Before the debate on this section was adjourned last week, there was a discussion as to whether there is a better way of dealing with the register of electors than that in operation since the late 1940s and I undertook to see if an improvement could be made. I have examined the matter and I have found that the arrangements which are there at present are apparently the only reasonable method of dealing with this matter. I, therefore, do not think there is any need for change. I am sure Deputy Molloy has also looked into the matter in the meantime and that he will agree with me.
Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1973: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."
The Minister undertook to examine this matter in relation to the publication and the continuance of supply of the register. There was discussion on the question of wastage of public money and the Minister was to see if the regulations or the law governing this matter were adequate or if the anomaly which we suggested could occur. He has now merely informed the House he is satisfied that the law governing this matter at the moment is adequate. I should like to ask him to explain if this wastage of public money will take place or whether the Minister considers there is a wastage of public money. I am wondering if the Minister might elaborate on his very brief statement.
During his statement on this section, the Minister referred continually to what has happened before, to what was done by previous Ministers. Even if some of these Ministers were Fianna Fáil Ministers, that does not necessarily mean they were always correct any more than it means that the present Minister is correct. The practice of looking back and giving past practice as the reason for doing something is not the best way. The fact that Mr. Boland or Deputy Blaney did something in this regard does not make it correct.
Am I right in saying that when the register is being compiled it is a matter for the county council and that naturally every county council will deal with the county as defined by the county boundary and that it is necessary to keep a current register available in case of a by-election? Take my county with which the Minister is well acquainted. Although Kildare County Council would deal with the compiling of the register for the whole county, they would also deal with the portion of the county that is in the constituency of Meath. At the moment they would have County Kildare and parts of the constituency of Meath. They are still awaiting news of future new electoral areas.
The county officials have got that information.
We were not given it at our meeting on Monday. It would be essential to know about these new electoral areas when compiling the register. The present system as it operates is possibly the best one. It would not be a matter of compiling a new register. In some cases it might mean separating different sections of it but it would be merely a matter of printing over "Meath" with "Kildare" or vice versa, as the case may be. I think the present system is the best.
Deputy Power has put it better than I could. The situation is simply that I agreed to have another look at this to see if it could be improved. Having done so, I am satisfied that the arrangements made in 1947, long before the time of Deputy Blaney or Mr. Boland, are the best. This matter was discussed time and again and it was apparently agreed this was the proper way to do it. I do not believe in change for change sake. If somebody wants an example, I can mention that of Crossakiel, in the county electoral area of Ceanannus Mór. It was in the constituency of Cavan from 1969. This will be printed again in this way but it will be overprinted with "Constituency Meath, 1974". There will be no extra printing. It is the cheapest way that it can be done and if Deputies can think of a cheaper way I should be pleased to get their suggestions. It is also the most efficient way.
The Minister is assuming that the House will accept this Bill.
I am sure of it.
What is the reason for the difference in terminology in subsections (1) and (2)? Subsection (1) refers to where a polling district or part of a polling district is situate in what amounts to a new constituency.
the Minister may by direction provide for the entry of the name of that constituency in respect of the polling district or part of the polling district....
Subsection (2) states:
Where a constituency specified in the Schedule to this Act is identical in area with none of the constituencies existing at the passing of this Act, a postal voters list or lists shall be prepared in respect of it by the registration authority or registration authorities concerned as soon as may be after such passing.
It seems strange to me that there is a specific obligation on the registration authority to prepare a new postal voters list immediately after the passing of this Act, and it is given no discretion about this but, on the other hand, a matter that surely is at least as important, the preparation of new registers for new constituencies, is subject to the discretion of the Minister who, in the words of subsection (1), may by direction provide for the entry of the name, and so on. It seems to me very strange that a registration authority should be compelled by this section to draw up immediately a new list of postal voters but that the Minister is given discretion as to whether or not he will give directions about the naming or the drawing up of a register for a new constituency that is created under this Bill.
There are situations which are much more complex than the sort of example the Minister was giving in reply to Deputy Power because at the moment there are polling stations and, accordingly, issues of the register in respect of which two or three partial polling districts have to vote at a particular polling station. The register is drawn on the basis that all the people of a particular issue of it vote at one place but I know of numerous examples in County Limerick at least— and I am sure the same applies elsewhere—where part of three different district electoral divisions vote together at one polling station. They are not the whole of these three electoral divisions and they are not the whole of any one of them but they are part of each of three of them.
It does not arise in County Limerick that under this Bill any change is made as between the two Dáil constituencies there but inevitably it arises in a great many other constituencies and you will have situations therefore, where part of an electoral division which is in one constituency at the moment with parts of other electoral divisions is being removed, with the remainder of the first electoral division, into another constituency and it is therefore, impossible for the registration authority simply to print the new name of the constituency on top of the register because part of what is in that particular register— and when I talk about register here now I mean the three or four or five sheets that relate to one particular polling place—part of that will be in one constituency and part of it will be in another and it is not simply a question of overprinting it. That cannot be done.
A whole new register would have to be prepared if part of an existing one is in one constituency and part of it is in another one. What I do not like is that an obligation is imposed by this section on the registration authority, which is the local authority, to prepare immediately new lists of postal voters but discretion is given to the Minister about whether or not new issues of the register for a new constituency that might arise if and when this Bill is passed, will be printed. This, of course, makes the position impossible for Deputies or prospective Deputies or councillors or prospective councillors because they do not know where they stand. One can assume that this Bill will not be law before 15th April next. The registration authorities have an obligation to provide a full register in relation to the existing constituencies and to publish it on the 15th April or shortly before the 15th April, 1974. If this Bill were to be passed after the 15th April, 1974, unless it is written into this section that a new register would be provided then, there will in effect be no register from then until the 15th April, 1975, in constituencies which are changed, if a general election were to be called between 15th April, 1974 and 15th April, 1975. The duties of the local registration authority should, therefore, be spelt out in subsection (1). It should not be left to the discretion of the Minister, as is proposed here, so that we would not have the sort of situation that I am talking about and that will undoubtedly arise in many different constituencies.
It is rather extraordinary to hear Deputy O'Malley making comments like these because, as I said previously, it is not unusual to find people who have come into this House for the first time, who are not aware of how things are done, making mistakes. Deputy O'Malley must know that what he has said is not correct. For instance, as far as the question of the phraseology is concerned, it is for some peculiar reason —I do not pretend to understand all the reasons—that the parliamentary draftsmen use certain phrases. They believe that it is the correct phrase which is used in subsection (1) of section 6 and they have been using it right down through the years and it has worked admirably.
As far as subsection (2) is concerned, again I think Deputy O'Malley should know with regard to postal voters, it simply means in most cases not more than about 100 names. It is quite a simple matter immediately to arrange for a list of 100 names, or whatever number it may be. That is quite a simple job. It is a different thing altogether where there are 60,000 names which have to be done if it were to be done immediately with regard to the other one. As I have said, the register is drawn up and the new constituency is marked on the portions of it where it must be marked and if a polling area is broken into one or two or three or more, as it may be, then there are separate pages of sections in the booklet and they are specially marked and this is being done. If Deputy O'Malley cares to go to some of his colleagues who are in one of the constituencies where this is happening at present, he can be shown a copy of the existing register where this situation arises. It is quite a simple matter. In the case of the one I have in my hand here, Crossakiel, part of the county electoral area of Ceannanus Mór, in fact, part of this is in Cavan and part is in County Meath. We did not find any difficulty at all. If it had been over a few miles, part of it would be Cavan, part Meath and part Monaghan, which happened the last time, and, in effect, the one register would work in that way. It is quite a simple process and I assure the House that it is the easiest way of dealing with this matter and there is no question of anybody trying to pull a fast one or no question of things being done incorrectly. This is and has been proved to be the simplest way of doing it and the most effective way of doing it. That being so, there does not seem to be any reason why we should have to do anything with it.
I do not know whether the Minister feels that he has, in fact, replied to the point made by Deputy O'Malley. The only information that I could glean from the reply was that this was the way the parliamentary draftsmen had decided that it should be worded and that he should not be asked to explain why the parliamentary draftsmen had decided to word it in such a way. It is obvious that there are two different methods being employed, one for the ordinary register and the other for the list of postal voters. I would like to remind the Minister that when we were discussing this on the 20th February he stated that the Minister's direction would be given at the dissolution of the Dáil but in this case it states that in relation to postal voters it can be prepared immediately after the passing of this Bill. I do not think it is good enough of the Minister just to state that this is the way the parliamentary draftsmen had decided to word it. There is an obvious difference in the mechanics being suggested in the Bill as to how these registers should be drawn up and the Minister should give a clear explanation of it.
I do not propose to proceed to answer the same question again and again in the House nor should I be asked to do it. Deputy Molloy has got the answer and he has got it as clearly as it could be given. He was told the last night when we were discussing this matter that even though the direction is not given until the Dáil is dissolved, the authorities who are drawing up the registers do make the necessary preparations immediately and, therefore, have the registers ready waiting for the direction to be given so that they can be distributed. That is No. 1. No. 2, in regard to the question of the postal vote, they do it in the very same way. They prepare them immediately and there is no reason why they should not do so when the number is so small. There is nothing further that I can explain. As far as I am concerned, I have explained it fully and I think everybody who wants to understand can do so. I asked if anybody had any suggestions. Can anybody in the House suggest a better way of doing it? I cannot, but if somebody can show me a better way of doing it, most certainly I shall have another look at it. So far, this has not happened. Even from the time when the Bill was first published in October until now nobody has suggested a different way of doing it. I am satisfied this is the proper way and unless the Opposition can produce some better proposal I think we should get on with the business.
It is a pity that when you ask a question in the House, which apparently the Minister is not in a position to answer, you are told that everybody understands it except yourself. You are told this in a sort of patronising way as if you were a callow youth just in from the street but in the very same breath and almost in the same sentence the Minister goes on to say that he cannot understand what the parliamentary draftsman had in mind.
I did not say that.
The Minister told us—and I am sure the record will bear this out—that he does not know why the parliamentary draftsman used different terminology in subsection (1) to the terminology he used in subsection (2). That was one of the several questions I asked the Minister.
I did not. Would Deputy O'Malley give way and allow me to explain?
Yes.
I said that the parliamentary draftsmen used a certain type of phraseology in drafting the Bill. I do not claim to understand every one of the reasons why they do this but they have done it over the years in this type of Bill and it has been accepted by the House and has worked properly. In regard to subsection (2) I made it very clear that the reason why it was done in this way was that the people who were preparing the register of postal voters can do so immediately because the number is very small, about 100 as against 60,000 in the other case. It is as simple as that. I do not think anybody should be surprised or could not understand what it means.
The Minister told me that the direction which is referred to in subsection (1) would be given by him immediately after the dissolution of the Dáil. I trust I do not misquote him on that.
That is right.
Would the Minister be good enough to refer to subsection (1)? ... "the Minister may by direction..." is in the first line on page 3. He may by direction provide for all these things we are talking about. Would the Minister now go to the second last line of subsection (1)? He may do these things "before the dissolution of Dáil Éireann which next occurs after the passing of this Act..." In other words, the subsection which the Minister is purporting to elucidate to us now provides specifically for the direct opposite of what the Minister has stated and reiterated in a reply to me now about which I did not misquote him. The only time that the Minister under the subsection could give this direction is before the dissolution of Dáil Éireann which next occurs after the passing of this Act. Will the Minister reconcile that with what he has just told me?
I do not see anything to reply to. I do not propose to repeat the same thing over and over again.
The Minister said the Bill had been circulated since October and that so far no amendments have been tabled to this section. From recollection, in the case of the previous Bill brought in by the Fianna Fáil Government no amendments of any kind were tabled on Committee Stage. It was only on Report Stage that the important schedule amendment was tabled. This is my recollection and I may be wrong. We have plenty of time yet to put down amendments to this section. What we are trying to do is to get a clarification of section 6 and the procedure under which the Minister will operate. If this is clarified to our satisfaction and we know what is intended, very well, but there is an opportunity for us to put down amendments if we are not happy with the Minister's explanation. And I do not think we are.
I propose to repeat the question, which is a net question which I put to the Minister and to which he has refused to reply.
I suggest that repetition is not in order.
The question is this. The Minister has told me that I did not misquote him when I said that he said that he did not propose to give a direction under subsection (1) of section 6 until after the dissolution of this Dáil. I have now pointed out to the Minister that the subsection provides that the direction may be given at any time before the dissolution of Dáil Éireann which next occurs after the passing of this Act. I have asked the Minister how does he reconcile what he told the House and repeated to the House with what is in the subsection?
It is your turn now, Joe.
No, Joe, sit down. Let him answer.
We are waiting for the Minister to reply to the point made by Deputy O'Malley.
I do not intend to repeat the same thing over and over again.
I think parliamentary debate is being reduced by the antics of the Minister to the level of farce.
By the antics of those over there.
We are endeavouring to elucidate a difficult section. I asked a net, precise question of the Minister. He refuses to reply, first, on the grounds that everyone understands it and, secondly, on the grounds that he already replied to it—which he did not—and now he sits silent for a long period. Then in order to get out of his embarrassment he invites Deputy Joe Dowling to contribute on the section. We now have the situation that one asks in good faith a precise, net question of the Minister to which, presumably, there must be some answer in the light of the Minister's earlier statement but because he is caught and his back is to the wall and because he has contradicted himself he does not want to give an answer and he endeavours to get the discussion on to some other point. It is no harm to draw the attention of the House to this fact. When the Minister is in error he tries to bluff his way out of it and tries to invite other Deputies to speak on the point so that his confusion will be covered up. Do we take it that there is still no answer from the Minister?
A sit-in strike.
I have answered and I spent quite a long time doing so. I do not propose to indulge in the charade Fianna Fáil have been carrying on on the previous section and on this one. They have got their answer.
We got no answer.
If they do not like it. they have an alternative.
A most extraordinary situation has developed. I submit that the Minister is treating the House with gross contempt. If he cannot understand the argument ably made by Deputy O'Malley, I suggest he should withdraw and send in somebody who is competent to conduct this debate in the House. The point he made is well understood by the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Kelly. It is a simple point needing clarification. We demand an explanation before this debate goes any further.
The Deputy may demand what he likes. I have given an explanation on the points raised on more than one occasion. Fianna Fáil Deputies are asking question to which they know the answer. They were prepared to accept them when they were in office as being in order. They obviously intend keeping up this charade. They either understand or they do not. I have given my answer and I do not propose to make little of Members of this House by listening to the rather foolish points made by Deputy O'Malley, Deputy Molloy, Deputy Cunningham or anybody else. If they continue to make the same points over and over again, so long as you, Sir, allow them to do it, they are entitled to do so, but I do not intend to waste the time of the House by continually answering the same question. This was done on section 2 for almost five and a half hours when, they spoke in favour of 148 Members and then voted against it. If they want to do this again they can do so.
The Minister is covering up for his own incompetence.
There was no incompetence since Deputy Molloy left the Department.
Because the Minister alleges that he believes he replied to my question, which I dispute, I propose to repeat my question in as precise terms as I can. I hope the Minister can keep himself under control until he hears it. If he does not know the answer, he can obtain it from one of his advisers and then give me the answer. The Minister has already stated, and he agreed with me that I did not misquote him when I said he stated that he would not give a direction under subsection (1) until after the dissolution of this Dáil. I asked the Minister and he did not reply, and I now ask him again, how does he reconcile that statement with the wording of the subsection which says that.
The Minister may by direction provide for——
various things are mentioned and the subsection ends——
before the dissolution of Dáil Éireann which next occurs after the passing of this Act.
Deputy O'Malley has completely misread the section. The words "before the dissolution of Dáil Éireann" relate to the words "prepared" and "published" and not to the words "the Minister may by direction". The Deputy should have read the Bill before he comes into this House trying to make things worse than they are.
Is the Minister answering the question?
I have answered that question twice and I am answering the Deputy's misquotation now.
Is that the Minister's reply?
The Minister's reply does not satisfy me. I have listened to Deputy Molloy and Deputy O'Malley and can see the reason for their question arising out of this section. I have heard the question, I have heard the answers but I am not clear on the Minister's reply. I cannot understand how it relates to Deputy O'Malley's question. It is necessary for us on this side of the House to be clear what the Minister has in mind in order to frame, if necessary, an amendment to this section.
As the Minister is unwilling to debate the merits or demerits of this section, except to make personally abusive observations on the bona fides of any Deputy who dares to question any word in this Bill, I will return to my original point.
There is a strange and significant difference in terminology between subsections (1) and (2). Subsection (1) states that the Minister may by direction provide for certain things as if it were optional. He may not give that direction at all. The register may never be corrected between the passage of this Act and the holding of the next general election. Whether it is corrected will lie within the discretion of the Minister. On the other hand, subsection (2) states that
a postal voters list or lists shall be prepared in respect of it by the registration authority or registration authorities concerned as soon as may be after such passing.
It is very significant that there is an obligation on the registration authority under subsection (2) but there is no obligation on anyone under subsection (1) and it may never be done. The Minister has asked for suggestions as to how the section may be improved. Why could subsection (1) not be amended to read on the same lines as subsection (2)? Instead of using the words "the Minister may by direction provide" he could use "the registration authorities shall prepare a list of XYZ".
The Minister has made a point that it is easy to prepare a list of postal voters because they run to only 100 or so and changes in the register as a result of this Bill may run into tens of thousands. I accept that a registration authority could not print and publish a new register for a whole constituency within a very short time if major changes were made by this Bill. They need not be obliged under subsection (1) to do it within a very short time. Words could be added like "as soon as conveniently possible" or "as soon as is feasible" or some words like that which would leave them a reasonable period of time in which to draw up a new register. The words used in subsection (2) are "as soon as may be after such passing". That is a vague phrase which I imagine means "as soon as they can possibly do it". We must make allowance for the fact that the reprinting of an entire register is a complicated matter and a phrase as suggested could be inserted in subsection (1).
We might consider putting down an amendment to make these matters clearer either on the Committee Stage of this section, assuming that this section will continue until 10.30 tonight and progress is reported on it or, alternatively, if the discussion on this section were to finish before 10.30 tonight, we would consider putting down an amendment for Report Stage on the lines I have suggested. If the Minister were to explain to me why such an amendment should not be put down or why it would not improve the situation as it is ambiguously expressed in this section, I would consider not putting down such an amendment. Why is the wording in subsection (1) better than my suggestion?
Deputy O'Malley is being reasonable. As a layman I consider his suggestion is a reasonable one, but my officials inform me that the section as worded is the correct phraseology.
Why?
They consider that this wording has stood the test of time. If I was drafting the Bill originally and there was no Bill there which had this phraseology in it I would be inclined to say exactly as Deputy O'Malley has said. However, if the wording in the Bill is the wording which has been in operation for nearly 30 years it is a different matter. We do not know everything, and the officials who are the experts in this matter tell me that the wording in it is more correct than the wording which is proposed by Deputy O'Malley.
I have not a closed mind on these things and if wording comes which appears better I have no objection to making a change either in this House or when the Bill goes before the Seanad, but if the existing wording is better I do not want to change it. It is as simple as that.
I am delighted to see that the Minister and this side of the House are on better terms after our little tiff earlier on the subsection. The Minister is honest enough to agree that the wording I have suggested to him now is superior, in his view as a layman, to the wording that appears in subsection (1). I should like to draw the attention of the House to what I regard as an ominous development in this Legislature. The Minister, having agreed with me that my wording seemed to him as a Member of the House to be superior, went on to say that he could not accept it because his two officials did not agree with it.
I am responsible for what I do——
That is what I hoped.
I know it is a nice thing to be able to have a go at an official who cannot answer back. The Deputy should leave the officials out of this.
That was done from this side of the House when the Minister was over here but I accept it was not done by the Minister when he was in Opposition.
(Interruptions).
I am repeating what the Minister said in relation to my proposed new wording for part of this subsection. He said that his officials advised against it, that they thought the wording used in the section was more satisfactory than the alternative wording which I suggested and which the Minister seemed to think was clearer and more suitable. In my view it is carrying bureaucracy too far if we have in this House a Minister who agrees with several members of the Opposition that an alternative wording to a section suggested by the Opposition is clearer and is preferable, but because of advice received he feels he cannot accept that wording. Presumably if it was put to a vote of this House this House would, on the strength of that advice, have to vote against something which both sides of this House feel is superior to what is in the Bill. It is a sign of our times that this should be the position but this, unfortunately, is the position.
We understand by deduction, if not specifically, that the reason given to the Minister for the alleged superiority of the phraseology in the subsection is the fact that it stood the test of time or that it was used in previous Bills. Those of us who watch what happens in the courts see that quite frequently nowadays Bills and wording in Bills and Acts which were regarded by everybody in this House when they were being passed as satisfactory and suitable were found to be defective in some way or other. Some of them were so defective that they were found to be contrary to the Constitution although some years ago a lot of people would not have believed that such could be the case.
Therefore, there is a duty on all of us, not least on the Opposition, to seek to improve the wording of sections which are obscure. We have the unique position here that I, having made some suggestions, have obtained the agreement, fairly given, of the Minister that my suggestions are good ones, that the wording I suggested is, in his view as a Minister, superior to the existing terminology but, nonetheless, this House, the elected representatives of the people, are to be precluded now from making a change that all of us on both sides of the House feel to be desirable. Is this bureaucracy gone mad? Is this the truth of the allegation that is made from time to time in this country that the real seat of power is not this House or the Cabinet room in Government Buildings?
This problem goes deeper and is of much greater significance than simply the wording or the alternative wording of subsection (1) of section 6 of the Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1973.
The Deputy is trying to delay the House by making an argument which he knows quite well is not valid. As far as this Government are concerned we run the Government ourselves and we do not do as our predecessors were alleged to have done, allow the senior civil servants to make decisions for us.
Will the Minister agree to my amendment when his officials do not like it?
I know that Deputy Molloy, particularly, on every occasion a Bill is introduced says that he was responsible for it.
Not this Bill, I had nothing to do with it.
Not this Bill, but every other Bill. I want to point out to Deputy Molloy and to Deputy O'Malley who have held ministerial office that if they think they will cod the House or the country by saying that they drafted the Bills which came before the House in their time they are incorrect. These Bills are drafted by the parliamentary draftsmen. I want the country to know this because Deputy O'Malley and Deputy Molloy want to give the impression that they were the people who drafted these Bills.
I want to make it very clear to Deputy O'Malley and Deputy Molloy that the parliamentary draftsmen, in their wisdom, have drafted the ideas which we had in a certain way and those ideas are here. I did not decide on the drafting of this Bill; I did not decide that this phraseology should be used. They are the words which were used before a lot of us came into this House and before a lot of us were born. That being so, it is rather ridiculous that someone from the Fianna Fáil benches, after being satisfied for so long that the draftsmen were doing a good job, should object to the drafting of the Bill and state that there is a drafting error.
My comment was that as a layman I thought that the phraseology used by Deputy O'Malley would be preferable to the words used in the drafting of the Bill. If Deputy O'Malley wants to put down an amendment to it I would be prepared to look at it. I have not a closed mind. The advice came from the experts, and every one of us in Government, and those who have been in any Government at any time, must depend to an extent in dealing with matters of this kind on the expert advice given. Although some people like to claim they are experts on everything I do not so claim and I take advice on matters like this from people who know more about it than I. There is no point in having a long drawn-out discussion on this. If the Deputies wish to have the matter amended they know the procedure for doing so. There is nothing to stop them putting down an amendment on Report Stage or in the Seanad or, if this goes on long enough, they might be able to do it the next time this comes before the House. I am prepared to look at it. As it is, I am assured that the wording is correct and does, and has done, and has been proved to do, what was intended when the Bill was first written many years ago.
Subsection (2) of section 6 speaks of postal voters. This being an Electoral (Amendment) Bill the Minister and the Government should have taken this opportunity to amend what has been proved through years of experience to be a completely inadequate postal voting system. They should have made arrangements to give postal votes to commercial travellers, to senior citizens, to hospital patients, and to many other people. In England, where there is a general election in progress at the moment, we see that postal voting is quite common. I see no reason why similar arrangements cannot be made to extend the range of postal voting.
On a point of order, this is not the Bill which deals with that type of thing. This Bill does not deal with postal voting.
It deals with the preparation of postal voting lists.
The subsection speaks of postal lists and postal voters.
It does not say who should be on the list.
I am saying it could be extended to include that. I am asking why the Minister did not extend it. It has become obvious——
It is outside the scope of this Bill.
I do not agree, with all due respect. I cannot see why the range of postal voters cannot be extended in an Electoral (Amendment) Bill. We are talking about an amendment to electoral procedures. Surely it is possible and quite practicable to put in a section dealing with postal voters and the range of people who should be included in postal voters.
This Bill deals with the revision of the constituencies. It does not deal with electoral law as such.
On a point of information, subsection (1) refers to part II of the Electoral Act, 1963, which sets down the law regarding who is and who is not entitled to a postal vote. I submit that the Chair should reconsider his decision as to whether or not this is in order.
Deputy Molloy is aware that who is or who is not entitled to a postal vote is not relevant to this Bill.
The Minister himself said that the existing number of postal voters was small. It could happen that, between now and the time this becomes effective, there might be a large extension of that number and now is the time to provide for it.
This Bill does not make provision for that.
The point is that subsection (2) of section 6 of this Bill refers to postal voters.
When the Bill was being debated on Second Stage the Deputy had an opportunity of making that point. We are now on Committee Stage.
So? The point being that I am not entitled to speak about it?
The Deputy is entitled to speak about what is in the Bill at the moment.
Subsection (4) of section 7 of the Electoral Act, 1963, provides:
An elector shall be entered in the postal voters list if he is—
(a) a member of the Garda Síochána, or
(b) a whole-time member of of the Defence Forces (as defined in paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of section 5 of this Act).
Subsection (1) of section 6 of the Bill we are discussing provides:
Where a polling district or part of a polling district is situate in a constituency specified in the Schedule to this Act which is identical in area with none of the constituencies existing at the passing of this Act, the Minister may by direction provide for the entry of the name of that constituency in respect of the polling district or part of the polling district, in every draft register, list of claimants, register of electors and list of corrections prepared under Part II of the Electoral Act, 1963, and published by a registration authority before the dissolution of Dáil Éireann which next occurs after the passing of this Act.
Which, as the Deputy read out, confines the electoral list of postal voters to certain classes of people.
May I point out that the Bill is explicit and only matters contained in the Bill may be discussed? There is nothing in it about people who are entitled to a postal vote. As Deputy Burke is aware, a considerable amount of investigation has been done into those who should be entitled to a postal vote. I hope to have many more included but it will be necessary to introduce separate legislation to deal with it. That is the situation and we are purely wasting time. That may suit the Opposition but that is the position.
I am grateful to the Minister for the information that he intends to introduce another Bill.
I said I hope to.
Is it "hope" or "intend"?
I said I hope to.
That means the Minister might do it at some time in the future but, in the meantime, the unfortunate people who are being deprived of their vote——
And were for the past 30 years.
That is not an answer to the problem.
The Minister should move on.
You did nothing for a long time and now you want it all done in a hurry.
The Minister said it is necessary to extend this and that he hopes to bring in a Bill. He has a Bill before the Dáil at the moment. I am asking him to extend it to widen the range of the postal voters.
The Chair has pointed out to the Deputy that we cannot go back to the Second Reading Stage. We have passed the Second Reading and we are now on Committee Stage on which the Deputy may deal with what is in the Bill.
I am not going back to the Second Stage.
The Deputy is seeking to include people other than those who are referred to.
I will have to consider putting down an amendment for Report Stage because I feel very strongly that commercial travellers, hospital patients, old age pensioners and senior citizens generally should be included in the postal voters' register.
It is not relevant to the debate at this stage.
It is relevant to the extent that we are speaking about postal voters' lists.
Part II of the 1963 Act is referred to in the section and Deputy Molloy read our the qualifications.
This is an amendment of the 1963 Act and I should like to see it amended further.
The principles of a Bill and what may not be in it, or what may be in it, or what should be in it, may be dealt with on Second Reading. On Committee Stage the Deputy is confined to the Bill itself.
I will put down an amendment on Report Stage to include travellers, old age pensioners, hospital patients, and any other people who are desirous of having a postal vote, or who find it inconvenient to go to the polling booths. The extent to which this is necessary become obvious to most of us during the Monaghan by-election.
The Minister said that the ordinary list of voters was so large that he had to adopt the procedure in an early part of the section, that is, that it will be dealt with after the dissolution of the Dáil, but that the numbers of postal voters were so small that they could be compiled by the registration authorities earlier. In reply to Deputy Burke he said he was having a look at legislation which may be introduced to extend the list of postal voters.
Indeed it could be a pretty hefty extension of the list of voters, with the result that before the next election this legislation could be introduced and passed by this House extending the postal vote to a substantial section of the community, but he is differentiating here between the ordinary method of voting and the register and the postal register and before the election legislation which may increase the number of postal voters to equal the number of registered voters who can vote only personally at polling booths, so, therefore, the logic of his argument for subsection (2) is not clear to me. Why not provide for this and if he does provide for an enlarged postal register, the argument he has used for the wording here disappears?
Deputy Burke has a very valid point here.
Somebody else wants to challenge the Chair.
This is the first contribution I have made on this gerrymander of the Minister, this scandalous piece of legislation.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
The point made by Deputy Burke was extremely valid. That is the first point. The second point is made by Deputy O'Malley that it is not being properly dealt with here by the Minister. The Minister said that the wording proposed by Deputy O'Malley was superior to the wording in the Bill. It is very fair of the Minister to admit that. We accept it entirely, but the principle involved here is a very serious principle and it was enunciated very well by Deputy O'Malley when he asked if the will of this Parliament is superior to the will of the bureaucracy. Let me make it very clear that when I had the opportunity on the Estimate for the Department of Justice I said that at no stage would I engage in the cowardly practice of attacking public servants. It is not my practice, or the practice of this side of the House, to engage in that form of attack so that when I speak of the superiority of the legislature as against that of the bureaucracy, I do so in the best possible way. Is the will of the elected representatives—and this is the principle which we must have clarified by the Minister —superior to that of the bureaucracy?
The Minister says that as a layman he would accept the proposal put forward by Deputy O'Malley as an absolutely acceptable proposal. He admits that the wording of the Bill is inferior to the wording proposed by Deputy O'Malley and you, Sir, as Leas-Cheann Comhairle and as an elected Member of the House, must appreciate that it has been suggested here and almost supported by the Minister that in some way he as Minister rates second to the bureaucrats. This is a very serious admission by the Minister, who goes on in his usual offensive fashion to suggest that this proposal was made when Fianna Fáil were in Government and that the will of the bureaucrats ruled rather than that of the then Government and to suggest that the Cabinet now are in charge of everything is very doubtful and I do not accept for one moment that what the Minister has enunciated here is acceptable and we must challenge him to be articulate and to be quite clear as to which is superior, the elected representative of the people, elected to represent the bureaucrat and everybody else, or some other non-elected persons.
That is the reason Deputy O'Malley quite properly brought up the question of the Minister's suggestion that what Deputy O'Malley was putting forward was superior to what the Minister has on offer in the Bill. If the Minister accepts that what Deputy O'Malley proposes is superior to what he has in the Bill, surely he must agree without equivocation that what Deputy O'Malley has said is superior must be accepted by him. To come in here with the suggestion that because a particular wording has been there for aeons, it should continue to be used as a good precedent is shallow thinking, loose thinking. If the Minister accepts that the wording proposed by Deputy O'Malley is better, he must enshrine what Deputy O'Malley has said in the Bill. The Minister has been fair when he says that if Deputy O'Malley puts forward an amendment he will have a look at it. I hope the Minister will do that when the Deputy brings in the amendment.
What is involved here is the principle of the predominance of the Dáil as the legislative assembly of this country. If Deputy O'Malley does not put forward an amendment, in view of what the Minister has said regarding the wording proposed by the Deputy and its superiority to that proposed in this section, he has a bounden obligation to bring in his own amendment. By doing this he will prove he is in charge of his Department. I do not want to vilify the Minister; he was correct in what he said. He adopted an honest approach but that honesty must continue to a logical conclusion, namely, the acceptance of the wording proposed by Deputy O'Malley as better. If he does not accept the Deputy's wording, he has an obligation to put in his own wording. At least this would show the Minister is in charge of his Department.
I am sure my colleagues on this side of the House will pursue this point. If the Minister is not prepared to stand up for the predominant legislative functions of the House, so far as legislation is concerned Fianna Fáil have an obligation with regard to the predominant position of the Dáil. The elected representatives are the only people entitled to make legislation here. If laws are found to be defective they can be tested in the courts; in fact, from time to time laws have been found to be unconstitutional. However, as long as laws remain unchallenged they remain the laws of the country and the elected representatives are responsible for them.
That was the important principle expressed by Deputy O'Malley but it was brushed over by the Minister for Local Government. I know the Minister is impatient, he has all the failings of man——
I must leave a few for Fianna Fáil.
I know the Minister is as anxious as we are to get this Bill through the House.
No, I am a lot more anxious.
We appreciate the Minister wants a quick passage of the Bill but we cannot let a principle which involves the predominant position of this House regarding legislation go by default. Fianna Fáil cannot understand why the Minister does not accept the wording put forward by Deputy O'Malley, particularly as he has admitted it is better than that contained in the Bill. It is difficult to understand his thinking on this matter. The fact that the wording used has been in existence during the years does not make it better than what Deputy O'Malley suggested. If he does not accept the wording suggested by Deputy O'Malley, the Minister has an obligation to bring in his own amendment in place of what he considers to be the inferior wording of the Bill.
I would ask the Chair to bear with me for a moment while I deal with subsection (2) of section 6. I should like to put this subsection on the record of the House. It states:
Where a constituency specified in the Schedule to this Act——
the Schedule is a long one and I shall not attempt to set it out in my contribution.
——is identical in area with none of the constituencies existing at the passing of this Act, a postal voters list or lists shall be prepared in respect of it by the registration authority or registration authorities concerned as soon as may be after such passing.
The Chair must accept what Deputy Burke said, that the Minister should take the view that you can include the category——
The Deputy is dealing with a point the Chair has already dealt with in regard to what Deputy Burke said.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present: House counted and 20 Members being present,
The Chair wanted to reply to Deputy Andrews.
Did the Chair say the Chair wanted to reply to Deputy Andrews?
Deputy Andrews is making a point and the Chair wanted to reply to it when the quorum was called.
The point I was making is that the Minister has here an opportunity to amend this Bill to include in his lists of postal voters certain categories now excluded. The Minister said he hoped—we hope it is not a pious hope—at some time to introduce a Bill to include other categories such as commercial travellers, old age pensioners and so on. The Minister has here a golden opportunity to amend this Bill at this point rather than bring in a new Bill——
That is what the Chair was trying to point out to the Deputy. Under this legislation it may not be done. We are dealing with a list as it is in the 1963 Act. We are now at Committee Stage.
I understand that. I think the point is being missed. My point is a perfectly good one.
I might, perhaps, help in this matter. I said I hoped to be in a position to bring in legislation for the purpose of extending the postal vote. The reason why I could not include it in this Bill, even if I had wanted to, is that the necessary work had not been done to find out who could or should be included. This work was started by me only a few months ago. It has reached a fairly advanced stage but not enough to be able to put it into the form of legislation. For that reason I felt the thing to do would be to introduce a short Bill later which I am quite sure will be accepted by everyone in the House. I suggest that the Deputy would leave it at that.
Arising out of the Minister's interjection, I should like some clarification. Are we to take it that the Government have made a decision that the facility of postal voting shall be extended to people other than the gardaí and the Army who already enjoy that facility?
Deputy Molloy will understand that I must make a report to the Government on whom I think should be included. Until then the Government cannot make a decision. If Deputy Molloy had done something about it in the last couple of years, it would not now have to be done.
If I can see my way through the fertiliser from the other side, I should like to point out that I am an ex-member of the Irish Commercial Travellers' Association. Deputy Molloy and I asked the Minister for Local Government questions in regard to extending the postal vote to commercial travellers. He merely said he would look into the matter. In spite of that, he had received a deputation——
This is not relevant.
Why did the Deputy not ask his friend Deputy Molloy to do it while he was Minister?
I received a deputation, a good one, men who knew what they were talking about. They were not ex-members of the association. I heard every one of them.
Yes, they were members of the ITWU.
(Interruptions.)
If Deputies would allow the Deputy called on by the Chair to make his point, the Deputy who is speaking may be heard by the House. At the moment there is no opportunity for the Deputy in possession to make his point.
There were no interruptions until that unruly element came in for the quorum.
Look behind you.
That is right, try to remove me.
The point I was making has been strengthened by the Minister who said he has almost completed a Bill.
I did not say any such thing.
The Deputy has been long enough in the House to know that he cannot anticipate legislation.
The Minister had no authority from the Government to say this.
I can stand on my own feet. If Deputy Molloy had done it, he would not now be on that side of the House.
It is a two-part Government. The Minister does not stand on his feet.
Let us have a does of Andrews now.
I must tell Deputies that if they do not cooperate with the Chair, the Chair will have to adjourn the House.
I am not anticipating legislation. I am proposing legislation.
The Deputy is not entitled to propose legislation.
It is only fair to point out that I am just commenting on what the Minister said. At the moment there are only two categories of persons entitled to the postal vote, the Garda and the Army. What I am proposing is that this right be extended.
The Chair has already ruled on this and will be quite firm. In regard to the point which the Chair was trying to make, the classes of voters involved in the voters list, to which Deputy Andrews is now referring and on which Deputy Burke had a ruling from the Chair, was set out in the 1963 Act. That is what is in this Bill and that is what we are concerned with at the moment. On the Second Stage of a Bill a Deputy may deal with the principles of the Bill but when we reach Committee Stage we are confined to what is in the Bill.
When the Minister was discussing this Bill and the manner in which he has allocated seats in the Dublin area he referred not just to the census figures printed in the 1971 Census of Population of Ireland, he referred to estimates of the present population and projected population of the Dublin area which he had received from planning authorities.
We are dealing with section 6, subsection (2).
On that occasion the Minister would appear to be in order. Now the Minister has himself indicated that he intends coming forward with an extension of the voters——
The Chair is not interested in who makes a proposition from any side of the House. The Chair is pointing out to any side of the House that we cannot anticipate legislation.
I understood that you allowed the Minister for Local Government to state that he was introducing legislation referring to new categories of voters.
The Chair pointed out that we could not anticipate legislation.
But the Minister had said it before you said that.
The Chair has indicated repeatedly that we cannot anticipate legislation.
May I ask the Minister did he intend to include commercial travellers in that?
The Chair would like the House to deal with section 6.
If the Deputy had been in the House, he would have heard.
I was in the House.
Behind the barriers.
I was here.
I would hope, Sir, that you would not think that what I was proposing was disorderly, that you did not include me in that category.
The Chair did not.
I am trying to make my point but I have been continually interrupted by the Government side That is a pity. "A postal voters list or lists"—that is silent as to the category of individual who may or may not be included in the postal vote. So I would respectfully suggest that even at this late stage we on this side of the House will consider the possibility of an amendment in the interest of the many thousands of individuals who in the ordinary democratic process are entitled to a vote.
You had 16 years to do it and did not do it.
Forgive us our past sins. It is up to the Minister now.
Do not drag them up.
I do not mind what the Minister may say about 16 years. I am talking about the present and the future. Happy birthday tomorrow. A year ago you came in promising the world and all. We did a great deal in 16 years. We did not get around to dealing with these people but here is an opportunity for you to salvage some of the credibility you have lost.
We have lost none. If you had done as much in 16 years as we did in one year you would have something to talk about.
There are only two things that the present Government have done. They introduced the last Finance Bill and now they introduce this gerrymander Bill.
The Deputy was not in the House and does not know what he is talking about.
I would respectfully suggest that even at this stage the Minister should bring in an amendment to include persons who are disfranchised. The Government are responsible for the disfranchising of all these categories of persons.
The Chair cannot allow the Deputy to proceed on these lines.
The Government have the opportunity now, until such time as the people get an opportunity of putting them out.
I am discharging the duty. You did not do it when you got the chance.
The Minister must bring in an amendment to subsection (2) of section 6 if there is to be a scintilla of credibility left.
The Chair has allowed the Deputy a lot of latitude. The Chair would point out to the Deputy that the lists will be prepared as set out in Part II of the Electoral Act, 1963 and under the 1963 Electoral Act the qualifications of postal voters are clearly set out.
There is just one matter that should be referred to. It is the question of the draft register. This is referred to in subsection (1) of section 6. Up to recent times my experience has been that the draft register has been haphazardly compiled. This has been cured in the last three or four years. Let us be fair to the Minister and to his predecessor. We received forms to ensure that persons who had been excluded through no fault of their own from the draft register would be included. The forms were sent to us by the Minister. This was a helpful exercise and a democratic action on the part of the Minister, for which he is to be thanked. It was a reminder to bring the draft register up to date. I would like to pay tribute to the Minister on that account. It is important from the democratic point of view that everybody eligible should be included on the draft register. It is most unfortunate that the Minister precludes the old age pensioner, the commercial traveller——
The Deputy is going back.
——the sick in hospital, the lightkeepers, all those categories of persons. The Minister shows his good intentions by asking public representatives to bring the register up to date——
The Deputy is very ingenious. He is trying to get around the Chair's ruling.
I do not wish to be clever or smart at your expense, quite the contrary, but I would point out that the Minister did send us a reminder to include in the draft register persons whom we knew to be excluded for some reason or another. They might be in a new district. Why then does the Minister not at this late stage accept the proposal put forward by this side of the House for the inclusion of the categories at present disfranchised for no reason other than that the House will not get wise to themselves and see to it that there is an additional subsection to section 6 or an addition to the Schedule?
Deal with the Bill.
Yes. Thank you for your patience, Sir.
I would like to ask the House if it would be prepared to accept an amendment to section 6 (1), as follows:
That in section 6 subsection (1), page 3, line 1, to delete the words "Minister may by direction provide for the entry of" and substitute therefor the words "registration authority or registration authorities concerned shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act enter".
I should like to ask the House if it would agree to accept that amendment from the Opposition. It is being done in all good faith. The arguments in its favour have been ably elucidated by Members on this side. There is an obvious anomaly in the construction of subsections (1) and (2) of section 6. We seek to correct this and to word these subsections——
If the amendment is to go before the House, this would have to be agreed.
The Deputy must understand that it would not be possible for me to accept an amendment which he has just read out here without an opportunity of having a look at it. As I told Deputy O'Malley earlier, I have no objection to considering the amendment. The Report Stage will be coming up and this amendment can be put down for it. That is how it should be dealt with.
We accept that the Minister would require some time to read the amendment but we point out that this debate will be adjourned at 6 o'clock to allow other business to go on between then and 7.30. As the change proposed by us merely corrects an anomaly in the wording of those two subsections an hour-and-a-half would be sufficient time for the Minister to consider fully whether he should accept the amendment. All we are asking now is that the House should accept the amendment for debate; we are not asking the Minister to commit himself to accepting it as an amendment to the Bill.
It cannot be accepted for debate until it has been moved and it cannot be moved until the House agrees to accept it for debate.
I could not agree. Deputy Molloy is very naive. We are adjourning this discussion from 6 o'clock until 7.30 and those who have been in the House would like to have tea. Afterwards, I have four deputations to meet before 7.30. Deputy Molloy might find his way of doing it very convenient but it cannot be dealt with in that way. I said that as a layman I could see nothing wrong with Deputy O'Malley's proposal but my Departmental experts—and they are experts—suggest that the existing wording is better. I should like to have this fully discussed with them and also with the Government. The Bill has been approved by the Government and I shall have to discuss it with my colleagues before agreeing to change it. If Fianna Fáil are so anxious to have the Bill changed, they should put down the amendment for the next Stage. Originally, this section was drafted by the Fianna Fáil Party and has stood the test of time.
That finishes the discussion on that part of it.
Is the Minister not prepared to agree to the amendment coming before the House?
No, not on this Stage.
We can give the amendment to the Minister's officials now and they have an hour and a half in which to study it. This is not unusual. It has happened on a number of occasions previously.
On the Motorways Bill.
No, not on that Bill.
There are precedents.
It is not accepted and that is as far as the Chair can go.
If the Minister's agreement is necessary for the House to accept the amendment and that agreement is not forthcoming, we can only express extreme disappointment at the Minister's reluctance to facilitate the Opposition in this very simple matter.
The Deputy is being childish. He knows this is not the final stage. This is only the third section we have debated since 4 o'clock. Possibly we shall be debating it until 10.30 tonight. If it is not concluded then, there is nothing to stop the Deputy putting in his amendment for debate the next day. I am not prepared to accept an amendment read across the House which he said would be available during the hour-and-a-half while the House is dealing with other business and then come back and have it discussed. If the Deputy wants to put it down for the next Stage, I shall be glad to give it fair consideration.
We are fully aware that we can submit the amendment for Report Stage but the Minister knows that on Report Stage Deputies are only allowed to speak once on an amendment and that there are severe restrictions on the discussion then. We suggest the Minister should not force us into being restricted in that way. We are deeply disappointed that he has not facilitated us in the matter.
I disagree with the wording of subsection (1) and in particular with the words "the Minister may by direction...". I believe it is the duty of the Opposition to try to perfect legislation. Contributions of public representatives are all important in this matter and, therefore, where superior wording has been submitted—and in the Minister's opinion Deputy O'Malley's wording was superior to that in the Bill——
As a layman, I considered that it was better. I did not say it was superior wording.
We are all laymen in that respect. The opinions and contributions of Deputies are all-important in this House and it is surely the duty of the Minister to take heed of objections and contributions of elected representatives. This is a very important phrase in the subsection, "the Minister may by direction...". Quite substantial time and effort have gone into the study of the Bill by many Members of the House, particularly on this side. The Minister knows from the amendments submitted that considerable time and effort went into trying to perfect this legislation in accordance with the duty of elected representatives.
I distrust the Minister and do not like to see power in his hands. The somersaults turned before may be turned again if we give the Minister this power. The Minister has shown no confidence in the contributions of Deputies. I want to show what can happen where the Minister has power and has this discretion. I think it is desirable and necessary to eliminate this aspect of the section.
What is the Deputy talking about?
Giving the Minister discretion.
To do what?
The discretion indicated in subsection (1).
To do what?
Is the Minister entitled to cross-examine the Deputy who is making a contribution?
He is making rather foolish statements and he does not know what he is talking about. There is nothing unusual about that.
Deputy Dowling on the section.
I do not see why I should read this subsection. If the Minister is not conversant with it, he should be.
I am, but the Deputy is not.
Elected representatives have a duty to do and when they are doing it they are criticised by the Minister. We shall put our point of view for as long as is necessary. Quite recently, in a case where the Minister had discretion, public representatives spent considerable time and effort and possibly wasted money in carrying out some of his requests in relation to divisions of council areas. The Minister, by directive, disregarded the public representatives' view and allowed people outside this House to dictate to him——
We are dealing with section 6.
——behind closed doors. This type of discretion given to irresponsible Ministers is bad and will bring this house into disrepute.
We are dealing with section 6.
I am dealing with section 6. In the recent past the Minister gave a directive that certain works would be done by public representatives and behind their backs, by ministerial order,——
Section 6 deals with the register of electors.
I know section 6 deals with the register of electors but I am dealing with ministerial directive. I do not trust the Minister and for that reason I would like to see this phrase eliminated from the Bill. As I have said, the Minister has shown his complete irresponsibility with power of this nature by making an order behind closed doors——
The Deputy must keep to the section.
——and disregarding the views of public representatives. Public representatives, whether elected to this House or elsewhere, have a duty to remedy defects as in the case of the recent ministerial order——
The Deputy knows that that is not relevant to this section.
It is a question of ministerial discretion——
Section 6 deals with the register of electors.
Any type of ministerial discretion when irresponsible people are concerned is bad if it is abused. The Minister abused his discretion on the 15th March——
The Deputy is wide of the section. Section 6 deals only with the register of electors.
It would be a very serious matter if section 6(1) passed in its present form. Therefore, I believe that the words "the Minister by direction" should be eliminated and the amendment as submitted by Deputy Molloy——
We are not dealing with Deputy Molloy's amendment which is not before the House.
——would be more appropriate, or other suitable wording which would take discretion from the Minister so that he or other Ministers could not abuse their responsibility as the present Minister has.
The Deputy must follow the advice of the Chair.
Commonsense will dictate that more suitable wording of the subsection will be accepted. The Minister has already indicated that as a layman he considers that there is a more superior wording. It is peculiar to hear him say that when he is not prepared to back his own judgement. Surely that is what legislation is all about. A Minister may accept and has accepted the views of representatives in this House particularly when he considers them to be superior to those embodied in a Bill. The Minister will have legislation forced through this House which is not as effective as it should be because he has the necessary jackboots to boot it through the division lobby. Therefore, "the Minister by direction" must be eliminated before we will be satisfied.
We will have another opportunity of presenting amendments. I fail to see why the Minister does not agree to a reasonable amendment which would make this legislation superior to what it is at the moment. The Minister hides behind the term "layman". He should come clean and say that Deputy O'Malley's suggestion is reasonable and superior to that embodied in the Bill.
The Minister does not seem to be concerned about the voice of elected representatives. He will not accept suggestions or amendments from other Deputies because they are not his amendments. The Minister should give a clear indication that he will amend this subsection as already indicated by Deputy O'Malley, Deputy Molloy and Deputy Andrews. I hope he will be reasonable and will change his attitude.
There should be a common format for the printing of registers of electors. There is a great deal of confusion from one area to another, one constituency to another, or one county to another. The Dublin register is very cumbersome, although it is easy to understand. Nevertheless, some of the other registers are difficult to follow. Therefore the Minister should suggest a uniform layout for these registers. He has an opportunity now to correct past defects and ensure that we will have legislation which is superior because of suggestions by other Members.
Does the Minister wish to reply to the comments made from this side of the House? We are disappointed that the Minister is not prepared to give any indication whether he will accept, to use his own words, a better form of words which we suggested for subsection (1) of section 6.
I do not know what is in the amendment. I have not seen it.
We have been forced into the position of having to elaborate in great detail as to whether the Minister should have the authority to direct or whether the words should be changed and wording similar to that in subsection (2) used which relates to the compiling of the postal voters list.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.