When the House adjourned on Thursday last I was replying on this amendment to section 24. During the course of the debate last Thursday, and on the other days on which this Bill was debated, but particularly on last Thursday, spokesmen from this side of the House made very valid arguments as to why this particular category of employee of a local authority should not be qualified to stand for election to the local authority for which he was working. If the Minister sought to qualify the employee of one local authority to stand for election to another local authority our objections would not, perhaps, be so strong, but what the Minister proposes is, in our opinion, absolutely ludicrous; and, in the intervening period since last Thursday, I and my colleagues on this side of the House have been confirmed in the viewpoint we expounded here when this section was being debated last Thursday. The people are now more aware of what exactly the Minister is proposing and they are in total agreement with our point of view. People have been amazed at what the Minister is proposing. That has been the general reaction. You may find the odd person who has a vested interest and who expresses a different point of view but the general feeling on the part of the public is that this is a retrograde step.

The Minister is excluding every other local authority employee. How he can distinguish between one category and another is something I cannot understand. We believe that no employee of a local authority should be placed in a position in which he could find himself elected as a member of the council for which he is working, given the conflict of interests that must arise, the awkward situations that could develop and the clash of loyalties that could result.

I do not want to repeat the arguments we advanced last Thursday. The Minister made no attempt to answer them and he gave no valid reason for not answering. The debate last week took place under a cloud. That cloud was caused by the continuous threat issued by the Minister that, unless we hurried up, the Bill could not be debated in both Houses in time to come into effect for the local elections on 18th June next. Looking back, I think now we were right to ignore the Minister's threat because, on the following day, Friday, the Government Chief Whip made an approach to the Fianna Fáil Party. The assistant Whip was in charge when the approach was made. A very strong appeal was made to the Fianna Fáil Party to agree on Tuesday, today, to allowing the Bill to conclude in the Dáil. I will go so far as to say that the approach made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach was close to a begging request.

On a point of order, if we are going to have charges made against the Whip, we should, I think, ask the Whip to be present to answer the charges.

It is his fault he is not here and it is the Government's fault there are no backbenchers behind the Minister. Why does he not get everybody else in as well as the Parliamentary Secretary? Send for the whole damn lot.

Would the Deputy please restrain himself?

What Deputy Molloy says is untrue and I would like him to repeat it when the Whip comes in.

In view of the Minister's request for assistance over there, could we have more assistance by way of a House?

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

I was referring to the request which was made to the Fianna Fáil Whip's office on last Friday morning following the conclusion of the Adjournment Debate on last Thursday. Bearing in mind that during the course of the week in the debate on the Local Elections (Petitions and Disqualifications) Bill the Minister had on a number of occasions referred to the fact that it was essential that the Bill be passed very quickly so that it could become law——

I hope the Deputy will have the guts to repeat the charge which he made about a "begging request".

If Deputy Kelly will sit quietly and be patient, and if he wants me to repeat anything I said——

I should be glad if he repeated all that was said.

I have some more interesting things to say but if the Deputy is anxious to hear them he should stay in his seat over there and not just ask me to make an interjection to suit him.

The Deputy can scarcely expect that after all the hours of the time of the House he has wasted over the last couple of months I should be here for every minute he speaks.

May we lower the temperature and allow the Deputy in possession to speak without interruption?

The point I am making is that this special plea was made by the Minister and it was held over the Opposition speakers as a threat. They were told that the Bill was necessary in a short time and that unless we co-operated it could not become law. I wish to quote something which the Minister said on that occasion— Volume 272, No. 7, column 1092:

Before anybody else speaks I would again appeal to Deputy Molloy. If we are to get through this we would want to make some progress. As of now the position is that apparently the Opposition feel that certain people should be included and Deputy Molloy has an amendment down. I do not agree and I do not intend to accept the amendment. We could talk until 12 o'clock tonight, if we had time, and we would not be getting any further. This is my information and the House can accept it or not. The Bill must be reprinted tonight for the Seanad to have it at 10.30 tomorrow morning. The deadline for the Bills Office is 8 o'clock for printing purposes and even that will be touch and go.

You could not get away fast enough from what you said about the Whips' agreement.

Have patience.

You do not spend too much time over there.

Let us get back to the amendment, please. The Chair is seeking to protect the Deputy while speaking.

You are one of the most unruly Deputies, Deputy Molloy. It is not two weeks since you were flung out of the House.

I have asked for order. Deputy Molloy, on amendment No. 3, please.

I still believe the Minister for Justice was acting as a Pontius Pilate on that occasion.

I hesitate to interrupt, but I fail to see the significance of reading the quotation from last Thursday's debate. The amendment before me reads as follows:

An order made under this section shall not exclude an employee who is a member of the administrative staff down to and including the rank of clerical officer from the operation of section 21 (1) of the Local Government Act, 1955.

That is the amendment I want the Deputy to speak to. That is the amendment I want the House to advert to.

That was the Minister's contribution on that occasion. It confirms the appeal made to us and the approach made on Friday morning through the Whip's office, from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach who is the Chief Whip for the Government where, in a very strong appeal, he said one could deem it a begging appeal——

This is all irrelevant.

On a point of order and as a matter of clarification, the Minister was speaking on the same amendment to the same section in the speech quoted by Deputy Molloy. Surely Deputy Molloy is in order in referring to it.

Deputy Crowley will observe the ruling of the Chair. The Chair's obligation is to see that Deputies refer to the matter under discussion and avoid personalities and irrelevancies of the kind we have had up until now.

Deputy Molloy is entitled to refer to the speech made by the Minister recently.

The Deputy will not argue with the Chair.

You are like Laurel and Hardy over there.

If that is a reflection on our size, it is unbecoming of the Parliamentary Secretary. They were two admirable gentlemen who earned an honest living, not like some people over there. As I understand it the Parliamentary Secretary——

Are we getting back to personalities again? Can we not have an orderly debate. The Chair is anxious to deal with the amendment.

On a point of order, does your ruling debar us from referring to a person, that person being an elected Member of the House?

I am asking Deputies to avoid, as far as possible, reference to personalities. This has already led to something like disorder, which I want to avoid, if possible.

If a person is a Member of this House does your ruling stand?

It is sufficient just to refer to him.

The anxiety of the Chair to keep the debate on a certain line may not be contributing to his ultimate aim which is to bring this debate to a happy and quick end.

Deputy Molloy, I resent that. The Chair has no aim of that kind. The only aim of the Chair is to maintain the dignity and decorum of this House and its order, and nothing else.

You will have some job with Fianna Fáil over there.

We have been threatened with the guillotine if we do not agree to a conclusion of this debate and this has left us with Hobson's choice. In order to save the Government embarrassment we indicated that we would agree to a conclusion of the debate on this Bill at 10.30 tonight. I do not consider this is the proper atmosphere in which to bring legislation before the House. We have made our point. We are totally opposed to what the Minister is doing. We have made strong arguments here. We have appealed to the Minister—and we make a final appeal to him now—not to persist in the line he has taken and in following the principle he has established. The Minister's actions can only redound to the detriment of local democracy and the operation of local government in this country, as we have known it. We have agreed because we find ourselves in a situation in which we have no choice. We have facilitated the Government by saving them the embarrassment of bringing in their threatened guillotine.

I conclude now on this section.

Does the Deputy wish that the question be put?

Yes.

I am putting the question that the amendment in the name of Deputy Molloy, that is amendment No. 3, be made.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 13, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following subsection:—

"(8) An order under this section shall only be made after consultation with the Minister for the Public Service."

Last Thursday I indicated I was prepared to withdraw this amendment as it would be deemed to be introducing a new responsibility for the Minister for the Public Service who is not at the moment responsible for local authority staffs. At the moment they come within the ambit of the Minister for Local Government. Before formally withdrawing the amendment, I do not mind pointing out that it was put down as a further illustration of the thinking contained in the sections of this Bill which, as the Bill was presented, meant this House was by-passed in relation to very important orders which could be made under the Bill.

We have discussed that and the Minister has accepted an amendment. We have reached an amicable agreement that meets our point of view on the orders. However, it illustrates a trend, one that should not be allowed to obtain in legislation passing through this House. When I put down the amendment, I thought that as the Bill was so loosely drawn and such wide and devastating powers were available to the Minister with regard to who could or could not stand as a candidate in a local election, it might be appropriate if the Minister had to consult with another person of similar rank. I thought the Minister for the Public Service might be the appropriate person. However, in view of the agreement on the amendment in relation to the making of the orders, when they come into effect, their publication and presentation to the House, and the fact that our amendment comes into operation 12 months after this election—we could not insist on it coming in now as it would not be feasible having regard to the time scale—the agreement we have reached on the amendment regarding the presenting of orders before the House in draft form will provide sufficient safeguard against any one person, no matter what his office might be, acting in a manner that could be deemed afterwards to have been vindictive or biased. As it would have been possible for two Ministers to be "in cahoots", I thought this would have been a safeguard. In the circumstances, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Is the amendment withdrawn——

Technically it is not withdrawn. When our speakers have concluded it will be withdrawn.

Is the amendment being withdrawn? The agreement was that this amendment would be withdrawn. If Fianna Fáil want to debate it that should be done now. I am sick and tired of getting assurances from Deputy Molloy which he is not prepared to carry out.

The Minister is being paid to be sick and tired.

The only agreement we came to was that the amendment would be withdrawn by me. I have indicated that I intend to do that.

We have in this Bill an indication of the categories of employees of the local authorities who will be eligible for candidates of a local authority. Under this section other Ministers may make orders setting out the grades of employees in their Departments who will be eligible to become candidates at local elections. So far, we have not got any information whatsoever as to the eligible grades of officials or employees of the Department, not even the Minister's own Department. I should like to get his views as to the thinking of other Ministers on the categories of people employed directly by their Department who can, and I am sure will, become candidates at the forthcoming elections. We will know when the orders are made. When will that be? Could the Minister give any information on this? It is necessary before we give a blank cheque to find out what the purpose of the blank cheque is. Has the Minister consulted the other Ministers as to the categories of civil servants who will be allowed to stand for council elections? I do not want to name——

On a point of order, and to help Deputy Cunningham, that has nothing to do with this Bill. It bears no relation to the Bill at all.

The Minister will be making an order——

The Deputy has a copy of the order.

——in respect of civil servants employed in his Department.

That has nothing to do with this Bill.

This deals only with local authorities. Everybody is interested in this. Could the Minister tell me what categories of civil servants will be allowed to stand?

That does not arise under this Bill. We have had enough points discussed which are not relevant to this Bill without bringing in at this stage something which is entirely apart from what we are discussing here. I gave a list to Deputy Molloy a fortnight ago of the people who would be affected by the Bill. That is the only list for which we are responsible here and I do not propose to bring others in now.

Will there be other legislation?

No.

This point is causing some confusion. Deputy Cunningham asked the Minister if he could state what categories of employees in the Public Service would be qualified to stand as candidates in the forthcoming local elections. We appreciate that under this Bill certain orders can be made by the Minister for Local Government in relation to local authority employees, the Minister for Education in relation to certain employees in the vocational education committees and the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries in relation to agricultural committees. That is clear under this Bill. But the House and the public are anxious to know to what extent our civil servants qualify to stand for election to local authorities. I have tried to get this information. As Local Government spokesman for the Opposition, this information should have been made available to me. I tried to get it by way of a Parliamentary question and I was informed today:

I regret that I have had to disallow the question addressed by you to the Minister for the public service regarding the category of employees in the public service qualified to stand for election to local authorities. The Minister has no official responsibility for stating the law in this matter.

That was a genuine attempt to obtain the information in the simplest possible manner and gave the Minister plenty of time to gather it. I was refused. If the Minister for the Public Service is not responsible, then our idea of his responsibilities is misleading. We understood that he was responsible for all matters relating to staff in all branches of the Civil Service. The Minister for Local Government might help us by offering to circulate to us later a list of the categories of civil servants who will be allowed to stand for local elections and also those who recently were allowed to participate actively in political affairs. There has been some lifting of restrictions in the post office, but it is difficult to know where it starts and where it ends. Could the Minister undertake to——

As the Deputy knows, anybody in the Civil Service could offer himself for election. It would then be a matter for the Minister for the Public Service to say whether he could hold his job and serve on the public authority. This is not a matter with which I can deal here. Therefore, I think it is unfair that I should be asked, at this stage, to give this information.

Who can give it?

That is between the Deputies and the Minister for the Public Service. If the Deputies asked him a question and got an answer——

We have not got an answer.

The letter was signed by the Ceann Comhairle.

The Minister must consider at this stage that this is a collective responsibility. It is not good enough for him to say that he will not carry the responsibility of the Minister for Finance or the Minister for the Public Service. He should answer Deputy Molloy's reasonable question.

Would the Minister undertake to give us some information later on?

I do not want to be awkward. I have had enough irrelevancies being introduced into this Bill. An agreement was made between Deputy Molloy and myself that this amendment was to be withdrawn. Half way through the debate a new element is introduced——

The Minister could——

The Deputy must allow me to speak. He has spoken for long enough. I have been asked to give information which I am not in a position to give. This information has nothing to do with the Bill. I do not propose to take responsibility for something for which I am not responsible. Deputy Molloy knows that any civil servant can offer himself for election. It is then a matter for the Minister for the Public Service to decide, in consultation with the Minister responsible for the civil servant, whether or not he will be allowed to stand. I will not discuss this matter at this stage. It has nothing to do with the Bill. It would be unfair to the House to attempt to bring in something now which is entirely irrelevant.

I agree that it would be unfair to expect the Minister to have this information available now. It was brought up quite innocently by Deputy Cunningham. I have indicated that I am prepared to withdraw this amendment but, as he did mention it, and as the Minister is aware of the confusion in this regard, I thought it would be appropriate— and the Chair has allowed it—that we should seek clarification. In view of the fact that the Minister for the Public Service is on record as having no responsibility in this matter, and in view of the fact that the Minister for Local Government has stated that he is not responsible for it, we seem to be in greater difficulty. I do not want to put the Minister on the spot. Could he give us some assurance that he will let the Opposition Party know what changes, if any, have been made in relation to public service staffs in recent times?

There is a difference. The local authority employee cannot stand until the Bill becomes law. A civil servant can stand and he can be disqualified from his job. If he hands in his nomination it will be accepted. A nomination of an employee of a local authority of a certain grade will not be accepted. That is the difference. If Deputy Molloy wants the information I am quite sure it will be made available in good time, if it has not already been made available. I am not quite clear on what exactly he is looking for.

That is all we want.

There is a difference between the qualification of civil servants and local authority employees. I am now dealing with local authority employees and I am endeavouring to get the matter cleared up. That should be sufficient.

We want to know the exact law on this whole question and whether any changes have been made. As the Minister is aware, a number of civil servants are excluded from participating in politics, are excluded from standing in local elections and even in general elections because of the terms of their employment and that the terms of employment can be changed by the Minister without having to come before this House. We have information as to the categories for which it is obligatory on the Minister to seek permission from the House. We have not got a full record of what other changes have been made in any Department in relation to the terms of employment of any of the members of the staff.

I will pass on Deputy Molloy's request to the Minister for the Public Service with a request that he should contact Deputy Molloy and have this matter cleared up.

The Minister is quite wrong when he says that a civil servant can stand for local elections. He can, but he cannot stand as a member of a political party so the Minister is quite wrong.

Could we have clarification on whether any changes have taken place in the terms of employment of any civil servant in relation to these matters?

A question was posed to me today and I should be glad if the Minister could answer it for me. We know that, under the terms of the notice sent out, home assistance officers cannot stand for local elections. I am not sure whether that is because they are employees of a particular council. Could a home assistance officer employed by Dublin County Council stand for election to Dublin Corporation?

Yes.

He could. That is a good question.