases, couples getting married and people attending such social functions do not bother to vote. If they could claim a postal vote I have no doubt that they would do so and this could affect the election of a Government. I know that it is not beyond the powers of the Minister's officials to devise such a subsection. They are men of high ability.
The Minister is responsible for his Department. Officials should not be referred to in the House.
I was complimenting the officials. I was not trying to be sarcastic. The Minister could instruct his officials to devise such a subsection. Subsection (1) deals with the register. It is absolutely essential that the Minister should realise the problems created by the orders he is making. I referred earlier to the order in the city of Dublin. The same situation arises in the county and in every county in the country.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,
I was saying how subsection (1) is being complicated in County Dublin by decisions made by the Minister. This is a Dublin County Council (Amendment) Order of 1974. The Minister changed the county electoral areas and the numbers of representatives. He changed the Ballybrack and Dundrum electoral areas. Originally Ballybrack elected four councillors and Dundrum five. The Minister changed that to Ballybrack five, and Dundrum four. As we use the same register for local elections and general elections, with the exception of certain voters who are noted as being entitled to vote only in local elections and not in general elections, it is basically the same register. The decision of the Minister in relation to County Dublin complicates the situation to the extent that under section 6 (1), the county electoral area, as it will be shown on the register, is being changed considerably and his decision is also going to create problems with regard to the Dáil constituencies because complications are being created for the electors by the decisions being made by the Minister, which I may say were made by order and not with the agreement of Dublin County Council.
We are concerned only with the register of electors in relation to this matter.
That is what I am concerned about, in that the Minister's orders are liable to confuse the electorate under section 6 (1). Deputies O'Malley and Molloy made a suggestion to the Minister for a tightening of the wording of subsection (1) which the Minister admitted was very loose and could be tightened up considerably. The Minister said he had used this subsection because it was used in previous Bills but this is no justification for his using again the exact wording of subsection (1) and subsection (2).
I should say "strike five" on that because it is the fifth time the Deputy has said it.
The Minister will have his opportunity to reply. He admitted that there was a lot of merit in the suggestion made by these Deputies in relation to a tightening of the wording of this subsection. He admitted that there was a certain amount of ambiguity in it and I feel he should take the opportunity between now and Report Stage to reconsider his decision in the light of the problems he sees arising from it. The fact that it was in previous legislation is irrelevant to the situation in which we now find ourselves. This is a new piece of legislation, and the fact that no problems arose in the past in the operation of previous legislation is no justification for restating it in its present form when we have shown the Minister that problems could arise. It is our duty to try to refine legislation to such an extent as will make it as clear-cut as possible, and not only that but that it will be seen to be clear-cut. It is our duty to make legislation passing through this House as clear-cut and unambiguous as possible, so that it can be clearly understood, not only by lawyers but by the general public.
The Bill before us is an electoral Bill involving the electorate and it is essential that we ensure that it is worded in such a fashion that there can be no ambiguity and that the general public, the electorate, will be able to understand it clearly and understand what is contained in it. In its present form, section 6 (1) is ambiguous. The Minister sees the problems. The fact that no cases were ever contested in the courts in relation to this subsection as in other Bills does not mean that we should not do everything in our power to ensure that this legislation is clear-cut, and in the light of that consideration the Minister should have another look at this subsection, with a view to tightening it up in such a way that he can stand over it and will not be of the opinion, as he is now, that it is loose in its wording. He should use his powers as Minister to instruct his officials to tighten up its wording in the light of the debate here, and in the light of the Minister's recognition that complications could arise and that it has been a matter of chance that no court action ever took place in regard to it and the validity of no election was ever contested because of this wording. He should take this opportunity to have another look at it in view of the appeals made to him, being the reasonable man I know him to be, and in view of the fact that it could conceiveably create complications, as it will particularly in view of some of the recent orders made by the Minister with regard to local electoral areas.
We are not discussing local electoral areas but electors.
It is the register of electors I am speaking about because the register for local elections is the same as that for a general election and recent ministerial orders have altered this situation. In the Dublin city area, we have had a new order by the Minister instructing Dublin Corporation to divide the city, in a certain way despite the instructions and advice given by the 45 duly elected members. They said the areas should be divided in a certain way but the Minister has now issued an order dividing it in another way.
If the Deputy looks at the section, he will note that these are temporary arrangements with regard to the register of electors.
And the register of electors is the same for a local election as for a general election. The point we are trying to make is that we want this legislation to be clear-cut so that it can be understood without causing complications for electors. We want this legislation to be as clear-cut and as uncomplicated as possible. I ask the Minister to look again at subsection (1) of section 6 because the wording needs considerable revision.
The Chair has been very tolerant and has allowed the debate to extend fairly widely over a number of matters that might, or might not, be relevant to the section being discussed. I do not propose to make a Second Reading speech because this is not the Second Reading of the Bill, although some people apparently are not aware of this.
Deputy Burke in his comments seemed to miss out on a number of points and it is only fair to refer briefly to them. He spent a long time referring to the fact that he considered now was the appropriate time to amend section 2 in order to enlarge the list of people who would have a postal vote. That is not relevant to the Bill; it is not contained in the text of the Bill and, therefore, new matter cannot be introduced on Committee Stage.
I said earlier and I wish to repeat that I have a committee who are going into the question of those who should be entitled to postal votes. In 1959 a committee of the House brought in a report saying that although only Army personnel were entitled at that time to a postal vote they recommended gardaí should be included also but that nobody else should be included. This was done in 1960. On three or four occasions since the matter was brought to the attention of the Fianna Fáil Government but on each occasion they accepted the recommendation of the committee and decided not to increase the number.
That being so, it is a little bit much to see the pressure now being put by members of Fianna Fáil. That party had many years to do this but they did not think it worth their while. I agree entirely with Deputy Burke on one point; it is time we had a look at the matter. I would not be prepared to recommend what he suggested, namely, to follow what is done in Northern Ireland. There anyone who is on the register can apply for a postal vote and cast it in that way but I do not think that is how it should be done. My personal view is that the categories should be widened considerably. However, there must be a good reason why this was not done because the committee who considered the matter in 1959 recommended against it and the Government on at least three or four occasions decided not to make the change. Despite all that I am looking at the problem and I hope to be able to introduce a short Bill. When I do I hope I shall have the same enthusiasm for the change from the members of Fianna Fáil.
What about doing——
If the Deputy would go along and get bags of guns for somebody—he is only a nuisance here. Somebody will lead him out of the House in a few minutes. It has been said that there will be confusion because the electoral areas in Dublin in particular will be crossing the areas for the new constituencies. At the present time the electoral areas in many cases cross the borders of the existing constituencies. This has happened again and again. Even if Deputy Molloy were on this side of the House introducing his Bill, or even in the amendments now before the House, there would be crossing of the electoral areas and the Dáil constituencies.
There is nothing new in what is proposed. Nothing is being done that is any more unfair than what would be done by anybody else. I believe what is being done is in the best interests of the people concerned. Deputy Dowling was objecting to this but he knows as well as I do that the simplest way to represent an area is if the Dáil and the corporation areas run fairly closely together. In this way one is dealing to a great extent with the same people.
I did not object to it. I objected to the methods the Minister used. Despite what the public representatives said, the Minister consulted his own boys and that was the end of the matter.
The Deputy knows that is an untruth. The proof that it is untrue is that one of his own colleagues, Deputy Moore, made the case that all the Dublin commissioners were of one mind, including Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour. I changed it; I did not consult anybody. I had a right to change it and I told them I was going to do so.
The Minister disregarded the public representatives.
The public representatives, including the Deputy, were booted out by a previous Fianna Fáil Minister for Local Government. They were dumped out; for years they did not get a say in anything that was happening until the National Coalition took over.
People outside this House dictated to the Minister and he yielded to the pressure.
The Deputy should not say things he does not believe. Everyone knows he is delighted with the Dáil constituencies and the decision about the Dublin Corporation areas. As far as consultation is concerned, I had letters from various people, including Fianna Fáil people throughout the country. Nobody can accuse me of interfering for the purpose of giving political kudos to one or other of the three parties and the proof of this——
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Molloy should keep quiet. Some of the things he has been saying on radio and television and in the papers during and since the Ard-Fheis make him look ridiculous. So far as the Dáil constituencies are concerned, the register being drawn up can be worked for both Dáil and local authority areas. With regard to Cork, Deputy Fitzgerald is crying because the county area seems to be going into the city area. If Cork county had its way it would do one thing, while if Cork city had its way it would try to swallow the entire area. I have to decide and I have put forward a fair proposition for both Dáil and local authority areas.
On a point of order, the Minister in his reference to Cork seemed to attack me.
That is not a point of order.
He was inferring that Cork city would swallow Cork county——
That is not a point of order. The Deputy is making a statement.
The two subsections of section 6 are perfectly reasonable and were accepted as such by the Fianna Fáil Minister who introduced them, by successive Ministers and by this House. The reason this is being debated is not because there was anything wrong but because Fianna Fáil decided to hold up this Bill for as long as they could.
Because it is a gerrymander.
This is on the register of electors.
Because it is a gerrymander.
The Deputy should not be making a fool of himself. The position is that this section, containing two subsections, is a reasonable way of doing things. I said on the last occasion it came up here that I would have another look at it. Even this evening before 6 o'clock I said that if Fianna Fáil wanted to put an amendment I would have a look at it and consider it. I have got further advice since which has made it very clear to me that the section as it stands is the best way of doing the job. It has been proved over the years; there has been no objection by anybody. The suggestion that there might be a court case in some peculiar circumstance is too ridiculous to try to argue against. Section 6 with its two subsections will stay in the Bill.
Deputy Andrews made a plea before he went away, which was followed at length by Deputy Burke, in regard to postal voting. Deputy Andrews was not here when I commented on this a few moments ago, so I repeat the hope I expressed then to widen considerably the number of categories included in postal voting. I cannot do it in this Bill because it was not included in the original Bill and it would mean a complete change of the contents of the Bill. As such it would be ruled out. I hope to bring in a short Bill to have this done at a later stage. That is the proper way to do it.
I am looking for some clarification from the Minister. The section is described as making temporary arrangements with respect to the register of electors. I am putting the hypothetical case of the Minister for Local Government being ill and not being able to, as this section provides, give a direction. The section says that the Minister may by direction provide for the entry of the name of that constituency, and so on. What would be the position in those circumstances?
The Taoiseach would appoint somebody else to act temporarily.
But meantime the Minister would still be Minister for Local Government. Would the Minister have to resign and would the Taoiseach have to appoint somebody else in his place?
That is not what has happened. The precedent is that when one Minister is ill or absent another Minister may act on his behalf on the direction of the Taoiseach.
The Deputy can rest assured he will not be asked to resign.
If Deputy Reynolds wants to speak on the Bill he will have his opportunity to do so. He has been making smart remarks during the past half hour. I asked the Minister a question——
And the Deputy got an answer.
Deputy Reynolds can answer later on if he wishes. Does this legislation cover that situation?
There is Cabinet procedure for this. Deputy Molloy can tell the Deputy.
That is fine, but the Bill says that "the Minister" means the Minister for Local Government.
The Ministers and Secretaries Act provides for it and it is laid down in Cabinet procedure. I know Deputy Calleary has asked a fair question and that is the answer to it.
When I do ask what appears to be a fair question some people over there seem to think it is a delaying tactic. If Deputy Reynolds wants delaying tactics he will get them.
In a situation where a person whose name is included in the register of electors, the subject we are discussing under section 6, finds himself employed in a polling booth on the day of a Presidential election in an area in which his name is not in the register, what facilities are being made to enable that person to vote?
Under Fianna Fáil, none. We are prepared to ensure that before the next Presidential election such provisions will have been made.
Would the Minister not have thought that this Bill would have been a suitable opportunity through which to correct that situation? Though the Constitution provides for Presidential elections once every seven years, a situation could arise where, God forbid, it could happen within the seven year period——
There is nothing wrong with Erskine, our President.
I am posing a hypothetical situation in which the President might decide to resign for some personal reason. Such persons working in polling booths do not have a vote. Regulations to be made by the Minister for Local Government can facilitate such polling booth officials to vote in both local and Dáil elections. I think the same applies to referenda. However, persons so employed on the day of a Presidential election are not entitled to vote. We all became very well aware of that fact in the recent Presidential election. This is an Electoral (Amendment) Bill and it is a suitable opportunity to have this anomoly rectified.
The position about it is quite simple. In the years that the other Government were in power there were four Presidential elections and on each of the four occasions people working in booths did not have this facility. Last year, because we had only recently taken over office, we got caught with that situation and I proposed to bring in an amending Bill which would include provision to allow voters who are working in booths to vote in these booths. It could be made quite a simple matter. Deputy Molloy suggested this was the Bill in which to bring in such an amendment. Of course it is not. It was not included in the original Bill. It will be necessary to bring in legislation to deal with other matters and we will include all matters like this which need to be tightened up. There is no secret about this—it will be introduced when we are considering the next legislation to cover such matters.
I suppose we can be grateful for the amount of useful information we have been able to extract from the Minister. We seem to be able to extract fairly firm promises of future legislation. We are very grateful to the Minister for clarifying things in this matter and for informing the House about them. However, I again submit that the long title to this Bill is:
An Act to provide for the number of Members of Dáil Éireann and for the revision of constituencies and to amend the law relating to the election of such Members.
Surely the granting of votes to persons who find themselves in the situation we have just been discussing—working in an election in an area outside where they are registered—comes under the terms of such a title. The law uses the same register of electors for Presidential elections as for local and Dáil elections and for referenda. This is common through most of the electoral law.
The Deputy knows that the scope of the debate is confined to the sections in the Bill.
Yes. I am suggesting that the Minister could have inserted another section to cover this anomaly.
It is not there.
It is not there but it is not too late.
It is too late for this Stage. We are on section 6 and the Deputy knows and has much experience of the fact that on Second Reading one can deal with the principle of a Bill, what is in it and what should be in it but that is not the position on Committee Stage.
On behalf of all those persons who found themselves disfranchised on the last occasion that we had a Presidential election——
The Deputy is going on to discuss something that is not in the section.
——I express the wish that the Minister will do something as quickly as possible and he will certainly have the full support of the Fianna Fáil Party——
Section 6.
——when he comes to introduce that Bill. It does not seem very urgent at the moment. We will probably have to wait six years. Please God, it will not be necessary for another six years.
By which date we will bring in our own amendment.
The country is aware that the primary purpose of the Government in bringing forward this Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1973, is to revise the constituencies.
We are dealing with section 6.
I am dealing with section 6—to revise the constituencies in such a way as will benefit the Coalition parties to the maximum extent.
Deal with section 6.
We will have an opportunity later on to highlight the manner in which they have carried out this gerrymander. I want to point out on the section that not alone are the Government showing some energy and activity in the field of constituency revision but that they have also applied their energies in the field of gerrymandering of the electoral areas where they pertain to county council elections.
The Deputy is moving away from section 6 now.
I am not. I am dealing with section 6.
Section 6 is very specific.
I am dealing with section 6, which covers the preparation of registers of electors and I am saying that electoral divisions proposed by the Minister for local elections will also be affected in a similar way and that each day over the past few days there have been sinister Ministerial orders lodged in the Library of this House showing where the Minister is carrying out another gerrymander at a lower level, the local electoral area level.
This is not relevant.
It is totally disgraceful and must be highlighted in this House.
It is not relevant.
The Deputy is talking through his hat, making a fool of himself.
The Deputy will agree that in Committee the Deputy may deal with the subject matter of the section.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I am sure that in all fairness and justice you will allow me to reply to that rather offensive remark by the Minister, that I was talking through my hat. In the first place, I never wear a hat but we know what the Minister was getting at. The Minister says that I do not know what I am talking about. We have an order on this file which comes from the Library, made recently by the Minister.
This is not in section 6.
I told the Deputy it was there.
The Minister has already discussed this in the House where he has laid down the number of members who shall be elected to Dublin Corporation in each of the electoral areas.
The Chair is interested in section 6.
If you would let me finish on this point I will leave it. Will you let me finish it?
The Deputy is asking the Chair to get out of order.
I know the Chair would not wish to come in to protect the Minister.
I think the Deputy will agree that the Chair is trying to keep the debate in order.
Then in fairness the Chair will allow me to reply to the allegation that I do not know what I am talking about.
As long as the Deputy keeps within section 6.
And within the comments that the Minister has made.
The Chair must try to keep it within section 6.
Perhaps the Chair would allow me the two sentences I want to complete the allegation I am making. The fact that it is an allegation — is that the reason why the Chair has decided to be strict?
That is another allegation.
The Deputy would not wish that the Chair would entertain allegations.
We can come back to this, of course.
There is nothing surer than that we will.
The Minister stated in relation to Limerick County Council that he considered a democratic decision of the elected members. I want to ask him did he consider the democratic decision arrived at by the councillors in the Kerry County Council?
It is rather a pity that you were not here earlier.
The House will keep with the section.
Did the Minister do that? Did the Minister consult members of the Labour Party in deciding how many members would be elected in each Dublin Corporation area?
No. The House will keep to section 6.
It is the second gerrymander.
That is untrue.
I want to ask the Minister a number of questions before we conclude on section 6, in relation to the matter he mentioned, the possibility of introducing a Bill to include those people who at the moment are disfranchised.
On this Stage we cannot anticipate legislation.
I am not anticipating anything. I am posing a question to the Minister in relation to the number of persons whom the Minister is disfranchising at the moment.
I am not. It is the Deputy's colleagues who disfranchised them.
Can the Minister tell the House how many are disfranchised at the moment because of his unwillingness to accept very reasonable amendments to section 6 subsection (1). I would ask him to give an approximation of the number of persons disfranchised.
The Chair would remind the Deputy that we must keep to what is in section 6.
I am keeping to what the Minister said within the terms of the section.
Anybody knows that there will be no election before June. By June we will have that matter fixed up.
That is a very important point.
A very important promise made by the Minister.
This is the reason we are asking this question. We have now elicited from the Minister that this matter will be corrected before the June local elections, the matter of the inclusion of those who at the moment are disfranchised.
That I hope.
Comments like these from either side of the House are not relevant to the section before the House.
We would like the Chair to be a conduit. The Chair could consider that my words are going through him to the Minister and that the Minister would take the same view.
The point is, as the Deputy will appreciate, that the Chair must try to keep matters within the rules of order. The Deputy must keep to the section.
You see how important my question was. We have now elicited from the Minister a promise that, in fact, those people now disfranchised by the Coalition Government will be enfranchised.
By Fianna Fáil. They were the people who brought in the last Bill.
The Chair cannot find that in the section.
That is the whole problem.
In relation to section 6 (1), may I ask the Minister why he is including an extra seat in the Ballybrack electoral area?
This one is dealing with the election of Dáil Deputies.
Yes but the Minister mentioned that effectively quite a number of the electoral areas outlined in this Bill will be applicable not only to Dáil elections but to local elections and it is fair to ask the Minister why he is adding a seat to the Ballybrack electoral area and taking a seat away from the Dundrum electoral area. This is a matter that has remained unexplained to the satisfaction of the House on the one hand, and the Dublin county councillors on the other hand.
Put down a question and I will answer it.
The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, Deputy Cruise-O'Brien, was in here the other day complaining that questions cost £150.
That is completely irrelevant.
In five seconds the Minister can save the nation £150.
The Deputy knows the reason as well as I do—in order to provide the proper representation for the number of people. This has been done and the Deputy knows this.
Section 6.
There are two answers to questions that we extracted from the Minister. We are most grateful.
You are very welcome.
To come back to the very reasonable proposal by Deputy Molloy and Deputy O'Malley in relation to the preparation of electoral registers, they consider that the local authority should be in charge of the compilation, addition and substraction, rather than the Minister.
No such proposal was made by anybody here.
The proposal by Deputy O'Malley in the context of what he said and in which he was supported by Deputy Molloy was extremely reasonable. The Minister said that as far as subsections (1) and (2) of section 6 stand at the moment, he considers these to be reasonable. We consider them to be unreasonable. One can make a choice.
There is one way of deciding that.
The sooner the Minister sees the light according to Fianna Fáil the better.
There is not any light in Fianna Fáil.
I would again ask the Minister to accept the very reasonable proposal put forward by Deputy O'Malley and supported by Deputy Molloy in regard to these subsections.
This is a highly technical section. We have been more than tolerant with the Minister in our discussions this evening.
The Deputy could not be tolerant because he was not here except for the past 20 minutes.
The Minister indicated earlier that the Opposition could put down an amendment prior to 6 p.m. and indicated that he would be prepared to have a look at it. At a later stage he stated that the section is the best there is and that it is going to stay that way in the Bill. Is it reasonable to suggest: "Put down an amendment and we will shoot it down"? Surely there is an onus on the Minister to listen to the views of the Opposition.
I have listened to them.
The Minister stated earlier that he was satisfied with the section where "the Minister may by direction...".
Do what?
I will read it out.
I take it that the Deputy is not going to read the Bill.
The Minister does not appear to know what is in section 1. I was concerned with the deletion of the words "the Minister may by direction..." The Minister wanted to know what this is all about. We should tell him what it is all about. Deputies O'Malley and Molloy have tried to explain the problem in relation to this particular section. It is undesirable that subsection (1) should remain in its present form for some of the reasons given by the representatives here in relation to the gerrymander of local authorities. This is a jackboot Bill. It is important that the Minister should not have the power indicated in this section notwithstanding the fact that he indicated that he thought as a layman Deputy O'Malley's wording was superior to that of the parliamentary draftsman. The Minister is the person who would or could accept an amendment of a superior type. Surely it is not unreasonable to ask him to accept superior wording to what is in the Bill. It is our function to ensure that the legislation which passes through this House is superior.
This particular deletion or the amendment earlier proposed which the Minister believed was the best wording but refused to accept——
The better wording.
Whatever type of phraseology the Minister wishes to use. The better wording of Deputy O'Malley's amendment is what should be included. I hope the Minister would show reason on this score and accept the better wording. It is highly unreasonable that he should suggest that the time of this House would be wasted in putting down an amendment and in the same breath say that the section, as it stands, is the best possible and will stay in the Bill. This is an unreasonable approach.
I hope that the Minister will see the sense of the suggestion made earlier by Deputies O'Malley and Molloy. There has been quite a lot of discussion about the ministerial direction proposed. I would hope that the Minister would not have this power. I do not trust this Minister because recently he gave the public representatives an opportunity to discuss a situation in relation to areas where elections will take place——
We are not dealing with that.
This is the type of direction which the Minister has been making in recent times. He leaves the way open for further gerrymandering. It is not desirable that this power should be left to an irresponsible Minister. Anything the Minister can do by regulation will be done behind closed doors and not in Dáil Éireann, or in the Custom House but where pressure groups can get at him. This is what has been happening. The Minister says one thing one day and then changes his mind.
The Chair has repeatedly pointed out that we are dealing only with the register of electors.
I think it would be reasonable for the Minister to accept the amendment.
There is no amendment.
He could accept the suggestions of the various Deputies. They have been tolerant with the Minister. Subsection (2) should be made much clearer than it is. There is mention of "identical in area". I presume that means the same in area? It continues "with none of the constituencies". How could it be identical with none of the constituencies? The Minister's advisers have advised him that this is the best wording. The words are "identical in area with none of the constituencies". How could a constituency be identical in area with none of the constituencies? Could the Minister explain that?
You had better explain it.
The Minister might be able to bring in the information tomorrow. This is an important point which will have to be changed. I can see no sense in this wording.
How would the Deputy word it?
I would have to consider the matter. I would get advice.
Are you going to consult the "think tank?"
The Minister will have to explain this particular subsection.
Say it again. I like listening to you.
If you want to speak, I will give way to you. If that is the role of the Government backbenchers——
(Interruptions.)
We will have to be convinced that the backbenchers of the Government are supporting this Bill.
Call a vote and you will find out.
Not one Member of the Government backbenchers has supported section 6.
They are not let speak.
Deputy Dowling on section 6.
The professor said "No".
The teacher said "No" so the boys have to stand by that.
Possibly a word from the professor in relation to the phraseology of subsection (2), where an area is identical with nothing, would be helpful.
Ask the professor if he could explain that one.
I will put the Deputy in the corner if he is not careful.
Oh!, would I not be frightened!
I will put a dunce's cap on the Deputy beside you.
Deputy Dowling without interruption.
Before I was so rudely interrupted in dealing with this highly technical subsection I was asking the Minister to explain this particular phraseology.
(Interruptions.)
If the Deputy wants to speak I have no objection to giving way.
I would make a better speech than the Deputy.
Deputy Dowling without interruption. Will Deputy Coogan please allow Deputy Dowling to speak?
Would the Minister be prepared to go back to his advisers and ask them to explain this? We dealt with subsection (1) in some depth and now this subsection must be examined with a critical eye to ensure that the phraseology is understood by the people who read this Bill. Would the Minister explain "where a constituency specified in the Schedule of the Act is identical in area with none of the constituencies". That means identical with nothing.
The Deputy should read it backwards.
I am not as clever as Deputy Reynolds. I should like to get the sense of the subsection and to find out exactly what the Minister means. I am sure this refers to all the constituencies. What are we to compare them with? The Minister may have some explanation for this type of wording. If he has not I am sure he will get it from his advisers in the same manner as he got the information about the section of this Bill which is to stay, notwithstanding the fact that he considers the suggestion of Deputy Molloy and Deputy O'Malley to be superior to what is in the Bill. I hope the Minister gives a reasonable explanation of how something can be identical with nothing.
It is too ridiculous for words.
Are we to take it that the Minister has no explanation for the wording contained in subsection (2)? I will make an alternative suggestion that I think would express the matter in positive rather than in negative terms. It says here:
Where a constituency specified in the Schedule to this Act is identical in area with none of the constituencies existing at the passing of this Act...
My suggestion to the House, to the Minister and to his advisers is that you could say the same thing in a clearer, more positive fashion by saying:
Where an existing constituency corresponds with any one of the constituencies set out in the Schedule to this Act...
I submit that means the same thing as this rather obscure wording to which Deputy Dowling drew the attention of the House. Unfortunately it is expressed here in this Bill in a way which would make this House look ridiculous if we were to pass this section in this form. The subsection states:
Where a constituency specified in the Schedule to this Act is identical in area with none of the constituencies existing at the passing of this Act, a postal voters list or lists shall be prepared...
When a constituency in this Act is equal to nothing a postal voters list shall be prepared.
The Deputy is a good musical hall turn. He is better than Deputy Dowling.
The Minister wrote the music.
No, I did not. It was a Fianna Fáil Minister who wrote it. That Bill was introduced in this House five times and the Deputy did not see anything wrong with it. The only thing that has changed is that the Deputy sees something wrong with it now.
The Government could have saved themselves a lot of trouble. If they did not endeavour in this Bill to try to perpetuate themselves in office they would not find themselves in the situation they are in now in relation to this Bill. I remember a Committee Stage of a Bill where Deputy Dr. Conor Cruise-O'Brien, the present Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, spent a considerable time talking on the meaning of one word.
It was "poltroon".
Will Deputy O'Malley please keep to subsection (2)?
(Interruptions.)
Will Deputies allow Deputy O'Malley to speak?
Once again I should like to ask the Minister to agree to the submission Deputy Molloy and I put forward earlier today. In case Deputies who have not had an opportunity of reading it might have forgotten the details that proposed amendment reads:
In section 6, subsection (1), page 3, line 1, to delete the words "Minister may by direction provide for the entry of" and to substitute therefor the words "registration authority or registration authorities concerned shall as soon as may be at the passing of this Act enter".
As we know already the Minister agreed that the suggestion which Deputy Molloy and I made seemed to him to be a correct one. We then had a break in the debate on this section for Private Members' Business when the Minister's advisers had an opportunity to examine in some detail the proposal which we put forward and which the Minister found acceptable and a better draft, in his view, than what was in the section. At the end of Private Members' Business and the Divisions on it about 8 o'clock the Minister was again asked by Deputy Molloy if he would accept the amendment which he and his advisers had had about two hours to consider and which before the interval he said was superior to the wording in the Bill. The Minister told Deputy Molloy and the House that he did not propose to accept it although he would look sympathetically at it if it was put forward on Report Stage.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.