Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 11 Dec 1986

Vol. 370 No. 11

Electoral (Special Voters) Bill, 1986 [ Seanad ]: Second and Subsequent Stages.

I should like to point out to the House that in accordance with the order of the House this morning all Stages of this Bill must be concluded not later than 1.30 p.m. today.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

In providing special voting facilities for disabled electors this Bill implements a commitment given by successive Governments over the past decade. It meets a long-standing demand which has been expressed eloquently, not only by the organisations representing the interests of the disabled, but by Members on both sides of this House.

The Bill responds in what I believe is a reasonable and balanced way, to the competing requirements of preserving the integrity of the electoral system and providing voting arrangements which take appropriate account of the legitimate needs of electors. The House will recall that these competing considerations were given explicit recognition by the Supreme Court in the constitutional case taken by a disabled person, Mrs. Norah Draper.

The provisions of the Bill are geared to the specific requirements of the disabled. For the non-ambulant it introduces an arrangement which will enable them to cast their votes in their own homes in precisely the same conditions of secrecy, security and freedom from pressure which obtain in the polling station. For the disabled who are mobile and capable of going to their polling station, but find it difficult to gain access to the voting area, it provides a facility which will enable them to transfer their vote to a more accessible polling station in the same constituency.

The disabled who are unable to attend the polling station by reason of long term physical illness or physical disability may apply to the local registration authority for entry on what will be called, the special voters list. At an election or referendum a ballot paper will be conveyed to each elector named on the special voters list, at their residence, by a special presiding officer accompanied by a member of the Garda Síochána. The special voter will make a sign a declaration of identity, which will be witnessed by the special presiding officer, and will then mark the ballot paper in secret. The ballot paper, enclosed in a sealed envelope, will be conveyed by the special presiding officer to the returning officer for the constituency. It will then be placed in the postal voters ballot box and will be treated in exactly the same way as voting papers received from postal voters.

As originally drafted the provision for the entry of disabled electors on the special voters list was intended to have applications in relation to the register of electors which is due to come into force on 15 April next. However, at the request of Members of the other House I agreed to an amendment which will make it possible to have the special voting arrangement in operation for the current register of electors.

Should the House see fit to approve of this measure, it would be my intention to make the necessary regulations straight-away. Application for entry on the special voters list will commence as early as possible, a period of about three weeks, which I think is reasonable in the circumstances, will be allowed for applications and the special voters list will be prepared as soon as administratively possible.

In future years this list will be drawn up at the same time as the draft register of electors. Each application for entry on the list must be supported by a medical certificate.

The arrangement under which the mobile disabled may apply to transfer their vote to a station more accessible than their own will come into operation immediately on enactment of the Bill. Application for transfer may be made to the returning officer for the constituency up to seven days before the polling day at an election or referendum.

The special voting arrangement envisaged for the non-ambulant disabled may well be described as cumbersome and there is no doubt that it will be relatively expensive. A stranger not well versed in the realities of the political practices of the country might well ask why we have not opted for the seemingly simpler and less expensive postal voting system.

The answer lies in our experience in the operation of an extended postal voting system at two local government elections. A fairly open-ended system was introduced for the 1974 local elections. It was tightened up considerably for the elections which took place in 1985 and additional safeguards were introduced. However, the sad and inescapable conclusion to be drawn from experience at these two elections is that postal voting is open to abuse, that it has been abused and that there is every likelihood that it would continue to be abused. It is equally clear that it is not possible to devise safeguards which would guarantee the elimination of such abuse. In particular, under postal voting, the individual voter and his ballot paper cannot be given the protection and the guarantee of secrecy which is afforded to an elector voting in the polling station.

As legislators there is undoubtedly an obligation on us to provide reasonable facilities to enable electors to cast their votes and in providing such facilities to take into account, as far as reasonably possible, the specific difficulties experienced by particular categories. However, there is a still more fundamental obligation on us to ensure that elections are decided by the free vote of the people and not by machinations.

The preservation of the integrity of the electoral system is particularly important in our situation where Government majorities tend to be slim——

Or non existent.

——and where individual seats can be won or lost by late preferences on a handful of ballot papers. I am aware of one situation in a recent general election where the allocation of the last seat in a five-seat constituency — this is a chilling reminder — was decided by five votes on the eleventh count. No doubt other examples can be given. The clear message is that abuse even on a very limited scale could call into question the result of an election. In those circumstances the concept of an acceptable level of electoral abuse is simply not on.

We are faced, then, with the problem of striking a balance between the desirability of adjusting the voting arrangements to suit the particular circumstances of the disabled and the necessity to preserve the integrity of the electoral procedure. The special voting arrangements proposed in the Bill represent a measured response to this problem. They provide the disabled with a reasonable opportunity of voting and at the same time provide a complete safeguard against the abuse associated with postal voting.

I want to make it absolutely clear that the abuse which took place was not perpetrated by the sick, the disabled or the other categories for whom the system was devised. These were simply the innocent victims of the abuses which took place. It must be a source of sadness to us all that this is the situation. But we live in the real world and our proposals must take account of the situation as it is, not what we might wish it to be.

The second element of electoral reform in the Bill is to make it possible for diplomats representing this country abroad and for their spouses to vote at elections here. Under existing electoral law no provision is made for voting by civil servants attached to our diplomatic missions abroad. I understand that we are virtually unique in not making some provision in this regard.

The position so far as this country is concerned is that, not only are special voting arrangements not made for persons in this category but the persons concerned are not, generally speaking, eligible for registration as electors. Under existing law, a person must be ordinarily resident in a constituency in order to be eligible for registration. A temporary absence of up to 18 months is not regarded as breaking the continuity of residence. Civil servants attached to missions are normally posted abroad for a period of several years and, thus, would not satisfy the residence requirement for registration.

The Bill provides that civil servants and their spouses will be deemed to satisfy the residence requirement and will be entitled to be registered in respect of the address in this country at which they would be living if not posted abroad. They must, of course, also satisfy the normal requirements in relation to age and citizenship.

The arrangement envisaged is that applications will be made to the appropriate registration authority each year at the time when the draft register is being drawn up. The fact that the applicant is qualified for registration under this procedure will require to be certified by the Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs. The registration authority will enter the names on the draft register and, as in the case of members of the Defence Forces and the Garda Síochána, will also enter them on the postal voters list.

Voting by persons registered under this provision will in general be carried out in the same way as voting by gardaí or members of the Defence Forces but with an important modification. In voting they will make a declaration of identity in the presence of a person authorised for this purpose by the Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, normally the ambassador or head of mission, and will mark their ballot papers, in secret, in his presence. The purpose of this modifiction is to provide a safeguard against the possibility of the kind of abuse which appears to be endemic in any postal voting system.

In satisfying a long-standing demand for reform in relation to voting by the disabled and by our official representatives abroad, I am confident that the Bill will be welcomed. An explanatory memorandum has been circulated which, I think, will serve to answer any questions in relation to the detailed operation of the provisions.

In conclusion I would like to refer briefly to the motion under Standing Order No. 95 (2). This is a technical device to make it possible for the Dáil to consider in Committee certain amendments which I wish to propose but which are outside the scope of the Bill as it stands at present. The amendments involve two very important and, to my mind, essential reforms in the electoral procedure. The effect of them will be first to prevent the inclusion on ballot papers of the names of political organisations which are not registered in the register of political parties and of slogans or other references, whether political or frivolous; and, second, to strengthen the safeguards against personation at polling stations by providing that electors may be required to produce evidence of identity.

I trust the House will agree that these matters should be discussed and will see fit to support the amendments. I commend the Bill to the House.

I welcome the Bill. Its purpose is to provide special voting arrangements for electors who are unable to vote in person at polling stations because of physical illness or disability; to permit disabled electors unable to gain access to their polling stations to cast their votes in other stations in their constituencies; and to enable civil servants attached to diplomatic missions and resident abroad because of the requirements of their duties to be registered as electors and to vote by post.

The Minister quite rightly said that this is a response to pressure from all sides of the House on successive Governments in the past ten years. It is also in response to the disabled. It is a particular response to the report of the working party on the register of electors and other matters set up by me, as Minister, in 1982, which reported in March 1983. It was under the chairmanship of Mr. Sexton. The principal recommendation of the committee was that a standing list of eligible postal voters should be prepared each year when the register of electors is being compiled. Persons on that list should be entitled to vote only by post in an election.

In fact they are not being allowed to vote by post. They will be called on by the returning officer accompanied by a garda, and voting will take place as laid down in the Bill. I realise the Minister's fears and concerns about having the postal vote organised merely by the form of a special register and that voting would take place only by post. It might be open to abuse. As the Minister said, we live in the real world rather than the world we would like it to be. Therefore, the procedure proposed is to be welcomed. We all remember the abuses in 1974. All sides of the House have learnt from them.

The committee also recommended that applications to be included in the register of postal voters should be open to electors who are physically disabled or prevented from voting in person by circumstances of their occupation. This part of the report has not been accepted by the Minister and I ask him if he will consider the position of persons other than civil servants, the Garda and members of the Army for this arrangement. For instance, we have a number of commercial travellers whose business, by tradition, takes them away from Monday to Friday and therefore they are unable to get back home to cast their votes in general elections. On behalf of that group — they are just one of many, because you have truckers and fishermen who may be away from home for two or three days — I ask the Minister to provide them with this facility. Not only should our diplomatic staff abroad be given this facility, but IDA personnel, Bord Fáilte, CTT and other State promotional personnel abroad, should be able to avail of postal voting. Arrangements could be made for them to vote in embassies, and the ambassadors could appoint people to act as presiding officers. I do not see any reason why there should be a difference between our Civil Service personnel abroad and our commercial semi-State personnel abroad. Private sector citizens living abroad who are anxious to vote should also be given this facility.

Another recommendation of the committee is that applications for inclusion in the postal voters list should be supported by medical or employment certificates or statutory declarations in the case of the self-employed. I wonder why the Minister did not accept that recommendation? A self-employed man with a factory employing between 30 and 50 people might have to go away on business to try to keep those people in their jobs. Why he should not be allowed to vote by post and have it recorded I do not know.

Another purpose of the Bill is to permit disabled persons who are unable to gain access to polling stations to cast their votes in another polling station in the same constituency. This was considered by the working party and they recommended, under the heading of "Access to Polling Stations" that there should be an extension of the provision for temporary ramps by returning officers to facilitate entry by disabled voters. I ask that the Minister, in his instructions to returning officers throughout the country, would insist that as far as possible available buildings would be accessible to disabled people and that if, in certain circumstances, this cannot be arranged, for instance old schools, etc., that the recommendation in regard to ramps should be complied with. Many disabled persons feel it is their constitutional right to vote in polling stations nearest to their homes. Rather than take advantage of the provisions of the Bill, they would feel they did not want to transfer their vote to another polling station within the electoral area but would want to cast their vote with the remainder of their family at their own polling station. It is incumbent on returning officers to provide ramps and every other facility for them.

Item 3, under the heading of Access to Polling Stations, specifies that where circumstances warrant it returning officers should make greater use of the power to site polling stations in hospitals or institutions. This is a very welcome proposal. We have all had the experience at general and by-elections throughout the country of the old and disabled being taken out by the political parties, struggling into polling stations. While they might not be eligible for a certificate to say they are non-ambulant they would still experience difficulty getting into polling stations. I remember working in one by-election in Ballybay in County Monaghan, in 1974, where, about 300 yards from the polling station there was a senior citizens' home sited up the hill. It was an appalling day, it rained from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.

Few of us in the House would remember that by-election — if the Deputy looks to his right and left——

I am only just about recovering from that outing.

Deputy Kelly recalls that day himself. We had the spectacle that day of many of the people from that senior citizens' home being wheeled down that road. We were trying to keep umbrellas over them, get them into vote before a presiding officer and wheeled back again. They were appalling circumstances. Therefore the siting of polling stations in hospitals or institutions is eminently to be recommended and I support the recommendation of the working party in that respect.

There is also the question of commercial travellers in the private sector travelling on business within the country and private sector and/or semi-State personnel working abroad who should have the right to vote. Perhaps we should have a further working party at present examining the question of voting on Sundays. It is something that is done throughout Europe. Its merits should be examined.

It is not done in England. That is why we are slow to do it here.

The way our social life is evolving it is something worthy of consideration. It would constitute a major change in our voting patterns and would probably increase the percentage vote cast at elections. Such provision would mean that families could vote together rather than have the mad rush that normally takes place between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m. at polling stations. Usually one finds there has been quite a low poll up to 7 p.m. but, thereafter, 50 per cent or a 70 per cent vote would be cast in the last two hours. Generally people are free on Sundays, families are together and would have an opportunity of voting daylong rather than with the usual burst within the last couple of hours. We have all had the experience of seeing the weather change in the after-tea period and the whole voting pattern change as a consequence.

With regard to the proposal to have a special presiding officer with a garda go from house to house to those on the special register, the political parties' rights should be protected in this respect. Each political party should have the right to nominate a personating agent to accompany the presiding officer and garda to ensure that not alone is the system fair but is seen to be fair.

The other group of people who should come within the provisions of this Bill are those working in polling stations. If the Minister were agreeable it is not too late to have a small amendment drafted to have them included. At present what happens is that people acting as presiding officers, as polling clerks, have to attend at their polling stations at 9. a.m. In many cases they are not the polling stations where they would cast their vote and, consequently, they are unable to do so. After all, they are entitled to cast their vote also which is not the situation obtaining. I am familiar with such people moving from one part of a constituency to another and, just because they are not on the register in the polling station where they work, they are not entitled to vote under the law as it stands. A simple amendment could quite easily be drafted by the specialised, qualified staff available to the Minister to allow those people working in polling stations to cast their vote if they come from that constituency.

Is the Deputy referring to officers working within the constituency within which they are registered, or in a different constituency?

Within their constituency or otherwise. For example, there could be a presiding officer living in one constituency, working in another, acting as presiding officer where he is not entitled to vote. He should have the right to vote. Similarly, he should have the right to vote if he is working within the same constituency. I am speaking of somebody living in one town, acting as presiding officer or polling clerk in another town. He should be entitled to vote there and then and, to the best of my knowledge, he cannot as the law stands at present.

I particularly welcome the fact that the provisions of this Bill will be brought into force for the February election and that we will be operating on the present register for that election. I welcome the Minister's assurance that he will sign the order to bring the provisions of the Bill into operation immediately.

Time will be against us with regard to the Minister's amendments but obviously we will be agreeable to the Minister's proposals to eliminate abuses of the system. The Minister has my support on the measure as far as it goes. I would like him to take note of the points I have made. I see no reason why simple amendments could not be drafted to include the points I have just made.

Before calling the next speaker I would like to remind Deputies that, pursuant to an Order of the House, the Question necessary to bring all Stages of this Bill to a conclusion must be put at 1.30 p.m. I ask them to bear that in mind.

I, too, welcome the Bill and in general I agree with many of the things I have heard Deputy Burke say just now. It must be read against the very clear expressions in Article 16.1.2º of the Constitution which provides that:

Every citizen without distinction of sex who has reached the age of eighteen years who is not disqualified by law and complies with the provision of the law relating to the election of members of Dáil Éireann, shall have the right to vote at an election for members of Dáil Éireann.

That seems to place the onus squarely on the State to lean over backwards if necessary to make sure that every citizen who is not disqualified — we are not talking about disqualifications here — and who is 18 years of age and who has complied with the provisions of the law should have a vote. We reduced the voting age from 21 to 18 at one blow, so to speak when 100,000 or so young people were enfranchised overnight. That happened in December 1972, an election was called in February 1973 and a large number of young people were in theory then qualified to vote under Article 16 but they were not on the register. One of them brought an action, unsuccessfully, to be allowed to vote. The construction of the machinery to permit that to be done in an orderly way at such short notice would have been extremely difficult. Nevertheless, I mention this only to say that the onus is on the State to make sure that everything within reason is done to respect the precept of the Constitution in this regard.

I accept what the Supreme Court said in Mrs. Draper's case, that a reasonable balance has to be struck between the integrity of election — which is, after all, the main purpose of the whole thing — and the right of the individual voter. A certain discretion must be given to the Government and the Oireachtas in striking that balance, but it seems that the State has been extremely sluggish until recently in doing anything over and above what it has been doing for the last 60 years towards facilitating voting by people other than those put on the register and able to trek down, or be carried in the way Deputy Burke described, to the polling station in the old, traditional way, not to put too fine a point on it, in the way they had done under the British. As far as I am aware next to no innovation was attempted by the State until now, in the more than 60 years of its existence to extend the power to vote.

Since all the Stages of this Bill will be wrapped up together, I may be allowed make a couple of comments which would in the ordinary way be more appropriate on Committee Stage. I agree with Deputy Burke that the reason a distinction appears to be tacitly drawn between members of diplomatic missions and people on other State or semi-State missions abroad is not visable. I cannot see why a special case should be made for, let us say, the first secretary or the third secretary of our embassy in Stockholm and not for a CTT or Bord Fáilte representative who may be posted there equally in the national interest and who, for all we know, may be doing a more important job, a more difficult job than the diplomat. Perhaps that person's terms of employment were not in the first instance so clearly targeted towards service abroad as were the diplomat's who must take for granted that he will be posted to some city other than Dublin sooner or later and perhaps spend the major part of his working life abroad. While I take it that the Minister's Department must have some reason for restricting this to diplomatic missions and not extending it to other State missions, I would be interested to know the reason if the Minister has a moment to explain it.

I will go further than that, as Deputy Burke did, and say that if the thing is to be extended this far — we welcome even the first step — there seems to be a good case for asking ourselves if we can go further even in advance of the British. This is the unseen shackle that drags us down and keeps us back always. If they have not done something we assume instinctively that there must be some hidden snag in it that we cannot see, as soon as they do it, we are quick to copy them. Can we go any further in accommodating in our voting arrangements people who are away for some reason not connected with the public service, whether diplomatic, commercial or semi-State? If a commercial representative — a marketing executive as he is more frequently called nowadays — is abroad doing business for this company selling Waterford glass or I care not what, or even if he is not abroad but in some other part of Ireland and cannot get back on voting day or would find it seriously disruptive to his business do do so, the State ought to make some effort to see if he can be accommodated, to see whether his specifically conferred right to vote under Article 16 can somehow be made real for him.

To bring it down to the humblest level, even if someone is away on holidays there is room for the State legitimately to say whether it is possible to respect his right to vote. There is nothing illegal about going on holidays. The month in which elections are most ofter held here, except in times of convulsion, is June. I have fought three June elections out of six as far as I remember — or at least three summer elections in June or the beginning of July. That is the early part of the holiday season but quite a number of people go on holidays in June because it suits them or their children's pattern or whatever it may be. They go away and who is to blame them? Their's is not as strong a case for special treatment as is the person's who willy nilly is sent abroad to serve his country in the diplomatic service or in the semi-State service, but they are legitimately absent.

If we are considering making a case for the man who is absent on business in some other part of Ireland or abroad we might make a similar case for somebody who is away for some private reason of his own, not necessarily a commercial reason. To start going into the reasons and the motives for absence would be impossible. A special bureauracy would be needed for that. We would be into unimaginable difficulties trying to decide whether somebody was away for a reason of which the Dáil approved or disapproved. If I go away to do a bit of work in a library or something like that for a week and follow that with a week's holiday or the other way round, I am foxed by one of these pieces of paper put in front of me by people from the CSO who want to know the reason for my journey. The simple thing to do would be to refuse to answer it but I do not like to be unhelpful. However, it is difficult to answer that when one has mixed motives for going away or may be doing two or three things in the course of the next week or so when one is abroad. If the officials operating under electoral law were obliged to sort out people's motives for being away the thing would be impossible. The right thing to do is to go back to the Article in the Constitution, consider the word "citizen" and see how a blanket arrangement can be made to cover all citizens who do not find it possible for whatever reason, public or private, commercial, industrial, agricultural or recreational, to be present at their local polling station on whatever day the election is held.

That problem is not insoluble. I have no personal experience of it and I do not know what the chilling electoral example is that was mentioned about the seat decided by five on the eleventh count, but I can see that the Minister has severe problems there to handle and his appreciation of them may be swayed by which side won that final seat. However, other countries seem able to digest such problems. I think that American subjects abroad vote at their own local consulates and are invited to do so if they so choose. I have seen notices in German and Dutch in Irish papers inviting nationals at election times in their countries to present themselves at their missions here and register their vote as absent electors. I have been in Germany on a couple of occasions at election time. There they have a system by which one can vote ahead of the election and in the same way as one would on polling day. Elections are held there on Sundays. One presents one's self at the polling booth which is manned for a number of hours on each of the preceding Sundays, shows one's identity card and register one's vote. That would take care of any of the commercial or holiday problems. Presumably the vote is guarded and its integrity protected in the same way as would an ordinary polling box and it is put into the general count two weeks later. That would involve extra expense and I am anxious to avoid unnecessary additional expense. It would not be necessary to have every single polling station in the city of Dublin open if we adopted such a system.

Persons who knew they were going to be absent on polling day would not think it a great hardship if they were asked to go to a city polling station to record their vote. That would not be too much to ask people to do as a contribution to the solution of the State's problems in running a system intended to give effect to their essential constitutional right to vote. I do not want to seem begrudging as I recognise the Minister has gone a long way in trying to give effect to the constitutional rights of voters who find it hard to exercise their rights in the conventional way.

I am somewhat puzzled by the provision in section 3 which provides that a person who is unable to go to the polling base because of disability must produce a certificate to prove he is of sound mind and understanding, and capable of comprehending the act of voting. That requirement is not made of any mobile voter. One could be as mad as a hatter and vote if one could get there on one's own feet and nobody would ask as to one's mental condition. I know it is not intended in this way but I cannot see that physical disability is a condition which would lead the State to raise the faintest question mark over one's mental capacity to exercise a vote. If there is such a thing as a requirement of mental capacity to vote, why is it not applied to all? If there were more time I could richly embroider that theme but I will abstain from the temptation to do so in consideration for other Deputies who wish to speak.

I do not know of the Minister's intentions with regard to the Schedule which talks about the time for issuing ballot papers. Not only is there presumably a time before the polling day when ballot papers can be issued but there must be a certain time before they can be returned. What does the Minister propose to do about the four or five Irish people that are in the diplomatic mission in Peking? How far in advance of polling day would their ballot papers have to be issued so that they would have a chance of getting there and back in time for the count? While the intention here is excellent, I wonder whether in every case postal voting will be practical. I am sure it will only affect a very small number of people.

I completely agree with what Deputy Burke said in relation to Sunday voting. I suspect that if the British get around to Sunday voting it will be no time before we find an excuse for doing so. Even in this humble instance, could we do the sensible thing ahead of them and let them catch up for a change? Why must we always wait to see what they are doing before following suit? Surely we have a free Republic in order to have our own way of doing things. The reason we still have elections in the middle of the week, unlike the rest of western Europe, is because the UK still do it. If the UK found reasons for not doing it, like they found reasons for a seven-cornered 50p piece or for double yellow lines, we would find reasons for doing the same thing. If there are good considerations in favour of Sunday voting, let us have Sunday voting. There is not a Sabbatarian in this Republic who would be offended by it.

That is not in the Bill either.

I am only saying this in passing, I will get away from it.

It is a very restricted debate.

Many other things a great deal more unholy than electing a Dáil are done on Sundays, publicly, widely, conspicuously and uproariously done on Sundays. There is no reason why the sober, essential nationally valuable act of electing a Dáil could not be done on a Sunday. A consideration which Deputy Burke did not put forward, but which I would consider of no small value, is that if there were Sunday elections it would prevent the school week from being disrupted. If the school could be cleaned and tidied up before Monday morning, the school week would not be interfered with. As Deputies will remember from their own school days, a week with a holiday in the middle of it is not really a school week.

The Deputy can have a holiday himself, at the moment.

Let the Chair and I not get into cross-talk. I have only been on my feet for ten minutes and I will sit down soon if the Chair will just bear with me. I am worried about the Minister's amendments. He has a proposal empowering the returning officer to object to the name of a candidate if the name is misleading or if it is unnecessarily long. I agree with that. I suppose a returning officer will have different views as to what is an unnecessarily long name, but I could not find fault with that theory. If somebody wishes to run under a name by which he is not commonly known, should it not be his own funeral? Why must we be so officious? That is not the only case in the electoral law where officiousness springs to mind. Whatever chance Deputies have of re-election, we certainly would have a better chance of election under our own names than under some fictitious name which nobody recognises.

If somebody is looney enough to risk his deposit by putting in a name which is not his own, why must the State prevent him? No serious interest is served by making the returning officer consider whether somebody is running under a name by which he is not commonly known. How is the returning officer to know? The returning officer does not necessarily know the people by name and perhaps a person might have a pet name by which he would prefer to be known. A name which is clearly a false name designed to make some point independently of the personality of the candidate, in other words if the candidate was only a bogus candidate, he should be kept off the ballot paper but that should be done by some other means. The criteria which the Minister is putting into the hand of the returning officer here are unnecessarily wide. The section also empowers the returning officer to refuse to include a name on a nomination paper if the name contains a political reference. I presume, not because the Bill says so but because the Minister's speech says so, that this political reference would be an attempt to include in the name something like a reference to an organisation that is not on the register of political parties.

Let me ask in a couple of words what is the point of this panoply of the register of political parties? Why do we need a register of political parties? Is the entire paraphernalia of a register seriously necessary? If somebody wants to call themselves the Freedom from Mozambique or the Integrated with Taiwan Party and who do not mind making fools of themselves for three weeks and ending up with 12 votes let them do so. God knows, there are enough potential ones around but are we so solemn that the State feels affronted if an eccentric inserts himself into its machinery in this form? I cannot see the reason for it.

The register of political parties has no function in the law whatsoever except to the extent that it permits people to add if they are on the register, the name of a party after their names. That is its only function and it is very frequently understood as being in some way a guarantee of constitutionality. It is very frequently misunderstood by people as meaning that the Clerk of the Dáil has certified the party as being somehow morally OK. It means nothing of the kind and there is no such discretion in the Clerk of the Dáil. All he has to do is be satisfied that it is a genuine political party and they are organised to contest elections. They do not have to be organised in any particular way. All he has to be is satisfied of these minimal requirements. What is the point of a register? It is a piece of gratuitous State busybodyness.

The Deputy will be aware that they do not have a register of political parties in Britain.

In that case we must pin a rosette to ourselves. Certainly, we have got ahead of them but I would rather we had done it for a useful purpose and not for a piece of empty officiousness such as the register of political parties which is what the 1963 Act is.

Since the Minister is going to include, whether we like them or not, these quite important extra provisions in this Bill I wonder whether the Title of the Bill ought not simply to be the Electoral Amendment Bill because if it is going to include these regulations with regard to the ballot paper it is no longer going to be concerned merely with special voters? Therefore, to call it an Amendment Bill might be more appropriate. In that way, it would spare us the possibility that somebody looking for the amendments which the Minister is now inserting into the Bill might pass over the special voters Bill saying: "wherever it is, it is not in that because this Bill is only about special voters".

In general, I would like to thank the Minister and commend him for taking this step. I hope it is only the first step in trying to make the voting rights of Dáil electors more effective.

Before calling on Deputy O'Hanlon I would like to remind the Deputies offering that all stages must be concluded by 1.30 p.m. We have Dr. O'Hanlon, Deputy Cosgrave, Deputy Leyden, Deputy Barnes and Deputy Mac Giolla offering.

In that order?

In that order, yes.

I might as well leave, so.

I will be brief although I must say I am concerned at the small amount of time which has been allocated to this measure because while it affects only a small number of voters it is a very important measure. I realise it is important to pass this Bill at this time particularly as the Minister informed us this morning that he would like to have the Bill in operation in time for the next election. I would like the Minister when he is replying to say whether it is his intention to have all sections of the Bill in operation.

I will confine myself to the Bill and there are a couple of points about which I am concerned. One is with regard to the drawing up of the special voters list. Is this really necessary? Can the letter "P" not be put after the person's name on the existing register in the same way as in the case of a member of the Garda Síochána or the Army? It appears that these people will be categorised and it might not be in the best interests to have that special list in that way. I do not know whether or not there is any particular reason why this should be done.

The second point I want to make on the Bill is on the question of compilation of the register of special voters. Is there any right of appeal? It appears from reading the Bill that there is no right of appeal if the registration authority refuse to register the name of somebody as a special voter. In the last local elections we saw that the registration authority did refuse to allocate a postal vote to certain people. In my own area people who I felt were entitled to the vote on medical grounds were refused for one reason or another. It is very important that there should be the right of appeal.

Another point which I am concerned about in the Bill is when the presiding officer and the member of the Garda Síochána go to the home of the disabled person, as the Minister informed us this morning, the disabled person will make and sign a declaration of identity. Where the person is not in a position to sign his name — many disabled people are not able to sign their names and the same would apply to marking a ballot paper — will he be able to have a companion voter present to mark the ballot paper for him? It is important that we should look at the provisions in the Bill to ensure that it sets out to do what it is supposed to do, which is, to see that special voters, in this case disabled voters, will be in a position to cast their vote. I would fully support the case made by Deputy Kelly as to why there is need for a certificate of sound mind for the disabled person. I do not think that this should be necessary any more than for a person going to a polling station in the normal way.

I would also support fully the case made by Deputy Burke about extending the list of special voters. I am aware of two or three people in my own constituency who happen to work in County Louth for the local authority. They are employed to work on election day and are precluded from voting in their own constituency. I do think that there is a case to be made particularly for these people who are working in the election as officials of the State. They should be included on the list of postal voters along with the other categories of persons whom Deputies Burke and Kelly spoke about.

I would also support the question of Sunday voting. A very good case can be made for Sunday voting both in terms of ensuring the maximum number of people would have the opportunity to vote and also in economic terms. I have no doubt that it would be in the best interests to have Sunday voting available.

In conclusion, I am disappointed that we do not have more time to go into the Bill in more detail because there are areas which do need to be teased out. I would appeal to the Minister to ensure that the Bill after it passes through this House will do what it sets out to do. I am particularly concerned about certain sections of the Bill which do not provide sufficiently to ensure that disabled voters, particularly those who cannot use their hands, will be entitled to vote under this legislation.

I would like to speak briefly on this Bill and welcome it as an overdue development. I am sure that all the Members of this House would welcome the fact we are now introducing facilities for special voters. We are all aware of individuals in our constituencies who from time to time have not been able to vote either because they are bedridden or it is exceedingly difficult for them to get to a polling station. It is a testament to their strength of character that at times they have been the strongest lobbying group. They are an example to able-bodied people. They make great personal sacrifices in order to vote. Between now and 15 January, the date by which corrections must be made to the present register, there are a number of bank holidays. I am not sure if it is intended to advertise this measure but advertisements should be placed in the newspapers.

I do not foresee any great difficulty in relation to persons who are in nursing homes but where a person is living alone the presiding officer and garda could call and find that the person was out. There should be an onus on the presiding officer and garda to call again on the person or forewarn him that he will be called on at a certain time. The number of persons will vary from constituency to constituency. I appreciate that the time is limited and that a presiding officer can only call on a certain number of persons. Presumably in a nursing home some special arrangement could be made. However, it is important that the facility be given to persons who are living alone and every effort should be made to ensure that they are able to cast their vote.

When an application supported by medical evidence is made, is the decision of those in the local authority the final decision or will there be an appeals procedure?

I welcome the fact that diplomats will now have a vote. I hope that will be extended to cover persons working abroad in semi-State or State organisations.

There is a lot of merit in the idea of holding a general election on a Saturday or Sunday. I know it might clash with other events but there are many people who travel in the course of their work, for example, sales persons and so on and the weekend would suit them. This should be considered in the future. It might ensure a greater turnout by the electorate.

I hope the Minister is still giving consideration to changing the time for compiling the register. The Minister mentioned that the special voters list will be compiled within the next three or four weeks. What measures will be taken to marry the current register with this list in order to avoid abuses?

I welcome the measure.

I compliment my colleague, Deputy Burke, on setting up the working party on 3 June, 1982 which has resulted in this Bill being before the House. I thank the Seanad for pressing on the Minister the need for this legislation to apply to the current register. It is obvious that the Government are now in their dying days. This is probably the second last week of the present Administration. We look forward to a general election and hope that it will take place on the existing register. The Minister realises that the date of the new register will be June 1987 and he has decided to agree to the amendment which allow the new regulations to come into force on the present register. I welcome that.

For many years, disabled persons felt left out when it came to deciding on who would be their elected representatives. Many of them endeavoured to attend at polling stations although it caused great distress to them to do so. I know many people who are extremely disabled and who insisted on voting in local and general elections.

I support Deputy Burke's suggestion to extend postal voting rights not only to diplomats and secretaries in the diplomatic corps but to those working abroad in CTT and IDA offices and other firms. The postal voting facility should also be made available to the 100,000 people who have been forced to emigrate as a result of this Government's policies. They have a right to play their part in getting rid of this Administration. They have been forced to leave the country.

I presume this is just a passing reference.

It is very relevant to the Bill. A temporary absence is mentioned in the Bill and I hope that as a result of the change in Government their absence will be temporary. The majority of them are on the register. A polling station should be set up in the embassies or consulates in New York, Washington, London, Manchester and Birmingham to allow young voters to play their part in getting rid of this Government. They are entitled to that. I challenge the Minister to give such an opportunity to those young people. Many of them, unfortunately misguided at the time, voted for Fine Gael and Labour in 1982. They did not realise that was their ticket to emigration. They were voting to be practically deported through the policies adopted by this Government. The Minister should make an order to allow such people to have a vote in the next general election.

Commercial travellers and those travelling abroad working for companies should be given an opportunity to vote on the Saturday or Sunday before polling day. The presiding officer should be available to take the votes. A simple order could be made to that effect.

In relation to the postal vote already available to members of the Garda Síochána and the Army, I suggest that the letter P indicating that they are postal voters be deleted from the next register of the electorate. It has been brought to my attention, particularly by members of the Garda Síochána, that they have been listed out on the register of the electorate and from a security point of view their position is very vulnerable. They are easily identified, even the numbers of their houses and the streets where they live. There is no justifiable reason for the letter P appearing before their names on the register. Many gardaí have indicated to me that they will not apply for the postal vote because of this vulnerability. Perhaps the Minister will indicate to the authorities that such provision is not necessary in the new register.

In relation to the welcome provision of a choice of polling station for the electorate, one may find one polling station far more accesible than another. However, the quality of the polling stations leaves a lot to be desired. In my home town of Roscommon the main polling station, which covers practically seven polling stations, is practically inaccessible to anyone who has any physical handicap, because of the number of steps leading to it. There should be some ground floor facility made available. I am delighted that this provision of choice has been made in the Bill because there is a polling station in a local welfare home which could be available to people if they so wish.

I appeal to the Minister to ensure that there are safety precautions at polling stations with regard to proper access to the stations and that adequate lighting is available during the forthcoming winter election.

Summer election.

Unfortunately, many people have been injured and even fatally injured in going to or coming from polling stations. Many of these stations are located on main roads and there is no lighting whatsoever outside the buildings. A request should be made of the presiding officers to ensure that they now start making arrangements to provide proper facilities for people coming to vote.

With regard to the amendments being put forward by the Minister, these are rather intriguing. I presume they refer to Alderman Dublin Bay Rockall Loftus. One of the ideas is to ensure that Mr. Loftus will not be able to use all those titles during an election campaign. However, is it worth while putting forward an amendment to prevent him from using those titles? I know this is an effort to indicate a certain policy line and I appreciate that the idea is to prevent other unregistered political parties from using their political titles during an election. I can see that there is a certain case for it, but is it all that relevant or important? The electorate are very intelligent and are well able to make out, from looking at the ballot paper, the actual political parties of the candidates.

With regard to voting on the day, the provision is quite good in a sense that it prevents abuse. I could see the difficulty of having every party representative in the home of a particular voter, although it would be desirable, as our spokesperson indicated. Knowing many of the locations in my constituency, it could be very difficult for these people to leave the polling station because if there are five or six cars driving into a particular location on the day it could be very difficult to carry out the work. Is it necessary to have both gardaí and presiding officers present for the voting? It may not be all that necessary in a civilised electoral situation.

In compiling the voters' list, it would be important that action be taken fairly quickly because of the shortness of time before the general election campaign, to allow people to apply and make sure that they are listed well in advance of election day. People in hospital who feel they may not be available to vote should be given the facility of applying for the postal vote. The provision is worthwhile. It is very timely and I am particularly delighted that it will be available for the forthcoming general election. It would be a mockery that it would be held back and used only with regard to the new register of the electorate which will come into operation in April, 1987. Members on this side of the House are delighted to get the opportunity of supporting the Minister's amendment in that regard.

The people who can make the change in the next general election are those who have been forced to emigrate. They are very angry at what has happened in this country and want to have a say in voting out this administration. Their votes will make a considerable impact in deciding the third, fourth and fifth seats in numerous constituencies. They would be voting in a very positive way for their future return to Ireland. If by any chance there is not a change of Government, then the situation for them is extremely bleak as the Government have no concern for them whatsoever. They are more interested in extradition and in other Bills than in providing jobs for our young people. They are quite complacent about those who have been forced to emigrate and are quite happy to see young intelligent people leaving the country.

Fianna Fáil should not talk about that.

(Interruptions.)

The Taoiseach in particular is not concerned about the problem. Let the Government Deputies face the fact.

Please, Deputies, I made an appeal in your absence. All the amendments to the Bill must be concluded at 1.30 p.m. and as you can see, there are many offering. I hope to get your co-operation as I did with previous Deputies.

The Dublin 4 mentality has no understanding or feeling of what emigration means.

That is not the subject of the debate.

I wonder how many of the upper income group TDs representing Fine Gael in Dublin 4——

Fianna Fáil should be the last to be talking about emigrating. They caused a haemorrhage of emigration themselves.

I wonder if they realise that out of my family of eight five had to emigrate under Coalition Governments. Under this administration two of my brothers will lose their jobs on 1 January 1987.

Let us hope the Deputy will, too.

I know all about Fine Gael policies as far as the west is concerned and as far as the country is concerned. They do not realise the anxiety and anguish of emigration and do not really care.

On a point of order——

They do not care and they are forcing these people out.

On a point of order——

Deputy Leyden, would you stay with the Bill, please?

I am staying with the Bill. I am dealing with section 15 of the Bill which refers to a temporary absence of up to 18 months as not being regarded as breaking the continuity of residence. Many people have emigrated not more than 18 months ago and they will and should have the opportunity of voting to bring down this Government. That is what I am appealing to them to do. Those 100,000 people can make a choice and should be given the opportunity of choosing. The facility should not be just given to civil servants and secretaries of Departments ——

A detailed discussion on emigration is not relevant to the Bill. I allowed you time to make a passing reference. Would you please proceed, on the Bill?

Would the Leas-Cheann Comhairle look at section 15 of the Bill?

Diplomats and senior civil servants have the facility.

I am sure the diplomats will not be too concerned about whether this Government is changed, but I am concerned about the ordinary emigrants who are forced to leave this country, not being sent on diplomatic missions to Paris, New York, Washington, to live in grand residences over there. I am talking about the young people who are walking the streets of Broadway, Birmingham and London.

I must ask the Deputy to keep to the Bill.

I challenge the Government to allow those people to vote but I know they do not have the guts to do so because not one of the 100,000 people who left the country would vote for Fine Gael ——

You are wandering all over the place, please keep to the Bill.

The disabled, the handicapped and those who are unable to vote normally have been greatly affected by the so called equality legislation. Many of them have been deprived of up to £60 per week as a result ——

You have now gone into the area of equality, please confine yourself to the Bill.

On a point of order, surely the Deputy can refer to people in temporary residence and who are covered in section 15 of the Bill? People who have emigrated would be regarded as being in temporary residence and would be entitled to have their names included. Deputy Leyden is quite in order in bringing up that point.

Please allow Deputy Leyden to continue.

Disabled and handicapped people who could not vote up to now will have a golden opportunity of voting at the next election because they are extremely angry over what has happened, especially in relation to policies which have affected them over the last four years. I am delighted that they will be able to voice their opinions and I look forward to canvassing——

(Interruptions.)

I do not want to see Government Ministers canvassing in country lanes and intimidating disabled people before the next election——

Please keep to the Bill.

I am ruffing the feathers of the people opposite. Give the handicapped and disabled a fair opportunity to vote and they will turn against the Government.

The Deputy is showing himself in his true colours.

When I had a State car I did not have my driver painting the house or providing fodder for cattle.

The Deputy is jealous.

Deputy Leyden should conclude.

I welcome the provisions in the Bill and I hope that as many people as possible will be acquainted with them. I also hope that they will vote for a Fianna Fáil administration.

I welcome the Bill but having listened to the contribution from the last speaker I must ask if it is any wonder that there have been delays in introducing reform in this area? Deputy Leyden should have concentrated on the Bill and on the people outside the House who fought so hard for its introduction. I refer to the disabled who value the vote, especially since it was denied to them for so long. It is contemptible of Deputy Leyden to take up the time of the House in cheap electioneering when we are talking about fundamental rights. Perhaps women appreciate the right to vote more than men because they had to fight for 60 years to achieve it. The disabled had to go to court to achieve this right and I pay tribute to Nora Draper who continuously fought over the years for a right that should have been hers automatically.

When I and thousands of others emigrated nobody in this House worried about our education, much less our right to vote. I welcome the fact that the Minister has, at the request of Members of the other House, agreed that special voting arrangements will be in operation for the current register of electors. The sooner we make this possible for the people for whom the Bill is designed, the sooner their confidence will be restored. When referring to abuses, it is incredible that we place so much stress on the morality of certain aspects of our lives, especially in regard to our private lives.

One of the most fundamental areas, voting, is more abused here than in any other democracy. This abuse is so widespread that we had to introduce this complicated way of enabling disabled people to vote. The able-bodied have abused postal voting which indicates that they are morally disabled. It is a condemnation of this House and democracy that we cannot allow open postal voting without it being totally and utterly abused by people who cast moral reflections on the rest of us in regard to other areas of legislation.

Hear, hear.

The complicated voting arrangements will include visits to the homes of disabled people by the presiding officer accompanied by a member of the Garda Síochána. We know that the Garda are overstretched and I hope that some allowance will be made within Garda stations to enable personnel to visit all the disabled in the area so that no one is excluded from the special voters list. Having fought so long for the vote, it would be terrible to be excluded from the list because of lack of personnel to ensure that everything is in order.

I suggest that in a future Bill voting rights be extended not just to civil servants and diplomats but to other categories as well. For example, exporters are very often out of the country and the same applies to fishermen who have to work when the tide is suitable and to aircraft crews, those involved in shipping and so on. These people are normally resident here and are entitled to vote for the Government they want. It is a denial of their rights if, because of their jobs, they are not allowed to vote and to decide who will represent them in Parliament. I would like the Minister to think about introducing a Bill which would allow all these people to be included.

Lastly, and most importantly, when we bring about a change in legislation, particularly dealing with the right to vote, would the Minister ensure that there is an advertising campaign in all the media, especially television, to ensure that the people it will affect will know what the legislation is about, how it will affect them and the preparations that are being put in train to allow them to vote. Not alone are we widening the legislation to include these people but, having done all that, we should make available this vital information which will enable them to take advantage of it. Once again I ask the Minister to ensure that when this legislation is passed every avenue will be used to ensure that every voter who will come under this broad net will be aware of what is happening and will make arrangements to be included on this list.

I am glad this Bill has come before the House and we will facilitate its passage in any way we can but we have some criticism of it, and particularly of the most recent amendments.

In March 1983 a working party, as distinct from The Workers' Party, on the electoral register recommended that postal voting should be extended to the disabled and also to those who could prove they were sick or unable to attend polling stations. Nothing happened. Twelve months later, in March 1984, The Workers' Party, as distinct from the working party, introduced a Private Members' Bill aimed at providing postal voting facilities for the disabled. It was intended that it would be in time for them to vote in the 1984 European elections. Amazingly, the Fine Gael and Labour Parties in Coalition opposed this Bill and it was defeated by 73 to 65.

The then Minister, Deputy Kavanagh, when opposing our Bill said it was piecemeal, that we were dealing with the disabled only, that we were not dealing with the whole question of postal voting and he recommended the points raised by Deputy Barnes today, that transport workers, seamen, commercial travellers and so on should all have postal votes. He said in March, 1984 that comprehensive proposals on postal voting were being prepared which would strike a sensible balance between the requirements of those who seek postal voting and the necessity to provide adequate safeguards against abuse. That has not happened. There was temporary postal voting for the 1985 local elections, and there was much talk of abuse after that, but to my knowledge, there is no evidence of any widespread abuse. Postal voting was available in the 1974 elections and the working party which reported in 1983 investigated it and said there were allegations of abuses of the postal voting system in the 1974 elections but they could find no evidence of any widespread abuse. There has not been any evidence that the abuse of the postal voting system is any worse than the abuse of the normal voting system.

There are tremendous abuses in all polling booths at all elections but that does not say we should not allow people to vote. This should not stop postal voting being extended to those who need it, yet it has and I believe it has dominated the Ministers thinking in drafting this legislation. The idea seems to be to stop abuse at all costs rather then give the vote to the disabled at all costs. I do think the Minister has struck the balance he was talking about between the requirements of those who seek postal voting and the necessity to provide adequate safeguards against abuse because the voting for the disabled is most complicated and bureaucratic and postal voting has gone only to civil servants, those attached to diplomatic missions abroad.

The special system of voting for the disabled is not postal voting at all, and the Minister was thinking of abuse. For some reason he thought the disabled would abuse this much more than gardaí or members of the Army. This introduces an entirely new concept of voting for the disabled. It is good that they are getting the vote but nevertheless, they are put in a very special category. Nobody else is in that category and this is what the disabled have always objected to. They want to be able to do what the able bodied members of society do. They want to go to the polling stations, collect their ballot paper from the presiding officer, go into the booth and put their vote in the box, just like everybody else. Many of the disabled could do that, although there are others who could not but there is a special new concept for all disabled persons in this Bill. It requires the special presiding officer and a member of the Garda to visit the home of a disabled person where the vote is to be cast. This turns the person's home into a polling booth. As has already been pointed out, the disabled person might not be at home when these two people call and they will have to come back again. The special presiding officer, who is a representative of the returning officer, presumably it could be anybody who is nominated. Why can he not nominate a member of the Garda Síochána and let him call to the disabled person's home in plain clothes? What is the reason for two people calling, a garda and a special presiding officer? I believe a garda calling to the disabled person's home will be a deterrent. The garda is superfluous because the disabled person will have already had to provide medical evidence, forms and so on to get on this voting list. Let somebody call out with the voting papers but allow the disabled person to put it in the post like other people. Why is postal voting not available to the disabled?

The extension of the postal vote to other people abroad has already been dealt with by a number of Deputies and by Deputy Kavanagh when he was Minister for the Environment. Why this Minister can think only of first secretaries and third secretaries serving in missions abroad but cannot think of truck drivers, seamen or fishermen, is unbelievable. If these people are not at home on election day they cannot vote.

I do not want to delay the House but I must refer to these amendments which suddenly appeared on our desks within the last hour. It is unbelievable that a Minister should bring in an amendment which has nothing to do with the special voters list, the disabled or the postal vote. He is taking this opportunity to slip in this amendment covering names of candidates in an election. This Bill has nothing to do with candidates in an election.

The House agreed earlier to allow the debate on item No. 10.

That is exactly what I am doing, debating it. I am debating the fact that any Minister should think he could, by sleight of hand, slip this amendment into the disabled postal voting legislation. This is an unbelievable impertinence on the part of the Minister.

Any candidate can ask that a person produce an identity document, such as an unmarried mother's book or a children's allowance book. Men will not have any such documents but women will be asked to produce those documents and if they have left them at home they will have to go home and collect them. That is unbelievable discrimination. If everybody is supposed to have an identity card or a certain document, that is different; they can produce it, but only some are to be asked to produce certain unnamed documents. A candidate may ask that a person produce an identity document but what is that document? Is it a driver's licence, an unmarried mother's book, a children's allowance book or a deserted wife's book? Everybody does not have an identity document and if they do not, according to this amendment, they will not be allowed vote. That is unbelievable. I ask the Minister to withdraw those two amendments and to bring them in in a separate Bill where they can be discussed. They are ruining this Bill.

I am delighted that this legislation has come before the House. It will give a reasonable opportunity to the disabled to cast their votes without too much disruption of their lives. Like a number of other speakers, I am saddened that it was not easier to arrange for postal voting for the disabled. Various Members of the House in all parties in the last number of years have constantly sought the implementation of a reasonably easy access type of postal voting system for those people. It is unfortunate that as a result of the gross and constant abuses of previous systems it was not possible to bring in such legislation. However, the fact that we have this Bill before us today is at least a step in the right direction. I compliment the Minister for bringing it in.

There is only one thing I am a little concerned about and that is that the special returning officer will have to visit the individual's household. That is a rather cumbersome way of doing the job. I already accepted that because of difficulties that have arisen in the past, something has to be done to tighten up the system. Nonetheless, it is a little cumbersome. Perhaps in the future it will be possible to make the system more accessible. I would like to reiterate the sentiments expressed by Deputy Barnes a few minutes ago. It is a sad reflection on our society, a society of lovers of and believers in democracy, that whenever an attempt was made to introduce a facility for voting for people such as the disabled, the abuses were so massive that it had to be discontinued. That is a very sad reflection on a democracy loving society.

I welcome the principle of the——

I was in the House before Deputy Keating and I indicated that I wanted to speak.

I have indicated to you that I am calling Deputy Michael Keating.

It seems there are special categories in the matter of speaking in this House.

That was never the case, Deputy, and you know that well. Deputy Michael Keating, I am appealing to you, as to all other Deputies, to be as brief as possible.

I welcome the principle of extending the franchise to people who up to now have been disenfranchised by virtue of their disability. The system being proposed is so cumbersome and convoluted that it is likely it will not enable many people in that category to vote. I concur with much of what Deputy Mac Giolla said and therefore I will not repeat it. The proposal to arrange for two people to visit each individual home is staggeringly bureaucratic. It is likely to result in people simply not taking up the option. I cannot understand why a development of the postal voting system would not be adequate if there were proper and fulsome sanctions for abuse, the evidence of which is not readily available. Disabled people are among those people, if one can make those judgments at all, who are least likely to be engaged in that kind of abuse by virtue of the fact that the disablement is easily observable and people who are not entitled to such voting rights could hardly claim them.

It indicates some degree of significance to our priorities in this respect that we allow an incredibly short period of time for this measure to be introduced and debated. It is not adequate to allow a couple of hours to debate a measure such as this which has been long promised and which needs not just adequate debate but, in a number of respects, amendment. I ask those in charge of the affairs of this House to ensure in future that if there is to be this kind of limited debate there is a limit on the time of speakers. An hour or two hours to debate any measure is far too short.

The definition of special voter in the Bill is unnecessarily restrictive. I, with many of my colleagues, argue that there are many people whose work takes them outside the ambit of being able to vote at present. They should be facilitated. I include people in the public service who work abroad, people in semi-State organisations who are on business abroad or who are working abroad, seamen whose work regularly takes them out of the country and others. People in the armed forces and in the Garda get a postal vote and it seems to work quite well. I know in some cases they are positioned in a particular local but there is no evidence of any substantial or significant abuse in those respects. It is time for us to trust our people and to gradually introduce a phased development of postal voting for people whose rights are not being respected in this area. I include people working in the polling stations, some of whom have to forego their rights to vote in order to undertake their civic duties. The scope of the Bill needs to be defined. I am interested also in the distinction that is clearly drawn in relation to the practice of postal voting. Postal voting is relatively acceptable at local authority level but not at general elections. Whether that indicates a degree of judgment about the values of those institutions is an interesting question to raise.

It is not acceptable any more at any level, based on the experience of the local elections.

I wish to comment briefly on the two amendments. I am not clear as to the basis for the amendment relating to the judgment which a returning officer can make about names of candidates, the confusion that misleading names might create, about names that might be unnecessarily long or which might contain political references. I share Deputy Mac Giolla's view that these amendments fit uneasily into the Bill and do not seem to be part of an approach to broadening democratisation. I am not clear that there has ever been a problem in this respect. These are not the kind of priorities we should be perturbed about. There is no manifest evidence I know of to suggest that there has been a problem about misleading names or that names have been causing confusion. People are quite selective and very clear about whom they vote for. The reference to a name containing a political reference is somewhat bizarre in the context of an election which is intensely political. I urge the Minister to have the courage to trust the people and not to embody an extremely cumbersome and tedious procedure in the Bill. I know disabled people who, if they hear the only way they will get their vote is by setting up a mini-polling booth for a period of time in their own home and having a visit of a returning officer, or somebody on his behalf, and a garda, may say they are not interested. If we are seriously interested in extending the right to vote to people who have that constitutional right, we should make it as easy as possible for them to vote. I do not believe that given the introduction of significant and tough sanctions for abuse there will be any such abuse of the postal voting system.

I should like to pay tribute to the Minister for introducing this legislation. He has faced the real problems experienced by voters. I am appalled at the simplistic approach of other speakers who said they never heard of abuse of the postal voting system. A few moments ago Deputy Keating said there was no such thing as abuse and no evidence of it.

I did not say that.

People have been charged in the courts in connection with such abuse. Members of political parties registered in the House have been charged with abuse of the postal voting system. Did the Deputy not hear of a big problem in Donegal? I wonder what world people like Deputy Keating are living in. Did Deputy Mac Giolla not hear that there was a problem in Donegal? I would be amazed to think that he did not hear of it. That Deputy has a very active councillor in Donegal who grabs the headlines from time to time and I would be amazed to hear he did not know there was abuse of the postal voting system.

It is positively amazing to hear the simplistic approach of some Members who are trying to give the impression they are sympathetic to the disabled but Fianna Fáil, when in power, never made an effort to change the procedure. The Minister has come upon a solution which is novel. It may be a little cumbersome but at least it recognises the problems of the disabled. If Members of other parties had a solution to the problem it was open to them to bring forward a Private Members' Bill. However, when it comes to headline seeking and putting over some type of soft message they will peddle it here and say the Minister is wrong. Those Deputies are being niggardly in their approach. I commend the Minister for the work he has done in connection with this legislation. He has shown his concern for the people who want to vote. I applaud him for that.

In reply to Deputy Carey's assertion that Fianna Fáil did not do anything about this problem, I should like to point out to him that the working party which reported on the question of postal voting was established by Fianna Fáil. It is as a result of their deliberations that the Minister is in a position to bring the Bill before the House. I welcome the decision of the Minister to provide a facility for the disabled to vote. However, when he decided to include other categories in the legislation it was most unfair of him to deny other citizens their constituional right to vote.

The explanatory memorandum states that a temporary absence of up to 18 months is not regarded as breaking the continuity of residence and that amazes me. In practice that is not what happens. In my part of the country when a person leaves his or her residence their name is struck off the register. Those who leave their area to take up temporary employment are immediately struck off the register and that has created problems throughout the west. Many people have to leave their area to get employment but they are denied the right to vote. When the Minister decided to include civil servants he should have extended the categories to include others who are maintaining a residence here but are not given a vote. It is most unfair if people who, because of their place of work or the fact that they cannot find employment in their own area, are denied a right to vote although civil servants who are absent from home are covered.

The legislation has been prepared hurriedly. I agree with Deputy Mac Giolla and others that it is an important piece of legislation. My objection is that the Minister has confined the facility to the disabled and a certain category of civil servants. The people I am referring to have a constitutional right to vote but that is being denied to them by the Minister. For many years the names of people who leave their home to take up employment elsewhere are deleted from the register of electors shortly after their departure. The Minister should have given more consideration to those people.

I warmly welcome the Bill which is pinning down something that has been like a will-o'-the-wisp for disabled people. Those people were given an opportunity to vote in 1974 but it was taken from them. They got an opportunity to vote in last year's local elections but that has been taken from them. I commend the Minister for dealing with this discrimination against a section of our population that has been going on for a long time. I agree with the remarks of other Members about those who have not been included in the legislation. I should like to appeal to the Minister to ensure that his officials continue their efforts to include more people on the special voters register. I am concerned about people who are working for the Department of Foreign Affairs in the Third World. I gather they are not covered under diplomatic and consular activities. Will the Minister ensure that in selecting the special presiding officers, care is taken to appoint people who have an understanding of the needs of disabled people? If possible the people appointed should have had experience of working with the disabled because there will be cases of severely physically handicapped people wanting to vote. Those people will need special care as they mark their ballot papers.

I should like to commend the Minister for including a provision under which a person who may be injured seven days before polling may avail of the new procedure. Some people may not be able to make the journey to a polling booth but they can cast their vote under the new system. I agree with Deputy Barnes that the Department should embark on an extensive advertising campaign to make people aware of their rights under the Bill. It should be made clear in those advertisements that those who cannot vote in their local polling booth because of steps or ramps can cast their vote under the new system.

I should like to thank Members who have, in general, given a welcome to the legislation. I accept that the system being introduced is cumbersome and will be expensive but much thought was given to it. Frankly, the reason postal voting is not being continued for this or any other category is because of the ingenuity of the Irish and the amount of abuse of that system. Following the postal voting in the local government elections last year 2,640 cases were referred to the Garda although in virtually no case was sufficient evidence available to prosecute. I could entertain the House from now to midnight outlining the instances that were uncovered. Primarily, I want to ensure that disabled people get a vote as readily as possible. Under the new system a ballot paper will be brought to their home and the procedure will be supervised by a member of the Garda.

I cannot understand the reason for Deputy Mac Giolla's objection to a disabled person having a garda visit their home. It would be a sorry state of affairs if we get to the stage that it is represented that people would be ashamed to have a garda officer bring a ballot paper to a disabled person's home. I do not believe that is so. The new amendments are being introduced in response to a particular announcement by an organisation with direct subversive connections that they intend to contest the next election here. It is good that they should contest the election but, based on experience when that organisation contested elections in the other part of the country, it is clear we must move to prevent candidates changing their name to that of, for example, another candidate, a Member of the House or an emotive name. It is clear in the light of the wide scale abuses of the electoral system in Northern Ireland that we must now require that people should have some reasonable evidence of identification if they are requested to produce it. I am not surprised that Deputy Mac Giolla objected to those provisions.

As agreed on the Order of Business, I am now putting the following question:

"That the Bill is hereby read a Second Time, that the amendments set down by the Minister for the Environment and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill; that the Bill, as amended, is hereby agreed to in Committee; that the Committee reports that it has gone through the Bill and has made amendments thereto, and has amended the Title to read as follows:

An Act to provide for the registration as special voters of physically ill or physically disabled persons and to provide for the registration as postal voters of certain persons resident abroad and to provide for other matters connected therewith and otherwise to amend the law relating to elections and referenda

and that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."

Question put and agreed to.

It is a most unsatisfactory way of dealing with any legislation.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Top
Share