Esmonde, John GrattanThursday, 9 May 1974 |
Dáil Eireann Debate
Page of 38
|
Local Elections (Petitions and Disqualifications) Bill, 1974: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Deputy Molloy accepts the amendment except for the last few words—“without prejudice to anything done thereunder”. I have been a little confused listening to Deputy Cunningham because it seems to me t...
That is the whole point. For instance, the Deputy might buy property from the executor so acting and borrow money for that purpose from a bank or building society and subsequently the document used i...
The Minister would be guilty of gross negligence if he did not have those words in this section because if a local authority with the assistance of a person subsequently disqualified by order did some...
It is an on-going situation and one cannot always make time match at meetings of local authorities. In these words there is also an insurance against human error and we are all guilty of human error ...
But he accepts the Minister's amendment if these words are omitted, but these words cannot be omitted.
Deputy Molloy says he cannot understand why the Minister will not delete these words. These words are always used.
You have to put in a period.
Is the Deputy changing his views?
All the secondary legislation is safeguarded in exactly the same way in the EEC. It is the same sort of set up.
The Succession Act. All the statutes.
We are dealing with a situation that could possibly arise.
Deputies agree that it is necessary in certain circumstances, but they cannot agree that it is necessary in circumstances which can quite obviously arise in this case.
The Deputy called the Minister——
The Minister would be guilty of serious negligence.
For the benefit of Deputy Andrews, I have spoken on this matter and I think where a process is revoked you must have that there.
| Last Updated: 14/09/2010 22:30:06 |
Page of 38
|