Amendments Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, are related. Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 are cognate as are amendments Nos. 3 and 5 while amendment No. 1 is an alternative to amendments Nos. 2 to 5, inclusive. All five may be discussed together.
Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2002: Committee and Remaining Stages.
SECTION 1.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, subsection (2), lines 18 to 27, to delete paragraphs (a) and (b) and substitute the following:
"(a) in subsection (1)(a), for ‘within the fifty six days next following the polling day at an election, furnish' there were substituted:
‘within whichever of the following periods is the longer, namely–
(i) the 167 days next following the polling day at an election, or
(ii) the 21 days next following the date of pronouncement by the Supreme Court of its decision in the relevant appeal,
furnish',
(b) in subsection (6), for ‘within the 56 days next following polling day at the election or as soon as practicable after the expiration of that period' there were substituted:
‘within whichever of the following periods is the longer, namely–
(i) the 167 days next following polling day at the election, or
(ii) the 21 days next following the date of pronouncement by the Supreme Court of its decision in the relevant appeal, or as soon as practicable after the expiration of that period',
and
(c) the following subsections were added to that section:
‘(7) In this section the "relevant appeal" means the appeal made on 14 June 2002 to the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court made on 16 May 2002 in proceedings entitled "Desmond Kelly, Applicant and The Minister for the Environment, Ireland and the Attorney General, Respondents" (High Court record no. 2002/172 JR).
(8) References in this section to the date of pronouncement by the Supreme Court of its decision in the relevant appeal shall, if the issues arising on that appeal (other than the matter of costs) are the subject of separate decisions pronounced by that Court on different dates, be construed as references to the later or latest of the dates on which those decisions are pronounced by it.'.".
When the Bill was drafted it was hoped an early hearing by the Supreme Court might have been possible. This is not the case and it is now hoped the appeal will be heard in early October. The 90 day period in the Bill, up to 15 August, is, therefore, not realistic. The amendment instead proposes a figure of 167 days which would bring the period up to 31 October next when, I hope, the appeal will be determined. The amendment also provides that, if the appeal is not determined by 10 October, the extension period will end 21 days after the Supreme Court determination. This formula is preferred to that of extending the period by ministerial regulations, a fact acknowledged by Deputy Penrose, and provides a more definitive position for the approval of the Houses of the Oireachtas. The net effect is the same as that provided for in the Bill as published, but is expressed better and avoids the making of ministerial regulations in this matter, which Deputy Allen was also anxious to see.
I made the point that I have an aversion to ministerial regulations which are laid before the Oireachtas without Members having an opportunity to discuss them. I recall specifically a number of regulations introduced in the context of the Diseases of Animals Act, 2001. At the time we were given an assurance by which I understood we would have an opportunity to make submissions with regard to the regulations. They would have profited somewhat had we been given such an opportunity. They were introduced regardless. Once regulations come before the House, after the expiration of 21 days they become ingrained in law and we do not get an opportunity thereafter to make observations about them.
My amendment would have introduced a time limit of not more than 180 days. I took cognisance of the fact that there was not a hope, despite the presence of a former Attorney General beside the Minister and the pleas before the High Court, of receiving a hearing before October.
The Deputy's vast legal knowledge is coming to the fore.
As well as this reason for proposing the limit, it would also bring a degree of finality to the matter. I do not like the idea of a Minister returning and extending the period by any number of days. In theory, he or she could extend it beyond the next election, although I accept he or she would not do this in practice. The maximum period now stands at 21 days beyond the date of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court order, which is a fair, reasonable and sensible proposal. The very fact that the Minister has removed section 2 strengthens the Bill and makes it more amenable. However, it does not deal with some of the points raised concerning the judgment. I disagree with his view on the very reasonable points raised as to the reason we should not appeal.
I would be interested in hearing the former Attorney General's views on the reasons this appeal is being taken. In order to make a real, objective judgment on the matter we would need to read the arguments made in the High Court. However, that is a matter for another day and I am sure we will see them in time.
Without pre-empting what the Supreme Court will do, I maintain that it will uphold the Kelly judgment. Mr. Justice McKenchie's assessment of the situation will prove to be well founded in the Supreme Court. I acknowledge the amendment tabled by the Minister deals very adequately with the points I made and even goes beyond them. For this reason I will not pursue them.
I will not speak for the sake of talking out the allocated time. The amendment meets my requirements. I repeat my request made on Second Stage that the Minister make available the case submitted to the High Court for our information for future reference.
Amendment put and declared carried.
Amendments Nos. 2 to 5, inclusive, not moved.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Section 2 deleted.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 4, subsection (2), lines 3 and 4, to delete all words from and including "may" in line 3 down to and including "Act" in line 4 and substitute "shall be read together as one and this Act shall be included in the collective citation ‘Electoral Acts, 1992 to 2002'.".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments, received for final consideration and passed.