asked the Minister for Finance the total number of enumerators engaged in the counting and checking of the votes during the prolonged recount extending over a period of five days in Dublin North-East during the recent General Election.

17.

asked the Minister for Finance whether he is aware that the staff engaged in the counting and checking of votes in Dublin North-East during the recent General Election have not been paid for the services rendered by them during the prolonged five-day recount; and if he will state the reason for the delay; and when they will be paid.

18.

asked the Minister for Finance whether any statement indicating the number of personnel involved and the amount of money required to pay staff involved in the recount in Dublin North-East during the recent General Election has been submitted to him; and what action he has taken in the matter.

19.

asked the Minister for Finance whether an application has been made to his Department for (a) sanction and (b) necessary finance to pay the staff engaged in the counting and checking of votes in Dublin North-East in the recent General Election; if so, whether such application has been granted; and if he will indicate the date on which the enumerating staff can expect payment in respect of services rendered by them.

20.

asked the Minister for Finance if he is aware that the counting staff employed at the counting of votes in North-East Dublin in the recent General Election have not yet been paid for their services in the protracted five-day recount; if he will state why this is so; and when they will be paid.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 together.

The answer to (a) and (b) of the first question is in the affirmative. As the amount for the recount exceeds the prescribed amount, it has not been possible to clear final payment for the following reasons. As this was the first election in which the statutory right to a special recount was invoked, there was no experience of the amount of work on re-examining and recounting votes which would be involved and, consequently, of any basis on which this work should be paid for out of the Central Fund. In the Returning Officers (Borough and County Constituencies) Charges Order, 1965, 75 per cent of the payment for the original count was laid down for a recount of this kind, as it was assumed that the work involved would be less exacting than the original count. As it turned out, however, the additional work on the recount in this constituency, as indicated in a statement furnished to my Department by the returning officer, was much more than could be anticipated. This was accepted at a meeting subsequently held with representatives of the returning officers at which my Department was represented and at which it was agreed that these officers would submit their views as to a reasonable basis for fees and expenses for these election recounts. On receipt of recommendations, there will be no delay in dealing with them.

My Department has recently advised the returning officer that, in view of the work involved in this recount, payment based on 100 per cent of the charge for the original count can be made pending a decision on the recommendations from the returning officers. He has been informed, also, that if he has not sufficient official funds on hands to make this payment he can be put in funds immediately on application to my Department.

The statement furnished to my Department by the returning officer does not indicate the actual number of enumerators engaged on the recount but gives the number of chargeable hours as 1,024.

Is the Minister advising the Dáil that some people will receive no payment whatsoever for three or four days, or is it intended in fact to authorise payment of the staff for work which was imposed initially as a result of Acts passed by this House?

I said clearly in my reply that such authorisation has been given.

To the extent of 100 per cent?

Yes.

What use is that? It is only one day's pay for five days' work.

The Deputy misunderstands me completely. The provision up to the 1963 Electoral Act was that for a recount 75 per cent of the original rate of charges could be paid, or rather, that was what was assumed would be adequate, but by reason of the experience we have had, we have asked the returning officers to let us know what they regard as adequate. In the meantime, pending their report, I have authorised the returning officer involved to pay 100 per cent extra. In other words, if a person earned £10 over the two to three days of the original count, he will be permitted to get another £10 for the recount.

Does the Minister not appreciate that the original count took only one day and the recount took five days? If the Minister has authorised a further payment equivalent to the payment for the original count, he is offering one day's pay for five days' work.

I do not think the Deputy is right in saying the original count took one day.

It took the best part of one day.

The Deputy did not turn up for the first day.

Surely, at this stage, it is not sufficient to deal with the matter on the basis of future recommendations? The experience has been that people have done this work and have not been paid for it. Does the Minister not appreciate what would have happened had the staff been advised on the second day that the situation is as it is now? They would have decided to go home on strike and they would have been fully entitled to do so. Surely, because of the fact they came in and did the work, they are entitled to be paid for it.

This is argument.

Surely the Deputy knows that these jobs are very much sought after. There are very many applications for these jobs. We are now waiting for the returning officer's report and then we will know what best to pay them. In the meantime we are giving them 100 per cent of what they were given for the first count.

That is completely inadequate.

Surely the Minister will agree, at this stage, that these people have been three days short in payment?

As I have already said, these jobs are temporary and offer great attractions. They are usually taken up by men who have other jobs as well. There is no question of hardship in this matter.

Would the Minister pay them at the same rate as they were paid for the original two days? Would he pay them two and a half times the original amount for the extra five days?

The payment is per count.

Surely they are entitled to be paid at the same rate as they were paid for the original count?

They are getting 100 per cent of the original amount.

If that is so, surely they are entitled to two and a half times the original rate?

In view of the Minister's unsatisfactory reply, I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

I will communicate with the Deputy.

A recount.

If some of the Deputies worked here, we would not need a recount.