The last day I spoke about the amendment which Deputy Molloy and I wished to put forward and which the Minister agreed was, in his view, reasonable and which he thought, speaking as a layman, superior to the wording which was in the section as drafted.
Private Business. - Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1973: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.
The 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".
On a point of order, would Deputy O'Malley state whether he is quoting from an amendment which he submitted to the House?
I am reading the proposed amendment which Deputy Molloy and I submitted to the Chair on the last day but which the Chair refused to accept as an amendment put before the House.
That is not correct.
It is correct. I was told by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and his words which I will quote precisely were: "Mr. O'Connell says ‘no'."
On a point of order again, Sir. Deputy O'Malley is either quoting from an amendment which he had the right to put before the House or it was ruled out of order. In that case he has no right to talk about it. This play-acting has gone on long enough.
If the amendment to which the Deputy has referred was ruled out of order, he has no right to refer to it in the House.
(Interruptions.)
I have read from the Official Report Vol. 270, col. 1770, for the last day that this section——
Amendments were submitted by your colleague. The Deputy did not submit an amendment but wants to delay today by talking about——
The Minister is out of order. The amendment referred to arises on section 7 and a new section 8 which I have been informed were out of order.
The Deputy could have put them in on section 6 had he wanted to.
We have not reached sections 7 or 8 yet.
I am speaking on section 6. I am speaking about an amendment which I sought to put into section 6. I endeavoured to do that on the afternoon of Wednesday 27th February, 1974. I wrote the amendment, signed my name to it and Deputy Molloy also signed his name to it. I approached the Leas-Cheann Comhairle who was in the Chair in the course of the debate. I handed the amendment to him and told him that it was an amendment to section 6. After consultation with one of the officials of the House, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle beckoned me to approach the Chair again and told me: "You cannot put it in at this stage. Mr. O'Connell says ‘no'."
It is not fair to refer to officials of the House in this fashion.
I wanted to make the position perfectly clear.
If the Deputy submits an amendment in the proper fashion, it will be looked at.
I was in touch with the Chair at about 5.30 p.m. I referred to the fact that if the debate on the section was still going on at 10.30 that night, presumably the amendment could go in for the following day on which a debate on section 6 would take place.
Once the House debates the section it is too late to submit any amendments.
The Minister was amused at the time by the thought that the debate on section 6 might continue until 10.30 but happily things worked out——
Once a debate commences there can be no amendment. There is no amendment to section 6. Let us have more commonsense about it.
I referred to this as the proposed amendment which I sought to put in. I discussed it the last night.
It was not in order to move an amendment at that juncture.
If the Chair would refer to column 1770 of the Official Report the Chair would find that the matter was discussed there. It is possible that the Ceann Comhairle was in the Chair at the time because it was approximately 10.29 p.m. when I got that far on the night of Wednesday, 27th February, 1974. While I am precluded by the rules of the House from formally moving this as an amendment I think it is no harm, with regard to the section generally, to draw the House's attention once more to the fact that the wording that Deputy Molloy and I suggested would clarify considerably the section which at present is under consideration.
After I made the suggestion that the wording in the Act should be changed and the wording suggested by Deputy Molloy and me substituted, the Minister agreed that in his view, speaking as he emphasised as a lay man, the wording we suggested was superior to that in the Bill. Shortly afterwards however he went on to say that notwithstanding his own satisfaction that my proposed wording was superior the advice he had received was that no change should be made because, as it was put, the existing wording had stood the test of time and had been used in previous Bills and in previous Acts.
I went on on that occasion to regret the growth of bureaucracy to the extent——
On a point of order, I am aware that the Opposition for some reason which I cannot understand are trying to drag out this Bill but surely repetition——
The Minister is joking.
——is not in order. Deputy O'Malley has admitted that he is repeating what he said previously.
Who is in the Chair?
The Minister is dictating to the Chair.
I will be dictating to Deputy Molloy in a few minutes because I have a way of dealing with little boys like him when they do not behave themselves.
Not being little himself.
There are a few things I must regret in the modern trends in parliamentary democracy in this country. One is the growth of the bureaucracy spoken of and the second is the effort by the members of this present Government to dictate to the Chair what is relevant and what is not relevant, to dictate to the Chair what is in order and what is not in order.
The Chair takes dictation from neither side of the House.
I am glad to hear that. The Minister in his intervention inquired why the Opposition spent such a lot of time debating this Bill so fully. If permitted I could go some of the way to enlightening the Minister in regard to this. The Opposition find this Bill was brought in by the Government for one purpose only—to try to keep themselves permanently in power notwithstanding the wishes which will be expressed by the people at the next election that they should no longer be in power. Because that is the purpose of the Bill, we in the Opposition feel, that in fairness to everyone concerned every line of this Bill should be thoroughly analysed, gone into, parsed almost, and discussed fully in this House. If the Oireachtas in the future see fit to pass this Bill into law at least the people of the country will be in a position to know what the Bill is about, what it sets out to do and, from the Government's point of view, what it hopes to achieve for them.
Could the Deputy get down to discussing section 6?
Section 6 is one of the sections in this Bill which sets out to try to keep the Coalition Government permanently in power. Because it is one of these sections it needs a thorough examination and discussion so that the people can fully appreciate the motives——
The Deputy's remarks sound more like a Second Reading speech. I do not wish to disrupt the Deputy in any way but he cannot embark on what is a Second Reading speech on Committee Stage.
Section 6 deals with what are described as temporary arrangements with respect to the register of electors. We set out at some length the last day the changes we feel are desirable in this section. The Minister was good enough to agree with one set of changes which we proposed but on subsequent advice from his officials he decided against accepting these recommendations even though he was satisfied they were in order. Apart from the suggestions Deputy Molloy and I made in that regard Deputy Dowling made it clear that the wording of subsection (2) was virtually absurd so far as this section was concerned. I had hoped that in the interval of one week which had elapsed since the House last considered this question the Minister would have seen fit to bring forward an amendment of his own which would make the wording of subsection (2) somewhat less absurd than it is and would tighten up the wording of sub-section (1) on the lines suggested by Deputy Molloy and me.
Unhappily neither of these things has taken place and I am only led to the conclusion that the Minister does not greatly care what the wording in this section is like or that he is not worried whether proper terminology and clear drafting are used in this section as long as the Bill, and particularly this section, fulfils the political purpose which he and most of those who support him wish it to achieve. I do not think I can put the matter any further than I have. I should like to express the wish, and the hope, for the sake of this House and for the sake of parliamentary democracy generally, that the Minister will be led by the views of the Members of this House and by his own views rather than to fall back behind the bureaucrats who decide on a particular thing and apparently constrain the Minister to stick to it whether he wishes to do so or not.
I should like to repeat what I said the last occasion, that I resent very much Members of this House using their membership of this House to attack officials of the Department of Local Government.
The attack was on the Minister and nobody else.
It is just what I would expect from Deputy O'Malley. Is Deputy O'Malley finished and sure that he has said all he wishes to say in this regard? If the Deputy has something more to say I will sit down and permit him to say it.
I have not said one word against any official of the Department of Local Government or otherwise in this debate either today or the last day. I referred simply to the fact that, after Deputy Molloy and I had made suggestions for alternative wording to subsection (1) of this section the last day, the Minister said he agreed that that wording was superior in his view as a layman and that he thought it was preferable to the wording used in the Bill. After further discussion had taken place the Minister repeated his view that in his opinion the wording Deputy Molloy and I had suggested was superior but that he was advised by his officials that he should not accept it and should stick to the wording in the Bill. I then said "Fair enough, that is the advice given by the officials". I said I thought it was wrong that the Minister should not follow his own instincts and use his own judgment rather than allow the passage of a Bill through this House to become in effect a bureaucratic act. I do not think that is an attack on any individual, official or any group of officials.
May I say that it is a convention of the House that officials are not reflected on in any way? The Minister, as head of his Department, is fully responsible for his administration. The Chair prefers that neither blame nor praise be attached to officials.
I fully agree and I think you will agree if you go through the debate on Wednesday, 27th February, 1974, that at no time did I attribute either blame or praise to the officials concerned. The officials were brought into this discussion by the Minister referring to the fact——
Let us not keep them in the debate. They ought not to have been brought in. Let us get them out of it now and keep them out.
I would at this stage reiterate that my attack is on the Minister for not having the courage of his own convictions in saying that he believes something to be superior but at the same time rejecting it.
I said the last day that as a layman I considered the wording which was suggested to be a better way of putting it than the Bill but my officials, who know why the original wording was put in, advised that the wording which had been put in—not by me but by a Fianna Fáil Minister for Local Government, backed by successive Fianna Fáil Governments and passed through this House every time they brought in an amendment——
(Interruptions.)
Would the Deputy please stay quiet for a few minutes? When he is up he cannot say so much so let him please stay quiet when he is sitting down. Where is the thing which Deputy O'Malley suggests will cement the Coalition Government in office? This is the section which states:
(1) 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 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 after the passing of this Act.
(2) 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 in respect of it by the registration authority or registration authorities concerned as soon as may be after such passing.
Deputy O'Malley claims that there is some type of peculiar arrangement in those words which will give such support to the National Coalition Government that he and his party will be wiped out. It is the same section, word for word, as was introduced by Fianna Fáil away back in the 1920's and has been included in every similar Act which has passed through the House since. I am prepared to agree with Deputy O'Malley that when the next election comes the National Coalition will be returned. I will agree with him on that. His suggestion that this will have anything to do with it is too ridiculous to bother replying to except that I want to place it on record and to clear up once and for all the way in which he has been attempting to suggest that there was something more under discussion. With regard to the amendment which he suggested he was going to put in, no amendment was put in. I suggested that if he felt so strongly about it he could do it on Report Stage or it could be done in the Seanad.
As far as this section is concerned it has been debated up to today for five hours and 25 minutes. This Bill has so far taken as many days as the entire Electoral Bill the last time it was before the House. As Deputy O'Malley is aware, there is a way of dealing with the sort of stuff which we have been getting from the Opposition the last few days this Bill was debated and which we are getting again this afternoon. If the Opposition continue to make the rather foolish sort of speeches which they are making for the reason which Deputy O'Malley has spelt out—that they want to prevent this Bill from passing through the House and therefore they feel free to delay every section and every word as long as they can—then on this side of the House we shall take the necessary steps to pass the Bill through.
Guillotine.
I want to warn that I will have no hesitation whatever in dealing with this Bill, if this sort of thing continues, with the guillotine. There are other Bills before the House and the same tactics are being tried. For some peculiar reason Fianna Fáil have got a death wish. They want to try to prove they can stop this House from doing its business. If they think they can do that——
(Interruptions.)
Order, please. The Minister without interruptions.
We had an example of it yesterday evening. If the Opposition continue that I want to tell the House that we will not allow Fianna Fáil to stop the business of this House. We have the right to do that and we will do it. They have got a lot more consideration than they were entitled to. Again and again two or three Members of the Opposition have got up and repeated the same speeches and the same statements as if it was a Second Reading debate. I am sorry Deputy Dowling is not here.
Is this speech relevant to section 6?
Yes, it is.
It is in relation to the section and to the general matter of how it is to be discussed.
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy who has just made a comment should not be kicking up a row. He is quite happy with what is happening so there is no reason for him to start kicking up a row. Deputy Dowling, the last day, assisted by Deputy O'Malley and Deputy Molloy, proposed an amendment which they thought should be brought into section 6. They suggested something which would have the exact opposite effect to that which is proposed by the section and which is, in fact, the law at the present time. I do not want to hold up the House but I want to make it very clear that the shenanigans which Fianna Fáil have been carrying on here are not gaining them any support in the country. People are a little bit fed up with those antics which they are carrying on like a crowd of children. Because they are not in charge of the game the game cannot be played at all. If they have anything sensible to say about it I am prepared to listen. I am not prepared to listen to a lot of nonsense which they have been carrying on with here for over six hours.
I am greatly surprised at the statement which we have just heard from the Minister for Local Government. Any person who makes a preliminary study of the legislation that has come before this House since the Minister and his Government took up office on the 14th March last year will see that the Government have received quite a generous amount of support from the Opposition Party in the legislation that has been brought forward. The Minister knows the Bills that were brought forward by him dealing with matters appertaining to the Department of Local Government were fully and frankly discussed here. We completely refute all of what the Minister has said in making an accusation against the Fianna Fáil Party of being anxious to delay all legislation, or being anxious to stop the working of this House, of some form of grievance which he insinuates Fianna Fáil have due to the fact that they are not in office. Any examination of the record of the House will show that the debate on all of the Bills that have been brought before the House up to now has been constructive and in general those Bills have received the support of the Opposition Party. I challenge the Minister to deny that.
I do.
The Minister does. Then he is gaining a reputation for a man who says off the top of his head anything which suits the situation at a particular time. He is only continuing to erode whatever——
Section 6.
I do not make a blunder out of things the way the Deputy did.
Before you came into the Chair, Sir, the Minister indicated to the House and the country that the Coalition parties, who are not yet 12 months in office, are prepared to use the guillotine to pass legislation here; in other words, that they are not prepared to allow the ordinary democratic——
I would ask the Deputy to confine his remarks to section 6.
This was debated and was deemed by the Ceann Comhairle to be in order and the Minister in referring to these matters was deemed to be in order. We were issued with the threat that the guillotine would be used to force this Bill through. Let the House be under no illusion why Fianna Fáil are examining every single line and will contest every single line of this Bill. We disagree in full with the entire Bill as presented by the Minister. The House and the country know—if they do not know they will certainly know by the time this debate is finished——
Will the Deputy please speak on section 6?
They will know the intentions of the Government in bringing forward this Bill, which is a gerrymander of the constituencies, and is put forward in order to obtain the maximum advantage for the Coalition.
I would ask the Deputy to speak on section 6.
He has no respect for the Chair.
They want to have the maximum advantage at the next election which they hope to hold on the basis of this Bill. We will not be deterred in any way by threats of the guillotine by the Minister who has not his seat warm on that side of the House before he starts issuing threats. We want to show the Minister why we are querying section 6 and why we are dissatisfied with it. The Minister's response to our arguments has been nil but we will continue to argue until we get some indication from him that he is prepared to accept we have a point. He accepted in an off-hand manner that we had a point but in obstinacy he is refusing to agree to amend the section. There is a positive anomaly, clear to any child, in the manner in which this section is drafted. Subsection (1) states that the Minister may by direction provide for the entry of the name of a constituency in respect of the polling district; in other words, a change required under subsection (1) may be done by direction of the Minister but a change required under sub-section (2) can be done by the registration authority concerned.
We claim there is a positive and definite anomaly between the mechanics used in both subsections and we challenge it. The fact that it was not challenged before is due only to the lackadaisical attitude of the then Opposition who did not query the wording of this subsection when it came before the House previously. It was debated in the House and was accepted without a murmur by the Coalition parties when they were in Opposition——
And by the Fianna Fáil Minister.
We will exercise our democratic right to question every single measure. We have shown we are able to discuss these matters in a constructive and positive fashion and legislation has benefited from the contributions from this side of the House.
We are not dealing with other legislation. The Deputy must speak on section 6.
We are pointing out that there is an anomaly. In subsection (1) the method suggested——
On a point of order, is the conversation that is taking place in the aisle of the House in order? Would Deputy Harte resume his seat?
That is for the Chair.
Deputy Molloy.
May we have a ruling?
I am on my feet.
On a point of order——
Has the Chair given the Deputy the right to make a point of order?
Deputy Molloy.
I am asking for guidance on Deputy O'Malley's point of order.
The Chair has already asked Deputy Molloy to continue with his contribution to the debate.
Subsection (1) provides that a certain thing can be done by direction of the Minister whereas in subsection (2) a certain matter can be done by the registration authority. We are suggesting it is not necessary to include in subsection (1) that the Minister is the person who must give a direction. What is involved is written into the record and there is no need for me to elaborate on it. We have stated quite clearly this should be changed. Some minutes ago Deputy O'Malley submitted an amendment stating that in subsection (1) the words "the Minister may by direction..." should be removed and replaced by "the registration authority...shall as soon as may be at the passing of the Act...".
At column 1644, Vol. 270 of the Official Report, dated 27th February, the Minister stated:
...even though the direction is not given until the Dáil is dissolved, the authorities who are drawing up the registers do make the necessary preparations immediately and, therefore, have the registers ready waiting for the direction to be given so that they can be distributed.
At column 1721 of the Official Report of the same date the Minister stated in reply to our argument:
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.
In other words, the Minister is saying that if we were to accept the amendment we proposed we would place the obligation on a local authority of having to draw up a register immediately. However, in reply to another question, at column 1644, the Minister had already informed the House that the register would be drawn up immediately. I wonder if the Minister knows what he is talking about? At one time he states there is no need for it because it will be done immediately but at another time he says if he accepted our amendment we would be placing an onerous obligation on the registration authority to do something immediately which he has already told us will be done. There is a direct conflict here. The Minister cannot have it both ways. We suggest this is loose legislation, and we have suggested that the words should be removed. If the Minister agrees to this we can move on to the next question. The attitude of the Minister to date has been that he has the votes, that he will march this Bill through the House knowing that it is a distasteful Bill so far as the community is concerned.
Will the Deputy please keep to section 6?
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,
Deputy O'Malley.
Before Deputy O'Malley commences, may I put on record my disgust at the contempt which Deputy Crowley showed for the House in asking for a quorum and then directing Fianna Fáil members to leave the House?
Deputy Harte must resume his seat. Deputy O'Malley.
That is one trick we learned from you people.
I am glad there is a House here now because 20 minutes ago when, possibly, there was not one, we had a new chapter written in the annals of parliamentary democracy. We had the announcement by the Minister for Local Government on this section—and therefore my reply must be relevant——
Deputy Molloy replied. Deputy O'Malley on the section.
We had the announcement that the Government were about to use the guillotine.
On the section.
Could the Chair explain why the Minister should be allowed to speak for between five to ten minutes on this and I am not allowed to reply?
Deputy Molloy had the opportunity of replying to the Minister and the Chair then requested him to come to the section. The Chair hopes Deputy O'Malley will do likewise. Section 6.
Surely, since the Minister has made the threat that he is now about to use the guillotine in relation to this section——
There is nothing in section 6 about a guillotine.
I find this strange——
Frustrating, is it not?
—— that this is probably the first time ever that a threat was made to use the guillotine in relation to an Electoral Bill.
Deputies
Chair, Chair.
This is prolonging the agony.
Will Deputies cease interrupting?
I am glad that Deputies on the other side of the House are now, apparently, allowed to open their mouths because, while we have debated this section and previous sections for several days, not one speech has been made by anybody on that side of the House other than the Minister for Local Government.
They are all satisfied.
Notwithstanding that, or perhaps because of that, because there is no rational answer that can be given to all the arguments which have been adduced in this House on this section by Deputy Molloy——
Deputies
Chair.
Deputy O'Malley must be allowed to speak.
On section 6.
Deputy Molloy has pointed out the complete anomaly between the two statements which the Minister made the last day in relation to subsection (1)—a complete contradiction in a matter of a couple of hours.
I am not responsible if the Deputy cannot read what is in the report.
It has been read out from the Official Report of the House of Wednesday, 22nd February——
We will get Deputy Coughlan in for you if you do not be quiet.
Deputies must allow Deputy O'Malley to speak.
One Labour Deputy would adorn the House. We have not got one at the moment.
At column 1644——
I hope the Deputy is not about to repeat what Deputy Molloy said.
It seems to be suggested from the other side of the House that the Minister did not say what Deputy Molloy has read out as what he said. It is now suggested, apparently, by the Minister——
I said what he read out but it does not mean what he said it means.
At column 1644, volume 270 the Minister said:
...even though the direction is not given until the Dáil is dissolved, the authorities who are drawing up the registers do make the necessary preparations immediately——
Those are the important words——
—— and, therefore, have the registers ready waiting for the direction to be given so that they can be distributed.
At column 1721 of the same volume the Minister said:
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 an entirely different thing.
It is precisely the same thing. In the first instance, the Minister says these registers are drawn up every year—
Not drawn up. Read the exact wording.
——waiting to be issued. At column 1721 the Minister says that, if the amendment suggested by Deputy Molloy and myself were used, registers would have to be drawn up. The Minister cannot have it both ways. Either they are drawn up or they are not. He has said both things.
I have not.
Instead of the Minister or anybody else on that side of the House replying to the point very validly and clearly and correctly made by Deputy Molloy in relation to this, we hear no argument whatever from the other side of the House. We hear a petulant, petty speech delivered spitefully to the effect that because the discussion on this section is going on so long the Government are now about to use the guillotine. We have now reached the stage where the amendment or alteration of the constituencies is being forced through the Oireachtas by a Government using their parliamentary majority.
Section 6.
There is nothing surer than that the Government who try to do that will very quickly lose that parliamentary majority and will regret deeply and bitterly the day that they tried such a trick.
Section 6.
May I point out that Fianna Fáil did just that and lost their parliamentary majority?
Deputy Cunningham now on section 6.
I should like to see the provisions of subsection (2) of this section replace those in subsection (1). In one case it deals with the general register and in the other with the postal register. The Minister has indicated that the registration officer would be allowed in the case of postal voters to compile the register immediately. In view of the demand for extending the postal voting system— the Minister said the number at present entitled to postal votes is small and the job of compiling the register would not be difficult——
On a point of order, may Deputy Cunningham make a case for increasing the number of postal voters when there has been no mention of this?
The Chair will deal with the matter when he has heard the Deputy's argument and knows the trend of that argument.
The Minister during his statement on section 6 indicated that he was studying proposals for an extension of the postal voting register.
That does not entitle the Deputy to advocate it on this subsection. The Chair on the last occasion ruled that the matter could not be dealt with under this section.
I am pointing out that there is a procedure spelled out in section 2 and the reason for debating the method indicated in sub-section (2) is because the number is small. We are talking about a time in the future. The Minister says that in respect of the register proper——
The Deputy may not go into that because, as the Chair pointed out on the last occasion, this Bill is in consonance with the Bill of 1963 which deals with the status of postal voters. That ruling has already been given.
The Minister indicated to the House that he intends to extend the postal vote and this provision will apply in future.
The Chair will not be interested in anything other than what the Bill before the House at the moment provides.
But we must have an eye to the future.
The Chair will have regard only to what is here at the moment.
The Minister said in respect of the register proper, as envisaged in subsection (1), that at a future date he would make an order——
Now the Deputy must listen to the Chair.
Am I not now referring to an order the Minister will make under subsection (1)?
The Deputy is well aware, as a skilled parliamentarian of long standing, that no one in this House may anticipate legislation. The Deputy is well aware of that.
This is not legislation. This is an order for which provision is made.
I cannot do it under an order and Deputy Cunningham knows that.
The Chair has given a ruling and the Chair must be obeyed.
The Minister is taking power in subsection (1) to do certain things, whether by order or by legislation. He has referred to one of the reasons: because of the large number on the register he cannot hand over that power. We are asking him to do the same in respect of that power which he is taking to himself under subsection (1) as he is doing by giving the power to the registrar under subsection (2). I would prefer to see the registrar having the power rather than the Minister.
Hear, hear.
I do not trust the Minister. The country does not trust the Minister.
Is it not a pity the Deputy does not trust me?
I plead guilty— I do not trust the Minister. When the people come to vote in the next election under the provisions——
Let us keep to section 6 now.
When the people come to vote under the provisions of section 6 of this Electoral Bill and find they are not represented in this House, especially the people in the west, they will not trust the Minister either. I would urge the Minister to consider the case made by both Deputy Molloy and Deputy O'Malley and leave this to the registration officer. The Minister is not prepared to leave any powers to the county council. He is steamrolling the electoral area of the county councils through without any legislation.
We may not have a debate on that.
He has at least come to this House to get this Bill in respect of Dáil constituencies but he is using the iron fist and the jackboot to get the constituencies for local elections changed.
This has nothing to do with section 6.
Deputy Tunney and Deputy Harte rose.
Before Deputy Tunney speaks I should like to make an appeal to the Minister to ignore completely the plea of Deputy Cunningham on section 6.
Sir, I thought I had been called.
The Chair unfortunately did not realise Deputy Harte was going to offer.
I will not delay. I merely wish to make a sincere plea to the Minister to ignore completely Deputy Cunningham's argument in relation to section 6 because Deputy Cunningham will give him no credit whatsoever as he gave no credit to Deputy Blaney and no credit to Deputy Boland. I ask the Minister not to listen to Deputy Cunningham's argument in respect of deleting section 6. I would also state that the Minister may perhaps take the Deputy out of his dilemma because he is a disgrace. Deputy Cunningham is the worst representative in any Parliament in western Europe and the Minister would be doing a great service——
(Interruptions.)
The first time I met Deputy Flor Crowley was in James Dillon's office.
At least I do not smuggle meat across the Border.
At least I did not smuggle arms across the Border.
(Interruptions.)
Deputies Crowley and Harte will leave the House.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Crowley tried to join the Fine Gael Party; we would not have him.
Deputy Harte is nothing but a smuggler.
(Interruptions.)
Deputies Crowley and Harte will leave the House.
I will leave the House when Deputy Crowley withdraws the allegation.
The Deputy will resume his seat while the Chair is in possession. Deputies Crowley and Harte will leave the House.
We still would not let him into the Fine Gael Party.
(Interruptions.)
The Chair is in possession.
Having such respect for the Chair, Sir, I must reluctantly leave.
Could the Chair appeal to Deputies? The debate is becoming emotional. If Deputies would contribute to the debate in a constructive fashion, without bringing in personalities or epithets across the House, it would lead to decorum in the House and to the orderly debate of the subject matter of the legislation before us.
I want to put a question or two to the Minister referring directly to the section, I should hope that, when putting them, the Minister's baying hounds will not interfere with me as they have attempted to do with previous speakers. I am quite sure that none of them knows what is in section 6. Accordingly, with your permission, Sir, I propose to acquaint them of it.
Is it in order to refer to Members in the back benches of the Government Parties as being hounds?
As being what?
Baying hounds.
Baying hounds—that is a very mild description for them.
I want a ruling on that, Sir.
Deputy Tunney.
(Interruptions.)
Would Deputies cease interrupting and allow the Deputy in possession to make his contribution?
If the Minister could indicate to me any more apt way in which I could describe the sounds we have heard in the last five or ten minutes then I should be happy to take his wording on it. I want the Minister to answer two questions. One is in regard to section 6 which reads as follows:
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,...
I want to ask him whether or not the constituencies indicated in the Schedule have been designed by area and, if so, what was the operation which could indicate to us the area of a constituency. If the Minister will answer that question, I shall proceed with my second.
I would prefer that Deputy Tunney would finish his speech and I will answer both his questions together.
The second one, briefly, is: instead of speaking in negative terms here, referring to something identical in area with nothing else, why was it not possible to be more positive and precise and say: "a constituency which is not identical with any other."?
The Schedule defines electoral areas or divisions which are recognised areas. This has been the practice all along. It has been accepted as being the proper way to do it and no difficulty has been found in its operation. If we want to change for change's sake I am advised that the way in which it is done is the best way. Therefore I can see no reason why I should change it because some people are doubtful about whether or not it is the correct way. The section as laid out appears to have worked well and will continue to do so. For that reason I do not propose to change it.
Deputy Tunney has asked two reasonable questions and I have given him a reasonable answer. The reason given by some other Deputies on section 6 was that it was part of the plan to prevent the Bill being passed in this House, which is a different thing altogether. It is a different thing altogether when we find people who try to prevent the section being passed so that it will prevent the whole Bill from being passed.
We will accept an amendment; we will not accept it the way it is.
Deputies will accept it. full stop.
I have been here since the debate started. I have said neither "yes" nor "no" to either side of the House. I have looked at the section. I am endeavouring, as is required of every member of this House, to indicate where I foresee there may be ambiguity leading to bother later on. I respectfully suggest that this is the purpose of our being here. While the Minister has given an answer to the questions I posed, I suggest there is wording which would be more appropriate to indicate that which is intended here rather than using the term "which is identical in area with none of the constituencies ..." because, I submit, that can be taken, either now or later, and contested. When we talk about areas being identical, I suggest we are talking of length multiplied by breadth and getting the area. If we put here parliamentary areas, electoral areas, then I suggest that the ambiguity or dangers I fear might not arise. I would urge again on the Minister that he and his officials have a further look at that section.
A Deputy
The school around the corner!
Deputy Tunney.
I suggest that the Minister and his officials, irrespective of that which he has inherited, should take another look at that section. In the matter of terminology, I am quite sure they would be able to present wording conveying that which is necessary but which would be much less ambiguous than that contained in the section at the moment.
I have done exactly what Deputy Tunney has asked. I have had it examined further both by my officials and myself. In regard to the wording of the section, I want to make this very clear. There was an attempt made here last week to suggest that Ministers wrote their own Bills.
Never, the parliamentary draftsmen.
The drafting of Bills is done by the parliamentary draftsmen and they are technicians in their own right. People who are not parliamentary draftsmen are attempting to say that while the effect is the same the wording might be different. My information is—and I am prepared to accept it from the parliamentary draftsmen—that the wording of this section is the correct one to create the effect we want.
Why?
Because of the fact that these people, being the experts, say so and time has proved it works.
What explanation did they give?
The Deputy should not be childish. I do not propose to hold up the House any longer because I think this is simply a ploy, asking stupid questions in an effort to drag this out.
This is becoming ridiculous on the Minister's part— coming here continuously and telling us that because parliamentary draftsmen say that it must be worded in such a way. He swallows it, hook, line and sinker and expects the Opposition to do likewise. We would expect the Minister to give a full and adequate explanation to the House as to why the parliamentary draftsman felt it could only be worded in this way. We would consider that full explanation, but we cannot be expected to accept that just because a person in the backroom says: "This is the way to do it," that there is no other way. We would like a full explanation as to why this is being done in this way.
Do not be childish.
I was interested to hear the Minister replying to Deputy Tunney and indicating that this section had been drawn up by a parliamentary draftsman. The Minister said he would accept it fully because the Minister does not draw up the Bill. The Minister must be aware that parliamentary draftsmen drew up other Bills which were found to be unconstitutional. In relation to section 6 (2) which states:
Where a constituency specified in the Schedule to this Act is identical in area——
that is, the same as or similar to,
—with none of the constituencies——
that means it is identical with nothing——
The Deputy is trying to be funny.
The Minister has accepted the parliamentary draftsman's interpretation of this. Where an area is identical with nothing—to proceed from there with the quotation:
—with none of the constituencies existing at the passing of this Act, a postal voters' list or lists shall be prepared in respect of it by the registration authority or registration authorities concerned...
Assuming it is identical with nothing, does that mean a blank postal voters' register will be compiled and presented? The Minister has accepted one particular point of view. The Minister has indicated that he is completely in the hands of the Civil Service and accepts everything they say. We now see the Minister in his true colours: he has no mind of his own. The Minister has clearly indicated that he is prepared to accept what he is told, but we are not prepared to accept what is in the Bill without question. I feel, as I felt on the last occasion, that this subsection reeds to be amended. The Minister will have to come up with a better explanation than the one he gave Deputy Tunney in relation to the point about where it is identical in area with nothing. This is a peculiar type of subsection. Because a parliamentary draftsman says an area is identical with nothing the Minister accepts it.
The Chair would remind the Deputy that he is being repetitious in his argument, as he was on the last occasion he spoke.
I would like to see this subsection amended. On a previous occasion Deputy O'Malley suggested a more suitable form of words——
What were they?
They are on the record of the House.
The Deputy does not know what they were.
I will get them for the Minister. On 27th February, 1974, at column 1769 Deputy O'Malley suggested the following words:
Where an existing constituency corresponds with any one of the constituencies set out in the Schedule to this Act...
The Minister should look at these words and use words to ensure that there is more suitable wording than his in this subsection. Other Deputies have expressed concern about the sub-section. I see no reason why it should pass in its present form. The Minister has given no valid reason why sub-section (2) of section 6 should be retained in its present form. If an area is "identical with nothing" that does not mean a thing. I have some doubt about whether the Minister consulted the parliamentary draftsman. This wording was probably embodied in a previous Bill, but if the Minister consulted with the parliamentary draftsman he might come up with more suitable wording which would be in keeping with the desire of the Minister. The Minister should have another look at the subsection to see whether he can formulate wording which would be more in keeping with the view he wishes to express. The minister should not rely on parrot-like repetition.
The same as the Deputy at the moment.
We do not deem the subsection suitable. On the last occasion the Bill came before the House it was not questioned but on this occasion it is being questioned. If there is a flaw in the section it should be amended. The section should convey what the Minister wishes it to convey but not in a negative manner, as is being done at the moment. An area identical with nothing could mean that the registrar would have a blank postal voters' register.
Deputy Dowling was not here on a previous occasion when I spoke on this point. The suggestion which Deputy Dowling made the last day and which was subsequently put into words by Deputy O'Malley for him, would have the opposite effect to what is proposed in the subsection. Possibly Deputy Dowling might look at this and notice that he has made a bad error. If Deputy Dowling is identical with none of his colleagues in Fianna Fáil, can we take it that he considers he is identical with nothing? The same thing applies if a constituency is identical with no other constituency——
It just means he is not identical with any of them.
Exactly. Deputy Tunney has recognised what it means is that it is not identical with any of the others and, therefore, it does its job. For the purpose of having it different Deputy Dowling wants us to change it, but Deputy Tunney admits he knows what is meant by this subsection which is that the constituency is not identical with any other. Deputy Dowling will, I am sure, take Deputy Tunney's word for it that the subsection is all right and, therefore, does not need to be changed.
Identical with what?
No other constituency.
What does that mean?
An effort is being made by the Minister to guillotine the debate on this subsection in this very important legislation. This is typical of the Minister.
We are coming down to vulgar abuse again.
This is important legislation. Section 6, subsections (1) and (2), is very important. The subsections deal with temporary arrangements with respect to the register of electors. As elected representatives of the people, we on this side of the House, have a right and a duty to examine every piece of legislation brought before this House. We asked the Minister for an explanation as to why the wording is in this form in section 6 (1) and (2). The Minister's reply is the normal reply of the Minister: "Fianna Fáil did it", and "What did you do for 16 years?"
Thirty years, actually.
It was always the fact that it was drafted by Fianna Fáil. That is the one reply the Minister gives. The second reply is that it was the parliamentary draftsmen who drew it up and whatever they say is fine. We have a right and a duty on this side of the House to question the style and the wording of section 6 (1) and (2), particularly because the two subsections are contradictory as to who should have the powers at any one time. In section 6 the power is vested in the Minister. However, section 6 (2) says:
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 in respect of it by the registration authority or registration authorities concerned as soon as may be after such passing.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,
Section 6 is vitally important because it is dealing with voting by the public at a general or local election. It is important that we in this House should set out wording that will be clearly understood by the electorate. We suggest that the present wording is ambiguous and needs clarification. We have asked the Minister to consider certain suggestions, but the Minister on all occasions has refused to clarify the wording or to set it down in a form that could be better understood by the man-in-the-street.
There was an amendment put forward by Deputy O'Malley and Deputy Molloy which the Minister, prior to Private Members' Time last Wednesday, admitted was an improvement on the wording of section 6 (1). However, he said that as a layman he would have to get further advice on it, but he did not come back to explain to us why, when he got the further advice, he was not prepared to accept the advice.
People in all walks of life, not just lawyers or barristers, will be interested in this Bill. Therefore, the wording should be as clear and as easily understood as possible to everybody who buys a copy of it. The wording in this section is very foggy. 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...
Surely it is not beyond the bounds of possibility for the Minister and his advisers to re-draft that subsection to make the wording more easily understood by the public and generally to tidy up the wording of section 6.
There is, then, the contradiction in regard to the powers taken by the Minister in sub-section (1) and the powers given to the registration authority or registration authorities in subsection (2). We feel strongly on this side of the House that the Minister should not be taking powers onto himself where this is not necessary and that he should be doing the same thing in subsection (1) as he is doing in subsection (2) and handing these powers to the registration authority or registration authorities. We know from bitter experience of the order signed by the Minister in the last number of weeks with regard to local electoral areas, that we have to be decidedly wary of orders made by the Minister. There will be another occasion to discuss the changes in the local electorate divisions made by the Minister, but they are, to an extent, relevant here today.
The Chair has ruled that they are not.
To this extent, that the same registers that are used for a general election are also used for a local election, and it is the compiling of these registers we are debating here under section 6, subsections (1) and (2).
The section just deals with the compiling of the register.
The same register is used for both general and local elections.
The same people vote in both elections.
For the information of the Deputy, there are certain people on the register who do not vote in a general election. They do not vote in a general election but they have a vote in a local election. I understood Deputy Donnellan was aware of that. This section requires to be examined again by the Minister, his advisers and draftsmen. I should like him to give a clear statement why he feels the advice as to wording he is getting from his parliamentary draftsmen is better than what is suggested on this side of the House. The Minister has said that he will not change subsections (1) or (2) of section 6. He said he saw certain merit in the suggestion put forward by Deputy Molloy and Deputy O'Malley previously when this Bill was debated but he was not prepared to explain why he was accepting the advice of the parliamentary draftsmen and advisers. I understand the Minister has advisers and that there is little point in having them unless you take their advice; but we want an explanation from the Minister as to why they feel and he feels the wording as proposed by the draftsmen is better than the wording suggested on this side of the House.
The Minister said the sections are the same as sections in a previous Electoral Amendment Bill and for that reason were put in again. He said it worked in the past and why should it not work in future. This is not a valid argument. The fact that the Opposition of the day did not see their duty as we see it to contest these sections and seek clarification of them on behalf of the electorate is no justification for leaving the wording as it is, if it is found wanting. We believe it needs clarification, needs tightening up. The Minister would be wise to tell the House his reasons for not accepting the proposed amendment instead of threatening the guillotine on this debate in regard to something which concerns every voter in the country.
Section 6 (2) deals with the postal voters' list or lists. The Chair has ruled out any debate on the extension of this list and the inclusion of such people as commercial travellers. I shall not attempt to debate that but I feel strongly that the Minister should have put in another section——
The Deputy is proceeding to deal with it although the Chair has ruled it out.
I feel strongly that this should have been——
The Chair feels equally strongly that having given a ruling it should be obeyed.
In section 6 (1) it is provided:
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 provide for the entry of the name of that constituency in respect of the polling district or part of the polling district,...
It should be taken out of the hands of the Minister to decide for the provision of the entry of the name of the constituency on the front of the register.
Is the Deputy really serious?
First, it should read "shall". It should read "the Minister shall by direction..."
A moment ago the Deputy said I should not do it at all.
Secondly, the registration authorities concerned should be involved in this rather than the Minister. It should be imperative that this name be changed, not "may" be changed. This is a very important piece of legislation and as it affects the electorate it should, as far as possible, be clarified for them. Would the Minister explain why he will not accept the proposed amendments from this side of the House?
No answer.
I am still not happy about it. Would the Minister tell me under what circumstances two constituencies would be regarded as being identical in area under this Bill?
The Deputy will never be happy.
I am entitled to seek information. The Deputy should be interested also.
I am very interested.
Deputy Tunney has misunderstood this——
That is why we want it clarified.
Will the Deputy please let me explain? Deputy Tunney has asked a question. If a constituency is not changed this applies. Deputy Tunney should read the section.
I have read it.
Read it again.
At least I can read. It would have been better and would have served the spirit of what was intended if we spoke about the electorate or electoral areas. I submit to the Minister that it is not correct to talk about area as such but that is what is in the section. We talk about "identical in area". We do not say electoral areas——
The Deputy appears to be missing the point. He said you could describe it as an electoral area. The area covered by a constituency is recognised. All of us refer to the area of our constituency. This is what is referred to here. I think this is understandable to everybody.
Area is not really defined in the Bill.
The area of a constituency. Surely the Deputy knows the area of his own constituency and he will know the area of his new one.
Deputy Tunney is arguing that one could submit that the area of a constituency was 600,000 square feet and that there could be two constituencies of 600,000 square feet but they would not be the same.
But they could not be the same area. This just shows——
It just shows that this should have been looked at more closely.
It shows that Deputy Molloy certainly has not done his homework. If we take the Schedule to the Bill, the heading on section 3 is "Name: Area and Number of Members". The area is the area covered by the constituency. Everybody opposite is aware of this and I am sure Deputy Tunney now is. I accept that he might have thought it referred to something else. Deputy Molloy is simply using this ploy and asking for an explanation of something which he must understand. Otherwise, he could not have been a Minister in a previous Government for so long.
If the Minister was dealing with the old area of Dublin South-West and there was another area in the Schedule identical to that, would this be the particular area to which he would apply the register?
If Dublin South-West was not changed the area would be identical.
If the area in the Schedule was Dublin South-East and the register——
How could they be identical?
We will deal with the Schedule when we get to it.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,
The Minister, in consultation with his officials, might have thought it advisable to define what really is meant by the word "area" in section 6. It should be made clear that what is meant is not the normal interpretation of the word "area". In my opinion this is very necessary.
I am prepared to accept the good faith of Deputy Tunney from the word "go". It has been accepted by everybody, except the Fianna Fáil Party today and the last few days, that the area referred to is the area covered by a constituency. The Schedule names the particular areas covered by each constituency. Anything plainer than that would be very difficult to find. Deputy Dowling referred to Dublin South-East and Dublin South-West. The clearest way to define the word "area" is to refer Deputies to the Schedule. The area referred to in section 6 is the area covered by a particular constituency. When a constituency has not been changed it is identical to the one which was there before, and therefore this does not apply. If there has been a change, even if it is only a very small change, it is not identical and certain things have then to be done. I cannot understand how anybody cannot grasp that.
I studied this Bill before it came into the House and since with my officials. I am satisfied that subsections (1) and (2) of section 6 are worded in the best way for the job they were meant to do.
The Minister will appreciate that one cannot proceed on the basis of what is normally accepted. The purpose of legislation is to make the law as specific and as watertight as possible. If the Minister put in "area as indicated in the Schedule herewith", this would be a necessary qualification.
I suggest that Deputy Tunney raise this question when we discuss section 3, subsection (2), where this is specifically spelled out. We have jumped a couple of sections and have to go back.
I am happy to leave this until the appropriate time, so long as the Minister does not try to dismiss it as something not worthy of second thoughts.
At the request of the Opposition I have reconsidered this matter and am satisfied that it has been done the proper way. When section 3, subsection (2), is being discussed this matter can be raised again. Maybe something which I do not see at the present time will arise to make me change my mind. As of now I am perfectly happy that section 6 is doing the job for which it was intended.
The Minister said that Deputy Tunney should look at the Schedule where it lists the areas and that there is a fair indication there of what the word "area" means. Now he refers to section 3, subsection (2), which reads:
An area specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be taken to be that area as constituted on the 1st day of January, 1973,...
Section 3 does not fall to be dealt with now.
The Minister referred to the Schedule of the constituencies which will come into existence on the passing of this Bill. The word "area" appears in section 6, subsection (1), and refers not to the constituencies listed in the Schedule but to the existing constituencies which were included in the 1969 Act. This is open to various interpretations of what is meant by "area". If one wanted to argue the legal definition of the word "area" one could arrive at various conclusions. I am sure the Minister is wise in saying that he will have another look at——
I did not say that. I said that if Deputy Tunney or someone else persuaded me on section 3 that it requires revision——
I am sorry. I thought the Minister said he would have another look at it but that as at this moment he was satisfied with it.
If someone persuades me on section 3, that is a different matter.
Is the Minister extending an invitation to us to persuade him to change his mind?
We are dealing with section 6.
The wording on the section is loose and could refer to an area in square feet or any other area other than those listed in the Schedule. If the word "area" refers to the area of the constituencies as defined in the Schedule of the 1969 Act it should be so stated. In previous debates Deputies argued on the relevance and importance of representation per area. They have made speeches where they have pointed out the need for one Deputy per 80,000 square feet in one constituency.
The Deputy is digressing.
That type of reference to square footage has been used in previous debates when discussing the 1969 Bill. This could, in fact, be interpreted as meaning something vague in relation to square footage. This is definitely on. The Minister indicated at one stage that he agreed with the arguments we were making and it is incumbent on us to persist in those arguments until the Minister agrees to take the appropriate action. We have no way of amending any of these subsections under section 6 other than through argument and convincing the Minister to do such a thing.
As the Minister has informed us on many occasions, he has the majority of the votes in this House and he is the only one who can with that majority make any changes. This Bill is totally abhorrent to us in the Opposition and the Minister has wrongly used the powers vested in him to draw up these constituencies in such a way as to benefit his own party. It is a bit much for the Minister to expect us to sit down meekly and let him have all the sections. We are examining this Bill line by line and we find a definite anomaly. We are seeking a reasonable explanation as to why what we are suggesting is not adopted but we have not been given such an explanation.
We have been told that certain persons employed in the parliamentary draftsman's office have stated that this is the way it should be done but they have not always proved to be absolutely correct in the past, something which has been pointed out by many speakers today. Their handiwork has been changed on the floor of this House on occasions too numerous to elaborate. There are many precedents for the changing of wordings which were originally drafted by parliamentary draftsmen.
The final imprimatur is the House and we are debating that. We adamantly maintain that there is a positive anomaly between subsection (1) and subsection (2) of this particular section. We see no reason why subsection (1) should state:
... 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, in every draft register, list of claimants, register of electors and lists of corrections prepared under Part II of the Electoral Act, 1963 ...
While subsection (2) which deals with the postal voting list which is used for the very same purpose as the register of electors states:
... a postal voters' list or lists shall be prepared in respect of it by the registration authority or registration authorities concerned as soon as may be after such passing.
The postal voters' list can be done immediately the Act is passed by the registering authority but the register of electors can only be done by the direction of the Minister. The Minister has informed the House that his direction will issue on the dissolution of the Dáil. We suggested that the words there should be removed and replaced by the words suggested by Deputy O'Malley and I. It should be the same body who make the changes in relation to the register of electors as is authorised under subsection (2) to make the changes under the postal voters' list.
The Minister, in reply to our argument, stated that if he was to agree to that it would mean that the registering authorities would be obliged to do this immediately and, by some insinuation, claims that this obligation would be an onerous one on them, it would be a waste and should not be done. However, on a previous occasion the Minister stated that this direction which can be given on the dissolution of the Dáil is only a technical thing and that, in fact, once the Bill is passed this work of entering the name of the constituency in respect of the polling districts et cetera shall be done by the registrative authority. Therefore, we have a direct conflict, one where the Minister is refusing to change the sub-section and to put in the words which we suggest would regularise the situation and he is retaining these words whereas, in fact, he has informed the House that the practical operation of this is that the registering authorities will do it anyway and will do it immediately after the passing of this Bill.
The Minister has used this as an argument against accepting our proposed amendment, and, yet on a previous occasion, he informed the House that they would do such a thing anyway immediately after the passing of this measure. If, as the Minister said originally, that the preparation of the polling districts and the entering of the names are to be done as soon as possible after the passing of this Bill anyway without any authority, then we feel this position should be regularised. It should be written into the sub-section and provided there specifically that the registration authorities have the authority to make these changes. It is only similar power to what is being given to them in relation to the drawing up of the postal voters' list. Frankly, we feel that the Minister has been less than co-operative with us in explaining his reasons for refusing to accept that amendment from us or even indicating to us that he would be prepared to accept it. Originally he said that he agreed with us as a layman but that his advisers were telling him that this could not be so and that because they have told him that he was not going to accept our proposed amendment.
If these people have told the Minister that this is the way it should be and that the words in the section must be retained while the registering authority is allowed to do it under subsection (2) in relation to postal voters' lists, the Minister should tell us why the parliamentary draftsmen, or these experts he is quoting, have told him that these words must remain and that our amendment could not be accepted. We would like to know what bad effect our amendment would have and why it is so absolutely essential to retain the wording of the subsection. There is something in this which we cannot see and which the Minister has not explained to the House. It is for this reason that we are seeking an explanation of the matter from the Minister.
Deputy Molloy is making himself more and more ridiculous every time he gets up. He should be intelligent enough to understand that there is nothing in this which is any danger to democracy. There is nothing that is any danger to anything at all.
The Minister should not misquote me.
The Deputy is always being misquoted; even the Press is misquoting the poor fellow but I will not do so. The Deputy made the comment that we should change the subsection and he asks what is wrong that I will not change it or accept the proposed amendment from himself and Deputy O'Malley. There is nothing wrong with it but I am satisfied that the section as it is at present worded is perfectly able to do the job for which it was intended.
Deputy Molloy has changed feet from the question of the area to the question of wording of who should do what. When the changes take place, as they will very shortly, each local authority will draw up a list of postal voters which is small and will also have a list of registers which will be broken into subsections and which will not be sent out until such time as the next general election is declared. That should be clear enough for anybody.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.