I move:
That proposals for legislation of the Minister for the Environment in relation to postal voting be referred to the Joint Committee on Legislation pursuant to paragraph 1 (a) of the Committee's terms of reference.
Postal Voting Legislation: Motion.
I move amendment No. 1:
After "reference" to insert the following words:
"and that the Committee be required to provide a record of its discussion on the proposals not later than December 31st, 1984."
The amendment I am proposing is that the committee be required to provide a record of their discussions on the proposals not later than 31 December 1984. We sought to place an amendment that the committee would be required to report back to the Dáil by that date but we were informed that that would be out of order and that all we could require the committee to do would be to put before us a record of their discussions.
The whole question of postal voting has been put off for far too long, but it is necessary for the House to come to grips with the matter immediately. I am not convinced of the necessity to refer the Minister's proposals to the committee. There have been a number of examinations of this whole matter over a number of years. In 1974 the Dáil introduced postal voting for local government elections. One would assume therefore that the question of postal voting and the form it should take was dealt with in some detail at that time.
When I proposed a Private Members' Bill some months ago the Minister for the Environment indicated that proposals were ready and that it was only a matter of some short time before they would be before the House. Prior to the EEC elections someone, presumably the Minister, floated the rumour that the proposals would be introduced before the EEC elections. The Minister argues that there is a need to allow time, that we should not put a limit on the time for these discussions by the special committee and that there would be ample time for various bodies to make submissions.
There is a report of the working party on the register of electors, and that dealt in some detail also with the question of postal voting. Some 47 local authorities made submissions to that working party as did all of the political parties here. The Irish Wheelchair Association, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, the Union of Voluntary Organisations for the Handicapped, the Waterford Local Health Committee and the Western Health Board all made submissions to that body on the question of postal voting.
I consider the issue to have been played around with for far too long. We have just agreed a motion that the Bankruptcy Bill be dealt with by the special committee. The Minister for Justice indicated a wish to have that work completed by September, so clearly the Bankruptcy Bill will be given priority over the proposals for postal voting. I am anxious that the committee deal with the postal voting matter as quickly as possible, and that by the time the Dáil resumes after the Christmas Recess we will be discussing the legislation to introduce the appropriate Bill. For that reason I ask the proposer of the motion to accept my amendment and so ensure that the committee deal with this matter as expeditiously as possible.
Fianna Fáil are fully in favour of extending the postal vote to categories of persons who, for one reason or another, are unable to be present at the polling station to cast their vote during elections. To facilitate the extension of the postal vote to categories of that kind the former Minister, Deputy Burke, set up a committee which reported in March 1983. The report was entitled Report of the Working Party on the Register of Electors. In that report positive proposals were made for the extension of the postal vote to the categories of persons that spokespeople in this House have agreed should have the postal vote. That has been put on the record on numerous occasions over the last number of years.
We are opposed to this motion for several reasons and the amendment does not make much sense either. There is no necessity to refer this matter to another committee. It has already been expertly examined and reported on by the group set up by Deputy Burke when he was Minister. The House has already debated that report. During the course of that debate the Minister gave an assurance that he would take all the views expressed in the debate into consideration and would bring forward legislative proposals as soon as possible to extend the postal vote. He did not do that. He made that promise in April 1983. At that time we were told the reason why the matter was being brought before the House so soon after the publication of the report was to enable the Minister to prepare legislation in time for the elections which were due to be held in 1984. The Minister said that those elections were the local and European elections. We know that the Minister has since postponed the local elections but the European election has come and gone. We have not seen the legislation to extend the postal vote to the handicapped, disabled and other categories of people.
This motion is a complete farce and a sham. It is an attempt on the part of the Government to hoodwink those people who were denied a vote in the European election and an attempt to try to show that the Government are concerned about them and intend to do something and that by referring it to the committee the Government's good intentions are being made clear. There is no such intention. The Government denied these people the right to vote in a recent election. Obviously they have been so embarrassed over the outcry against their inactivity in relation to this legislation that they have thought up this device. This is a public relations exercise and a suggestion from the handlers about how to get a message out to the community that the Government are concerned about extending the postal vote. They have failed to fulfil the commitments they made. They failed to implement the suggestions in the report of the committee established by Fianna Fáil. There was adequate time to prepare the legislation. We indicated our desire to see that legislation and assured the Minister of our fullest support for the legislation. There is no way he would have delayed it.
This motion has no meaning whatever in our eyes when we look at the facts, the insincerity of the Government and the false promises they made in the House. Are we to accept anything from the mouths of Ministers in debates? The Dáil record contains the commitments made by the Minister for the Environment when replying to the debate on that report over a year ago. Nothing was done. The election came and went and these people were denied what the House had agreed should be given to them: the opportunity to vote. What is the point in referring it to this John Bruton-established, toothless committee of the Oireachtas?
The Deputy should say "Minister".
Leader of the House or whatever his grand title is. This committee has been condemned by the members of the committee as being useless and toothless. It is not in a position to make positive recommendations. All it can do is receive submissions and suggestions and consider them. It cannot make any positive recommendations. The Minister does not have to heed it. It is a time-wasting exercise to suggest that this motion would be of assistance in advancing the cause of the people who have been deprived of their right to vote because of their circumstances.
When Deputy Spring as Minister for the Environment was speaking on the motion to consider the report of the working party on 21 April 1983 he said:
I look forward to hearing these views and, again, I assure the House that all views forthcoming from Members will be carefully weighed.
It was taken for granted they would be considered and that they would assist the Minister in formulating legislation to extend the postal vote. When replying to the debate the then Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy Quinn, said:
On the contrary, it should be said that we face elections in May and it is desirable that we attempt to be in a position to implement whatever changes we in this House agree on in time for those elections. Therefore an earlier debate was considered preferable to postponing it.... I am talking about the European and local elections for 1984. There is no ulterior motive in relation to the timing of this debate. We are anxious to hear the views of all Members as soon as possible and I assure Deputies that everything that has been said during this debate will be evaluated in conjunction with the recommendations of the report.
Evaluated for what purpose? That was over 12 months ago. The Minister wanted it debated in the House so that it would assist him to formulate legislation.
Will the Deputy please give the reference for his quotation?
It is the Official Report dated 21 April 1983, column 1618. Later on he stated:
We are all anxious that the system be put right. Experience of the last three elections indicated a wide range of anomalies and much dissatisfaction with the system. People in all of the political parties especially in urban areas were aware that there were grave inaccuracies and that something would have to be done to put the matter right.
The working party established by my predecessor, Deputy Burke, did a lot of good work. I am now giving the undertaking to the House that we will evaluate carefully all the points made in the debate in conjunction with the recommendations of the report.
The report dealt with the extension of postal voting and the improvement in access to polling booths for invalids. The Minister continued:
It would be our desire and our intention to come back to the House as soon as as possible with legislative proposals should such be necessary and with regulations designed to ensure that those who are entitled to vote are given every opportunity to do so and the accuracy of the register is maintained at the highest level possible.
The report also dealt with inaccuracies in the register. The recommendations made by the committee were extensive. It recommended that a standing list of eligible postal voters should be prepared each year when the register of electors was being compiled and that persons on the list would be entitled to vote by post only at an election; that applications for inclusion on the postal voters list should be open to registered electors who are physically disabled or who are prevented from voting in person by the circumstances of their occupation; that applications for inclusion on the postal voters list should be supported by medical or employment certification as appropriate.
They were some of the recommendations made in regard to the extension of postal vote by that committee. This has already been debated in the House. We have had the assurance of two Ministers that following the debate action would be taken to bring forward legislative proposals. That is over 12 months ago and we have not yet seen the legislation. Worse still, we are being asked this morning to refer proposals for legislation of the Minister for the Environment in relation to postal voting to the Joint Committee on Legislation. We have not seen the proposals, there are none before the House and the Joint Committee on Legislation have no power to make any recommendations. If there is any doubt about that, I need only quote from the Joint Committee on Legislation's report for 3 November 1983, at column 64, Deputy O'Malley states:
I believe it is correct to say, from the discussion that took place at the last meeting of this committee, that it was the understanding of the great majority of the members that we had a function something on the lines of committees in, for example, the United States Congress. Indeed, the publicity given at the time in newspapers and statements made by the Minister for the Public Service and the Minister for Industry and Energy led one to believe that.
Later at column 65, Deputy O'Malley says:
This committee is, in fact, a powerless body. Where the gathering of evidence is concerned, that could easily be done by the clerk on his own.
Deputy Kenny, at column 69, states:
This is most disappointing. I may have misunderstood, but I had assumed that on the setting up of this committee it would have a decent role in the formation of legislation to go before the House. I am afraid that I have to agree with Deputy O'Malley that under the terms of reference applied to us and the interpretation of those, that does not seem to be the case.
This is out of date.
Deputy Faulkner, at column 61, said:
It would appear to me that we are simply collectors of submissions from various groups, either oral or written, and that we have no further function except to hand them over to the general body of the Dáil. According to the documentation I have read, we cannot deliberate or report. The functions left to the committee could be carried out by a clerk without the committee being involved.
A minor change was made in the terms of reference and the only amendment to the relevant portion of the committee's terms of reference passed in December last was "...a record of its discussions and, if necessary, for the purpose of taking evidence in public from such interested persons...". Those were the only changes that were made. They can keep a record of the discussions.
This committee have been asked by the House this morning to consider proposals which the House has not seen. While any development on the road to legislation for postal voting by the Government is to be welcomed, nevertheless this must be a qualified welcome. The most obvious questions that arise in the motion before the House today are where are the proposals for legislation? How can the House agree to consider something which it has not seen? No proposals have been published. How can the House agree to refer proposals if it is not aware of, or in possession of such proposals? As far as I am aware, the procedure being adopted by this committee is relatively new and was used only once before in connection with the local radio proposals and, in effect, the proposals represent a pre-legislation stage, as it were.
The Deputy knows what happened then.
Nevertheless, the House should not be asked to co-operate in a vacuum. At the very least, the Government could have made copies of the proposals before the House for the information of Members. This would have appeared to be a minimum requirement for courtesy to the Members of the House. As shadow spokesman, I should have been made aware of the contents of the proposals. The procedure which the House is being asked to sanction here today is in stark contrast to the usual referral of Bills to committees, where the Bill itself is before the House having passed Second Stage. Consequently, the House is fully aware of its contents and the policy implications in referring the Bill to a committee.
This leads me to my next point. What is the purpose of referring these proposals to the Joint Legislation Committee? Are there any policy ramifications in these? Is it a bona fide attempt by the Government to expedite the introduction and passing of such legislation by means of achieving a consensus at the initial stage, thereby allowing the committee to have a real input into the drafting of the Bill; or is it a more sinister exercise on the part of the Government to sidestep this vital issue so that any arrangements for postal voting will not be enacted in time for next year's local elections? If one considers what happened when proposals for legislation were referred to this committee last year, namely on the local radio, one cannot help but suspect the Government's motives in this exercise. What happened in the local radio proposal is no secret and was widely discussed in the record of the meetings of that committee. I have already quoted some of this. Also, my party colleagues who are members of that committee have kept me abreast of their basic handicap in dealing with radio proposals. When the proposals for legislation concerning local radio were referred to the Committee on Legislation the members found, much to their dismay, that with the best will in the world they were prevented by their terms of reference — which they tried to get changed with little or no success — from making recommendations on the Government's proposals or even reporting to the House on them.
The Chair thinks that that would be more appropriate and relevant on the next motion, Motion No. 5, which deals with the terms of reference of the legislation.
No, I am referring, a Cheann Comhairle, to a motion before the House that we should refer to a committee proposals which we have not seen. I am questioning the usefulness of that exercise and the ability of that committee to consider or make recommendations or report back to this House on their views on the extension of postal voting.
The next motion on the Order Paper amends the terms of reference. That would be the proper time for this.
The Chair will accept that my special interest and responsibility here are in regard to environment legislation, and the handling of the extension of postal voting is a matter for the Minister of the Environment who, unfortunately again, is not here. I have to fulfil my duties in the matter on behalf of my party as we see them.
This committee are debarred even from reporting to the House on any recommendations which they would wish to make. All they are empowered to do is to provide a record of their discussions and the oral submissions heard in respect of the proposals. It must be said to that committee's credit, that they made the best of a bad job in that the record of their discussions was highly regarded as being very informative. Nevertheless that was the only positive result. The Minister is not obliged even to pay heed to any of the points made at these discussions. He does not even have to take them on board in his Bill to be brought before the House subsequently. Even though the Committee on Legislation finished their proposals for local radio last February, the Government still have not produced their local radio Bill. Is that correct? Nobody can deny it. Here again, this is a purely PR exercise, a bit of a farce, doing something clever, making a bit of a fuss about it —"It would look as if we are doing something about postal voting and the public out there would not really understand the fine print. They do not understand how these things work and if we get a headline it will look OK".
Our job is to read behind the headlines and expose the thinking behind the Government's actions and decisions. This is an extremely blatant attempt on the Government's part to cover up for their inactivity in their failure to give the postal vote to a very deserving category of citizen. They were told at the doors when campaigning what the people thought about them for refusing to extend the postal vote. There was no excuse that this Government could offer to any person in a wheelchair as to why he had not a postal vote in the European Election, no excuse in the wide world. They are now seeking to create the impression that they are doing something for these people in the hope that they will not really understand all the goings on in the Dáil, that if they see that a committee are to consider postal voting they will think that the Government are doing something about it and will forget their inactivity; that they will forget that Fianna Fáil set up a committee which have already reported on the need to extend the postal vote. That report was debated here over 12 months ago and, despite promises to bring in legislation, nothing was done by the Government. They are guilty on this issue. In view of the experience of this committee with the local radio proposals, I must ask: what is the purpose of referring postal voting proposals to that committee now? It is clearly not to achieve an all-party consensus which, in any event, the committee are prevented from putting into effect. It is the intention that we will be still waiting for the Government to produce their Bill in a year's time as with local radio? The Government should prepare and introduce their Bill forthwith and not bother this House with what, in effect, is a sham exercise in that it would appear that the only function of this referral is for the committee to gather information on the proposals.
All the necessary information is contained in this excellent document which was prepared by people with a special expertise in the field, whose proposals were debated by the elected representatives in this House, and who have vast practical experience of the democratic system. I cannot see any need to gather further information to submit to a committee of the Oireachtas for them to look at and consider and discuss, and they will not be allowed to make any recommendations.
Why should we bother the same people who already submitted proposals and suggestions to the committee set up by the then Minister, Deputy Burke? Why should we put another advertisement in the newspapers inviting them to make submissions all over again? Deputy De Rossa went through the names of some of the organisations who have already made submissions on these matters to the previous committee set up by Deputy Burke. The list is long and extensive. He is correct in saying it includes all the political parties. It includes nearly every local authority in the country. It includes all sorts of organisations representing handicapped and disabled people. It includes people with practical knowledge and experience, and with responsibility for running elections such as returning officers, county registrars, sheriffs, and so on, and a number of other associations and organisations, and even Government Departments. This is a very extensive, very thorough, very worthwhile and excellent document. It was fully debated in the Dáil and no action was taken on it. Now we are to have the same procedure initiated by the Government as an exercise to hoodwink the people.
In conclusion, in case my criticisms of this motion might be misconstrued as an attack on the committees of the House, I want to put it on record that I believe, generally speaking, committees are useful and can play a constructive part in developing policy by consensus. As chairman of one committee engaged in such a constructive exercise, I am well aware of the value of the committee system. In this case I am afraid I have to draw the line, especially in view of the previous experience of this committee with local radio and its lack of real power to deal with the issue involved, and especially in view of the fact that we have had full and adequate discussion. We have had an expert report on it. We have had practical experience of the 1974 postal vote extension during the local elections which should have been repeated in 1979 and should form the basis for an extension of permanent legislation.
On the question of the amendment, I can see the good intentions behind it if The Workers' Party feel they should accept this motion. We feel it is a useless exercise, that it is a delaying tactic and part of a public relations exercise by the Government to seek to create an impression, and to cover up their inactivity and their failure in this whole area. The operative date in regard to compiling the register of electors is 15 September when work must start on compiling the revision. The draft register has to be published by 15 December next. A month up to 15 January is given for the receipt of submissions and appeals for inclusion and the exclusion of people improperly included. Officially the register comes into force on 15 April next. If the committee were to make available a record of its discussions by the end of December, it would be too late for inclusion in the draft register.
We submit there is absolutely no need for any committee of this House to discuss these matters. It seems to me there is general agreement on all sides that the postal vote should be extended. We have the practical administrative experience of the 1974 postal vote extension during the local elections. It is merely a matter of getting the mechanics right. That can easily be done by the parliamentary draftsman and the technical people in the Department of the Environment. I cannot see any great difficulty. No objection in principle has been expressed in any of the debates we have had to a generous extension of the postal vote. Therefore, I cannot see any sense in the committee reviewing this matter, and I cannot see any sense in the amendment which would require the committee to make a report by the end of December. If they were to report by that date, it would be too late to have postal voters included in the draft register of electors. There is a statutory obligation on the local authorities to have them published by 15 December. Therefore, the date in the amendment would not make much sense.
This House is about to go into recess. It is not usual for committees of the House to meet during the recess, and certainly not during July or August. This committee have not been notified yet. The Dáil has not referred the matter to them. I presume that, with their majority, the Government will force this through. I do not know what business the committee have on their agenda at present. Assuming they have other business they will not be able to consider the proposal for the extension of the postal vote before October.
Committees meet once a week or once a fortnight. I do not know how often this committee meet. Even if they meet for an hour or an hour and a half, it would require several meetings over a period of several weeks to deal with the matter, and I could see their deliberations continuing on well after Christmas, well after the date for the final acceptance of proposals and appeals against the published statutory list of voters.
To me this is proof that the Government's purpose in putting this motion before the House is to enable them to do nothing. In effect, that is what this motion will do. There is no need for it. If the Government had a serious commitment and intention to bring in legislation to extend the postal vote, they could set about preparing a Bill which they promised to do 12 months ago and bring the Bill before the House and let us discuss it.
The Deputy said that half an hour ago.
The Minister does not like it.
On a point of order, if I am not out of order in doing so, may I draw to the Chair's attention the fact that Deputy Molloy is repeating himself?
The Minister does not like it.
He does not like to hear the truth.
He is repeating himself ad nauseam.
Why did Fianna Fáil not deal with it ten years ago.
I am referring to the amendment.
We were not in office ten years ago.
We have limited time available to debate all these motions. The longer we spend on this motion the less time we will have for the others.
I can understand the Ministers opposite becoming upset at the exposure of their ulterior motives.
Why did Fianna Fáil not deal with it in 1982?
I said I was concluding, so I am surprised at the intervention of the Minister for Defence. I wonder where is the Minister for the Environment who has a greater responsibility in this area.
The Minister for Defence is busy this week. He is subbing all the time.
I want to explain why we cannot support the amendment. We do not think the dates are very relevant to what is required. My party will be opposing the motion. I would not want anybody to try to take advantage of that and try to create the impression that we are not in support of an extension of postal voting. Anybody who has been listening to me knows that. I have repeated it a number of times to make sure that nobody can put anything else across. We are fully in support of extending the postal vote. I hope nobody will seek to create any other impression.
I am not replying to the motion. I merely wish to refer to some point made by Deputy Molloy in regard to the Committee on Legislation. The first point I want to make is that the terms of reference of the committee were agreed in detail with the Leader of the Opposition on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party. If the Deputy's party wanted to have the terms of reference altered, they had the opportunity to make that point at that stage. It was quite clear to me that Deputy Haughey, speaking on behalf of Fianna Fáil did not want this term of reference, IA, under which this matter will be dealt with, to be any wider than it is. He felt — and it is not an unreasonable point of view — that if a committee were holding hearings on a matter before that matter was the subject of legislation which had been debated in this House, in a sense the committee would be arrogating to themselves a function of the House as a whole in making decisions about matters that had not been the subject of debate and decision in the House: hence the term of reference of the committee in regard to the holding of hearings. While it allows the committee to consider a matter and provide a record of their debates, it does not allow them to make decisions on that matter. The decisions fall to be made in the normal way as the debate on the Bill proceeds through the House subsequently. Obviously, the value of the hearings is that it will be a more informed debate. In particular, the contributions of members of the committee will be more relevant because they will have had hearings at which they were able to cross-examine outside experts.
The committee have many other functions. It would be wrong for the Deputy to seek to present them in an unfavourable light solely by reference to this single function. The committee have a number of other functions that they are performing quite effectively.
This motion does not need to be discussed in a partisan way and I would not have thought of saying anything partisan were it not that Deputy Molloy introduced that note quite needlessly, not once but several times. The party for whom he is the spokesman in this area have only two achievements to their credit in the electoral area that I can call to mind off the top of my head. One was the futile 1963 Electoral Act which set up the panoply of a register of political parties which has no function other than to adjudicate on something, the effect of which is to permit somebody to enter the name of his party after his own name on a ballot paper. That has cost the State hundreds of thousands of pounds in futile litigation in the past 20 years with every person who felt he was being done in the eye by this register of political parties.
The other achievement — not so much an achievement as two brave efforts — was to get the Irish people to adopt the English voting system. This happened in 1959 but, not satisfied with the stinging rebuff they were given on the same day as the people elected Mr. de Valera to the Presidency, they tried again in 1968. It is getting to the time for them to have a third go at it.
Will the Deputy please stay on the motion before the House.
I have no doubt that if they were back on this side of the House there would be wise old heads in Fianna Fáil saying it was about time they put it to the people again. Their attitude would be that many of the people who voted them down in 1959 have died, that they could recycle the old lies and the old arguments. There was a time when Deputy Brian Lenihan told us that we were stagnant, that we had no stability with PR——
On a point of order, what has this to do with the motion before the House?
When it was pointed out to them——
I ask the Deputy to deal with the motion before the House.
When it was pointed out to Deputy Lenihan that the stability he sought was better assured in this country than anywhere else because there had been only three changes of Government in about 40 years, he said, "Yes, but that was the stability of stagnation". Deputies opposite can cut that out and paste it in the Lenihan album.
The Deputy should cut it out himself and stay with the motion before the House.
The Deputy said he wanted what he called the cut and thrust that you would get with the straight vote. On the figures of those days that would have left 130 Fianna Fáil Deputies and as many other Deputies as you could put into a mini-bus. It would have cemented himself and his pals and their children in Dáil seats. That is the record of Fianna Fáil on electoral law. It comes ill from them to harangue us about how they have been straining at the leash for the past 60 years to let disabled people vote, that they have been restrained only by the lethargy and malice of the Opposition from giving the rights of citizens to people whose physical misfortune it is not to be able to exercise them in the ordinary way. I have said enough about that. We do not want to hear any more partisan rubbish and nonsense. I am sorry to speak about a man whom I admire well enough most of the time but he would have done better to spare us the partisan remarks he gave us during the past 30 minutes.
What are we to make of the promises from this Government that have not been kept?
I am not slow to criticise my own side. I have paid a price for it and I exercise that right. I do not think the Government are in the wrong here.
Having paid the price, perhaps the Deputy would come back to the motion before the House.
Once the Minister's proposals are before the committee, they will be able to look at them in somewhat wider frame and consider the objective to which all of us subscribe, namely, of allowing disabled people to vote. It is not only disabled people who might be considered but those who may be engaged on State service abroad or in some part of the country other than that area where they are registered as electors or perhaps even those on their holidays. The committee might consider if those people will be allowed to exercise the privilege of a citizen in electing a person to the Dáil or to the local authority by some method that perhaps is not open to the abuses to which we are told the postal vote is liable.
Deputy Molloy referred to the postal vote extension in 1974 in respect of local elections that year. It was Jim Tully who was responsible for that experiment and I understood it had not worked very well. I am not an expert on it and I am willing to be contradicted by anyone who thinks otherwise——
The Deputy must not have read the report. It worked very successfully.
I have heard it said that the system was abused. If the system of postal voting is inherently open to abuse, I think the Minister's idea of sending this proposal to the Joint Committee on Legislation is correct. They will be able to discuss the possibility of having some other system which would save disabled people the necessity of physically presenting themselves at the polling station.
Two alternative systems come to mind, one of which is operated in parts of Europe. One system which I admit could be open to abuse unless hedged around is the system of proxy voting. It is not unthinkable. I can see the abuses to which it might be open but I should like the Joint Committee on Legislation to spend a little time considering if there was any future in exploring the possibility of a system of proxy voting. In that system elector X, disabled from attending in person, could authorise elector Y to cast his vote for him.
That is the craziest thing I have heard.
The other system which operates in some parts of Europe is that of pre-voting: in other words, between the close of nominations, when the lists of candidates were finalised and it was possible to print a ballot paper, and polling, it would be possible for somebody in a proper procedure to cast his vote in advance of polling day, perhaps by making a statutory declaration and giving his vote, appropriately sealed, to the returning officer who is generally the county registrar and a trustworthy person with access to some minimal measures of security.
Voting in advance is done on the islands. That is not strange to us, but it is done in the ordinary way at a polling station. We could arrange for voting in advance, perhaps ten days after the close of nominations. In this system an elector who was going to be away on polling day could present himself to the returning officer, or a physically disabled person could be attended in his own home or institution by the returning officer or his official, who would keep the vote in proper conditions of security in order to be counted with the general vote.
I am sorry if I have said anything to offend Deputies opposite but I was provoked.
The Joint Committee on Legislation will consider the matter of postal voting if it is the decision of this House and the Seanad to refer to them proposals with regard to legislation and will, of course, carry out any mandate which is given to it by the Houses of the Oireachtas in accordance with its orders of reference. However, I have reservations as to whether the committee could have a worthwhile or major role in this field at this stage. The procedure under orders or reference 1 (a) under which the committee would operate seems to be appropriate to a situation where various sectional public interests are involved, where communication has to be made by advertisement or whatever to those sectional interests to probe and investigate their views, to find out what they are, and to have a record of them.
That perhaps was appropriate to the question of local radio where one could visualise a wide spectrum of opinion as to what would be appropriate. However, I cannot see that there would be any great sectional interests, disputes, partisan disputes or political party disputes on an issue of this nature. It is a very simple, basic issue and I am sure everybody agrees that the disabled should have a postal vote. It requires some examination and thought as far as the modus operandi and the mechanism under which it would work would be required, but it is quite clear that that has been adequately done. I admit I have not read the reports but, from descriptions, it is clear that that preparatory work has been done. The reason for having a further investigation on the investigation escapes me. Another aspect of the Joint Committee on Legislation, particularly as far as the reports of the Law Reform Commission are concerned, also puzzles me. I do not know whether Deputy Haughey concurred with it or not but, for some reason, one of the specific terms of reference gave a brief to the committee to examine the reports of the Law Reform Commission. The reason for that also escapes me, because I would have thought that we had enough serious issues to be dealt with without having reports on the reports. There was an investigation carried out at great expense by the Law Reform Commission. Surely it should be a matter for the Government to either accept or reject the report and to put it before the Joint Committee on Legislation? Doing a report on the report cannot put the matter any further.
Deputy Molloy referred to the terms of reference under item 1 (a) of the orders of reference of the Joint Committee on Legislation and the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism referred to the fact that we could not have a situation whereby this committee could make decisions and arrogate the powers of this House which, of course, make the decisions. He is perfectly correct, but that is not really the point. Those members of the committee, some of whom were quoted by Deputy Molloy, were not suggesting that the committee should have the power to make decisions. They thought they should have powers to make recommendations. The distinction must surely be seen between the power to make a recommendation and the power to make a decision. A recommendation is something that a committee could reasonably do having spent many hours hearing witnesses and evidence and discussing the matter among themselves. Of course it would be open to the House not to accept the recommendations. The House in its wider wisdom, having had an opportunity to look at the evidence, could disagree with the recommendation and deal with it accordingly, just as the House on Committee Stage may decide one thing which can be reversed on Report Stage. There is a widespread feeling among many, if not most, members of the committee that the operation of the committee under the order of reference leaves a lot to be desired. Members of the committee, of course, were not consulted about the nature of the terms of reference — that came from the Houses of the Oireachtas — but there is a feeling among committee members that their role is less than adequate as far as that section is concerned. One could visualise a role where it would be necessary to consult with a broad, wide spectrum of public interests and hear what they have to say. As far as this item is concerned it is hard to see the necessity for yet a further examination of a relatively simple and straightforward measure which already has had a fair degree of public examination and a report prepared on it.
Deputy Kelly suggested that the committee might look at other methods, perhaps proxy voting and so on, but that would not be within the terms of the motion now before the House, which confines the committee to examining the proposals for legislation in relation to postal voting. I cannot see how they can go beyond that. Having said that, if the decision of the House is that the Joint Committee on Legislation should look at these proposals, then, as chairman and speaking for all members, if the task is assigned to them they will perform to the best of their ability.
I deplore the fact that postal voting was not made available many years ago for the disabled and other people who are inconvenienced at election times. I find the whinging and whining of Deputy Molloy and his public posturing in this regard particularly lacking in credibility considering his party's record in Government.
Having said that, I want to make two points about the proposals that the matter should be referred to the Joint Committee on Legislation. The terms of the proposal seem to be worthwhile subject to one condition only: that the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Kavanagh — and his predecessor, Deputy Spring, promised legislation in this area through his Minister of State, Deputy Quinn — rather than referring heads of a Bill to the committee, such as we received in the context of the local radio legislation, or sending us a note of what he is proposing, should make available to the committee a draft Bill. That would facilitate the committee and speed up the legislative process. The draft Bill should come within the terms of a proposal. I see great merit in the Minister using that procedure. The last Minister, and the present office holder, have had a considerable time to consider this issue. I hope their proposals, by way of a draft Bill, are made available to the Committee during the next two weeks. There was a reference to the fact that the Committee will examine the proposals but there is not any statement as to when they will receive them. A draft Bill on this issue should be sent by the Department of the Environment to the committee in the next two weeks. It must be remembered that Dáil committees will be sitting in the months of July and September and the Committee on Legislation should not be any exception.
If we receive a draft Bill from the Minister for the Environment by the second week in July there is no reason why we cannot consider it then, look for public comment and submissions on it, and consider those submissions in September. There is no reason why we should not be in a position to produce a report to the House, not by December as was suggested by Deputy De Rossa but by October. If we succeed in doing that we will have speeded up the legislative process. The Minister, and the Government, would then be in a position of having had a draft Bill subjected to public debate and the worries of the general public and Members of the Oireachtas will have been aired. In those circumstances there is no reason why the Minister for the Environment should not be in a position to introduce the necessary enabling legislation before Christmas. It could be dealt with by the House speedily so that when the local government elections are held next year those who were excluded from voting in the European elections, the disabled and others, will be included in the register of electors. I hope the matter is dealt with in this way.
The approach I have suggested is more constructive than that suggested by Deputy Molloy. In formally opposing the motion Deputy Molloy in effect is saying that the House, or any commitee of the House, should not do anything about this issue while the House is in recess. He is saying that we should sit back until October and ignore this issue.
I did not say any such thing. I said that the Minister should bring in his own Bill before the House for debate.
If Fianna Fáil vote against the motion it will mean that the issue will be put back on the Ministerial shelf to gather dust in the same way that it gathered dust during the term of office of successive Fianna Fáil administrations.
It will be the Minister's fault if it gathers dust, not ours.
I hope the motion is passed and, as a member of the Committee on Legislation, I look forward to receiving from the Minister for the Environment a copy of the draft Bill. I hope the committee will have an opportunity of looking at this issue in July.
With a quorum.
With members of Fianna Fáil attending. I hope the committee will be in a position to report back to the House in October.
Will the Deputy tell the House what happened about the Bill dealing with local radio?
I accept that Deputy De Rossa is anxious to have the matter dealt with speedily, and if Members adopted a non-party political approach it would be recognised that all Members want the matter dealt with speedily.
This is only a farce.
It is to the shame of former administrations that they have not dealt with this matter in a comprehensive and sensible manner.
A shame on the Deputy's Government.
I am saddened that Deputy Molloy has tried to score cheap political points on this issue this morning, but I have no doubt that when they are read by people outside they will rebound on his party because they lack credibility.
They do not.
I am saddened by the remarks of Deputy Shatter. If one looks at his recent speeches one will see that the same narkiness runs throughout them all. If Deputy Shatter was sincere in his observations he should have been calling for the introduction of the Bill in the House this week. We are all aware that many Bills were dealt with speedily in the House this week. All Members agree that there is no political division on this issue. As Deputy Taylor said, all that is needed is the modus operandi to deal with this issue. One gets annoyed and frustrated at the carping remarks made by Deputy Shatter who should insist that the Leader of his party put the proposals before the House and have them passed.
As a member of the committee I do not want to sit for hours interviewing people who have already been interviewed. We are all aware of the position, and had Deputy Shatter gone to the trouble of reading the report he would realise that many people and organisations made submissions. Deputy Molloy has already listed the organisations representing the disabled that made submissions. We would all like to see this legislation before the House and not dealt with by a committee who will have to waste time and money on it, like occurred in regard to the legislation on local radio. We sat for hours on the committee dealing with local radio interviewing people who had already been interviewed and tendered submissions to the Minister of State at the Department of Communications.
The way to speed up this legislation is to bring it before the House now and not send it to a committee who must commence the interviewing process. Irrespective of what Deputy Shatter says, with the best will in the world that Committee will not be in a position to bring recommendations to the House in October. As Deputy Taylor pointed out the committee will not be permitted to make recommendations. It will be the duty of the committee to gather all available information and present it in the form of a report. That is an utter waste of time. We are all aware of what needs to be done. The report has been dealt with in detail and recommendations have been put forward. It is now up to the Minister to prepare the legislation. I should like to assure him that as far as Fianna Fáil are concerned he will get full co-operation in having the legislation dealt with speedily in the House.
It should be remembered that the report was presented to the Minister in March 1983 and if its recommendations had been acted on the disabled, and others, would have been able to vote in the European elections.
I should like to point out to Deputy Shatter that it was a Fianna Fáil Minister for the Environment, Deputy Ray Burke, who established the committee to deal with this issue. It is 15 months since that report was issued but it is now being sent to another committee for further consideration. That is a waste of time and money. It is farcical. I oppose the motion but I am not opposed to the principle involved. We are opposed to the waste of time that is involved. The legislation should not be postponed. Instead of discussing this motion we should be considering a Bill to deal with this issue.
I had the benefit of listening on the monitor to Deputy Calleary's remarks. It is a pity that Deputies are reluctant to have committees such as the Committee on Legislation deal with business, particularly something as difficult as the question of postal voting. We are all aware that there were abuses when postal voting was in operation for disabled persons.
That is not true.
It is a fact.
Where is the proof? How many prosecutions were there?
The Deputy knows it is a fact. It is an extremely difficult thing to control.
Deputy Molony cannot produce any evidence. It is a myth.
We all share the view that persons who are disabled should be facilitated. If this matter goes before the committee it will afford an opportunity to interested parties to come and discuss it. I cannot understand why Deputies opposite object to that. This House will rise this week or early next week but the Committee on Legislation will meet throughout the summer months and any problems in relation to this matter can be teased out and resolved. It is in the interests of everybody that this should happen. There is no likelihood of an election or referendum until the local elections are held next year. Deputy Calleary is a member of that committee and if we put in the necessary work we will be in a position to report to this House when it resumes in October. There will be plenty of time to put through the legislation and ensure that it is sensible and proper, unlike the earlier legislation which fell into disrepute because of abuses which undoubtedly took place.
The Government are committed to the idea of postal voting for the disabled. The proof is that it was the Coalition Government of the seventies who introduced the only legislation on our Statute Book to enable that to be achieved. It is rather petty and silly of Deputy Molloy to infer that the care being taken in the preparation of this legislation and the proposals to refer it to the Committee on Legislation are an indication of a lack of willingness or enthusiasm on the part of the Government. That is not so. The Government are fully committed to the proposition that the disabled should be able to vote by post. The Government are very concerned to ensure that the system devised will be, so far as man can make it, fool proof and abuse proof.
The previous experiment failed because there was widespread dissatisfaction with its operation in practice and the widespread abuse. The Bill introduced by the then Minister, Mr. Tully, was constructed as carefully as possible with a view to ensuring that there would be no abuse and that the system would work properly and effectively. The Bill was debated fully and the Opposition spokesman was Deputy Molloy. In spite of the accumulated wisdom of the Opposition and the Government they managed to let out from this House an Act which in its operation proved to be seriously defective and gave rise to considerable abuse.
It was not defective. How many prosecutions were there?
On a point of order, could the Minister give us some references in relation to these abuses?
That is not a point of order.
The Deputies should wait. There was a widespread expression of dissatisfaction at the way the Act was abused on the one occasion it came into operation. Notwithstanding that it was a carefully drafted piece of legislation, fully debated here by an experienced Minister and a former Minister on the Opposition benches, it proved unsatisfactory in operation.
I refer Deputies to the report of the Working Party on the Register of Electors. It has been stated that because this report is in existence all that is necessary is for the Minister to adopt the recommendations and bring forward proposals and that there is no need for further examination of the recommendations. It has been castigated by Deputies Taylor, Molloy and Calleary as a repetitious and unnecessary re-examination of matters already fully examined. Paragraph 8.2 of the report states:
The working party is not in a position to make a positive judgment on the level of abuse which occurred in 1974.
This seems to indicate clearly that the working party, who were composed of people at official level, were not in a position because of lack of personal experience to make an assessment of the level of abuse which took place. The people in the best position to make that assessment would be the politicians operating on the ground who would have seen and heard and maybe themselves abused the system.
On a point of order, would the Minister mind if I asked a question?
If there is a question at the end of the debate that may be permissible, but I want to finish. Paragraph 8.2 also states:
Experience in 1974 shows that the administrative difficulties in the operation of a postal voting system can be overcome. The real problem arises out of the opportunities for abuse which an extended system of postal voting may provide. The working party is not in a position to make a positive judgment on the level of abuse which occured in 1974. As indicated, the number of prosecutions was small but many public representatives recorded the view that abuse was widespread and expressed strong reservations about the operation of the system.
A footnote gives the numerous references in the Official Report of the proceedings of Dáil Éireann by Deputies referring to the extent of the abuse. I am quite satisfied that Deputies were recounting their views accurately and I am not so naive as to believe that there was not abuse. Any Deputy who had any experience at that time was aware of it.
It is extremely important that a system of postal voting should be devised which would be as free as possible from abuse. It is important that the integrity of the ballot should not be impugned after an election by any allegation of widespread abuse. What has been proposed by the working party is a considerable extension of the postal voting system, and it is of paramount importance that the integrity of the ballot in the event of widespread postal voting should be beyond reproach and that there should be total satisfaction as to its being an accurate reflection of the wishes of the people. That is the fundamental democratic principle.
It is in order to implement that principle that the Minister is referring to proposals of the working party, who admit they are not in a position to give a judgment on the level of abuse, to a committee of experts who, from their perspective, would be able to give another point of view on this critical issue. It is not a device to postpone decisions but it is essential to the validity of a postal voting system that it should be free from abuse. There must be a valuable contribution to be made by practicising politicians. I will be very disappointed if the Committee on Legislation do not give this matter a lot of thought and bring to it the experience and expertise of individual members, bearing in mind that what we want is as foolproof a system as can be devised.
The deliberations of the committee should not take long. They will have, as the Deputy said, the report of the working party but they will have to look behind all that in the particular area to which I have referred. The Minister will come to the committee but I do not think it is feasible to expect the Minister to bring a Bill to the Committee on Legislation. The correcting of a Bill is, in my opinion, consequent on the work of the committee. The committee can have the draft report and bring their knowledge to bear with a view particularly to assisting the Minister in devising a scheme that will be free of abuse. We have to bear in mind the experience of the past. There is no way we can escape it, sweep it under the carpet, or greatly exaggerate it. It happened and, because it happened, we must be careful to ensure it does not recur by extending the section to people who can attend personally to exercise it.
On the question of time, I am not against the principle in the motion proposed by Deputy De Rossa that there should be a time limit and that the committee should report by a certain date. The only reservation is that the committee might possibly take the maximum time. I am very anxious that the committee should report at the earliest possible moment. Hopefully we could have the draft legislation before Christmas.
In reply to Deputy Molloy's point I would point out that members of his party will be on this committee and they will ensure that their contributions will be dealt with as a matter of urgency, that the recommendations will come back to the Minister at the earliest possible moment and that the Minister will then introduce the legislation as quickly as possible. Referring the matter to the committee is not an effort to procrastinate. It is not a device to put legislation on the long finger. It is inspired entirely and completely by an anxiety to ensure that the legislation so far as possible will be foolproof and abuse-proof.
The 1974 legislation was debated here. But one has to say in regard to debates here that they are inclined to follow a certain ritual and often the depth of analysis that goes into the speeches is not sufficiently perceptive or acute at times to explore all the problems that may underlie what is being debated. That certain type of ritual was followed in debating here in Committee. I hope that will be overcome by a committee of Deputies and Senators sitting around the table and examining with a greater degree of analysis and a more acute approach to whatever problem there may be. Some Deputies are embarrassed to find there were abuses of the 1974 Act. The objective here — and I emphasise this again — is not about time, not about procrastination, not about delay. It is designed purely to ensure that the legisation which emerges ultimately will be as effective as possible and foolproof in order to ensure the system of postal voting will not be discredited and that the integrity of the ballot and its results will not be impugned.
The motion referred to a proposal. What proposal is the motion referring to?
The proposals will be broadly the proposals referred to by the working party. No hard and fast decision has been taken about the preferred form of the proposals. The work of the committee will be on the proposals adumbrated.
I would like to establish whether the proposals have been formulated. Where are they? Is the Minister saying they are already formulated? If so why not produce them here?
The proposals are for the committee and it is my understanding that the proposals can be referred to the committee immediately.
Is the Minister aware that Mr. Sexton, who signed the report, is the chairman of the working party? From the Minister's point of view the system has seemed to operate satisfactorily. Why now is the Minister standing up here and saying there was widespread abuse without being able to produce any evidence?
That question illustrates something I said earlier. Deputies do not seem to listen to each other. I said quite clearly that no administrative difficulties had been found in the operation of the postal voting system. There was no problem about sending out the ballot papers and getting them back. The abuse arose between the time the ballot paper arrived and the time it came back. That was where the abuse arose.
I am putting the amendment in the names of Deputy Mac Giolla and Deputy De Rossa.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,