asked the Minister for the Environment if he will ensure that an immediate review of the operation of the electoral register for the disabled is undertaken with a view to recommending the removal of discriminatory regulations which involve annual costs for medical examinations if a disabled person is to remain on the register; and if he will consult with the bodies representing the disabled when undertaking this review.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Disabled Persons Voting Arrangements.
10.
I have no proposals to review the present provisions on special voting by disabled persons which were introduced last year.
As the Minister is in such good form today, let me say how disappointed I am that this group are not to be given the same attention as is given to matters of water supply to some parts of the country. Has the Minister had representations from bodies representing disabled groups indicating their concern at two particular elements in the present operation of the special voters lists which discriminate against them? This is a scheme which is intended to facilitate them. They believe that they are seriously discriminated against on the basis, first, that it costs them anything from £10 to £15 annually, depending on the cost of a medical examination, to stay on the electoral register because they must fill in a medical certificate each year. Secondly an aspect of the medical certificate which they find particularly discriminating is that the medical examiner must assess them as being of sound mind and understanding. Is the Minister happy to allow this to continue? It would seem that both of these matters could be resolved quite easily and at no additional cost. If the Minister wishes, I can suggest ways in which that could be done.
There is no record of any objection or complaint having been received to the way the scheme has been operating. We all understand that medical card holders do not have to pay for the medical certificate and others can get the medical certificate on a routine visit to their doctor without the necessity of any extra expense. The only representations which I have received are those which I have received from the Deputy just now. I understand the points she is making and one can readily understand that circumstances can change from one year to the next. People who were treated last year for a particular complaint may not now be regarded as being disabled under the terms of the Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1986. The Deputy also referred to the form of certification and I will have another look at this. I understand that the special voters' list is open only to those who are physically ill or physically disabled persons who are unable to vote for the full duration of the register. Why would the Deputy not see that as being satisfactory?
Part B of the special voters application form, which is the medical certificate, does not require certification of physical disability but requires of the medical examiner to certify whether a person is of sound mind, a requirement which a person who is not disabled does not have to undergo. That is a further discrimination. If I could just return——
We must proceed by way of supplementary questions.
Would the Minister consider, or ask his departmental officials to consider, that a new method of dealing with this matter which would achieve the same objective and which would remove the element of cost for the disabled would be to ask the regular checkers of the register who are employed each autumn by the local authorities to include the small number of people who would be registered in each area for a physical check-up each year? This is feasible and would not involve any extra cost. Instead of insisting on a medical certificate which does involve an annual cost, a simple check by those who are employed by the State could ensure that the disabled are being treated on a similar basis to everybody else and are not being penalised. I believe——
This is a very long question.
What the Deputy is requesting is an amendment to the Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1986, which states that when the application is made a person must be of sound mind and understanding and capable of comprehending the act of voting. Is that not what the Deputy is talking about? I promise the Deputy that I will have a look at it but I am not sure whether it would be feasible to accommodate her on it. In so far as getting medical certificates for disabled people——
Deputies Gay Mitchell, Andrew Boylan and Proinsias De Rossa are offering. If the Deputies concerned will be brief, I will be glad to facilitate them.
Will the Minister agree that these special voters lists would be greatly reduced if proper access to polling stations was provided for disabled persons? Will the Minister in any review which he undertakes include an examination of that facility?
I will, but it would be fair to say that even in my predecessor's time there were considerable improvements in that area. Quite a number of polling stations which were inaccessible to the disabled prior to that have now been removed from the list of locations for voting. If something extra needs to be done, I would be happy to oblige. I think there is across the board support for that.
I am delighted that this very important question has been raised in this House. Will the Minister agree that persons who are in receipt of long term disability benefit should not have to pay for the medical certificate which has to be presented annually? If they are accepted as being long term physically disabled and in receipt of a pension, surely it must also be accepted by the medical authorities that it is a life-time disability.
I would not like an open-ended scheme such as that, When the legislation was being promoted in this House this scheme was deliberately kept tight and it had across the House support. The matter which the Deputy has raised was purchased at that time and it was agreed that it was only when the circumstances went from one particular register to the date of the next register that a special category of person could be accommodated who would be medically certified. We should not now go away from that. We have had one or two reasonably bad experiences during the two former schemes.
I do not accept that.
Have the Minister's Department carried out any review of the uptake of the scheme among those it was aimed to assist? Can the Minister tell us whether the point which Deputy Flaherty has raised has had any significant effect on that uptake? If that review has not been carried out, will the Minister arrange for it to be carried out?
The only review which has been undertaken since it was introduced showed that it worked reasonably well the last time. There were no great problems in connection with it. There were problems with both the 1974 and 1985 schemes. This has been a big improvement. Certainly, I will have another look at it in the light of what has been said by Deputy Flaherty.
In relation to the points which were raised on earlier questions concerning the requirement that a person should be of sound mind and should be able to comprehend the act of voting, will the Minister accept that there is an equally good lobby to suggest that there should also be a requirement placed upon all voters——
I understand that it is not possible——
——and that there are, in fact, many voters who at present believe they were not in that state as of February last.
I do not know anything about that but I do understand that it is not possible to get from a psychiatrist a certificate of sanity.
That would mean that everybody would have to have a medical examination.
You can be certified insane but you cannot be certified sane.