I think that an amendment stands in my name on the Order Paper and that the Ceann Comhairle has ruled that amendment as being out of order on this Bill.
Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1947—Committee.
It is not in order.
I shall, therefore, not move it.
Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill".
In regard to Section 6, I want to give notice in order to facilitate the work of the returning officers in connection with the forthcoming general election that I will move a small amendment on the Report Stage to enable the new voters' lists to be prepared in any constituency which may be substantially changed.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 7 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 4, in the second column opposite the mention of Dublin North (East) in the first column, to delete "and Mountjoy Place, thence along Mountjoy Place to Charles Street Great, and thence in an easterly direction along Charles Street Great" and substitute ", thence along Hutton's Place, Mountjoy Place, Mountjoy Square East and Belvedere Place".
This is an amendment designed to adjust the inequality in population between Dublin North (East) and Dublin North (Central) constituencies. On rechecking we found that the population of Dublin North (East) constituency was slightly below 20,000 people per member, and it is proposed to bring the small piece of territory around Mountjoy Place into Dublin North (East). If the amendment is accepted it gives a better line of division and means that the ratio of population in Dublin North (East) will be 20,060 persons per member and in Dublin North (Central) 20,620 per member.
I have also given consideration to the point raised by Deputy O'Sullivan on the Second Stage of the Bill in regard to the position of Donnycarney which the corporation is going to develop as a housing site. I understand that the corporation has already moved to bring this area within the city boundaries. Accordingly, on the Report Stage I shall ask the House to accept an amendment which will bring the Donnycarney housing site into the Dublin North (East) Constituency. I think that this will equalise the ratios as between Dublin North (East) and Dublin North (Central).
I am glad that the Minister took notice of what was said in connection with the constituencies of Dublin North East and Dublin North Central, but he has now explained that he is making the alterations because of the questions of insufficient population in the north-east constituency and that he is taking a slice off the Mountjoy Ward. I hoped, when I raised the question first, that he would straighten out the Mountjoy Ward to Summerhill, leaving it with its natural division at the North Circular Road. Now he has straightened it out undoubtedly but at the expense of the central area. If that is justified on the question of population, then that is all right. I would have expected that the transfer or incorporation of Donnycarney would have given the Minister what he required in the population of the north-east constituency, rather than by taking off the slice at Mountjoy which he referred to. The alteration I suggested would be a more natural alteration.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In page 4, in the second column opposite the mention of Dublin South (East) in the first column, to insert ", the portion of the Rathfarnham Ward lying to the east of a line drawn along Dartry Road" before "and the portion" and to delete "Road, thence southerly along Rathmines Road and Rathmines Upper to Highfield Road, thence in a straight line to and along Dartry Road" and substitute "Road Lower, thence southerly along Rathmines Road Lower and Rathmines Road Upper".
The sole purpose of this amendment is to define more accurately the boundary between the Dublin South (East) and Dublin South (West) constituencies. The Bill as circulated referred to Rathmines Upper and Rathmines Road, while the correct titles of these places are Rathmines Road Upper and Rathmines Road Lower.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In page 4, in the second column opposite the mention of Dublin South (West) in the first column, to delete ", Rathfarnham" and to insert ", the portion of the Rathfarnham Ward which is not included in the borough constituency of Dublin South (East)" before "and the portion".
This is consequential on amendment No. 2.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In page 5, in the second column opposite the references in the first column to "Cork West" to delete the words: "Bealanageary, Cleanrath, Derryfineen, Gortnatubbrid, Inchigeelagh, Slievereagh".
It could be more properly discussed with amendment No. 5.
I do not intend to press the amendment unless the Minister accepts it.
I am afraid that could not be done.
Could you not consider it?
I could not because it would throw out the ratio. Where we had to alter the existing boundaries we have tried to arrange new boundaries so that the population will be equal as far as possible. The estimated population of the area which it is proposed to transfer is 3,242. If you take those out of West Cork and bring them into North Cork, it would increase the population of North Cork from 59,270 to 62,512 and would correspondingly reduce the population of West Cork from 58,620 to 55,378. At the moment the ratio of population per member between North Cork and West Cork is almost equal—it is 19,707 in the case of North Cork and it is 19,540 in the case of West Cork—but if we were to accept the amendment the position would be that North Cork would have 20,917 persons per member and West Cork would have 18,379 persons per member. I would very strongly urge the Deputy to withdraw the amendment.
I am not going to press the amendment, Sir. However, I am afraid that the Minister's proposals are based entirely on, shall I say, figures and squared paper. Definitely West Cork is not simply a squared paper area. With regard to the area of Bealanageary and Cleanrath, Derryfineen and Gortnatubbrid, if the Minister will look at the ordinary half-inch map he will see that a small pocket of people there are completely cut off from West Cork by the mountains and by the hills that circle in the Keimaneigh Pass and that they are thrown into a constituency with which they have no natural connection. As any-one who knows the district round the Keimaneigh Pass, Bealanageary and Inchigeelagh will agree, the most natural arrangement would be to include it with Macroom because the trend of their mind is to fall in with Macroom. They are cut away from the rest of the constituency. The Minister says that to take them away from the West Cork area would reduce numbers. Look further south to Clonakilty and to the east of it. He is taking in the Timoleague dispensary district which in itself is a natural entity. He is dividing it up and throwing it almost artificially into South Cork. As far as West Cork is concerned, knowing the district and having received certain representations in the matter, I think that there are two sections of people being rather inconvenienced. I refer to those who live north-east of the mountains, say in the Bealanageary on to Inchigeelagh district on the one hand and on the other hand the people who are lying immediately to the east of Clonakilty, say in the Timoleague dispensary district. One section there might even off the other as far as South Cork being affected is concerned by taking away the Inchigeelagh district or part of the Timoleague dispensary district and it might be possible to make an accommodation in that respect elsewhere. I only put before the Minister the suggestion that anybody looking at the map or anybody living in the district ought to realise that the proposal in the Bill as far as Timoleague and Bealanageary are concerned is going against the natural fall both of the activities and the mind of the people.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
I move amendment No. 6:—
In page 6, in the second column opposite the mention of North Kerry in the first column, to delete: "Carker, Cordal, Derreen, Millbrook, Scartaglin", and to insert the following group of district electoral divisions, that is to say: "Kilnanare, Kilfelin and Currans;" before "and the Urban Districts of Listowel and Tralee".
This is an amendment to restore the old boundary between the North and South Kerry constituencies. When we were drawing up this we proceeded on the basis of an electoral division because we thought it might be more convenient if we brought it in the Cordal district. We find that having done that we caused a certain amount of inconvenience to the people who have been accustomed to voting in the several constituencies. Not only that, we have proved that in the ratio of population as between North and South discrepancies existed in the existing scheme. At the moment there are 19,651 people per member in North Kerry and there are 18,470 people per member in South Kerry. If the Bill without this amendment were to go through there would be 19,900 people per member in North Kerry and 18,772 in South Kerry and I think, on consideration, that we had better let the old constituency stand.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In page 7, in the second column opposite the mention of West Limerick in the first column, to insert the following group of district electoral divisions, that is to say: "Askeaton East, Askeaton West, Aughinish, Ballyallinan, Ballynacarriga, Castletown, Craggs Croagh, Dromard, Dunmoylan East, Dunmoylan West, Iveruss, Kilconann, Kildimo, Kilscannell, Lismakeery, Loghill, Mohernagh, Nantinan, Pallaskenry, Rathkeale Rural, Rathkeale Urban, Riddlestown, Shanagolden, Shanid." after the group beginning "Athlacca".
This is to correct a printer's error. The whole of this Rathkeale rural district was inadvertently not included and it is proposed to put it in with the West of Limerick.
The Minister may remember that on the Second Reading of this Bill I said that it would seem that he did not take particular care when he was drafting this Bill. I said that he did it in a rush and it would seem that he did. I give the Minister the credit that I think that if he himself had carefully gone over the Bill it would not have come to the House in the condition in which it did come. Apparently, as a result of my hint to the Minister that a revision was desirable, he did so and found that a whole bloc had been left out.
I mentioned that on the Second Reading.
The Minister says that it is a printer's or a draftsman's error. The printer did not get it to print because it was completely forgotten.
It would be a terrible loss to them.
The Minister forgot that places 60 or 70 miles away from the City of Limerick were included in the area. He will probably remember that on the Report Stage. I want to remind the Minister that it is sometimes dangerous to endeavour to rush a Bill through this House. In this instance in his hurry he overtook himself and tripped himself. I know the Minister did not do it intentionally but nevertheless he did it. The important question is how is the population going to be affected by this amendment.
No change.
You mean the numbers were included but the areas were not?
It was entirely a printing error. The Deputy knows where those places are.
I know everything about them quite well. I know every inch of these places. I would remind the Minister that he should have been more careful in presenting a Bill of this character to the House. No doubt Deputies who represent other constituencies will eventually find discrepancies also. It is rather dangerous to rush a Bill of this kind through the House without giving it full consideration.
I do not know much about Limerick but I think it is certainly dangerous not to have very clearly defined boundaries between constituencies. My attention was drawn some time ago to a case of two Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party who were going forward in an election. The senior Deputy sent the junior Deputy into a district which had been cut completely out of the constituency although they had canvassed there for a whole week for first preference votes. I would not like such a thing to happen again.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In the first column, on page 8, to delete the words "East Galway" and substitute the words "North Galway".
I accept that amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Schedule, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Corish
On the Second Stage of this Bill I asked the Minister some questions. He did give an answer but I do not think it was quite satisfactory when I compare Wexford constituency, having four members, with two other constituencies — Longford-Westmeath and Mayo South — which are five member constituencies. The explanation given by the Minister with regard to Mayo South was that there was a temporary decrease in population there and he anticipated that it would increase within the next few years thereby justifying the allocation of five seats to Mayo. I would suggest to the Minister that the increase in South Mayo will not be in such proportion that it will come up to the 91,000 which is the present population of Wexford with four seats. So far as I know Mayo County as a whole is a congested district and the Government is endeavouring to relieve congestion there by moving some of the population to other parts of the country. The population of South Mayo is 88,579. It has five seats for those 88,000 odd. Wexford County has 91,704 people and it has only four seats. I would remind the Minister, too, that Wexford has suffered a decrease in population to the extent of 2.8 per cent. mainly due to emigration in the last ten years. Does the Minister expect that that population will come back to Wexford as he expects the population that has been lost will come back to Mayo South? I am beginning to have some suspicions about this Bill. Cavan, which is a four member constituency, has a population of 70,323. Roscommon, also a four member constituency, has a population of 72,511. Wexford has a bigger population than Cavan to the extent of 21,381. Surely, if Cavan is entitled to four seats and Wexford has 21,000 more people that 21,000 should have some representation. Roscommon is in somewhat the same position. I do not want to take out any particular constituencies merely for the sake of taking representation from them but I do want to point out where the Minister has erred in the allocation of seats. Wexford has 19,193 more of a population than Roscommon. Wexford has only four seats. Roscommon has four seats.
Perhaps if I present this in another way the Minister may understand the situation better. Galway County with a population of 165,196 has nine seats. After eight seats have been given to Galway they are given a ninth seat for 5,196. Mayo with a population of 148,200 has eight seats. After giving them seven seats they get an eighth seat for 8,200. Roscommon with a population of 72,511 has four seats; after giving them three seats they get a fourth seat for 12,511 of the population. Donegal with a population of 136,136 after getting six seats are given a seventh seat for 16,136. When we compare these constituencies with Wexford and consider the treatment meted out to it the position arises that it can be suggested quite seriously that there has been some gerrymandering. In the case of Mayo South the Government did suffer a defeat in the by-election of 1945. I think the representation there at the present time is three Clann na Talmhan and two Fianna Fáil. It looks as if the Government say to themselves: "We are not going to get a third Fianna Fáil seat here. If we are a four member constituency——"
We would get two.
Mr. Corish
"——we would get only one with four."
Oh, no.
Mr. Corish
"But we have a very good chance of getting two out of five." In Wexford Fianna Fáil have held only two seats since, I think, 1927. They have got two seats since at least 1932. They argue with themselves that there have always been three of an opposition in County Wexford. At the height of their fame and power they could never get any more than two no matter how much they tried. They believe that with four they will still get two, but they will cut down the Opposition by one.
I do not like mentioning these things but it would appear as if there has been some gerrymandering with these constituencies. It may be a colossal task to revise constituencies at the present time but I would ask the Minister to consider these matters on the Report Stage. The Minister quoted the Constitution but the Minister framed his Bill not on what is in the Constitution but on what is not in the Constitution.
Article 16 of the Constitution says that the total number of seats shall not be fixed at less than one for 30,000 or more than one for 20,000. In the White Paper the Minister himself admitted:—
"It does not lay down rules to determine details of the distribution although it does suggest that seats should be settled not only on equitable but on a practical basis as well."
I suggest he has not done that in the case of Wexford especially when one compares it with a constituency like Cavan. Wexford has 21,000 more people than Cavan and yet it has only the same number of seats. Wexford has 3,000 of a population more than South Mayo but South Mayo has one seat more. Wexford has about 1,000 population more than Longford-Westmeath. Longford-Westmeath has five seats while Wexford has only four.
I would ask the Minister for some explanation about this. I do not think it can easily be explained away when one considers the allocation of seats in other constituencies.
What Deputy Corish has said now more or less bears out what I said on the Second Reading of this Bill. I said then that it was an ill-considered and hastily thought-out measure. Quite obviously it did not get the care and attention so desirable for a measure of this importance. It it had received that care and attention anomalies like Wexford would not arise. I can sympathise with Deputy Corish inasmuch as his county has been very badly treated. In my own particular county I pointed out to the Minister that the distribution was inequitable and could not be defended. In one area they included in the city part of the country with a population of 40,000 or 50,000 which made the city area a four member constituency thereby giving a preponderance to the city as against the county which practically left the county with only three members on a vote not affected by the urban vote. Places within a mile of the city were included in West Limerick while places 40 miles away were included in the city division. The Minister defends that by saying that he could not do something which would be to the disadvantage of the county people if he took them away from Limerick. I suggest that he could easily have arranged it, if it was necessary to increase the area of Limerick City, so that the city would have representation, and nobody denies that it should have, by taking places around the city equidistant from the city and not by taking a place 40 miles away and another place a mile away. Certain areas in the county would then have gone into the city, but we would have to agree to that. It is inevitable that portion of the county must go in. A large portion which does not go in now is, in reality, part of the city, just as much as Rathfarnham is part of Dublin, and nobody has any objection to these being included. The Minister saw the discrepancy and made attempts to remedy the position in other amendments in relation to other constituencies.
I am not making any suggestion of gerrymandering, but I am suggesting that the Bill was not sufficiently considered. If there was any truth in the suggestion of gerrymandering—and I do not believe there is—the bottom has been knocked out of it because what applied a month ago would not apply to-morrow. If there had been any such intention, I do not believe the Minister would have proceeded with the Bill, because he would have realised that it would not be wise to proceed with such a Bill. On the face of it, we must absolve the Minister of any guilt in that matter. I never made that suggestion, but I do make the suggestion that the Bill was not sufficiently considered. Undoubtedly, Wexford, on the basis of distribution of population, is not getting a fair crack of the whip, and Limerick is being divided in a manner which is not at all equitable, so far as a great many of the areas are concerned.
As between Mayo and Wexford, Deputies may take it from me that I have no bias whatever. We were faced with a situation in which we had a limit of 147 seats within which to work, in which there were three constituencies, Mayo, Longford-Westmeath and Wexford, where the circumstances and conditions were fairly equal so far as population was concerned and in which we had to decide which of them was to be reduced from a five seat to a four seat constituency. In the case of Mayo, it was clear, and we all know, that, due to the special circumstances of the time, there has been abnormal emigration. The population in that county has fallen by 13,000 as compared with 1936. There has been a certain amount of emigration from Wexford, but the population has fallen by only 2,500. We know that Mayo men have gone to turf camps, to the Army, and so on, and, in consequence, the population of Kildare has gone up by 6,000. Bearing that fact in mind, I came to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that the emigration there was temporary and that on the whole it would be more equitable to allow Mayo to preserve its existing five members rather than to reduce them to four.
There may have been another thought in my mind. As Deputy Corish pointed out, there are at present three Clann na Talmhan Deputies and two Fianna Fáil Deputies sitting for Mayo South. If I had reduced the representation in Mayo from five to four, it could have been alleged that I did so in order to deprive the Clann na Talmhan Deputies of one of their three seats. A case could have been made on the basis on which I have made it here for retaining the five-member constituency in Mayo. I suppose there might be reasons why I might prefer Wexford to have five. Fianna Fáil has had three of the seats there on occasion and we are not at all despondent that we might not have them again.
Mr. Corish
Only as a result of byelections.
Oh, no. If the Deputy—he will have to fight Clann na Talmhan on it—will put down an amendment to increase the Wexford representation to five and reduce the Mayo representation to four, so far as I am concerned, I will ask the Whip to leave it to a free vote of the House. As between the two constituencies I have no bias and there is no arriére pensée in what I am saying. One of them had to go and we had to decide, and, rightly or wrongly, wisely or unwisely, but I can tell the Deputy, fairly, as far as we could be fair, we decided that Mayo should have it, and, so far as I am concerned, I will leave it to a free vote as between the two constituencies.
Is the Minister's offer confined to a redistribution of the number of seats between these two constituencies?
Yes, because we cannot go back and start to redraw these boundaries. We have seen how convenient it is. We are to have this general election on the old register and we could never have done that if we had not got back to the administrative counties, the existing electoral units and the existing administrative areas. If we had not done so, it would have been physically impossible to carry out the election on the basis of the old register.
Why did you change them?
That is another matter. I am trying to restore what I think is a rational position.
It is gerrymandering of seats to suit your own purposes.
That matter should have been raised on the Second Reading.
We can expect nothing from the North or from any man coming from the North but gerrymandering. You brought in Carlow at one time——
The Deputy is out of order and will sit down.
You are trying to make it safe for two now, but we will give you a run for it. We are not a bit afraid of you.
The Deputy can associate himself with Deputy Corish if he wants to persuade the House that there should be five seats in Wexford and four in Mayo. So far as I am concerned, I can do nothing more about it. I have put the measure before the House, and, if it comes to a vote, I will vote to retain the existing position, but everybody else can have a free vote on it.
With regard to Limerick, Deputy Bennett complains that we did not put Kilbeheny in with what I would have to call West Limerick. We tried to draw a line. When dealing with a county borough with 40,000 or 45,000 people, the whole basis of the constituency tends to orient towards that area. We had to choose between creating a four-seat constituency around Limerick or a four-seat constituency mainly rural. If we had done the latter, as the Deputy admitted on Second Reading, we would have a constituency running north west and south east.
No; I did not admit any such thing.
It would run from Kilbeheny to Rathkeale and the shortest diagonal we could get for any four-seat constituency based entirely on a rural area would have been something like 50 miles. The Deputy complains that Kilbeheny is 30 miles from Limerick, but at least it is nearer to Limerick than it is to Rathkeale, and I assume that the general character and the general interest of the eastern half of rural Limerick are more closely associated with Limerick City than with Rathkeale. There is this further advantage—at least, it is made certain that the rural population in the constituency, which includes Limerick City, will have an opportunity of returning at least two members. If we had the arrangement the Deputy suggests—a three-seat constituency based on the City of Limerick —then the City of Limerick would, undoubtedly, dominate the whole situation. It is doubtful that even one representative of the rural community would be returned for a three-seat constituency which included Limerick City. Looking at the matter from the point of view of trying to preserve, as I said in my Second Reading speech, the representation of rural Ireland in Dáil Éireann, I decided that, on the whole— there are always pros and cons in a matter of this sort—the rural population would do better, so far as representation is concerned, if I were to make the constituency which includes the City of Limerick, a four-member constituency, because the rural population would then be voting on much more even terms than they would in a three-seat constituency.
Mr. Corish
In view of the fact that the seats have been allocated, I suppose the Minister could not make a more reasonable offer. The Minister should, however, have used a little more discretion before he allocated the seats. That must be obvious to him and to every member of the House now. I suggested that it was the Government's intention to relieve congestion in Mayo. The Minister did not reply to that at all. The temporary decrease in population which the Minister has mentioned has occurred during the past ten years. Is it not reasonable to assume that Mayo will not regain its normal population within, at least, another period of ten years. There was an Electoral Amendment Act in 1935—12 years ago. Why should any constituency, such as Wexford, suffer for ten years more? If the population of Mayo does come back to normal in ten years, nobody will have any objection to the bringing in of an amending Bill to give South Mayo, five seats. At present, South Mayo, as against Wexford, is not entitled to five seats. It will take ten years at least to regain its former population—possibly, 15 years. I appeal to the Minister to reallocate the seats on Report Stage. I am taking out Mayo as a particular example but I submit that the Minister did not use very sound discretion in his allocation of seats.
The Minister misrepresented the case with regard to Limerick. He suggested that, if we had any other arrangement, it would interfere with a certain section of the rural population in Limerick. Suppose we base a three-member constituency on the City of Limerick. If they say they cannot get proportional representation unless they increase their area, we shall say, though we do not like it, that we will give the area in order to afford such representation. Take portion of a circle for five or six miles around the City of Limerick. I believe that that would give all the population needed to make a three-member constituency for Limerick and people from the rural areas who would be taken into the city area would not be at all as much inconvenienced as those people of other areas whose interests are largely connected with Mitchelstown, County Cork. Most of the people even in my district sell their stuff in Mitchelstown, County Cork. The people nearer to Mitchelstown have no connection whatever with Limerick City and it is very unfair to bring them into an area the members for which will not be interested in them.
The Minister suggested that, if he made Limerick a three-member constituency, the rural people would not get a member at all. That might happen but it might also happen in the case of a four-member constituency. Limerick has a population of 42,000. With the north rural, south rural and suburban area, Limerick will have a preponderating vote and anybody who stands as a city representative will have an unfair advantage. The fairest method would be to make a semi-circle. around the city, as I have suggested, and to put in places like Ballycummin, which were left out. They market in the city and their connections are with the city. None of them, I think, will have a grievance if included in the city area. Their grievance would not be as great as that of Kilbeheny, Ballylanders and other districts. The thing was done in a hurry. I do not suggest that there was any attempt to gerrymander and I am not making the case for political reasons. I do not mind one whit, personally, whether the position is left as it is or not. But, when we are making a change, I think we should do it in a fair manner. If you are going to take in an area to give the city representation, take an area near the city and do not go 40 or 50 miles out. The Minister asked if I suggested that the people of Kilbeheny were not as much attached to the City of Limerick as the people of Rathkeale.
He did not say that.
I might ask if people of Dooradoyle were not as attached to Limerick as the people of Glin. The suggestion is ridiculous.
If the Minister has still an open mind with regard to the allocation of seats as between constituencies, I should like to draw his attention to the position of Wicklow and Carlow-Kilkenny. Three seats have been allocated to Wicklow and five to Carlow-Kilkenny. I am in favour, as a general principle, of adhering to the county boundaries. In most cases, that is desirable for administrative reasons, and the people, probably, favour it. A section of Carlow was brought into the Wicklow constituency for the last general election. That section of Carlow is a sort of pocket, extending over the County Wicklow border, so to speak. The particular area added to Wicklow conforms very closely to the type of farm in Wicklow and the agricultural conditions that prevail there. It is typical of Wicklow soil and agricultural conditions. In addition, it fits closely into the County Wicklow. The distribution of seats according to population would favour adding a little to Wicklow constituency and taking a small amount from Carlow and Kilkenny, as far as my reading of the figures goes.
They are very nearly equal.
They are very nearly equal but the number of population in proportion to each seat is less in Wicklow than in Carlow and Kilkenny. That is only a small matter and it is only in the event of there being reconsideration of constituency divisions that I put it forward. I was interested as an outsider, in the point raised in connection with Limerick. It seems to me that the ideal solution of that problem would be that as there are ten seats in the whole county of Limerick, including the borough——
Nonsense.
There are only seven.
And there are three constituencies.
No; there are only two.
The Deputy has not read the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
SECOND SCHEDULE.
Amendment No. 9 not moved.
Second Schedule and Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
When is it proposed to take the Report Stage?
On Tuesday. I do not know whether it has been decided yet to meet on Tuesday or not.
Up to what time will amendments be accepted for Report if we meet on Tuesday? Will amendments be accepted on Tuesday morning?
I will say Wednesday.
Are we meeting on Tuesday?
I thought there was some possibility that we might.
There has been no notice so far, I think.
If we do meet on Tuesday, it is all right to take it on Tuesday provided the Chair will accept amendments up to Tuesday morning.
We will take the Report Stage on Wednesday.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 12th November.