I asked for permission to raise on the Adjournment tonight the question of the action taken by the Minister for Local Government in relation to certain objections to the employment of an individual, Mr. William Davis, on the referendum counting staff for the Laois-Offaly constituency. I did so because I believe this to be an instance of petty political victimisation. I believe it to be an example and an instance of an effort to use the jackboot and the big stick against a defenceless officer who ordinarily might be expected to do nothing about it. The officer concerned, Mr. William Davis, has been in the public service for 45 years. He is in the position of assistant to the country registrar in Laois. He is a person who in his own right commands respect throughout the County Laois and a person who has given exemplary service in every possible respect. In addition, he is a person whose word is regarded as his bond. He is generally known to be a man of integrity and, indeed, a person who would do harm to himself rather than in any way perform an act which might be dishonest or transgress in any respect the very high principles by which he lives.

Having said that, I should add that for as long as I can remember election counts in Laois-Offaly, Mr. William Davis has been an integral part of every count that has taken place in the constituency. He has done it cheerfully, he has done it well and he has been the recipient of many tributes from those who waged battle as candidates and who either won or lost in the elections. That is his background.

On polling day for the referendum, on the 16th October, a telephone call came to the Court House in Portlaoise and the person telephoning sought to communicate with the county registrar. The telephone was answered by the registrar and as a result the registrar was asked to be in his office to receive another telephone call. I understand, although I am not in a position to establish it, that the county registrar was then informed that the person speaking to him was speaking on the express instructions of the Minister for Local Government to transmit to him, the county registrar, as the local returning officer, the direct order of the Minister for Local Government, that Mr. Davis be not employed on the counting staff in Portlaoise on the following day.

I do know that following a communication received by the county registrar Mr. Davis was informed that the county registrar was precluded by the Minister for Local Government from employing him on the staff the following day. He naturally was concerned to know whether a charge had been brought against him, whether his honour was being impugned, or whether some suggestion had been made which affected the principles by which he lived. He could get no information. He was merely informed that this order had been issued and, of course, not unnaturally he made a simple request that the order might be put in writing.

I may say that when I learned on polling day of this development I was shocked, shocked to think that any Minister on whatever information he might be acting, could so grossly interfere in the affairs of a constituency. I may say that as the rumours spread a very sharp reaction took place amongst those who were expected to count the votes the following day. That reaction might easily have led to a situation in which the Minister for Local Government himself might have had to go down to Portlaoise and count the votes.

: We would not stand for that.

But, in fact, the reaction was stemmed and stopped and contained by the public spirited action of the officer in relation to whom I have raised this particular matter. He had to abide by the order. It had to be so and, indeed, subsequently when I raised the matter, I raised it because this was an instance, just one of many, of so many defenceless small people having to accept some decision handed down relating to them and do nothing about it and I was determined to do something about this. I raised it at the conclusion of the count and subsequently, on the 24th October, I raised it in this House.

In reply to a Parliamentary question in which I asked whether the Minister had sent any instruction, whether the returning officer, the county registrar, had been instructed not to employ a named officer on his counting staff for the counting of votes on the referendum, or how such instruction was conveyed and when and under what authority he purported to act, the Minister answered "I issued no such instruction". In reply to supplementary questions the Minister said:

A telephone conversation as specified by the Deputy did not take place.

The Minister went on to say that a letter, as I had suggested, had not, in fact, been issued. I want to suggest that what the Minister was saying was not in accordance with the facts. First of all, I suggested that, on his behalf and in his name, an instruction was, in fact, issued. I have here in my hand a copy of a letter, which is dated—and I ask Deputies to note the date—16th October, 1968. That happens to have been polling day. The copy of the letter I have here is directed to the county registrar in the circuit court, Portlaoise, and it starts with these words:

I am directed by the Minister for Local Government to say that an objection has been received to the proposed employment of a Mr. Davis at the counting of votes at the Referenda.

"I am directed by the Minister for Local Government" and attention is directed "to the proposed employment of Mr. Davis". I ask Deputies who have commonsense—they are mostly on this side of the House—to appreciate the significance of the date on the letter, 16th October. When would it have been received? I suggest it is a fair inference that a letter dated 16th October, polling day, referring to the proposed employment at the counting of votes the following day, was preceded by a telephone call from the Department of Local Government on that particular day referring to objections having been received.

I asked the Minister on 24th October from what source these objections came and he replied:

If the Deputy wants to know let him put down a question.

I am asking for that information here and now publicly in this, the nation's Parliament. I want to know who objected to the employment of William Davis and, if the Minister does not answer, I shall suggest that the objection came from the Fianna Fáil Cumann in the town of Mountmellick. I suggest that it is from there it came.

I accept, because I have to, and I try to be charitable despite provocation from Fianna Fáil, the word of Deputy Lalor, the Parliamentary Secretary, who stated at the count, that he knew nothing about this development. Be it so. I suggest that a certain person in the town of Mountmellick had the ear of the Minister for Local Government and telephoned, or got in touch with, the Minister for Local Government to raise an objection to the employment of William Davis.

Why? Because in 1967 there was an election for the Town Commission in Mountmellick contested by both Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil. That contest resulted in the election of seven Fine Gael members out of a total of nine and, if there had been more Fine Gael candidates, it might well have resulted in the election of nine Fine Gael members to the nine seats. However, an error occurred in the count. The returning officer was not William Davis; he was merely one of the people concerned there. An error occurred and the error was raised in this House by the Fianna Fáil Deputy for the constituency, Deputy Nicholas Egan, and it was suggested that, if this error of—I think it was either eight or eleven votes—had not occurred, there might have been three instead of merely two Fianna Fáil candidates elected. In fact, of course, that would not have happened but an effort was made, in relation to that count, to browbeat those who were concerned with it; some example had to be made and the can had to be carried by William Davis. He had had nothing to do with it. He made no mistake. He was in no way responsible, but he was to be blamed.

I do not need to spell out for hard-headed Deputies in this House what views of current problems Mr. Davis normally holds, but I suggest that he is not amongst the strongest supporters of the Minister's Party. And he had to be punished. An effort was to be made to show that, even if the Fianna Fáil Cumann in Mountmellick represented nothing but themselves, they nevertheless had some influence outside Laois-Offaly and they would show what they could do. So, following objections received, as the Minister says, to Mr. William Davis, down comes an order from Dublin that this decent Laois man was not to be employed doing what he had done honourably and successfully for over 30 years.

I suggest this was an outrageous bit of political victimisation. It does no credit to the Minister. It does no credit to the nameless individual who put it in motion and it certainly indicates the kind of Government this country avoided by the way in which the people decided the Referenda issues on 16th October.

I endorse everything Deputy O'Higgins has said. This was a disgraceful performance, a performance of which the Minister and the Government should be ashamed. Mr. Davis is one of the most outstanding men in the county. He is a man of the highest integrity. We should know why an order was issued by the Minister designed to prevent him participating in the referenda count. The Minister must be aware of the fact that Mr. Davis was the only non-Catholic employed at the counting of votes in the area. He is a man of the highest possible standards in every respect. Like Deputy O'Higgins, I believe this was a piece of savage victimisation. It is something which the people of Laois and Offaly, who have known Bill Davis for over 40 years, deeply resent. It is something which should make the Government hang their heads in shame and disgrace. It is something which will not be forgotten for many a long day in Laois.

Deputy O'Higgins, having last week made what he knew to be a false statement, decided to come in here again tonight to repeat at greater length what he knew to be untrue.

Is that in order? Is that in order? It has never been ruled in order before. It has always been ruled out of order before.

It is not in order to say the Deputy states what he knows to be untrue.

It is not in order. Very good.

I draw your attention to the fact that Deputy O'Higgins alleged what I stated in reply to the question was untrue. I claim the same right to say that Deputy O'Higgins said what he knows to be untrue.

On a point of order. Are you or are you not going to enforce the rules of the House?

I have already stated that it is not in order.

The Deputy had 20 minutes and I have ten minutes in which to reply and I take it I will be allowed this ten minutes.

Withdraw.

The people who try to deprive me of my right to reply will not succeed.

Chair, Chair.

Withdraw.

He will not withdraw. Why should he?

The Chair has told him to.

——when he made it last week and which he now knows to be a falsehood. Deputy O'Higgins knows——

On a point of order. Is it in order for a Minister or any other Deputy to charge another Deputy with stating an untruth knowingly?

I have already ruled on that matter and it is not in order.

May I raise a point of order that, if it is not in order, is it not the custom, practice and precedent of this House that the Chair will ask the offender to withdraw the charge and, if he does not withdraw the charge, that he will——

On a point of order. Deputy O'Higgins stated tonight that what I gave to him in my official reply to his Parliamentary Question last week was untrue.

He said "not in accordance with fact."

I insist that Deputy O'Higgins withdraw what he knows to be a lie.

Will the Minister obey the Chair or does he intend to go on with this thuggery?

I am asking the Chair to apply the same standards to Deputy O'Higgins as are applied to me.

Deputy O'Higgins stated that what the Minister said was not in accordance with fact.

Sit down and listen to the Minister. This is a waste of time.

Deputy O'Higgins said what the Minister said was untrue but he did not add that the Minister knew it was untrue.

That is correct.

Does the Minister intend to obey the Chair's ruling?

The reply to the Parliamentary Question was the truth and it is in the knowledge of Deputy O'Higgins that that reply was the truth.

Will the Ceann Comhairle enforce his ruling?

Will the Minister withdraw "lie".

Will the Minister withdraw it?

People in the Mountmellick area, who know of what happened——

The Minister will not reply to that question.

This is obviously an organised attempt by Fine Gael to come in here and publish falsehoods and deny me the right of reply. These are typical Blue Shirt tactics—to try to refuse me the right to reply. I intend to reply. You have not got your Blue Shirt thugs here now. By God, Deputy Clinton, you will not stop me and none of your guttersnipes in your own area will stop me. Tell that to your Blue Shirts.

"Dirty Dublin" fixed you up.

They told Fianna Fáil to get out. Why not go?

Surely the Minister must obey the Chair?

What does the Chair want me to do? Am I to get ten minutes to reply?

Will the Chair ask the Minister to withdraw his allegations against Deputy O'Higgins?

You do not want to hear the Chair.

Deputy O'Higgins was allowed to speak without interruption——

——in order.

No.

Evidently the Chair will not be allowed to speak either. When the Minister rose to speak, there was a barrage of interruption——

That is not true.

——not until the Minister was out of order, and you know it.

Not until he was out of order.

In fairness to the Deputies on this side of the House, will the Chair not agree that there was no interruption of the Minister until a point of order was raised and the Chair ruled on it?

There was shouting the moment I began to reply. That is what all the Blue Shirts are here for. Why are you all here? Look at the thugs. You are here to try to deny me the right of free speech.

I will meet you anywhere, Clinton, with your Blue Shirts or without them.

The electorate gave Fianna Fáil their answer at the recent referendum.

The electorate would not have it from them.

On a point of order.

Was it not well known, for a quarter of an hour before this debate began, that this organised interruption had been arranged by Fine Gael? You had it all organised. Why are you all sitting over there?

: We are here to teach the Minister manners. Do not worry.

The Chair has ruled that the Minister's remarks are disorderly. Will the Chair rule that he must withdraw disorderly remarks or withdraw from the House?

I obeyed the Chair when you were shouting. On a point of order, I asked the Chair to apply the same rules to Deputy O'Higgins as were applied to me and to ask him to withdraw the allegation by him that what I told him last week in reply to his Parliamentary Question was untrue.

He did not.

He did.

The record will prove that.

You cannot have it both ways.

We shall have to give the Minister a dictionary.

The Chair has also ruled that the Minister's remark was out of order. Will the Chair now make him withdraw that remark or else tell him to withdraw from the House?

I complied with the ruling of the Chair.

I understand that the Minister withdrew the remark.

On a point of order, I asked the Chair to ask Deputy O'Higgins to withdraw his allegation that what I told him last week in reply to his Parliamentary Question was untrue.

He did not say that.

I asked that the same rules of order be applied to Deputy O'Higgins as were applied to me.

Will the Minister now confirm to the House that, in fact, he withdrew them?

Sit down, like a good boy.

The Minister is trying to avoid the explanation. Let him give it.

Yes, and I will insist on my right to reply.

Will the Minister——

Deputy O'Higgins was quite in order in saying that a Deputy of this House stated something that was not true. He would not have been in order if he had added "and the Deputy knows it to be untrue". Deputy O'Higgins did not make that statement and there was no need for the Chair to interfere.

The statement was that my statement last week to the effect that I did not give instructions with regard to this matter was untrue. I could not have made such an untrue statement except through my own knowledge. This is something that must be within my own knowledge. Therefore, Deputy O'Higgins clearly stated in fact that I, in reply to the Parliamentary Question last week, stated what I knew to be untrue. I asked the Chair to apply the same rules to Deputy O'Higgins as were applied to me.

No wonder you lost the Referendum.

If there is one rule for the Opposition, that is all right——

Do not threaten the Chair.

Do not threaten the Chair. Threaten the people—and you will get your answer.

Let me proceed with my reply to what Deputy O'Higgins has said here to-night. Here is what happened. Arising out of experiences at the last local elections in Mountmellick, certain people there telephoned my office objecting to the employment of this particular man at the count. An officer of my Department telephoned the Returning Officer and drew his attention to the complaint and to the experience at the local election and to the——

: So there was a telephone call?

Of course there was. The Returning Officer said he would consider the matter. He telephoned back to the officer at my Department later that day and said he had decided not to employ this man at the count. He asked that a letter setting out the objection be sent to him. That letter was sent to him. Deputy O'Higgins purported to quote that letter but he neglected to quote all of it: he quoted only part of it. He tried to represent to this House that this letter was an instruction to the returning officer not to employ this man although he knew that this was not so.

That is the same statement again.

If Deputy O'Higgins had read the letter in full, it would have been apparent. This letter was in reply to a request from the returning officer that a letter, setting out the objections, be submitted to him. Here is the full letter:

I am directed by the Minister for Local Government to say an objection has been received to the proposed employment of a Mr. Davis at the counting of votes at the Referendum. Your attention is directed to the terms of the memorandum for the guidance of Returning Officers, issued with the letter of 6th ultimo, and to the experience at the counting for the Mountmellick Town Commissioners in 1967——

The decision not to employ this man was made by the returning officer. The Minister for Local Government has no power to instruct him as to whom he should employ——

That is correct.

——and no such instruction was issued. With regard to the question of competency, the question of what Deputy O'Higgins referred to as an "error" at the election for the Mountmellick Town Commissioners, that is, I suggest, a particularly charitable way of looking at it. Possibly it was an error. I think that, if this person had all the experience of counting votes under this "simple" system to which Deputy O'Higgins has referred, it was rather peculiar that that mistake should be made.

You are crucified with that one.

It was "complicated" a fortnight ago.

Let me proceed, please. Two candidates were elected with surpluses at the Mountmellick Town Commissioners in 1967. This Mr. Davis was employed as supervisor at that count. The surplus of the first candidate elected was distributed in accordance with the rules.

That was I.

It was distributed in accordance with Rule 6 of the Rules of Proportional Representation which is a simple rule consisting of seven sections and a substantial number of subsections——

Time. Time.

It is true that, in distributing Deputy Flanagans's surplus, Mr. Davis displayed quite a good knowledge of this particular rule and he distributed Deputy Flanagan's surplus correctly. However, when he came to the distribution of the surplus of the second candidate—who was not of the same political Party as Deputy Flanagan—only a percentage of the surplus was distributed. This was an "error" in counting votes, Deputy O'Higgins says. I think it is quite obvious it was no such thing. It would take me too long to read the rule dealing with the distribution of surpluses——

——but the effect of it is that the total surplus is distributed provided the surplus is less than the total number of transferable papers. This rule was applied correctly to the distribution of Deputy Flanagan's votes but, when it came to the distribution of a Fianna Fáil candidate's votes, a different rule—which does not appear under the Rules of Proportional Representation—was applied.

Poor old Fianna Fáil.

(Cavan): It is great to hear you standing up for him.

Time.

Maybe this is the way Deputies opposite would like to operate this system, namely, to distribute only a partial surplus of the Fianna Fáil candidates. Whether or not this demonstrated competency, I do not know but when the objection was made and was brought to the notice of the returning officer and when his attention was drawn to the necessity of employing competent staff he considered the matter, telephoned up and said he did not propose to employ this person on the count—obviously because he appreciated that it had been demonstarted that, at the very best, this man was——

(Cavan): On a point of order. I want to know whether the Minister is in order in continuing for a quarter of an hour and whether we are now establishing a precedent that a Minister, in replying, has a quarter of an hour at his disposal notwithstanding the fact that he may have wasted some of his time——

There is no need to make a speech. We are establishing no precedent. I am allowing the Minister three minutes extra on account of the barrage of interruptions——

He already has had 15 minutes.

Is it in order for the Chair to describe points of order as "a barrage of interruptions"? Any interruptions from this side of the House were points of order raised by us and it is not in order for the Chair to describe that as a "barrage of interruptions".

Obviously, you do not want to hear the truth.

I want to claim ten minutes to reply to this scandalous allegation. I have not had seven minutes.

What are the Standing Orders relating to injury time?

The Minister and Fianna Fáil will never forget the Mountmellick Town Commissioners. It is like their experience with the Referendum. They cannot believe it.

That is not a point of order.

It was the votes of the people——

In conclusion——

Will Deputies please allow the Minister to conclude?

He has already had an extra six minutes.

This is injury time. When will we bring on the substitute?

All I want to say is that the objection was made on this occasion by people who had experience——

Who were they?

People in Mountmellick.

They run like rats when you are defeated in a count.

Fianna Fáil touts, fellows getting the easy money from you and the likes of you. I have all those lads copped. I have "them lads" under "ob".

Fianna Fáil supporters who had experience of, to say the least of it, the incompetence of this particular individual.

An objection was made. This was brought to the notice of the Returning Officer. Having considered the matter, the Returning Officer decided that, to say the least of it, this man was incompetent. He decided not to employ the particular gentleman on the work at which he had proved himself to be incompetent.

That is exactly what happened—nothing more and nothing less. The decision was made by the Returning Officer.

The Minister should be on trial for misappropriation of public money.

Six hundred thousand numbers.

Is the bar shut? Is Deputy Coughlan able to walk back to it? Does he want to be carried back to it?

We know what the Minister is and we know what Fianna Fáil is.

The Minister was found out.

The Dáil adjourned at 11.7 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 31st October, 1968.