I wish to remind Senators that they may speak only once on Report Stage, except for the proposer of an amendment who may reply to a discussion on the amendment. Also on Report Stage each amendment must be seconded.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 6, line 14, after "repealed" to insert "except in so far as they relate to the limiting of election expenditure".

We discussed the reasons for this amendment at length on Committee Stage and I will not repeat them. However, I believe it is an important principle so I wish to table this amendment again for consideration.

Since there is no seconder for the amendment it lapses.

Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are related and will be discussed together.

We agreed on Committee Stage to increase the period for making submissions or declarations of returns from 56 to 90 days. These amendments give effect to that.

Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are related and will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 19, line 27, to delete "7 days" and substitute "14 days".

I tabled this amendment on foot of our discussion following Senator Walsh's contribution on Committee Stage which I accepted because I thought it reasonable. I accept the Minister has gone a substantial way towards meeting the concerns raised on Committee Stage by increasing the previous length of time from 56 to 90 days. However, for the reasons I gave on Committee Stage which I will not repeat, it would be reasonable for the rule to be that suspension from membership of the authority would be for a period of 14 days to allow the person to put in the necessary paperwork if, at the end of 90 days, he had not succeeded in getting it in. A period of seven days is quite short. By the time notification is given and returned it could be late. Post can be delayed for various reasons. If 14 days was the allowed term, by and large there would be compliance. However, seven days is a little tight and given delays in post, a person might be deemed to have lost his seat for want of an extra day or two. With a few days extra grace he could manage to comply.

I second the amendment. The Minister has been very fair in moving from 56 plus seven days to 90 days. To add another seven days after the 90 days would be fair too. There is a problem. I understand the Minister. I would prefer to insert the date rather than a number of days. If the date is inserted, it must be done by that date. If Senator Gallagher and the Minister agree it could be more than seven but less than 15 days. I would be prepared to settle on eight, nine or ten days. Eight days brings us into a second week. That is a compromise. Eight or nine days would bring us into the second week of September. I do not know on what day 1 September falls but it should only be relevant to this Bill. By stating a particular date, we might get the compromise needed. I ask this as the Minister will be dealing with 350 to 400 new people, whether they be on urban, county or city councils. That is where the problem lies. If even one is undermined it would be a sad reflection on us. I know nobody means ill will to anyone here but let us try to compromise. I am sure Senator Gallagher would agree with me.

I thought I had made the compromise by moving from 56 to 90 days. If the Senators wish me to change the 90 days back to 76 days and give a person 14 days after they are suspended I will do that but having given 90 days in the earlier amendments I am not disposed to extending that by another 14 days. There are now 90 days plus seven days.

The specified date is a problem because the elections are on 11 June this year and in five years I do not want to have to change the law just to facilitate that. I have already undertaken that local authorities will inform members of their obligations when they attend or are due to attend their first meeting. By way of compromise, I will agree to put in the circular that local authorities will inform members again on 1 September and remind any members who have not submitted their returns at that stage.

That is fair enough.

That is very fair and it will be effective. On the basis of the Minister's statement I withdraw the amendment.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 22, to delete the text inserted at Committee by Government Amendment No. 12.

This amendment relates to what was called the "Jackie Healy-Rae amendment". The man will end up with more titles than Julius Caesar by the time he is finished.

Hopefully he will not end up the same way.

I will let the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform say something or nothing on that. We will not wonder who will play the role of Brutus.

Do not look at me.

The Senator is drawing attention to himself. I remember the dramatis personae of that play very well because I studied it for my intermediate certificate – when there was an intermediate certificate. If Deputy Healy-Rae is Caesar, I do not know who is Brutus.

I do not think the Government amendment is good for the reasons I stated at length on Committee Stage. Accordingly I ask that the amendment made on Committee Stage be withdrawn.

I second the amendment.

I am not disposed to change it for all the reasons I stated on Committee Stage.

I thank the Minister for bringing the Bill before the House and for the manner in which he dealt with it. He was amenable to various suggestions from different sides of the House and tried to accommodate them. Hopefully, the Bill has been strengthened and improved as a result. I am sure he will return to the House on many occasions with more farreaching proposals on local government and I look forward to that.

I thank the Minister for his openness and consideration of proposals from all sides of the House. He is to be congratulated on the introduction of the Bill and his sincerity in dealing with it. I am aware of what are his intentions in regard to local government, what he will do and his commitment to it because he is involved in it as are many of us. I thank him for the way he treated us; he was very fair. I wish the Bill well and extend my best wishes to everybody going forward in the local elections.

While the Minister and I disagreed on two substantive issues I recognise the weight of numbers in the House, but we had a constructive debate. He listened and I thank him for the amendments he made. I have no doubt this Bill will get a strong run in the Dáil.

I too wish all those who will contest the local elections well in the polls and in filling out the various forms after.

I thank Senators for the warmth of their welcome, not just for the Bill but for myself, and the constructive role they played. I also thank the Opposition for facilitating Report and Final Stages now rather than later. We got through business expeditiously and disagreements were political, not personal, as they should be.

I wish to refer to amendment No. 4 which was agreed earlier. There was confusion about its intent. I wish to confirm that the intent was to exempt the expenditure incurred at a previous election which was disclosed in respect of that election from having to be disclosed again. It is a plus for local authority members and I will send a note to the Senator on this. I thank my officials for their help.