Once again I have made a full and detailed response to this series of amendments. Clearly some Senators do not accept my view. They must allow me to differ from them in their views. I do not think I can make any further contribution. I would only be repetitive and, as has already been said, we have spent a fair amount of time on this amendment. Again, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Electoral (No. 2) Bill, 1991: Committee Stage (Resumed).
SECTION 47.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 62:
In page 39, subsection (1), line 28, after "officer" to insert "a petition of nomination signed by one thousand electors, or".
—(Senator Upton.)
The amendment is certainly not being withdrawn. May we ask the Minister at least to take it back and look at the possibility of alternative means rather than financial deposits to deal with this matter?
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 8; Níl, 30.
Tá
- Costello, Joe.
- Hederman, Carmencita.
- Murphy, John A.
- Norris, David.
- Ó Foighil, Pól.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Ryan, John.
- Upton, Pat.
Níl
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Conroy, Richard.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Doherty, Sean.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Foley, Denis.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Honan, Tras.
- Hourigan, Richard V.
- Howard, Michael.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Michael.
- Lydon, Don.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- McGowan, Paddy.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- Naughten, Liam.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- Ross, Shane P. N.
- Ryan, Eoin David.
- Wright, G. V.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Upton and Costello; Níl, Senators E. Ryan and Fitzgerald.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment Nos. 62, 63, 64 and 65 are related and were all discussed together. Is amendment No. 63 being pressed?
Yes. I move amendment No. 63:
In page 39, subsection (1), line 29, to delete "five" and substitute "one".
Question put: "That the word proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 34; Níl, 8.
Tá
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Conroy, Richard.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Doherty, Sean.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Foley, Denis.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Honan, Tras.
- Hourigan, Richard V.
- Howard, Michael.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Jackman, Mary.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Michael.
- Lydon, Don.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- McGowan, Paddy.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Neville, Daniel.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- Raftery, Tom.
- Ross, Shane P. N.
- Ryan, Eoin David.
- Wright, G. V.
Níl
- Costello, Joe.
- Hederman, Carmencita.
- Murphy, John A.
- Norris, David.
- Ó Foighil, Pól.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Ryan, John.
- Upton, Pat.
Tellers: Tá, Senators E. Ryan and Fitzgerald; Níl, Senators Upton and Costello.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Is amendment No. 64 being pressed?
Yes. I move amendment No. 64:
In page 39, subsection (1), line 30, after "withdrawn" to add "provided that this deposit shall be waived for unemployed candidates".
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 31.
Tá
- Costello, Joe.
- Norris, David.
- Ó Foighil, Pól.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Ryan, John.
- Upton, Pat.
Níl
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Conroy, Richard.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Doherty, Sean.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Foley, Denis.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Honan, Tras.
- Hourigan, Richard V.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Howard, Michael.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Jackman, Mary.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Michael.
- Lydon, Don.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McGowan, Paddy.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Neville, Daniel.
- O'Reilly, Joe.
- Ross, Shane P. N.
- Ryan, Eoin David.
- Wright, G. V.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Upton and Costello; Níl, Senators E. Ryan and Fitzgerald.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 65:
In page 39, lines 31 to 33, to delete subsection (2).
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 47 stand part of the Bill".
Clearly, we do not agree with section 47. We would not have had so many votes on it if it had been agreed; the number of votes called indicates the seriousness with which we consider this section.
We are very disappointed the Minister did not deign to consider the proposals we put to him. Having listened to the wide ranging arguments from all sides of the House the least he could have done was to take our proposals on board and consider the alternatives and come back to us on Report Stage. We are very disappointed, because in this section we are going backwards rather than forwards, we are raising the deposit to stand for election by 400 per cent. This is entrenching the property and wealth consideration as a barrier to exercising the franchise; this is a throw back to the early days of parliamentary democracy rather than a step forward into the 21st century.
The Minister may yet rue the day that he rejected these amendments because it seems likely that a major constitutional question will be raised about the insubstantial reasons for disbarring somebody on the basis of financial requirements for standing for election.
Again, I wish to express my deep regret the Minister did not take on board or consider the points we have put before him. I am opposed to section 47 as it stands.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 48.
I move amendment No. 66:
In page 39, subsection (1) (e), lines 42 and 43, to delete "one quarter" and substitute "twenty per cent".
In this amendment we are suggesting the fraction of the quota which a candidate would need to obtain before being eliminated from the election should be reduced from what is proposed here, one quarter, to a fifth or "twenty per cent". Primarily this is a way of mitigating the effects of the increased deposit requirement of £500, a five fold increase. The regulations require that a candidate receive one third of the quota. The reduction from one-third to a quarter is not proportionate to the level of increase in the deposit which has gone up fourfold. If you were arguing for a quid pro quo you might suggest there should be a four times decrease in the fraction of the quota which would have to be obtained prior to elimination.
Essentially we are trying to create an environment where it will be possible for people who want to contest elections to do so. We want to create a climate in which people will not feel inhibited from putting their names on the ballot paper because of the fact they have got to put £500 at risk. Now £500 may seem a small amount of money to some of our colleagues on the other side of the House, who in the course of conversation during the recent intervals referred to the very large sums of money spent on election campaigns. However, £500 would be a significant percentage of the total amount spent by an Independent candidate or a candidate representing a poorly organised party or a small party. Many of those candidates would consider spending perhaps a total of a few thousand pounds on the campaign. You would amount a moderately successful campaign for £2,000 or £3,000. Candidates from small parties or belonging to major parties which are not particularly well organised in an area might spend that amount and £500 is a considerable fraction of it. In those circumstances candidates really have very little prospect of winning, and most of them would be well aware of that. In addition, the fact that they would be gambling £500 would be a disincentive to contest the election.
It would also be a problem for some of our own Labour Party candidates in parts of the country where our party is not well organised. It is important that the public should be given a choice and have the option of voting for Labour Party candidates in some of the constituencies where we do not have a strong organisation — for example, like some of the constituencies in the west. The fact that President Robinson polled so well in some of these constituencies is an indication that some people in those constituencies may want to vote and support the policies our party stands for. I think the people should be given that choice. The present fraction of the quota, which admittedly has been reduced from a third to a quarter, should be reduced somewhat further to at least minimise the risk of losing the £500 deposit when people representing small parties with low levels of support put their name forward for election.
As far as the major parties are concerned, this is not a big problem. They have the money and they can come up with the deposit. Indeed, the deposit in the case of a great many candidates is supplied from central funds. The deposits would be a very small fraction of the total election budget of a major party, which, I understand, runs in excess of £1 million, and perhaps if the full truth were known it may amount to more than £10 million. That is the amount of money you are talking about. So risking the loss of a few deposits of £500 is not a deterrent to the major parties, but it certainly would be a deterrent to some of our candidates in areas where we are badly organised. I think it would be an extra deterrent to candidates who want to stand as Independents or who are members of others small parties who are not well organised in certain constituencies.
We certainly welcome the reduction in the quota from a third to a quarter. Obviously, the benefit is eliminated by the increase in the deposit from £100 to £500, which is an increase of 400 per cent. Again, our major objection to it is that it is once again creating a financial barrier, which is not logical. For example, it is quite a creditable performance to get a quarter of the votes in any constituency. Let us say the quota is 8,000 which would be the norm: 25 per cent of that means you have to get 2,000 votes, and that is certainly no mean achievement. Second, those who are eliminated first do not benefit greatly from transfers, so we are talking about first preference votes. A very large percentage of their votes, in fact, will be first preference votes, because the fact they are eliminated and lose their deposit means they do not go on to benefit from our proportional representation transfer system, so a very large percentage of that 25 per cent will be first preference votes.
Another anomaly is that one loses the entire deposit of £500 if one does not reach the magic figure of 25 per cent. The procedure should be to return part of the deposit in proportion to the number of votes received — in other words, if you get 10 per cent of the quota, you should get back 10 per cent of your deposit and so on. That would seem more reasonable than losing the entire amount.
Ironically the person who suffers most in the election also has to suffer again financially. Those who win the election would not worry about their deposit because they have been elected to the Dáil and will receive a salary. Obviously, they will recoup the money that has been spent in the election, whereas somebody who has not got elected loses the election, loses the seat if he had one and, of course, he loses the deposit as well. If we were trying to be logical about this procedure a proportionate amount of the deposit should be returned depending on the number of votes received. At a minimum we should reduce it from 25 per cent to 20 per cent of the quota, which is not an unreasonable reduction. It would be reduced from 33? per cent at present to 20 per cent, a 13½ per cent reduction compared with the enormous increase of 400 per cent in the deposit.
In my 40 years service I know of nobody who was stopped from standing for election because of the deposit. I wish Senator Upton would be more honest instead of putting on the poor mouth this evening.
I think we all accept each other's bona fides.
Whether one was rich or poor or had money or not, I cannot recall in my 40 years serving in Clare or observing at national level that any candidate ever found that the deposit stopped him standing for election.
How would you know?
I know because I am aware of what happens in other parties as well as in my own.
As for the case they made that only candidates from large parties would not be affected by the huge increase in the deposit, the Members of this House are proof of democracy at its best, because good candidates get elected to this House without big money backing them. In years gone by when my late husband was a candidate, there were gentlemen on the panel with big money behind them who were not elected, the opposite was the case. It is great that we can be elected to this House or to the Dáil without big money behind us. It is wrong to say that someone could not put his name forward for election because he did not have the deposit. I have to make that point because I have longer service than my two colleagues who were making this case.
The points made by Senator Upton deserve to be considered seriously. It is not good for the democratic process to erect too many barriers to prevent people from participating in it. I disagreed with Senator Upton on the question of the deposit. The £500 now required is equivalent to what £100 was worth in 1923. While the democratic process depends on it being open to as many people as possible, you can make a hash of it if you throw it wide open. Setting the deposit at £500 takes care of that particular risk.
The amendment requests the deposit be returned to a candidate securing 20 per cent of the quota. I largely agree with Senator Costello when he said that, on average, 25 per cent of the quota represents about 1,500-2,000 votes. A candidate who puts down a deposit of £500 and gets 1,500 votes can justify his candidature in the electoral process. He is a creditable candidate contesting the election and that is sufficient to justify the return of his deposit.
I support this amendment. It is another step along the road to make things easier for a candidate to stand without losing his deposit. It amazes me that Senator Honan can speak so knowledgably and authoritatively for the whole country when she said that in all her 40 years in the public area, no one has ever been impeded from standing for want of money. That is an extraordinary statement.
I said in Clare.
The reality in County Clare may be that people there are rich, perhaps very rich farmers; they live on the western seaboard and are very near Shannon Airport. However, I can assure Senator Honan that there are many poor areas in Dublin where people have not been able to run for election because they did not have the necessary funds. If they now have to pay a £500 deposit — Senator Howard's figures were very helpful — they could get 1,500 votes but still lose their deposit. The reality is that the major political parties run three candidates knowing that the person at the bottom will not get elected. They put his name before the electorate so that he will become well known, and when the candidate at the top dies or retires, the second candidate will be elected. They know the candidate will lose his deposit because he has not reached the quota but they can afford to do that.
I am not going to start mud-slinging but we have all been reading in the newspapers how the political parties get their funds. I am not picking out any particular party because I understand that the practice is widespread. My point is that it is easy for them to put up candidates and pay the £500 deposit because if the candidate loses the deposit he will at least be better known the next time he stands. It is not possible for many Independents to do that.
I was very amused when Senator Honan started to say this House was proof of democracy at its best. I was going to say there is very little democracy in this House because of the way the party whip is applied. Members may speak in favour of an amendment, but they will have to vote against it because of the party whip. However, that was not the point she made. She said you do not need large financial backing to get elected to this House — I accept that, but that is not the case in the Dáil. As I understand it, we are speaking about the election of Members to the Dáil.
Section 48 restates the law in relation to the return or disposal of a deposit of a candidate at a Dáil election. Under subsection (1) (e) the threshold for the return of a deposit is reduced from one-third to one-quarter of the quota. Amendment No. 66 proposes to further reduce the threshold for the return of a deposit to 20 per cent of or one-fifth of the quota. As the House is aware, the existing deposit is £100 and the threshold for the return of a deposit is one-third of the quota. Section 48, as drafted, provides for a reduction in the threshold to one-quarter of the quota.
The reduction is intended to take account of the increase in the deposit to £500 and so lessen the impact of the increase so far as serious candidates are concerned. This provision is designed to strike a balance between the necessity to discourage candidates who are not serious and the need to ensure that inconvenience to serious candidates is kept to a minimum. I belive that by setting the threshold at one-quarter of the quota, the section strikes the correct balance. There is a danger that reducing it further could undermine the whole purpose of the deposit. I suggest the amendment should be withdrawn.
The Minister seems to suffer from some type of fixation with seriousness, frivolity and this type of concepts. Are they that important, and has lack of seriousness been a major problem in Irish politics? I do not think so. Certainly it has not been in the context the Minister is referring to, although there might be a case to be made that seriousness is lacking in Irish politics if it is viewed from some other considerations.
I want to take up some of the points made by Senator Honan. First, money talks in elections. Let nobody be in any doubt about that. That is one of the reasons that money is spent the way it is, although it is not spent foolishly by many political organisations.
The second point Senator Honan made was that she never met anybody in County Clare who was unable to contest an election because of lack of money. Let me say to Senator Honan — and I have been out of that county for a while now — that I strongly believe that if somebody in County Clare was unable to contest an election for lack of money they would be the last person to admit it. It would be a disgrace to the family and not the kind of thing to be readily acknowledged.
I wish to refer to the point made by Senator Howard in relation to 1,500 votes being about the number of first preferences that somebody needs to qualify under the 20 per cent figure in the amendment. It seems to me that 1,500 votes is a significant number of votes to receive. Any of us who contest elections would be delighted to pick up 1,500 votes or to know they could be obtained in a certain area. There are not many Oireachtas Members who got more than 1,500 votes in the recent local elections. A large number of people started off with considerably less than that number and yet they are significant politicians. I regard 1,500 votes as a significant level of support to obtain and if somebody gets that level of support then their candidature has been justified and they should not forfeit their deposit.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 48 agreed to.
Section 49 to 51, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 52.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 67, 68 and 69 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 67:
In page 41, subsection (3), lines 1 and 2, to delete paragraph (a).
This amendment seeks to delete paragraph (a). In a case where the name registered is not the name by which a person is commonly known that name would be misleading and liable to cause confusion. Accordingly paragraph (a) is not necessary.
In regard to amendments Nos. 68 and 69, the same could be said of a name that was unduly long. That may be misleading and cause confusion and for that reason (c) is not necessary. The third point covered in paragraph (d) is that a name containing a political reference is not allowed on the ballot paper. That is untenable and would create enormous difficulties if it were implemented. I am amazed the Minister should make a proposal of that nature. May I illustrate my case with an example?
The name de Valera, as we would all agree, contains a basic political reference in this country and if this provision remains in the Bill Deputy Síle de Valera, because her name contains a political reference, would not be eligible to contest Dáil elections anywhere in this country. The same might hold for a member of the Labour Party, called Mr. James Connolly Heron. That is his grandfather's name; it is on his birth certificate and passport and so on. That name contains a political reference which might be significant for a Labour Party candidate. That candidate would be debarred from contesting elections because of this provision.
The name de Valera is a particularly stark example because it is so unusual. It could be argued that the name Connolly is quite a common name and for that reason may not have the same immediate political connotations as the name of de Valera. That thinking might be applied also to a name like Haughey, although that does not have the same degree of specificity and direct association as de Valera.
I presume there is a relatively small number of people called de Valera in the county so that name when applied to someone undoubtedly carries political connotations. If that provision remains in the Bill a conscientious returning officer would have to exclude Deputy Síle de Valera. I am sure it will make for a delightful conundrum when the returning officer in County Clare faces this dilemma with Deputy de Valera who I presume will contest the next Dáil election for County Clare. It would be a wonderful occasion and add a new level of spice to the historical association of the de Valera family with the County of Clare. It will seem a remarkable paradox that a county which put de Valera on the road politically should be prevented from electing his grand daughter because of a provision inserted in a Bill by a Government in which de Valera's Party is the major partner. I am amazed that de Valera's Party should allow a provision to be inserted in a Bill which might prevent a member of the de Valera family from contesting Dáil elections.
There are a considerable number of questions to be asked in relation to this section. I would like to hear the Minister's response to Senator Upton's points and to a few of my questions.
Section 52 says that a returning officer may object to the name of a candidate on a nomination paper if such name is not a name by which the candidate is commonly known. Somebody who may not be commonly known by their name in Irish may wish to use their name in Irish in elections. At an earlier stage of our discussion Senator Ó Cuív said that he had problems with the way his name was entered on the ballot paper. We are entitled to use the two official languages but if somebody wishes to put their name forward in Irish when they may be more commonly known by the English form, are we saying that they should therefore be disbarred? Problems like that give rise to questions which I do not think the parliamentary draftsman anticipated. In any case what does it matter if a candidate uses a name by which they are not commonly known? Surely a name becomes commonly known only when somebody is elected or has stood for election a number of times? As pointed out by Senator Howard earlier on, the former Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, stood three or four times; he evidently did not do well enough the first time and his name was not commonly known then. I do not see the reason for this unless it tends to mislead and that contingency covered by paragraph (b). Why bother with something as trivial as this when at attempted solution might cause other problems for users of Irish?
In relation to amendment No. 68, we are asking that "unduly long" be deleted. We had this argument before on the question of space for the description of a candidate and whether or not a candidate should use a name that in the opinion of the registrar was unduly long. We should not bother with this matter; regulations if made should determine the amount of space available rather than allow the registrar discretion to decide on suitable length, otherwise we cause unnecessary problems for ourselves.
Paragraph (d) refers to political references and Senator Upton has given a number of examples of political references which could be construed from the names of sitting Deputies. Why should a person's name on the nomination paper not contain a political reference? This is politics, after all, and if Seán Dublin Bay Loftus wants to describe himself as a Christian Democrat or to include Dublin Bay in his name, what is wrong with that? He is naming the single issue that he wishes to be identified with. If he wants to add "Rockall" to it, as he has done in the past, I do not see the problem. Neither do I see a problem with a councillor like Ballyfermot Jackson a local councillor in that area using that title. The problem is more imaginary than real and the restrictions being introduced here are unnecessary.
Amendment No. 69, which is consequential on amendments Nos. 67 and 68, refers to subsection (4) which says "The returning officer shall object to the description of a candidate in a nomination paper which is, in his opinion, incorrect, insufficient to identify the candidate..." We had an argument here before lunch about the problem of describing somebody who is not a member of a political party and that issue falls into this category. The term "non-party" is insufficient to identify a candidate and according to this subsection a non-party candidate may be ruled out on the grounds that his description is incorrect or insufficient to identify him. Non-party must be the most inadequate political description possible. I would like to hear the Minister's reply to these points.
This section brings together the various provisions of existing law in relation to the ruling by the returning officer on the validity of nomination papers. Apart from subsection (7), which is simply a statement of fact, the section reproduces existing law without any change. Amendments No. 67 and 68 propose to delete the provisions in subsections (3) and (4) which provide that the returning officer at a Dáil election in ruling on the nomination of a candidate shall object to the name if it is not the name by which the candidate is commonly known, if it is unduly long or if it contains a political reference. Amendment No. 69 proposes to delete the requirement that the returning officer shall object to the description of a candidate which in his opinion is insufficient to identify the candidates or unnecessarily long or contains a political reference other than where appropriate as reference to a public or elected office held or formerly held by the candidate.
The provisions proposed for deletion are largely those inserted by the Electoral Amendment (No. 2) Act, 1986. The intention of the law relating to the nomination of candidates is clear. It envisages that what will appear on the nomination paper is the name by which the candidate is normally known, his address, his ordinary occupation and, if he is a candidate of a registered political party, the name of the party or, if he is not, the expression "non-party" if he wishes to use it.
Prior to the enactment of the 1986 Act a way has been found of frustrating the clear intention of the law and of getting all sorts of references, political and otherwise, on the ballot paper. Such references were included either as part of the name or under the occupation heading. In many cases the purpose of including this extraneous material was to confuse, mislead or deceive the electorate. The purpose of the 1986 Act was to put a stop to this and to restore the situation to what is clearly the original intention of the law. I suggest that the amendment be withdrawn.
I support the amendment. A good case has been put forward by Senators Upton and Costello highlighting the denial of rights to persons standing for election to describe themselves as they wish. I heard the Minister say that this was all inserted in 1986. I am very much aware of why it was inserted; I was myself one of the causes. It was inserted to disallow me at a local election — not in a national, presidential or European election — but at a local election from entering my name as I wanted to. I was involved in the community and I wished to have "community" after my name in the same way as other candidates for local elections describe themselves by reference to parties etc. Being unable to do so, I and my colleagues Seán Dublin Bay Loftus, Councillor Brendan Lynch and I think Vincent Manning, changed our names by deed poll and I became Carmencita Hederman Community and I was known and addressed as such thereafter by the corporation. I was fortunate through the oversight or stupidity of whoever prepared the ballot paper, because my name should have contained a hyphen. A hyphenated name contains a small dash whereas the dash in Tras Honan-Fianna Fáil is considerably longer. But perhaps in an effort to assist me and my colleagues — whoever drew up the paper may have realised the justice of our situation — I ended up on the ballot paper with Carmencita Hederman-Community containing a dash as long as that of Tras Honan-Fianna Fáil and we were very pleased.
That was a political stroke.
Always anxious to contain the progress of anybody who shows independence of spirit or who manages to describe themselves accurately — I and my colleague described ourselves as what we were — the Government in 1987 tightened up legislation to prevent us doing so. I reverted to my original name subsequently but Councillor Brendan Lynch, who did not, was addressed at every council meeting as Councillor Brendan Lynch-Community. He became known as such and every letter he received from the corporation used that title. He was known to everybody as Councillor Brendan Lynch-Community. At the last election however, thanks to the tightening up to which the Minister referred, the returning officer, the city manager, would not allow him to use "Community" in his name although the city manager had for the last 12 years addressed him as Councillor Brendan Lynch-Community.
Legislators are out to get at Independents. We realise that and it gives us some pleasure to realise that all this legislation is necessary to do us down. Reference has been made to Vincent Ballyfermot Jackson and Seán Dublin Bay Loftus is another example. Seán Dublin Bay Loftus is well known by that name, but it could be decided that that was misleading. Everybody here knows him as Dublin Bay, we do not even call him Seán around City Hall.
And Rockall.
That comes in as well. A good point was made by Senator Upton with regard to the name de Valera and its undeniable political connotations. A community is a body of persons leading a common life or a body of persons in the same locality. Would the Minister tell me in what way it could be construed as a political reference? Those are dictionary explanations for the word.
I greatly resent the Minister's reference to a desire by Independents to confuse, mislead or deceive the electorate. That is totally untrue. I and people like me wanted to describe ourselves accurately. We were allowed to call ourselves "Independent" and we had no ambition to confuse, mislead or deceive the electorate. On the contrary, we wish to enlighten the electorate and make it easier for them to understand who are and what we stand for. I find it personally offensive that the Minister should say I was trying to confuse, mislead or deceive the electorate.
My Labour colleagues have not sounded as convincing on this amendment as they did in the previous few. Nonetheless they have raised a number of issues and I want to focus in particular on section 52 (3) (a). The Minister can anticipate that in this House this Bill will be gone through with a fine comb. Worthwhile opinions may emerge and it might be good for the Minister to leave himself room between now and Report Stage to look at some of the points made here.
I do not like being told by the Minister or anybody else that this is an exercise in bringing together existing law with the implications that there can be no question about it and questions will not help get the Bill through expeditiously. I do not support Senator Hederman. I do not accept that name changes, additions or anything else, will ever succeed in confusing the electorate. The electorate are not that simple.
However, I want to come back to paragraph (a) where it says "is not a name"— and "name" is singular —"by which the candidate is commonly known;". I want to point to implications which have not been raised here. I do not like referring to absent Members but Senator Ó Cuív, who was mentioned earlier, to the best of my knowledge is known in Connemara as "Dev Óg". A party colleague of mine in Clare County Council is known as "Sonny" Scanlon; his name is Patrick Joseph Scanlon. If Patrick Joseph Scanlon were to insist on putting his full name on the ballot paper he could be told by a responsible official that that is not the name by which he is commonly known. Is it the correct name of a candidate or the name by which they are commonly known which is required?
The other complication I foresee arising from this provision is this. If Patrick Joseph Scanlon insists on registering himself by that name and the returning officer agrees, arising from what the Minister has said it may then be open to somebody to challenge the validity of the ballot paper and through that, the election because a candidate is described on the ballot paper by a name by which he is not commonly known. Paragraph (a) uses "name" in the singular and people are conscious of their right to challenge decisions in the courts. If I wanted to disrupt an election and found Patrick Joseph Scanlon entered on the ballot paper for Sonny Scanlon, I would have an opportunity to go to the High Court claiming that an election was illegal on that account.
Senator Howard made some valid points particularly when he referred to Senator Ó Cuív being known as "Dev Óg". That is how I encountered him in the Seanad election. There is nothing wrong with that; de Valera was his grandfather, but if that is the case, it contains a built-in contradiction. If he uses the name by which he is commonly known, it will contain a political reference. The man is in a terrible dilemma.
He cannot stand.
When he goes to contest an election if this business is followed through to the letter, he will be debarred. In addition, it creates an unacceptable dilemma for the returning officer who at that stage may decide to amend the Senator's name. What type of amendment would be put on Senator Ó Cuív in those circumstances? Would his nomination be declared invalid? The Minister should at least agree to go back to the drawing board on these provisions and come up with something more practical and realistic.
There appears to be a preoccupation with seriousness and legalism and a determination to avoid frivolity in the business of contesting elections. People, as Senator Howard said, know only too well what serious candidates are about politically. That is the reality of Irish politics and we are tying ourselves into a big knot and getting ourselves hot and bothered about unduly long names and misleading the Irish public while the Irish public are well clued in whan it comes to choosing where to put their mark when they take their biros out of their pockets at election time.
I have been as straightforward as I can with this Bill and I am disappointed and not convinced by the arguments put forward by Senators today.
The provisions which these amendments propose to delete were inserted by the 1986 Act. The Government of the day regarded these provisions as vital and I do not know whether these Senators have had the opportunity to look back on debates of that time. To help them I would like to draw their attention to columns 934 to 936 of the Seanad Report of 16 December 1986. The speaker was the then Minister for the Environment, Mr. Boland, and I am reluctant to take up the time of the House by reading the full speech. However, I will read a short extract from it. The Minister stated:
Instead of following that straightforward path, however, some organisations and individuals have tried to show virtually how clever they are by finding ways around it. A way has been found of frustrating the clear intention of the present law and of getting all sorts of references whether political or otherwise, onto the ballot paper. This is done by including names or titles, either as part of the supposed name of the person involved or as part of the occupation heading. In many cases the purpose of including that extraneous material has merely been to confuse, mislead or deceive the electorate. Senators will remember that at recent by-elections in Northern Ireland this device was resorted to by a particular organisation to put forward a number of candidates right across constituencies who purported to be known by the name of Peter Barry, the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Republic. In recent weeks the media reported the intention of a person to advance their name and occupation as being identical to the name and occupation of a Cabinet Minister in the present Government, with the intention of confusing or misleading the electorate, and obviously causing unnecessary difficulty in any election which might be held in that constituency. It is important that the potential abuse or loophole should be closed off.
I would like to remind Labour Senators that their party was also a party to those decisions by that Government.
I am anxious to bring this to a close. We have talked about it for almost 55 minutes. I accept that it is an important amendment, but——
It is an important amendment and I think we need to reply to the Minister. To my mind, the Minister has made our point for us. We are saying that the four paragraphs here — (a), (b), (c) and (d) — tautologous. Everything the Minister referred to is liable to cause more problems than they will solve. Instances have been given of people, commonly known by names other than their proper names, who may find themselves disbarred if they use their correct names. Candidates who are vexatious, seek to mislead, confuse, and deceive and provide inaccurate information, but if a candidate provides his proper name he will be disbarred unless he is commonly called by that name. People are entitled to use the Irish or English versions of their names to describe themselves, but they could be disbarred from being nominated, or considered by the returning officer as being properly nominated, because they are not commonly known by the version on the nomination paper.
Paragraph (d) refers to a name containing a political reference. I think that is a minefield. Examples have been given already in relation to the de Valera name. Let me give another; I know a gentleman whose Christian name is Eamon de Valera Sharkey. There is a clear political reference in his name, because his father was a great de Valera supporter and he decided that his eldest son would have the name of the man he admired. That is not a fault, that is an admirable thing, but it does contain a political reference. Under this legislation that could disbar him from being properly nominated as a candidate for election.
Let me give even another example, which has been relatively common in recent times. The daughter of a politician may go forward for election and, having married, retain her father's name for political purposes and it is proper that she should. An example, of course, is our own Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn. I am not sure how that name could be construed under this legislation as it contains a reference to her father who was a TD, and her name helped to get her elected. This is a minefield, particularly, in relation to paragraphs (a) and (d).
Paragraph (c) refers to a name being "unduly long" which is something we should not bother with. As we said, we could get around that by providing equal space for each name. We have never had instances of abuse of that kind and it is not proper to introduce restrictions where there has not been a problem.
The Minister could take on board what we are saying and not pay too much attention to what former Minister Boland said. He is a member of another political party. The substance of what former Minister Boland was saying, I believe, is covered in paragraph (b), which provides that the returning officer shall object to the name of a candidate where, in the nomination paper, such name "is misleading and likely to cause confusion". That, to my mind, covers the multitude. If we keep the other paragraphs also, we are only leading ourselves into trouble.
The former Minister, Deputy Boland was quoted at length. Deputy Boland and I shared common membership of the Fine Gael Party but, as far as I am concerned, that is as far as it goes. I am not bound by the opinions of any former Minister of my party or anybody else. I strongly believe — and I know this view is shared by others, including Senator Honan, that this House has a duty to assert its own independence. Simply telling me what ex-Minister Boland said some time ago is not dealing with the question I raised.
I want to ask a specific question. I am sure the Minister has advice available to him on this. It concerns section 52 (3):
The returning officer shall object to the name of a candidate in a nomination paper if such name — (a) is not a name by which the candidate is commonly known;
I referred to a person in my county whose Christian names are Patrick Joseph, he is commonly known as Sonny. If, for example, the returning officer insists that that name should appear on the ballot paper and if the man in question wishes to be described as Patrick Joseph, what comeback has he? If the candidate should succeed in getting his name Patrick Joseph on the ballot paper, even though he is commonly known as Sonny, is the integrity of that ballot paper safe from challenge in the courts, in view of subsection (4)? It is a very direct and simple question and I should like a simple answer.
The Cathaoirleach and the Minister have been urging us to speed up the debate, saying we have already debated this amendment for one hour. I think the debate on these amendments could be speeded up significantly if the Minister would answer the questions that are put to him. Senator Howard asked a very direct and specific question, which also concerns me. I do not know the man in question but it would be a grave injustice if that were to happen. If the Minister addresses that problem to our satisfaction, I am sure we would be happy to move on to the next amendment, but if the Minister does not address the problems we have, I do not think he can expect us to do anything but continue to raise the same objections.
I agree with Senators Howard and Hederman. In this area of electoral activity we have had our fair share of law, people have been through the legalities of it and quite a number of people involved in politics understand the regulations and the laws in this matter very well. These provisions are set pieces for landing people into the courts. In some cases it will be because they have been genuinely discriminated against and have been at the receiving end of unfair decisions, other people will simply seize an opportunity, which is available to them, to create difficulties during elections. I would like to repeat what Senator Costello said in relation to the proposal to delete paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) and specifically refer to the paragraph the Minister quoted in relation to the one time proposal to run ten or 15 candidates with the name of "Peter Barry, Minister for Foreign Affairs". That difficulty would be readily catered for by paragraph (b). It would be ruled out on the grounds that is would be misleading and would be liable to cause confusion.
I would ask the Minister to consider what has been said, to go back and have another look at this subsection and perhaps come back to us on Report Stage. This is a matter of genuine concern. The present wording is a recipe for problems at election time which will be very unfair to a number of candidates who will find themselves discriminated against.
In relation to the specific question asked by Senator Howard, it is a matter for the returning officer, and if necessary, the courts, if there is any dissatisfaction. That is the procedure.
Is amendment No. 67 being pressed?
Yes, it is being pressed.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand".
The Committee divided: Tá, 24; Níl, 16.
Tá
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Foley, Denis.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Honan, Tras.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Lanigan, Michael.
- Conroy, Richard.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Doherty, Sean.
- Lydon, Don.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McGowan, Paddy.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- Ryan, Eoin David.
- Wright, G. V.
Tellers: Tá, Senators E. Ryan and Fitzgerald; Níl, Senators Upton and Costello.
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Conroy, Richard.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Doherty, Sean.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Foley, Denis.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Honan, Tras.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Lanigan, Michael.
- Lydon, Don.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McGowan, Paddy.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- Ryan, Eoin David.
- Wright, G. V.
Tellers: Tá, Senators E. Ryan and Fitzgerald; Níl, Senators Upton and Costello.
Question declared carried.
|
Costello, Joe.Hederman, Carmencita.Hourigan, Richard V.Howard, Michael.Jackman, Mary.McMahon, Larry.Manning, Maurice.Naughten, Liam. |
Neville, Daniel.Ó Foighil, Pól.O'Reilly, Joe.Raftery, Tom.Ross, Shane P. N.Ryan, John.Staunton, Myles.Upton, Pat. |
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 68:
In page 41, subsection (3), lines 4 and 5, to delete paragraphs (c) and (d).
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand".
The Committee divided: Tá, 24; Níl, 13.
Tá
- Costello, Joe.
- Hederman, Carmencita.
- Hourigan, Richard V.
- Jackman, Mary.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Neville, Daniel.
- Ó Foighil, Pól.
- O'Reilly, Joe.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Ross, Shane P. N.
- Ryan, John.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Upton, Pat.
Níl
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
On a point of order, is it a fact that a student in the House is directing the Labour campaign of obstruction? Is it also a fact that this same student was dumped by Fine Gael——
I ask that that be withdrawn. It is a disgraceful reference.
I have ruled it out of order. It was not relevant, or a point of order.
I move amendment No. 69:
In page 41, subsection (4), to delete all words from and including "insufficient" in line 14 down to and including "candidate" in line 17.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 52 agreed to.
Sections 53 to 56, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 57.
Amendments Nos. 70 to 73, inclusive, are out of order as they involve a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendments Nos. 70 to 73, inclusive, not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 57 stand part of the Bill."
This section is discriminatory. It militates against local democracy. It gives free postage for Dáil elections but not for local elections. I do not see why such discrimination or such anti-democratic sections should remain in the Bill. If we value local democracy — and if we had local democracy in this country — we would want the electorate to know what the issues were as we do in a general election. This section makes it clear what I, to my great distress, have discovered since I came to the Seanad. In spite of the very grandiose language they use in Europe about subsidiarity being a basic plank of the European Treaty and being so important if we are to have more centralisation in Europe, must be counterbalanced by local democaracy, when it comes to the crunch the Government will say they will not do anything. I raised this issue here after they signed the Council of Europe charter on local self-government and I got an emphatic no, they would not do it. That is evidence that they do not tolerate the possibility that local democracy could be introduced in this country.
When you were absent from here and there was an Acting Leas-Chathaoirleach, we were speaking about Maastricht. When I raised this issue, I was told it had nothing to do with Europe and that it was a national issue; there was a Fianna Fáil Acting Chairman. It is outrageous that this section, puts the emphasis on giving free postage only to candidates at Dáil elections and not local elections. I protest in the strongest possible terms.
The Senator is talking on the amendments I have ruled them out of order because they involve a charge on the Revenue. The Senator can make her point on it and has done so. Is the section agreed?
I understand that the amendments have been ruled out of order because they would involve a charge on the Exchequer. The section merits comment because this facility — which one could only describe as privilege — is given to one group — candidates to Dáil elections; is not given to those involved in local elections. However, NUI and Trinity candidates to Seanad elections are entitled to free post. This means there are anomalies in the system which we have to iron out.
The Minister should tell us why he intends to entrench this anomaly in the system. There should be free postage for candidates to Dáil elections, also for local and Seanad elections. The latter groups can reasonably feel aggrieved because they do not have the facility which is afforded to Dáil candidates.
I wish to add to some of the points made by Senators Costello and Hederman on elections to the Dáil and Seanad. I presume the purpose behind making free postage available to candidates is to enable them to get their message across to the electorate. No one here would have any doubts or reservations about the importance of candidates to local government being in a position to get their message and ideas across to the public. In many ways there is a better case to be made for making free postage available to candidates in local government elections because local government elections do not attract the same degree of national publicity as general elections or the same turnout. I do not want to say that the increased turnout is entirely due to the fact that free postage is made available to candidates in general elections; nonetheless, it may be a factor. In local elections every local election area has to be considered separately. It has problems and issues specific to the particular area. Those problems and issues cannot be dealt with at a national level. The provision of free postage to candidates in local elections would be very important. In local elections there is an increased number of Independent candidates. There are large numbers of people new to the political process who do not have much back-up or advice. The provision of a one mail shot for such people would allow them to get their message across to the public and help the democratic process.
I would like to support the point of view expressed already. Local elections do not, as was stated earlier, attract national media coverage either on the television or in the national papers. Having regard to the vastness of some of the electoral areas and to the difficulties of communication in the rural areas, there is an absolute necessity to support the point made already. There should be the same facilities granted for local elections as there are for Dáil elections. The case for such facilities for local elections is even stronger. I would strongly urge the Minister to take that matter on board.
Very briefly, I do not wish to take up the time of the House by going over the various points that have been made. I accept those points, particularly in relation to the local government elections. I am also concerned that the section is silent on the availability of free post for Seanad elections. It would be a dereliction of duty on our part if we did not refer to that particular aspect of it. I would certainly invite the Minister to comment. There appears to be discrimination in the section in relation to Seanad elections and also in relation to local government elections.
This is a Dáil Bill, Senator. It has nothing to do with local elections. I am in a difficulty here. The remarks have been related to free post at local elections. The amendment was ruled out of order by the Cathaoirleach. Therefore, I have a difficulty dealing with the matter.
The Minister says this Bill has nothing to do with local elections. There are places in this Bill where the local elections are mentioned. How does he maintain that the Bill has nothing to do with local elections?
If the Senator reads the Bill she will see clearly that it is dealing with the registration of electors and the conduct of elections to Dáil Éireann. Read the Title. Is section 57 agreed?
The Minister has not answered the case made by Senator Howard. It referred to a Dáil election and must surely include a Seanad election. I am very much in favour of making post available to anybody who is standing for election. I believe we should take pride in our democratic process here and assist it in whatever way possible. I regret that the Minister has not availed of the opportunity to make postage available to candidates in Seanad elections. Outgoing candidates have postage, but other candidates are at a disadvantage. They do not have that same advantage of having free postage available to them. I would like to hear the Minister explain why the opportunity was not availed of on this occasion to make such a facility available to new candidates.
I am getting somewhat concerned that there does not appear to be a willingness to exchange views or to respond to what are legitimate points being made. I have been told that this Bill relates to Dáil elections as been presented by the Minister on 13 December last. It is entitled "an Act to provide for the registration of electors and the conduct of elections to Dáil Éireann and to amend and extend the Presidential Elections Acts, 1937 to 1986, the European Assembly Elections Acts, 1977 to 1986, the Referendum Acts, 1942 to 1987, the Seanad Electoral (University Members) Acts, 1937 to 1973, the Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) Acts, 1947 to 1972, the Local Government Elections Acts, 1963 to 1991, and to provide for related matters". What we are discussing here are "related matters". The local government elections are part of it. I do not want to be fobbed off by being told I am wide of the mark. I am not. It is there in the Title of the Bill.
Further to what Senator Howard has said, I would like to add to his remarks, which I totally agree with. There is not a line of demarcation between Dáil elections and local elections. In practical terms there is a very close relationship between them. In fact, in the context of personnel, it is rather unpractical to put them in separate compartments. The people whom we should be concerned about here in the context of local elections are very much isolated. They are community candidates. We have many of them in the country at the moment. I do not accept, for reasons expressed by Senator Howard and by others, that local election candidates should be excluded from this consideration.
I am as confused as Senator Howard. I read exactly what he read out. Section 10 is an entire section devoted to the registration of local government electors. There are further references on the pages. Section 13 is riddled with references to local government elections.
I have the same problem as the other Senators. We have a section here which refers specifically to nominations. It refers presumably to nominations in relation to the Dáil elections. The actual Bill describes itself as having a broader category in relation to Seanad elections, amending the legislation, local elections and related matters. When we look at the explanatory memorandum it seems to confine the purpose of the Bill purely to Dáil elections. We have a confusing statement of intent in this legislation in terms of the explanatory memorandum and in terms of what is said on the last page of the Bill itself. We have within the section definitions in relation to whose entitled to elect, who is entitled to be on the franchise in relation to Dáil elections, Seanad elections, local elections and European elections. That is covered within the content of the Bill itself. I do not think that it is appropriate for the Minister, as Senator Howard said, to fob us off and say that this matter is not relevant.
If it is not relevant here we would appreciate the Minister telling us where it is relevant to be raised in the context of the legislation, I would say that there are two areas that should be addressed here. First, the Seanad, which allows for free postal service being granted to a certain category of Seanad candidates, whereas other categories are denied this service. Second — and this is something that has not been referred to date — the European elections. Will the Minister refer to that also? What is the proposal there? What will the situation be in relation to European elections, which of course are becoming a much more urgent matter now and will be in the years to come? It is not good enough for the Minister to say that the matter is irrelevant and give us no answer.
I must say that we have had a paucity of answers in relation to our specific questions throughout the course of the day. That has led to arguments, because we have not got replies. There have not been specific replies, or even general replies, to a lot of the points we have raised. At the same time the Minister is not responding to us on the floor. He is not prepared to take the Bill back and come back to us on Report Stage. We are not really getting a decent deal in this House in relation to this legislation. Let me assert also that this legislation has been introduced in this House. This is the first teasing out of this legislation. We have a particular burden of responsibility to ensure that the legislation is teased out to the full. It is not as though it has been dealt with in the other House and is coming up to us. It has been initiated here. It would be a dereliction of duty if we did not probe it as thoroughly as we are attempting to do. It is disappointing that the Minister and his advisers are not coming up with responses to the real questions we are raising here. I would like the Minister to be much more responsive and forthcoming in his attitude towards his legislation.
First, I want to assure the House that if there are any misunderstandings then I am not responsible. I am very clear on my functions here. The Bill deals primarly with Dáil elections. There is a separate code for the Seanad. There is a separate code for the local elections. There is a separate code for the European elections. I want to make it very clear here that I have endeavoured to be helpful to all Senators during the debate on this Bill.
Again, the Cathaoirleach has ruled an amendment out of order. Therefore, we are not in a position to discuss free postage for local government elections.
I accept the point that has been made by the Minister. We can, however, discuss the contents of the section. There is no question about that. I have disallowed the amendment on the grounds that there was a potential change on the Revenue. May I ask if Senator Costello wishes to comment?
We have scarcely addressed the amendments at all. The amendments refer to one specific area. We have gone much wider than that in the context of the entire subject.
We are discussing the contents of the section.
Yes. It is not accurate for the Minister to say that the amendments have been ruled out of order and, therefore, there is no need for a reply. We were asking questions in relation to the entire section. We are seeking clarification on matters in the entire section.
Section 57 deals with the law in relation to the right of candidates to free postage at a Dáil election. A change from existing law in this section means that a person who is a candidate in respect of more than one constituency at the same election will in future be entitled to free postage in respect of one such constituency only. A further new provision will allow the Minister for the Environment, after consultations with the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications and any other interested parties, to vary by regulation the free postage arrangements provided for in this section. Such regulations would require prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.
Does this mean that the facility in the Bill will enable the Minister to grant free postage to local election candidates for local elections? Could we have a little more clarification on what the possibilities are under this regulation in this section? Could the Minister let us know what would be the position in the European elections, or what would be the position in relation to local elections? In other words, does that provision enable the Minister to make regulations which would allow for free postage in local elections or in European elections?
I am getting more confused every time the Minister replies. Does that mean the section to which we objected so much — section 52, dealing with the way a candidate puts his name on the ballot paper — will not apply to a candidate at a local election?
Obviously, we are not re-opening the discussion on that. We have agreed the section.
Members were speaking of local government electors being given free postage. Arising from that I understood the Minister to say that this Bill was not concerned with the local elections. It is only concerned with the Dáil elections. I am asking, therefore, if I am not misunderstanding the situation, whether it is a fact that other sections of this Bill, such as section 52, will not apply at the local elections? Will I be able to stand at the next local elections and call myself Carmencita Hederman, Community, if I want to?
The Minister said when dealing with this section that the change in the legislation from last time is that a candidate standing in more than one area will only be allowed to have free postage in relation to one area only. Does the Minister not think that by jacking up the fee to £500 he is a bit hard on them? He is not even giving them free postage if they are standing in more than one area.
I want to repeat that section 57 relates only to Dáil elections. There are corresponding codes in relation to other elections as well.
What about the amendments on sections 52?
We are not going back to section 52, unfortunately.
It is very relevant. How can we discuss the Bill, or how can we sort out which section refers to which election?
We have agreed section 52.
Yes, after protracted debate we have agreed section 52. The point being raised by Senator Hederman is extremely relevant. How are we to know, as we debate each section, which election it refers to if the Minister is taking the attitude that he has taken on this section? The Title of the Bill has been referred to by Senator Howard. That clearly states that it refers to all elections, as far as I can make out, including local elections. How are we to know which section refers to which election when it is not stated in the Bill which election we are dealing with as we come to each section? The matter will have to be clarified before there is any further discussion on the Bill. It is pointless to raise matters here which are relevant to local elections if the Bill does not refer to local elections. Obviously, it did not arise in the debate on section 52. If it had arisen, what would the Minister's reply have been? It is relevant on this section to know where we are going on the Bill. I would ask the Minister to have the matter clarified. If he cannot clarify it now, perhaps he would clarify it when the matter comes up for debate again. If we are debating it tomorrow or the next day — I do not know what the Order of Business is — perhaps the Minister would clarify it.
Why did the Minister want to keep us in the dark?
I would suggest to the people who are complaining that the best way to find out exactly the position is to actually read the Bill. It is there in black and white on the paper.
We have read it.
I do not know what the problem is.
If the Senator does not know what the problem is then he has not been listening to us for the last 15 minutes. The last line of the Title on the back page of the Bill says "... the Local Elections Acts, 1963 to 1991, and to provide for related matters". If that does not refer to local elections, then I am a Dutchman.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.