There is very little I wish to say except that I do not propose to accept the amendment. I believe the section as it stands is adequate for the job it was intended to do. I said the amendment would not do any harm but neither would it do any good. It is not a question of my being awkward about the matter; the section as it stands is adequate.
Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1973: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
a.1. In page 3, subsection (1) (a), line 20, after "districts" to insert "within such specified constituency". —(Deputy Molloy.)
When the Minister reported progress we were discussing this amendment. I understood at that stage he was about to make an observation on a suggestion I made to him that he might have another look at the section over the weekend with a view to seeing whether the addition of the words "within such specified constituency" or "within each such specified constituency" might improve the section.
In the course of the discussion the Minister indicated that he did not think the addition of those words made any appreciable difference. He indicated they would not take from the section or interfere with its meaning and that, consequently, there would not be any point in his accepting our amendment. On the last occasion we spent a considerable amount of time endeavouring to get across to the Minister that there was quite a lot in this amendment. In view of the fact that on the last occasion the Minister had not an opportunity of discussing that aspect of the amendment I had hoped that on this occasion he would have something more to say.
Although the Minister states he does not think the addition of the words would make much difference, I suggest to him that they would make an appreciable difference. I endeavoured to outline for him the instance in a Dublin area where a polling district that was formerly in one electoral area would now be in three different constituencies and that it was necessary to include the words "within such specified constituency" or a variation of those words. I had hoped the Minister would offer an observation, indicating how he considered the addition of the words in question would not substantially improve the section.
On this side of the House we consider the amendment will do much to improve the wording of the Bill and make it more understandable to the man in the street, the person to whom this Bill is directed. In the Official Report of the 6th March, in reply to Deputy Molloy's proposal, the Minister stated:
The position about Deputy Molloy's amendment is that it does no harm but it does no good.
If we are to take the Minister's argument to its conclusion, that the amendment does no harm, surely the Minister can accept the proposal. We believe the amendment will do much good and, in order to prevent long debate on this question, the Minister might reconsider the matter. We have no desire to have a prolonged debate on this or any other section. It is our duty as an Opposition to try to improve legislation which comes before this House. In our opinion Deputy Molloy's amendment considerably clarifies this particular subsection. The Minister said the amendment would do neither good nor harm. Surely he could accept it then. We, on these benches, believe it will improve this piece of legislation. The Minister asked what the point was in making this change; what is there has worked well. I am paraphrasing his remarks. I do not think the Minister should be tied to decisions made in the past because many decisions have been changed in due process of time. I appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment and let us get on to debating the other sections of the Bill. Legislation should be clear-cut and easily understandable by the general public. We are seeking to make this piece of legislation easily understandable. That is the basis of the proposed amendment. We believe it will improve the Bill.
One of the most astonishing features of this debate has been the silence of Government backbenchers. We have now reached section 7 and, with the exception of the Minister, there have been very few contributors from the Government benches. It has fallen to the Opposition to debate the Bill. It is also interesting to note that the paucity of contributions from the Government benches is demonstrated by the absence of every Deputy in the Coalition parties with the exception of the Minister.
What the Deputy says may be of interest but it is hardly relevant to section 7 and the amendment under discussion.
With great respect, I think I had better make it relevant then by calling for a House.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,
It is not my practice to call for quorums but I was making the point that the absence of Government Deputies, with the exception of the Minister, who must be here anyway, demonstrates clearly the attitude of the Government to this Bill. It is obvious the instruction has gone out that the Bill is to be steam-rolled through. The result of this steamrolling will be reflected——
May I bring the Deputy back now to the discussion of the amendment to the section?
There are meetings going on and that was the Deputy's own complaint when he was a Whip.
That is why I always tried to maintain a House when I was a Whip to avoid quorum bells. Reflecting on what Deputy Belton said, it is interesting to note that every single Deputy in the Coalition group was at a meeting when I called for a House. That is what Deputy Belton is suggesting. I have no intention of disobeying the Chair and I will come back now to the amendment before the House. The reasons for the amendment have already been admirably argued by Deputy Molloy last week and by Deputy Lalor today; the latter is standing in for Deputy Molloy because Deputy Molloy is ill. The arguments have also been put by Deputy Burke and others on this side of the House, arguments clearly proving that the Minister should accept this very reasonable amendment. The amendment, as set out in the Order Paper, reads as follows:
a.1. In page 3, subsection (1) (a), line 20, after "districts" to insert "within such specified constituency.
The amendment in the name of Deputy Robert Molloy is a very explicit and reasonable amendment. With respect to you, Sir, and the other Members of this House, as I understood it when I came in here as a reasonably young Deputy—I am not putting forward the case that I have any more experience since that time —the easier and more comprehensible a Bill was made, the better it was from the point of view of everyone concerned with it. The persons concerned with this Bill are the electorate of this country. On those grounds, we suggest that the amendment in the name of Deputy Robert Molloy is quite clear and unequivocal in the expression it gives to the idea that legislation in this House should be understandable on first reading.
In quite a lot of his contributions the Minister has mentioned the inevitable man in the street. If he were to go outside this House and present his draft, as proposed, of section 7 subsection (1) (a) to the first ten men or women in the street, they would not understand it. If he were to do the same thing, having redrafted it after insertion of Deputy Molloy's amendment, it would be my view that on an instant poll, as it were, six or seven of these ten men or women in the street so canvassed would understand the Bill. I think this is a fair test. I do not suggest that the House should adjourn for a minute or two and that the Minister should rush out with any of his civil servants to conduct such a poll. But I would respectfully suggest that that would be the end of such a poll if conducted.
I would urge the Minister to accept Deputy Molloy's very reasonable amendment. It is one which got quite a considerable amount of airing over a number of hours here on another occasion. If we could prevail upon the Minister to accept this amendment, it would constitute a gesture of goodwill towards the Opposition. The Minister has a difficult enough job to do to carry this Bill through the House and it would not be our intention to obstruct him in any way. Anything we have to say to him will be constructive rather than destructive or obstructive. The other reason we believe the Minister should accept this amendment is that it is a better piece of drafting than that proposed in the Bill as it now stands.
To come back to the point I was making about the comprehensibility of legislation in this House, I think the amendment proposed by Deputy Molloy is crystal clear. It leaves no impression of confusion on anybody's mind and that should be the end result of any amendments drafted or indeed of any legislation proposed in Dáil Éireann. Therefore, I would urge the Minister to have another look at this amendment. Unfortunately, I was absent on the last occasion and did not really have time to peruse the contributions made on the amendment proposed by Deputy Molloy and the section in the Bill proposed by the Minister. The Minister may have said or implied that he would take another look at Deputy Molloy's amendment. Can the Minister say whether he and his advisers actually had a look at Deputy Molloy's amendment in depth? As I understand it, one of the reasons the Minister may give for not accepting Deputy Molloy's amendment is that the drafting in the Bill, as it stands now, was there in the last Constituencies Bill which came before the House. It is my respectful submission that that is not a good enough reason for not accepting what we would consider to be an improvement on what was good then and what we consider to be bad now. Fianna Fáil, when in Government, proposed what the Minister proposes in section 7 subsection (1) (a) and now, finding themselves in opposition, are proposing an alternative. I hope the Minister would not think for one moment that because we proposed that new amendment we were being in any way obstructive. Having judged the merits of the subsection under consideration and having set that against our proposed amendment, we consider ours to be the better. As Dáil proceedings were interrupted on the last occasion by a weekend during which Government Ministers had to involve themselves in public duties outside this House, perhaps the Minister did not have an opportunity to study Deputy Molloy's amendment in depth. I would ask him at least to concede that there is some merit in it and not put forward the argument to us that because something was there on the last occasion when a Bill of this nature came before the House it should be here again before us in 1974. I would appeal to the Minister, who is generally a reasonable man, to have another look at Deputy Molloy's amendment. Of course, I cannot speak for what action we may take on the acceptance or non-acceptance of this amendment by the Minister but I would urge him to concede that it has some merit.
Being a reasonable man, I listened to the debate for two-and-a half hours the last evening and again for half an hour today. The last day I said it would not do any harm; it would not do any good and I would not change for change sake. Following that discussion, I did take another look at it. I could not find anything to change my mind and, since repetition is not allowed in the House, there is nothing new I can say about it and nothing new, I would suggest, that can be said from the far side of the House either. Therefore, I do not propose to break the Rules of Order by repeating the argument I made before. I do not propose to accept the amendment because I do not believe it would improve the situation at all.
Of course, repetition is the mother of study and, whilst I agree that that is not enshrined in our Standing Orders, it is not my intention to repeat myself. The Minister has said—comparing his draft with that of ours—there is nothing wrong with our amendment. If there is nothing wrong with our amendment, would he not then throw out a humble crumb to the Opposition——
There is nothing wrong with this section either.
——to encourage us to bring about perfection in the Bill in the drafting sense? We do not accept for one moment that the Bill is perfect. We believe it is an imperfect instrument to maintain the Coalition Parties in Government in the years ahead. Of course, we do not accept that that will happen but that is the intention of it. Here we had the Minister saying, in his contribution no less than five minutes ago, that like for like, one section is as good as the other. We would ask the Minister on the basis of his goodwill towards the Opposition to accept Deputy Molloy's very reasonable and reasoned amendment.
I support the plea from this side of the House for the Minister to accept Deputy Molloy's amendment. He said that while this amendment would not do much good, on the other hand, it would not do any harm.
What I said was that it would do no good and no harm.
I am sure the Minister will accept that we would not keep this debate going as long as we have done if we did not believe that Deputy Molloy's amendment was a worthwhile one. In a balancing situation we are convinced that the change would be a worthwhile one and the Minister states that he can see nothing wrong with it. I am sure he will agree that the balance is in our favour. Therefore, I appeal to him to accept it. I have no doubt that he is anxious to proceed with this Bill and we are anxious to facilitate him. If we were to accept this amendment we could move to the next section.
I had hoped when the Minister listened to the very worthwhile contribution made by Deputy Andrews that he would have agreed to accept Deputy Molloy's amendment. The Minister in Volume 270, at column 2286, of the Official Report for 6th March, 1974, said in reply to comments made by Deputy Cunningham and me:
I do not know if Deputy Burke dislikes me or if he will dislike my successor whoever that may be, but I cannot understand why he thinks this power should not be given to a Minister.
Unfortunately I was not in the House when the Minister made this comment. I should like to assure the House that I have no personal animosity towards the Minister. I respect him as a hard working man, trying to do his best in his job. I may not always agree with what he does but that in no way would suggest personal animosity. I have seen the Minister operating and I would like to pay him this tribute— it will probably be the last one he will get from me—he has brought more legislation before the House than any other Minister. Most of the other Ministers are conspicuous by the small amount of legislation they have introduced. The Minister for Local Government has brought in the Motorways Bill, the Planning Bill, the Electoral Amendment Bill and Orders. We do not agree with many of these Orders, especially the Local Electoral Areas Orders, where he butchered many of the local electoral divisions for the local government elections which he has since announced for the 18th June. We had hoped that he would have accepted the proposals which were put up to him by the various local authorities. The Minister has not accepted these proposals——
The Deputy is straying from the point.
I should like to assure the Minister that my contribution to the debate on this section was not made with any sense of animosity towards or dislike for the Minister. My contribution, as all the other contributions from this side of the House, was made in good faith, hoping that the Minister would see our point of view on an amendment which, in our opinion, would improve this Bill.
The Minister is and always has been a man of the people. He has a reputation for being in touch with his constituents. If the Minister's constituents were to read the section as proposed by him and then to read the section with the amendment proposed by Deputy Molloy, I am sure the majority of them would agree that Deputy Molloy's amendment would vastly improve the section.
As I said on section 6, this is an Electoral (Amendment) Bill dealing with the electorate. It should be easy to understand any legislation dealing with the rights and duties of people and it is a duty of citizens to vote as well as a right. Deputy Molloy's amendment is a clarification of the section. The Minister said in Volume 270, column 2264, of the Official Report:
The position about Deputy Molloy's amendment is that it does no harm but it does no good.
We feel that this amendment not only does no harm but it does a lot of good. The Minister is, to quote Deputy Andrews, "a very reasonable man". To speed up the passage of this legislation the Minister should, on reconsideration, accept Deputy Molloy's amendment. He says that it does no good but anything that clarifies legislation to make it more easily understandable to the man-in-the-street is doing a lot of good. Even taking the negative side, as the Minister says, it does no harm. Surely this is enough to have the Minister accept Deputy Molloy's amendment.
Section 7 (1) without the amendment reads:
Where a polling district existing at the passing of this Act is not wholly situate within one of the constituencies specified in the Schedule to this Act, the appropriate officer, after consultation with the returning officer for the constituency concerned, shall, with respect to the part of the polling district situate in a constituency so specified—
(a) join it or parts of it with any adjoining polling district or districts.
Deputy Molloy suggests the addition of the words "within such specified constituency". Surely those four words improve that piece of legislation.
I understand that legislation is drafted by parliamentary draftsmen who do their job as they see it. They have legal training and legal minds and they think of things in legalistic terms. The Minister is a representative of the people and he is introducing legislation which should be easily understood by the people. I suggest that there are many people who, having read the section as proposed by the Minister six or seven times, would not understand it. I suggest that the vast majority of people would understand much better what the Minister has in mind if he would agree to this amendment. He admits that these four words would do no harm. Having had an opportunity to reconsider it, I am hoping that the Minister will change his decision. It is essential that the wording of legislation should be simple and straightforward.
I find it extremely difficult to be satisfied that we are getting across to the Minister the point and the purpose of our amendment because of the closed door attitude the Minister is adopting to it. Previously I endeavoured to show quite clearly why it is so necessary to add the words in our amendment to the section. Deputy Andrews has clearly indicated that the section would be more comprehensive and more clear if the proposed words were added to it. It appears that the Minister is quite adamant in refusing to give specific reasons for not accepting it. He said he would be accused of repetition if he gave specific reasons. I read the Official Report of the debate on this amendment and at no stage did the Minister make any genuine effort to give specific reasons for not accepting the amendment.
He said that section 7 is exactly the same as section 7 of the 1969 Act and that, if it was good enough then, it should be good enough now. According to the Press, the First Stage of a Bill will be introduced in this House tomorrow morning by the Government because it has been found by the Supreme Court that a Bill introduced and passed by the Fianna Fáil Government in the 1930s is defective. We never questioned that Bill before. Had the Minister or his colleagues been introducing a similar Bill and using a section from the 1936 or 1937 Act and endeavouring to sell it to the House on the basis that: "It was good enough before; you people introduced it at that time and now you are finding fault with it", we would not have known it was defective.
The Minister's colleagues have said that certain Acts on the Statute Book need to be updated. We are endeavouring to update this section. So far no fault has been found with the operation of section 7 of the 1969 Act. Because of that the Minister says: "It was good enough for you people before. It was good enough over the past four or five years and it is still good enough." That type of argument is not sufficient, especially in view of the fact that the Minister has no genuine fault to find with the amendment. This afternoon Deputy Andrews and Deputy Faulkner asked the Minister for an assurance that between now and Report Stage he would give serious and favourable consideration to an amendment of the section on the lines outlined by us.
That is a very reasonable request and it makes it quite clear that we are satisfied that an occasion may arise— on the last occasion I endeavoured to give the House an idea of how that occasion might arise—when the wording of section 7 (1) (a) might be found to be defective. Deputy Molloy's amendment would prevent that situation arising in which we could have difficulty in regard to a polling district in one constituency in the Dublin city and county area, with a polling district being broken off and separated into three sections, with one section representative of 150 voters going into one of the Dublin constituencies, another with 100 voters going into another constituency, and the remaining 50 to 200 going into a third constituency.
Through the media the Government seem to be very anxious to sound out public opinion with opinion polls. We are now developing towards Government by opinion poll. It was suggested that the Minister should present section 7 to the ordinary man in the street and section 7 with the amendment added. If he did so, there is no doubt that ten out of ten reasonable people would accept that the section as amended would make far more logical and objective reading and be far more understandable from the point of view of the man in the street. That recommendation, coming, as it did, from a legal expert should even sell far better than coming from me, not being a legal expert. Deputy Andrews is a legal expert.
Is he a greater expert than those who advise me from the Department of Local Government?
I am not saying that he is a greater expert.
This is the issue.
I would like, if we had the time, to refer back to the fact that the Minister himself said that this was his own Bill. This is not a Bill designed or devised for him by the legal experts of his Department.
It was drafted by them and it is drafting we are talking about.
If the Minister is talking about drafting, my understanding is that the legal draftsmen are attached to the Attorney General's office and, therefore, would not be the people in the Minister's Department.
That is right.
I am glad we got that one cleared up. The legal expert I am quoting in this regard, Deputy Andrews, is as much qualified to comment on legal matters as the experts from within the Minister's own Department.
On electoral law?
On electoral law the parliamentary draftsmen are attached to the office of the Attorney General and the officials of the Minister's Department, while they are very knowledgable people on whom I would not reflect in any way, are not the legal experts which he referred to by way of interruption. Deputy Andrews is as legally qualified to comment and to make logical, intelligent and reasonable suggestions. He is as qualified to do that as any normal expert within the Department of Local Government.
The Minister's immediate reaction to this amendment was that section 7 in its entirety was an exact replica of section 7 of the 1969 Act and that should be good enough for us. This is what all the contention is about. There has not been any problem between 1969 and now in relation to section 7. The Minister has made a great muck up, mess up and running up of narrow streets separating constituencies in Dublin and to such an extent that it is necessary to have spelled out what is suggested in our amendment the words "within such specified constituency".
Those words are necessary in order to make this section a properly interpreted one. This is why we are so adamant and are endeavouring to be so persuasive and convincing with the Minister. We are doing this in order to help the Minister to have an unchallengeable piece of legislation finally enacted even though we know that in helping him in section 7 we are helping him in his overall design, which will, as Deputy Andrews has said, prove fruitless, to eliminate the Fianna Fáil Party. At one stage— there is no point in quoting it here— the Minister expressed the hope that the plan would succeed in squeezing out Deputy Molloy.
The situation here is that if we on this side of the House could get an assurance from the Minister that between now and Report Stage he would be willing to have a rethink in relation to this particular amendment it would be worth while. I threw out this suggestion to the Minister on the last day and, unfortunately, the gong sounded before he got an opportunity to reply. At that stage I suggested that the Minister should take the few days in between to have a serious look at this amendment without being imbused with his normal reaction to a Fianna Fáil suggestion; that anything that comes from Fianna Fáil must be contrived in order to create problems for him and, therefore, can be of no use.
The Minister had similar views to ours in 1969 in relation to this section. Our amendment is submitted with a view to having a particular problem, which the Minister had in 1969, solved. While the Minister's views in 1969 dealt specifically with the section itself, we feel that the worries he had at that time could be cleared up by his acceptance of our amendment. This is where our amendment comes in very solidly. We have the Minister's own request of 1969 to substantiate our request now. Are quotations in order on Committee Stage?
As the Deputy well appreciates, we are dealing with the amendment and not the section. We will first have to dispose of the amendment and then deal with the section.
If we deal with the amendment as the Minister wants us to deal with it and that is to wipe it out the quotation of the Minister's request in 1969 when we return to the section will be useless because we cannot meet him then after the amendment has been either defeated or withdrawn.
The Deputy should also appreciate that we could be discussing the section twice.
I am trying to sell the amendment and in doing so I was anxious to use the Minister's own words of 1969. The Minister had not an amendment then; he did not see our point. If he had seen our point in 1969 he would have brought in this amendment himself.
Is the Minister's quotation relevant to the amendment before the House?
It is. My interpretation of it is that it is.
Is it former Deputy Boland the Deputy wishes to quote?
Yes, it was the former Minister for Local Government.
Remarks of this sort are so important that I feel we should have a House to listen to them.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,
When Deputy Geoghegan so kindly asked for an audience for me I was endeavouring——
It is a pity he could not wait to hear what the Deputy is going to say.
It is terrible that a Minister who finds it so hard to get people into the House to back him should condemn a Fianna Fáil Deputy who was listening patiently here for quite a while. I was endeavouring to draw attention to the fact that one of the purposes of this amendment must be fully appreciated by the Minister because on the 5th February when the previous Bill was being discussed he had a similar worry and raised what I feel are similar questions in relation to this particular section. At column 273 of the Official Report of 5th February, 1965, the then Deputy Tully said:
Could the Minister do anything about this problem, possibly in this Bill, or, if not, in some future Bill, where there are polling districts crossing? The result of these proposals before the House is that people living in certain areas could be voting several miles away in the heart of another constituency. This is a peculiar situation that has arisen because of the way in which the boundary map is drawn up. Could the Minister try to have constituencies or electoral areas straightened out in some way so that this will not keep on recurring?
The Chair does not see the relevance of that to the amendment.
We are talking about "within such specified constituency".
The Deputy is chancing his arm. What he is saying has nothing at all to do with it.
Nobody is more of an expert on arm-chancing than the Minister. Peculiarly enough he was in an awkward position on that occasion in 1969 because he raised that matter on section 6 and he was told that it was provided for in section 7. He had to raise the matter again during the discussion on section 7 when he said:
The Minister says this is dealt with here.
The Minister for Local Government said:
Section 7 provides that where a polling district is split between two or more constituencies suitable polling arrangements will be made for the voters concerned either by joining a part or parts of the divided district with an adjoining district or districts or by constituting each divided part as a separate polling district. The provision is necessary because of the time taken in the ordinary course for going through the ordinary procedure for making a polling scheme.
The Deputy should relate the matter to amendment a.1 which asks to have "within such specified constituency" added to section 7 (1) (a).
I appreciate you are trying to help me and I am not trying to break the regulations. When the Minister for Local Government gave his explanation Deputy Tully drew attention to the fact that it did not reply to his question. If the Chair had the particular extract my point could be seen. There is not much more of it so with your permission, in an effort to make the point, I will read on. The Minister further stated:
Subsection (2) provides that any such arrangement is temporary and will have effect only until such new polling schemes are made. Any such arrangement will be subject to the sanction of the Minister as are polling schemes, and will come into effect only following the dissolution of the Dáil following the passing of this Bill. Under the 1961 Act, these temporary arrangements fell to be made by the returning officers because, at that time, the returning officer was, in nearly all cases, the registration officer. The registration authority is now the county or county borough council.
The Deputy has strayed very far away now.
I will cut it short by saying that later Deputy Tully intervened. At the end the Minister asked:
Does that cover what the Deputy has in mind?
Deputy Tully then said:
Unfortunately, no. I am referring to districts such as one in my constituency. People who are living, for instance, in a district known as Balreask, south of Carlanstown, County Meath have to travel through the Monaghan constituency and have to vote miles away. A simple adjustment would have enabled these people to remain in either one constituency or the other.
This is what we are talking about. A simple adjustment. We are trying to help the Minister and to ensure that he will not have this sort of crib the next time the constituencies are being revised, when our Minister for Local Government——
The Deputy is moving away from section 7 (1) (a) and amendment a.1.
I am trying to talk about the addition of the words "within such specified constituency". Even the Minister has specified the constituency for me. His argument is the best possible argument, the most realistic and down-to-earth argument. It apparently has happened now that Ministers, after a very short time, have forgotten that they were ever on this side of the House and cannot see any sort of sense being made on this side of the House. The Minister for Local Government often reminds us that he was on this side of the House. In a short 12 months he has forgotten that a lot of sense can be spoken from over here. If he does not accept that it means he was talking a lot of nonsense in 1969.
We are dealing here with districts. We are not dealing with places. Deputy Molloy's amendment relates to the insertion of the words "within such specified constituency". We are not dealing with polling places; we are dealing with adjoining polling districts.
I accept that but you cannot have a polling place without having a polling district. The present Minister for Local Government was making the point in 1969——
The Deputy should do what the present Minister for Posts and Telegraphs did—bring in a few dictionaries. A place and a district is the same thing.
Let us keep to section 7 (1) (a) and the amendment.
I am doing my best to stick to it. While our amendment deals with a polling district "within such specified constituency" the situation is that whatever there is a polling district there is the necessity to create a polling place for it or to have it joined in with an adjoining polling district. I am endeavouring to help the Minister to be more specific and to allow him to meet the argument he made in 1969 about polling districts or about a polling place. I am satisfied that I have made my point. We have already established that the polling place does not have to be within the polling district even though the recommended thing is to have it within the polling district. I hope that even at this late stage the Minister will see the merit in Deputy Molloy's amendment and the justification for it. The addition of the words we propose would cut out any question of ambiguity in relation to the section. If the words are not included, there is the ambiguity that so worried the present Minister for Local Government in 1969. That is why I used this occasion to refer the Minister back to the time when he was on this side of the House. I would ask the Minister to indicate that the message is filtering through and we will not hold it against him that he has on more than one occassion said that he does not propose to accept the amendment, despite the fact that he does not see any harm in it, simply because it is a Fianna Fáil amendment. I would ask him again, in the light of this fresh evidence—if you like, at his own request—to have another look at this with a view to accepting the amendment.
I do not like repetition and you do not like repetition, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, so it is your job to ensure that it is not carried on but I repeated on more than one occassion the last day, and with your permission I am afraid I will have to do it again, a few facts which apparently the people opposite do not want to see. I am prepared to accept the fact that members of the Opposition will, one after another, get up and make comments, whether they believe in them or not, simply for the purpose of delaying the passage of the Bill. They began rather roughly but they are being quite nice about it and if they want to do that and if the House allows them that is their privilege. What I dislike is somebody like Deputy Lalor attempting to produce a document and to talk about when the 1969 Bill was passed. Indeed, several other members of the Fianna Fáil Party spoke about the 1969 Amendment Bill as if it were the Bill we are amending. We are talking today about a Bill which I introduced and this section has been in existence since 1935 and every election held since 1935 has been held under this Bill.
Deputy Lalor tried to argue that I objected to anything suggested by Fianna Fáil and in the next breath he said that I was insisting that this section should be left in because Fianna Fáil introduced it and what was good enough for Fianna Fáil should be good enough for us now. I will not try to follow that line of argument. I should like to point out, however, that the quotation he read out from what I said on the 1969 Bill referred to an entirely different matter. Before he finished reading it, I think he was aware of this and was rather embarrassed to find that this was so. I am sure the backroom boys who produced it and told him it was the right thing will probably hear a few hard words from him for giving him something which had no relevance to what was under discussion. In passing, I am sure Deputy Lalor will be glad to know that Meath County Council by a recent change in electoral areas have remedied the position and this no longer applies in regard to local areas and I am remedying it in this Bill regarding constituencies because these people will be all in the one constituency.
What Deputy Lalor and other Deputies have been talking about cannot happen because we do not straddle electoral areas with voters. They must vote in their own constituency or, occasionally, there will be a polling booth across a border but they will still be voting for the candidates of their own constituency. There is absolutely no reason why I should agree to accept an amendment which, as I have said more than once, does no harm or no good. It would add a couple of words to a Bill. Why should we just—as Deputy Andrews, I think, said—do something because Fianna Fáil wanted it done—change the wording of a Bill when it does not improve the Bill? I assure the Opposition that in the case of any Bill introduced if they can prove that they are proposing something to improve it, I am prepared to accept, as I have done already, a reasonable amendment. The amendment suggested is ludicrous and it has simply been introduced as a way to discuss something. I am quite sure those opposite who are intelligent are well aware that they are discussing something which would in no way improve the Bill. The reason we are discussing the Bill here is so that we can be in a position, if there is something that will improve it, to put it in but there is nothing in the amendment that will achieve this purpose. Therefore, I say to the Opposition: would you not grow up and not continue a discussion——
That will help.
——which you know as well as I do cannot improve the Bill? The arguments of the Opposition do not appear to be coming from reasonable people; they must know the words suggested will not improve the Bill. Why, therefore, continue arguing to have them inserted, as one or two Deputies said, whether they would improve it or not—jut to put them in because Fianna Fáil want them in? That is going a little too far. The section as it stands is, and has been proved to be adequate to do the job and I see no reason why I should accept the amendment.
We have discussed this amendment and section at great length. I am unhappy about it in this way: recently the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach, Deputy Kelly, stated that the cost per hour of this House was £1,000. In our desire on this side of the House to improve this legislation we have given it great thought and the Minister has said the amendments would not do the Bill any harm. I do not think it has been suggested that he should accept it because Fianna Fáil proposed it, at any rate as a primary reason. We feel that if the amendment is accepted it will give better legislation. As Deputy Lalor said, we shall have another Planning Bill arising from the fact that a citizen or citizens contested in the Supreme Court the validity of a Bill.
The Deputy may not anticipate legislation not yet before the House.
It has been announced and is on the Order Paper.
But it is not before the House. The Deputy should keep to the amendment.
I am just referring to what has happened and can happen in the case of the present Bill. If we do not take note of objections we may have some citizen contesting the matter in the Supreme Court and having the Bill rejected and a new Bill introduced.
The Minister told me the other night that in my own constituency we have a polling district which crosses a boundary. I remind the Minister that a person living quite close to that district did contest an electoral Bill in the High Court and won his case and that is why we do not have numbers on ballot paper counterfoils now. We could have, and almost surely would have somebody contesting this Bill outside the House. In this day of consensus politics it is fashionable for people to appeal to the Supreme Court more frequently than previously. Therefore, it is incumbent on this House to ensure that legislation will be as perfect as we can make it.
I can assure the Minister on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Deputies that it is not their intention or desire to add extra words to the Bill. We are trying to help the Minister to perfect the work he has brought before us. It is unworthy to think we would have any ulterior motive in doing this. We do not seek any benefit from the Bill for ourselves but we suggest that if the Minister accepts the amendment it will make the legislation better enabling us all to go to the country realising that we have done our best to give the people the best legislation possible. Even at this late stage I appeal to the Minister to accept this simple amendment which he says will do no harm and we can then move on to other sections. By contrast, I was very impressed with the Minister's approach to the Local Government Planning Bill on which he said that he would accept any worthwhile amendment. Why not adopt the same principle here?
If it was worthwhile it would be a different thing.
I do not propose to bring in the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs or the Oxford dictionary to define what is worthwhile but I seriously suggest that the Minister should accept the amendment and let us move on because, according to the Parliamentary Secretary, we are spending £1,000 an hour in discussing matters here—sorry, £1,000 a minute.
Therefore, you have spent £15,000 by now.
I do not know if it is worth that much but I hope the Minister will be "big" and accept this amendment.
Any Bill brought before the Dáil is not solely the responsibility of the Minister or the Government but of all of us as legislators. We must accept responsibility for the Bill as finalised and it is with that thought in mind that this very simple and—I feel—necessary amendment was put down by Deputy Molloy. We are asking the Minister to insert: "within such specified constituency". That might seem to be a rather obvious thing to have to write into a Bill especially in relation to this section but the Minister has a colleague in the Government, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, who very often is not aware of what constituency he is in or even of what country——
The Deputy should keep to the amendment which is before the House.
I think this is very relevant to the amendment and it is something we must say because certain statements were made by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. They show clearly he was not aware of what constituency he was in; in fact, he got mixed up between West Cork and Red China.
The Deputy should stay with the amendment before the House.
Does the Chair not consider our amendment will overcome any breaches of constituencies by any Minister, even the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs?
The Chair is concerned only with the Deputy's contribution.
I am concerned with members of the Government who are responsible for this Bill. Therefore, it is relevant to the amendment we put down. If the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs——
The Chair will not permit the Deputy to move on to that ground again. The Deputy will have to stay with amendment a.1. and relate his remarks to section 7 (1) (a).
I am talking about the amendment which seeks to insert "within such specified constituency". If this is not done, the section can join part of a polling district with any adjoining polling district or districts. We have seen an example of that by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. He was speaking in my town, Bandon, when he made that statement.
The Deputy is dealing with statements made outside this House. The Chair is not concerned with such statements.
I shall have to be guided by the Chair. The amendment is relevant and I commend it to the Minister for Local Government as worthwhile if it prevents the English-speaking Minister, with his English accent and culture——
The Chair has already told the Deputy he must stay with the amendment.
I understand the Chair has a certain difficulty in keeping order in the House——
The Deputy understands the Minister speaks better Irish than he does.
All I can say is that he has a Union Jack in one hand and the Red Book in the other——
The Chair does not want any reference to other Ministers. The Chair is concerned with the Minister who is in the House and whose Bill is before the House. We are dealing with section 7 (1) (a) and amendment a.1.
We realise it is the Minister for Local Government's Bill that is before the House but there is such a thing as collective responsibility.
The Chair is not dealing with collective responsibility. We are discussing amendment a.1.
I am dealing with the amendment in relation to collective responsibility. However, I must be guided by the Chair and if the Chair insists I cannot refer to it——
The Chair wants the Deputy to deal with the amendment.
I do not think it unreasonable to ask the Minister for Local Government to accept our amendment. Rather than taking from the Bill, as he implied, it would tighten it and make it more specific. That is what we want in legislation. Each word and sentence should have meaning and by accepting this amendment the legislation would be improved. The Minister for Local Government may be annoyed we have spent so much time discussing this matter. He may see some ulterior motive in it but I can assure him we have no ulterior motive. We want this amendment accepted because we think it will improve the section. Obviously in the Minister's party or parties they have not much faith in what he is doing because not one of them is backing him up——
They will back me up with their feet when the time comes. That is the big test.
That is a rather dumb exercise.
I do not want to bring acrimony into the debate but the Deputy's party were not always able to do that.
It is a reflection on the Minister that not one member of his own party or parties has come in——
That is not relevant to the amendment.
When we were on that side of the House we kept a House.
Is the Deputy calling for a House?
Yes.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
I am sorry the Minister with the Little Red Book did not come in but my colleague is here and that is more important. I am sure he is irate and antagonistic towards the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs who made such an outrageous statement——
The Deputy must stay with the amendment.
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy will have his opportunity. The purpose of this amendment is to state as unambiguously as possible what this subsection means. In legislation nothing should be left to the imagination and that is why this amendment has been tabled. We do not want any doubts as to what is intended. The Minister admits the amendment would not do any harm. I believe it would do a great deal of good. It is a worthwhile amendment. The Minister should accept it and let us get on with the business.
The Minister may be apprehensive about accepting amendments from this side of the House because his colleague, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, may not feel all that happy with them and castigate the Minister accordingly. We can assure the Minister that the people, and the people are our masters, will appreciate the fact that he is big enough to accept amendments even when those amendments are tabled by the Opposition. This is a simple amendment which will not call for any fundamental theological change in the thinking of either the Labour Party or the Fine Gael Party. It will have the effect of tidying up this legislation. It will make the subsection more easily understood because constituencies will have to be specified. If the amendment is accepted, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs will not again be confused as to which constituency he is in. If only to guide him and make sure he does not stray the Minister should accept this amendment.
I would ask the Minister to accept the amendment. It makes the position more specific. It is certainly very relevant where my constituency is concerned because it will have to be clearly defined and there will be no confusion about polling stations. This legislation may have been good enough in 1969, but it is not good enough today. In 1969 the dividing line was the railway line from Dublin to Galway and the main road up to Athlone. That was clearly defined.
The Chair does not want to interrupt the Deputy but his remarks will be more relevant when we come to the section. Let us dispose of the amendment first.
The amendment deals with the necessity for being specific.
The amendment deals with adjoining polling districts.
That is correct. It is to that I am referring. In East Galway you could have people in two or, in some cases, three polling districts if the Minister does not accept this amendment. One polling booth could be situated in three constituencies— West Galway, Clare and East Galway. That is why I say we must be very definite and specific. The Minister sees no harm in the amendment. Seeing no harm in it, the least he ought to do is accept it.
Deputy Callanan's contributions since coming to this House have always been very helpful. His supplementary questions are invariably effective. He represents his constituents very well. He is admired by both sides of the House and I myself am constantly learning from him.
The Minister came into the debate on a very moderate note but the note grew less moderate as he proceeded. Deputy Lalor pointed out that when the Minister was on this side of the House he expressed himself as unhappy about the wording of the section in the 1969 Bill. The Minister said that that was the 1969 Bill but this wording has been in many Bills right up from 1935. That, of course, does not necessarily mean that it is the proper wording. There was an occasion on which an Electoral (Amendment) Bill was brought before the High Court and it was found that certain sections of that Bill were unconstitutional. Who is to say that a similar fate may not overtake this measure? We are not suggesting it will.
We are not dealing with the Bill. We are dealing now with the amendment.
I am coming to the amendment. I do not say that if this amendment is not accepted the Bill will be found to be unconstitutional. It is the job of an Opposition to ensure that legislation is clear, precise and unambiguous. Deputy Molloy, unfortunately, cannot be with us today. He is ill. I believe that his illness is due in some measure to the enormous amount of work he put into amendments to this Bill, amendments which must have taken hours of consideration.
Let us stay now with the particular amendment under discussion.
No wonder Deputy Molloy is sick. He was quite well over the week-end.
He is suffering from constituency flu.
Let us have Deputy Burke now on the amendment.
We are delighted to see Deputy Desmond. We are sorry there are not more of his colleagues backing up the Minister. With regard to the four words "within such specified constituency", I should like to relate these to how they will affect the constituency of North County Dublin and also Dublin-Finglas. Without discussing the Schedule, I am merely trying to clarify——
It seems to the Chair that the Deputy is moving to the Schedule.
I am merely trying to illustrate the difficulties that could arise unless the amendment proposed by Deputy Molloy is accepted. I was going to give the example of my own constituency of North County Dublin as it is joined now with part of what was the old Dublin North West, part of the old Dublin North East. They are now being called Dublin-Finglas and Dublin-Artane. You have this crossing of polling districts. For example, people living in the Ballymun housing scheme experience this crossing of the three old constituencies, where they joined the constituencies of Dublin North County, Dublin North East and Dublin North West. With the Minister's proposed change——
The Chair is not going to go to the Schedule in any shape or form at this point.
I agree that the Schedule is not relevant but what I was hoping to do was to illustrate——
The Deputy can deal with the Schedule when we come to it.
I was trying to illustrate the problems of polling districts and the necessity, as we see it on this side of the House, to have the four words "within such specified constituency" accepted by the Minister. The Minister today and on the previous evening when this was debated said—and I quoted it earlier today from vol. 270, No. 13, of Wednesday, 6th March, 1974, col. 2264— in his reply to——
If the Deputy quoted already, he knows that he should not repeat the quotation.
I agree that repetition is outside the rules of the House but as the Minister himself, when replying to the contribution made by Deputy Lalor, requoted certain things that he said, I assumed that the Chair would allow me——
I am sorry; I did not quote anything.
He restated certain points that he had made already.
For the tenth time.
The Minister said that evening that the amendment did no harm. We feel strongly that it does a lot of good. The Minister went on to say that evening that it did no good. The explanatory memorandum to the Electoral Amendment (No. 2) Bill, 1973, says of sections 6 and 7:
Sections 6 and 7 contain the usual consequential measures for re-arrangement of headings of the register of electors and for alteration of polling schemes.
The important words there are "the usual consequential measures", "usual" because they were in the Bill of 1935 right up to 1969. The fact that they were not contested by the then Opposition does not necessarily mean they were right.
As a party, we have examined this Bill line by line. We feel that the amendment proposed by Deputy Molloy, on which many members of the Fianna Fáil Party have spoken— no Member of the Government Party has spoken on the Bill of course— will clarify the position for the man in the street to whom the Minister himself referred in the debate on the last occasion. I have not got the exact quotation but he did refer to the man in the street and it is he who is involved in this because it is an Electoral (Amendment) Bill of 1973 dealing with the voting rights and duties of citizens. I feel that voting should be not only a right but a duty as well. Sometime a Minister for Local Government will have to consider, as is prevalent in many other countries, making——
The Deputy is departing from the amendment completely now into a general discussion on voting. He must keep to the amendment; it is specific and it is specific to a subsection of this section.
I agree it is specific and this is the whole idea of the amendment. It is to make a specific statement, to clarify what is an otherwise loose subsection. It clarifies it by the insertion of four specific words—"within such specified constituency". Of course, it is coincidental that the word "specific" comes in in the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's comment and in the amendment put down by Deputy Molloy. We feel this will clarify the subsection for the electorate and, indeed, the ordinary man in the street.
In the last half hour when the Minister was replying to the contribution made by Deputy Lalor he suggested that we on this side of the House were merely trying to delay this Bill; that we had put down ill-considered amendments merely as a vehicle to delay the Bill by speaking ad nauseam on various amendments.
I did not say that but it is very good.
As the Minister should know, this is the largest Parliamentary Party in this country and no front bench spokesman would put down an amendment merely for the sake of mischief, which is the suggestion made by the Minister. On the contrary, this was a well considered and well thought-out amendment. Various contributions have been made to it by Members from this side of the House. I was very proud of some of the contributions made by my colleagues. The contribution of Deputy Andrews springs immediately to mind when he spoke of the straw poll that could be held by the so-called ten men in the street if they were to be asked their views on this subsection in the manner in which the Minister has drafted it and in the improved manner if this amendment were to be accepted. Deputy Andrews made the point that if one were to ask those ten men in the street to look at the section as at present drafted, it would be understood by very few of them at first, second, third or subsequent readings. However, if one were to show them the subsection incorporating the amendment proposed by Deputy Molloy and supported by the Fianna Fáil party, it would be understood immediately. The suggestion was that if those ten people were questioned there would be at least six or seven of them would would understand immediately what was in the mind of Deputy Molloy when he put down this amendment.
The amendment consists of four words only. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle spoke of specifics. The four words are specific. They are designed to be specific and to clarify in the mind of the public exactly what is intended in this particular subsection. Subsection (1) (a) reads:
join it or parts of it with any adjoining polling district or districts, or
That, in my view and that of Members on this side of the House is too loose and needs clarification. It needs to be more specific, to use the words of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. This amendment has been spoken about at length by members of the Opposition. Many Members have made contributions ranging from constituencies right across the country from Cork to Galway, around the city of Dublin and down to Laois. The amendment would, in our view, clarify the section which is too loose.
Debate adjourned.