The Minister for the Environment, Deputy Michael Smith, was in possession when the debate adjourned.
Presidential Elections Bill, 1993: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
On a point of clarification, as the Minister was in possession when this debate adjourned yesterday, will the Minister of State respond as the Minister would have done, or where do we go from here?
Wexford): I have a very detailed response and I notice Deputy Doyle's name is mentioned.
It was expected that the Minister directly involved who was replying on Second Stage when the debate was adjourned would resume to complete his speech. Doubtless the Minister has good reasons for his inability to be present but I must ask the House——
I understand the Minister is on his way.
Order, I am in possession. I ask the House to agree that the Minister of State at the Department, Deputy John Browne, be granted leave to reply. Is that agreed? Agreed.
This is quite out of the ordinary but in view of the fact that Deputy Browne is a constituency colleague and that this is the third matter he has dealt with this afternoon I cannot at this stage reject his opinions even though I would have liked the Minister to continue. It is an extraordinary position and I hope it will not create a precedent.
(Wexford): When the debate was adjourned last evening the Minister had dealt with Deputy Keogh's point on Sunday voting. There is no statutory bar on Sunday polling. However, some minority churches would have difficulty with the concept of voting on Sunday on the grounds of conscience and these difficulties must be taken seriously.
The question of a wider system of postal voting was raised. Postal voting presents serious issues in relation to the secrecy, security and integrity of the ballot. Experience here and elsewhere has shown that unsupervised postal voting is open to serious abuse. We can well appreciate that under particular electoral systems abuse, even on a very limited scale, can have a significant effect on election results and the formation of Government. Following experience at two local elections the Oireachtas in 1986 decided against an extension of postal voting. Instead it established special home voting arrangements for disabled electors, as well as an arrangement whereby diplomats and their spouses may vote under supervision at embassies. I understand that our reservations about postal voting are shared by other countries, notably Belgium and France. We are not ruling out postal voting in all circumstances. If a way can be found to extend to postal voting the safeguards available at polling stations I would be anxious to see some such arrangement for people who have difficulty voting on account of the nature of their occupation or illness.
Deputy Gilmore referred to voting rights for emigrants. The Deputy appeared to say that legal advice available to his party is that there is no constitutional problem in this regard. The advice available to the Government is different. The Government is advised that under the Constitution there is only limited scope to grant voting rights to those temporarily absent from the country. Recognising this, the Programme for a Partnership Government accepted in principle that there should be constitutional change to give voting rights to emigrants, and the matter is being comprehensively examined in that context.
Deputies Keogh and Gilmore wish to see certain changes in the nomination of candidates at presidential elections. The Deputies answered their own questions in this regard by acknowledging that the right to nominate is governed by the Constitution. This Bill can deal only with procedures. To change the principles involved would require an amendment to the Constitution.
Deputy Doyle wondered whether the proposed new arrangements for counting votes would effect a real saving of time. The Deputy suggested that the speed of the whole operation would be determined by progress in the slowest constituency. Under the existing arrangements there is a built-in delay of about 24 hours. The new arrangement will eliminate that delay entirely. The necessary steps will be taken to ensure that the counting process proceeds expeditiously in all constituencies. The Deputy can be assured that the results of future presidential elections will be determined within a single day irrespective of the number of candidates contesting the election. Deputy Doyle was also concerned that the voting would highlight regional differences in voting patterns. The Deputy may be under a misapprehension here. At the last presidential election the papers of eliminated candidates were transferred on a constituency by constituency basis and published on this basis, even though the operation was carried out centrally. This aspect will not be affected in any way by the new counting arrangement.
Deputy Doyle was concerned about the provision for mixing ballot papers in section 49 of the Bill. The Deputy is correct in saying there is no question of transferring a surplus at a presidential election and the question of saving a deposit does not arise. To this extent there is no need for a mixing process. Nonetheless the process that applies at all elections, including by-elections and referenda, has a useful role in enhancing the safeguards for secrecy of ballot. It is important that there be consistency in procedures in so far as possible. The mixing takes very little time. It has been part of presidential election law since 1937 and no Returning Officer has recommended that it be dropped. This is a matter on which the Deputy might heed her own advice: if it is not broken, do not mend it.
It is gratifying that each Deputy who contributed welcomed the Bill and the programme of electoral reform of which it forms part. It is clear there is very little problem with the content of the Bill. The only reservation is that Deputies would prefer to be dealing with something else, and I can understand that. What Deputies are saying is that this is a good, solid and worthwhile Bill but unfortunately it is not exciting, high profile or glamorous and provides no opportunity for——
It is a time filler and the Minister knows that. The dearth of legislation from this Government results in time fillers.
(Wexford): The work of administration in Government consists mainly of hard, unremitting, unspectacular day-to-day work. In Parliament, as in any other walk of life, the high points of excitement and euphoria are few and far between. The real work of Parliament consists of the steady, progressive consideration and revision of generally mundane Bills.
Time fillers.
(Wexford): The Government is committed to a substantial programme of law reform in all areas, not just on electoral matters. The House will have to accept that many excellent, if unspectacular, Bills of this type will come before it in the next four and a half years and I suggest that Deputies on the other side of the House settle down and prepare for the long haul involved in improving and modernising the laws which govern our daily lives. I thank the House for its reception of this Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
When is it intended to take Committee Stage of this Bill?
(Wexford): Next Tuesday, subject to the agreement of the Whips.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 22 June 1993.
Sitting suspended at 6.40 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.