Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Jan 1996

Vol. 460 No. 4

Private Members' Business. - Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1995: Second Stage.

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

I wish to share my time with Deputies Moffatt, McDaid and Batt O'Keeffe.

Over the last year I have had extensive contacts on a wide range of issues with disability organisations and people with disabilities. One of the consistent themes which they have articulated to me again and again is their powerful sense of being marginalised within the official agenda of this State. The causes of this go beyond the day to day problems faced as a result of the under-funding and inflexible policies which are so much part of official action; they extend to the myriad obstacles faced by people with disabilities when they attempt to participate as full citizens in the public life of the State. Fianna Fáil has addressed these issues in our recently launched policy document Meeting the Challenge of Equality, the most comprehensive document on disability ever issued by an Irish political party.

One of the more obvious of the barriers to participation faced by people with disabilities is the way in which our electoral system treats them as special cases for separate treatment. It is overcoming the exclusion and marginalisation caused in this fundamental area and meeting the need for immediate statutory action that this Bill is designed to achieve.

Since the Bill was published last year, I have received letters of support from the major organisations which represent the people with disabilities affected by the failures of the current system. They have told me that they support the Bill's passage and believe it merits cross-party backing. In addition, I am aware that representatives of some of these organisations have also written to members of the Government asking them to support the Bill.

Over the last decade and a half this issue has been raised at official level on many occasions. One aspect of this is that whenever electoral matters are being discussed in this House Deputies make reference to the lack of accessible polling provision and the unfair discrimination this causes. During the recent Second Stage debate on the Electoral Bill, Deputies from all parties called for action on this.

I have no doubt that at some stage every Deputy has become aware of constituents who have been denied their right to participate in the electoral process on the same basis as the rest of the community. It is no less than scandalous that such a fundamental right continues to be denied to many of our citizens.

The practical basis of our electoral system is that democracy starts at the ballot box, yet we compromise this by placing ballot boxes in buildings and rooms to which large numbers of voters cannot gain access. It is simply not good enough to say that there are alternative means available for casting a vote. This is a classic example of where a disability is created for the individual which would not exist if proper consideration were given to simple requirements.

In bringing forward this Bill, Fianna Fáil is saying that we must not allow another election or referendum to take place under the current discredited and discriminatory system.

The two basic principles of the Bill are that people should not be denied the right to vote at their local polling station with the rest of their community simply because they cannot walk and that people who cannot go to their local polling station because of physical disability or illness should be treated equally with other categories of voters who have postal votes extended to them. The Bill employs a range of new provisions to ensure that these principles will be met in practice.

I would like to, first, outline the full nature of the failure of the current system to include people with disabilities in the electoral process on an equal basis with the rest of the community, second, to explain how the provisions of the Bill would work to meet the Bill's objectives, and, third, to explain why these problems must be addressed by statute rather than regulation, as suggested previously by the Minister.

A central element of our electoral system requires those who wish to vote to present themselves at an allocated polling station near their home. The system of establishing where polling stations shall be sited is carried out by the local authority on a very infrequent basis. Polling schemes, drafted by local authorities in accordance with the Electoral Act, 1992, are submitted once every ten years to the Department of the Environment. In answer to a question I tabled last year, Minister Howlin stated that only two polling schemes were under review. In practice, polling stations remain where they have always been and reviews cover only the impact of population and boundary changes. As a result buildings which fail to meet the needs of all voters continue to be used purely on the basis of tradition.

The Minister informed me in response to another question that neither he nor his Department is in a position to say how many polling stations are accessible to wheelchair users. A survey of polling stations in Britain showed that almost 80 per cent were inaccessible and there is little reason to believe conditions are significantly different here. The Minister said that returning officers have been requested to make special arrangements to overcome small barriers and that guidelines had been issued on the subject. Following the divorce referendum, it was confirmed to me that this piecemeal approach has not had any major effect and that many people with disabilities continue to be unable to gain access to their local polling station.

For these people the law has responded; they can vote somewhere else or stay at home and vote. This is a classic case of perpetuating the idea that separate provision is all right, but it is not. If voting with one's local community is the established norm, then this must include all members of the community. That said, even the right to apply to vote at another station is often-times merely academic because time limits are too restrictive and information on accessibility is difficult to come by.

The special voters system requires that a person who, through physical disability or illness, is unable to attend at a polling station can vote at home. Having applied for entry onto the list, the voters are called some days before polling by a presiding officer and a garda who supervise them voting. This system was introduced by the Tánaiste in 1986 when Minister for the Environment. In introducing this system, the then Minister and his Department ignored the report of a working party into the register of electors which had specifically recommended postal votes for people with physical disabilities and rejected the Department's warning that there is an undue risk of personation by allowing postal votes.

The most offensive part of the special voters system — the requirement that those applying for registration produce a statement of their sanity signed by a doctor — was removed by Fianna Fáil in the 1992 Electoral Act. However, this reform does not go far enough, the system needs to be abolished. I have heard consistent reports from people registered under the system that it is always intrusive and often intimidating. In addition, the distinct nature of the system implies that people with disabilities are somehow less trustworthy than others who are allowed full postal votes. Full postal voting includes members of the security forces and the 50,000 graduates of the universities who vote in Seanad elections.

The antipathy felt by people with disabilities towards the special voters system can be seen by the fact that registrations on the special voters list have been falling by 350 per annum. Last year only 3,293 people chose to register as special voters. The total number be eligible to register is uncertain as the Government has no accurate estimates of the number of people with disabilities and the extent of their disabilities. Evidence suggests that the numbers who choose to register are no more than one third of those eligible. The special voters system also costs the State money in comparison with normal postal voting. Replies to parliamentary questions have shown that the special voters system costs roughly £9 per person to administer compared with only £3 per person for postal voting.

I wish to explain the detailed proposals contained in the Bill to address these problems. Part II deals with the accessibility of polling stations. The key principle contained here is that if an accessible building is available it should be used in preference to an in-accessible one. Further, a duty is placed on local authorities to search for such buildings and consult the public. The specific mechanism used is through reforming the system of drawing up polling schemes and obliging returning officers to place stations in accessible places where the polling scheme permits.

Section 3 requires local authorities to make a polling scheme every five years rather than the current once every ten years. In making their polling schemes they would be obliged to appoint as polling places, where possible, only such places as would allow access to wheelchair users. In all cases where they do not appoint an accessible place, they would be obliged to state their reasons for not doing so. In addition, the public would be invited to make submissions in respect of the scheme. This particular provision would potentially benefit the entire community by giving them a voice in the selection of the most appropriate place in their area to site a polling station. Finally, the Minister for the Environment would be empowered to oblige local authorities to redraft their polling schemes where he considers inadequate provision has been made to allow for access. These provisions would lead to a considerable extension in the number of accessible stations throughout the country. However, there will continue to be areas where there are no accessible public buildings. This Bill does not seek by itself to require the wholesale alteration of buildings, desirable as this may be; instead it simply says, if there is a suitable building available one must use it.

Under section 4 returning officers would be obliged, where possible, to locate polling stations only in places which are accessible to wheelchair users. They would also be required to provide such arrangements in polling stations as would serve to facilitate the marking and placing in the ballot box of ballot papers by voters who are wheelchair users. This provision would give a statutory basis to the current general guidelines issued to presiding officers in relation to providing a low table and placing the ballot box on the floor.

Sections 5, 6 and 7 would reduce the final application date required from those seeking to vote at a polling station other than that to which they have been assigned from seven days to five before polling day. In conjunction with latter proposals relating to the polling information card, this would give people a practical chance to avail of this second best option.

Even with accessible polling stations there will continue to be people who are unable to vote in person due to physical illness or disability. Because of this, some form of alternative voting arrangements will continue to be required.

The proposals contained in Part III would abolish the special voters list and extend postal voting to people who are unable to vote at a polling station as a result of physical disability or illness. This specific reform would bring our electoral facilities into line with many other countries, including France, Germany, Spain and Britain. The current system of registration would be maintained, including the current set registration dates. While there is definitely room for reform in this and other areas, such as provision for the visually impaired, the Bill seeks to avoid more general issues which should be dealt with through a wider Bill.

In order to impress the seriousness with which any abuses of the system are viewed upon all those who come into contact with postal votes, section 8 also includes a provision that the form of receipt specified in the 1992 Electoral Act includes a statement of the offences and penalties which relate to postal voting. In addition, Part IV would deal with a seeming omission in the current legislation and require persons present, while a postal voter is voting, to maintain the secrecy of the ballot.

In addition to the basic proposals concerning the location of polling stations and the extension of postal voting, the Bill deals with certain other, related matters. It is surely reasonable that people with disabilities be given the right to have the same access to counts as everybody else. For this reason section 8 proposes to require returning officers to appoint as counting centres only places which are accessible to wheelchair users.

Section 13 relates to the accessibility of polling stations but this time refers to the availability of information. It would require that the polling card sent to each voter state clearly if the polling station to which they have been assigned is not accessible. In addition, the polling card would have to inform voters assigned to inaccessible stations that they have the right to apply to vote at another station if personally affected by this inaccessibility. The final part of this section would require that the polling card be delivered not less than seven days before polling day instead of the current three. This would give voters affected by the inaccessibility of their station a practical opportunity to apply to vote elsewhere in an accessible building.

Section 14 is a temporary provision which would allow those registered on the special voters list at the time of the Bill's enactment to be entered on the postal voters list until such time as a new postal voters list shall have been compiled in accordance with the existing timetable. This would ensure that there was no delay in sweeping away the present system.

The need for action on this issue is obvious to all. However, the Minister has previously stated that he feels the key issues affecting accessibility can be best dealt with on an administrative level. I disagree. Such previous administrative action, as I have pointed out, has had no systematic impact. It is surely reasonable that the law of the land protect and promote the right of all citizens to equal access to the electoral process. Such rights should not be based merely on ministerial regulation and administrative whim.

I remind the Minister that this matter has been taken as far as the Supreme Court. In its judgment the court clearly stressed that it is the responsibility of the Oireachtas to enact legislation facilitating the citizen's right to vote. This said, there are issues involved in accessibility which can only be dealt with by statute. The proposed alteration to the polling scheme process, the obligation to consult the public, the changes to polling card delivery dates, the obligation to use accessible count centres and, most important, the extension of normal postal voting, all require legislation. Piecemeal regulation and occasional leaflets will not address the fundamental issues at hand.

In relation to postal voting, I hope the Minister will not produce the ancient and discredited claim that there was widespread abuse under the postal voting system operated for local elections until 1986. I would like him to explain how he can separate people with disabilities from public servants and university graduates as being uniquely untrustworthy when it comes to postal voting.

In his amendment the Minister proposes to refer the issues addressed in the Bill to the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs. For a variety of reasons we reject this idea. The issues are clear and the remedies obvious. If the Government believes it can improve the provisions of this Bill, then it should produce amendments on Committee Stage. I have already received suggestions on a number of possible amendments and have no doubt the Bill can be further improved. However, this is no excuse for delaying action. In addition, when the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs has had time to consider these issues, in the midst of its deliberations on the Finance Bill, the massive delays in producing Government legislation would inevitably mean that elections and referenda would continue to be held under the current system.

The Minister should also take into account that this Government has undertaken a wide range of promises on disability issues. The overwhelming majority of these promises have not been met and a large number of legislative, financial and administrative proposals have been delayed or side-tracked. Particularly in the light of the imminent report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities, the time has come for the Government to turn rhetoric into action. This Bill gives a perfect opportunity to do something about promoting equality for people with disabilities; if the Government fails to support the Bill's proposals it will seriously call into question its commitment to action in other more difficult areas.

In publishing this Bill, Fianna Fáil is saying that the widespread marginalisation of disabled voters within the electoral system must be challenged and we are providing some practical means for beginning to meet this challenge. It is not a complex Bill but it addresses a fundamental issue and commands widespread support among those affected by the current discriminatory system. It is a reasonable response to an important issue and I call on the Government to support it.

I am very disappointed at the rather mean tactics adopted by the Government in dealing with this worthwhile and necessary Bill. The Government has obviously realised that voting against it will lead to condemnation of it and, in an attempt to avoid this, it has resorted to the cowardly tactic of tabling an amendment which appears to mean one thing but which is really intended to do something entirely different, that is to consign the Bill to the waste paper basket. The Government amendment seeks to postpone the Bill in its entirety until its provisions have been examined and reported on by a select committee. The failure to set a timescale for this examination clearly indicates where people with disabilities are on the Government's list of priorities.

Most schoolchildren are aware that on Committee Stage legislation is scrutinised and, if necessary, amended. The Government's amendment implies that it agrees with the broad thrust of this simple Bill. We are not talking about complex legislation which will require the attention of an army of the best legal brains available to the Minister. Why can the Minister not support the Bill and table whatever amendments he thinks are required on Committee Stage? The Bill does not need to be put on the long finger, which is clearly the intention. People with disabilities of one kind or another deserve better. Deputy Mary Wallace is to be highly commended for the time and work she has put into the preparation of the Bill.

Every so often the issue of disablement is raised in the House, usually during Private Members' time. However, the admirable speeches made during these debates seldom result in any positive action being taken. I am open to correction but I believe the last occasion any positive action was taken was in 1991 when Deputy O'Hanlon, on behalf of Fianna Fáil, introduced special building regulations designed to give people with disabilities proper access to buildings. These regulations enshrined in law for the first time the right of people with disabilities to have access to a range of buildings. They referred to the design and construction of new buildings only but had the effect of shaming a number of institutions such as banks into adapting their existing buildings, where necessary.

Shortly after my election to the House I suggested during a debate on a Private Members' Bill that a Minister of State could usefully be employed to co-ordinate the services to people with disabilities as well as those with severe or mild degrees of mental handicap. This need still exists as the services are provided by a variety of Government Departments such as the Departments of Health, the Environment, Social Welfare and Education. I said I had come across instances where Departments were dealing simultaneously with the same matter. I was, therefore, delighted when the spokesmen for Fine Gael and Labour repeated my suggestion during a debate in the House on 10 and 11 December 1991. The then spokesperson for Labour, Deputy Michael Ferris, said:

The appointment of a Minister of State with responsibility for the services for the mentally handicapped would ensure the proper co-ordination of services for people with disabilities, the development of new services and the full right of equal citizenship for those with a disability.

During the same debate the then spokesman for Fine Gael and present Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Richard Bruton, said:

We are talking also about the need for a coherent framework. As Deputy McDaid rightly pointed out, we have services scattered throughout six or seven Departments, supposedly providing services for people with a disability. There is no framework within which we can know that the needs of those persons are being met as they go through life. That is why Fine Gael and the Labour Party believe it is so important to have a Minister with overriding responsibility stretching across those different Departments to provide that coherent response.

As Deputy Mary Wallace's Bill mainly addresses the problems peculiar to polling stations I wish to quote the following passage from Deputy Bruton's speech:

Public facilities are generally inaccessible; you only have to look at this House to realise that if a TD was confined to a wheelchair he or she could not get in or out of this Chamber. We do not think in those terms which is an indictment of legislators. The same is true of most polling stations which are not accessible to people with a disability.

In 1991 there was agreement among the spokesmen for the three main parties on this issue. What is preventing Fine Gael and the Labour Party supporting this straightforward Bill in the interest of some of our more unfortunate citizens?

I thank Deputy Wallace for sharing her time with me and compliment her on bringing forward this timely and necessary Bill. This is a short Bill but it should be remembered that sometimes the best goods come in small parcels, and this is one such occasion. This forward thinking measure will afford people with a physical handicap an opportunity to participate to the fullest extent possible in society and, in particular, the political process by giving them the right of access to polling booths and an opportunity to vote in appropriate surroundings.

Many polling booths are not accessible to wheelchairs and other modes of transport used by people who are physically handicapped. Yet under our planning laws it is necessary for public offices, hospitals, clinics, hotels, recreational centres, swimming pools etc. to be accessible to the physically handicapped and people in wheelchairs. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to expect the Government to make available through the Department of the Environment and, perhaps, the Department of Education the facilities for voting proposed in the Bill. If the necessary facilities are not available in one location it may be possible to provide them in an adjoining building. If this is not possible then better arrangements should be made for postal voting.

To date planning for the provision of facilities for the handicapped has been done on a piecemeal basis. This was recently highlighted by Deputy Wallace in her policy document on disability which demands that there should be better co-ordination in the provision of facilities for the handicapped. She also stated that we should not "medicalise" physical handicap which may be a congenital or acquired condition or a sequel of a severe illness. We are not talking about a small number of people. The Bill refers to people who are 18 years and older. Many of these people may have suffered birth trauma, had meningitis or suffer from MS, muscular dystrophy or cerebral palsy or had a stroke. In other cases people may have been in a serious accident and suffered spinal injuries. The Bill would be of benefit to all those people. Lately, there has been much concern about meningococcal meningitis, a horrific condition which may result in death or the loss of a limb. People with a physical handicap should be afforded every opportunity to live life to the full, and this includes participation in the political process.

It has been argued that an inordinate amount of money would be required to make the necessary modifications but I suggest the opposite is the case. That is not a good excuse for rejecting this Bill. The Budget Statement, which we were told was wonderful, did not contain one single sentence about the physically handicapped.

They were provided for in the Estimates.

To make matters worse, when we critically analyse the figure of £10 million for services for the mentally handicapped, we soon find that less than £3 million will be made available this year. As a former Minister for Health, the Minister is fully aware of the position.

He did a good job.

When one considers the appropriateness of this Bill, one need only think back to the arrival in Leinster House of former Senator Brian Crowley, now an MEP, to fully appreciate the extraordinary changes which have been made within a short space of time. Something similar is required to bring about action on the proposals contained in this Bill.

The document produced by Fianna Fáil, Meeting the Challenge of Equality, is incisive, exciting and enlightening. In that context, I especially welcome this Bill and praise Deputy Mary Wallace on its production because it would go a long way towards eliminating an obstacle which people with a disability believe has caused them to be marginalised. It is important to bear that in mind.

A positive feature has been the participation of people with a disability in framing the basic tenets of this Bill. It was of importance to them that the process was all-inclusive and that they were consulted about what should be included. They are thankful to Fianna Fáil for affording them the respect they deserve through the good offices of Deputy Wallace.

Every person has a disability. The only difference is that in the case of people with a physical disability it is more obvious. They have the same level of intelligence and motivation and the same aspirations, interests and needs as everyone else. Do they not have the right under the Constitution to vote? Unfortunately, because of insensitivity on our part, they are, if not denied, then hindered in exercising it. Is it any wonder that many of them feel they have been disenfranchised?

They would like to see changes to the Electoral Act under which they are required annually to provide a medical certificate as proof of their disability. They can ill afford the cost involved — doctors charge £20 for a home visit. As this is a nonsensical provision it should be changed at the earliest possible date.

It is discriminatory to ask people with a disability to cast their vote at home. Why should they have to do that? The vast majority have been integrated into their local community which they enliven and embellish. They should be able to gain access to the designated polling station.

Tradition is a major factor in the selection of polling stations by the local authority or returning officer. In the vast majority of cases cognisance is not taken of the accessibility of the station concerned. In the United Kingdom 80 per cent of stations were found to be unsuitable and one can be certain that the percentage is far higher in this country.

Can you imagine the embarrassment of a disabled person when, on their arrival at a polling station, they discover there is no ramp and they have to call for assistance negotiating the steps only to discover they have to turn back because their wheelchair will not go through the door? This causes a furore, fuss, inconvenience and annoyance and amounts to an insult. It cannot be allowed to continue. I hope, that, as a perceptive and humane person, the Minister will accept the basic tenets of this Bill.

Is it any wonder that the number of people with a disability who cast their vote has fallen appreciably in recent elections? If they are successful in gaining access to the polling station, they are then confronted with another barrier — the shelf in the polling booth is too high. Is it too much to ask that at least one be modified and set aside for their use?

Although legislation is in place to deal with new buildings it is not being enforced. I cite as an example the refurbished courthouse in Cork, which was opened with great majesty and style by the Minister for Justice. Although the building has been refurbished people with a disability have to meet in the corridor and be lifted in and out in order to gain access to the courtroom which is situated upstairs. Whose function is it to ensure the legislation is adhered to? There is an onus on the Minister to ensure it is enforced.

The Minister has decided to refer this Bill to the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs which is chaired by Deputy Jim Mitchell. It is a case of "Jim will fix it", irrespective of what Bill is introduced it is referred to him.

It is a good committee.

The Finance Bill will be referred to his committee and it will receive submissions which will take from September until budget time to deal with. Where will this Bill fit into the process? The Minister is wrong on this occasion. He should accept that the Bill is meaningful, well intentioned and, more particularly, geared to the needs of the physically incapacitated.

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

Dáil Éireann declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill until the proposals it contains have been examined, and reported on, by the Dáil Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs.

The explanatory memorandum states that the purpose of the Bill is to aid the greater participation of people with disabilities in the electoral process. I am in full agreement with this objective and, the wider objective of enhancing the position of people with disabilities in our society generally.

This Government, and the previous Government of which I was a member, recognised the importance of allowing people with a disability to express their full citizenship. That Government appointed a Minister with responsibility for the disabled and the disadvantaged. It also established a new Department of Equality and Law Reform. As a consequence, the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities was established and I understand it is expected to submit its report next April. The policy document, A Government of Renewal, states that when the commission has reported, the Government will put in place mechanisms for the full and equal participation of every citizen with a disability in every aspect of our economic and social life. We remain fully committed to this objective.

I accept that Deputy Wallace, in putting forward the proposals in her Bill, is acting from a conviction that more needs to be done in the electoral area for this section of our community. I recognise, appreciate and applaud her initiative but the reality is that the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities has been working on its wider remit and I am reluctant to go down the road of specific legislative proposals of the type embraced by this Bill without the benefit of the commission's views on the wider aspects, especially as we can have these views in a few months. That is one of the reasons I suggest that we defer final decisions on these legislative proposals. There are other factors too, arising from developments in relation to electoral law, which suggest that the course I propose is prudent.

I am fully committed to improvements in electoral procedures which would facilitate citizens in exercising one of their most important democratic rights. In this context I want to build on the very important programme of reform of electoral law which has taken place in the past few years. The programme began with the enactment of the Electoral Act, 1992, which consolidated and improved the law in relation to the conduct of Dáil elections and the registration of electors. The Presidential Elections Act, 1993, and the Referendum Act, 1994, continued this process. Local elections law was updated in the Local Government Act, 1994, and the detailed rules for the conduct of local elections were consolidated in the Local Elections Regulations, 1995, which were also approved by this House. Overall, the objective of the programme is to consolidate and update all the various branches of the electoral law and make each electoral code more meaningful and clear to the public. I am happy to record that substantial progress has been made in that regard and further progress will be made this year when I introduce a Bill to consolidate the law on elections to the European Parliament.

In parallel with the work on specific legislative proposals, I referred an extensive list of suggestions for improvements in electoral law and procedures to the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs last April. These include suggestions made in the course of the debates in both Houses on the Electoral Act, 1992. I have been advised that the committee, despite its busy work schedule, will have detailed discussions on the suggestions referred to it, which cover a broad range of electoral matters. The committee is to meet on 13 and 14 March to consider these matters.

Before dealing with the relevance of the committee's work to the proposals in the Bill, it might be of assistance to the House to outline the existing provisions in electoral law designed to assist electors who have difficulties due to physical illness or disability. There are statutory arrangements in place to facilitate voters unable to get to their polling stations because of physical illness or disability. There is also provision for voters, who, although mobile, have difficulty in gaining access to their polling stations and others who, due to physical impairment, have problems in casting their vote at polling stations.

Under the special arrangements provided for in the Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1986, and subsequently restated in the Electoral Act, 1992, voters unable to go to the polling station to vote in person because of physical disability or illness may apply for entry on the special voters list. At an election or referendum, the ballot paper is delivered to the special voter at his or her residence by a special presiding officer accompanied by a garda.

Application for entry on the special voters list is made at the time of the preparation of the register of electors. The necessary conditions are that the elector must be unable to go to vote at the polling station by reason of physical illness or disability and that the illness or disability is likely to continue for the period during which the register will remain in force. The facility is available in all cases where the illness or disability is likely to continue for the lifetime of the register, that is, for a period of about 12 months.

In the case of a disabled voter who is mobile and capable of going to the polling station but finds access to the polling station difficult or impossible because of the situation or design of the building, there is an arrangement under which the voter may be authorised to vote at another more convenient polling station. A voter wishing to avail of this facility must apply to the returning officer not less than seven days before polling day for authorisation to vote at an alternative station. The applicant must satisfy the returning officer that he or she is unable to gain access to the polling station allotted to him or her because of physical illness or disability.

There are also statutory arrangements in place to assist electors in voting. Where a voter satisfies the presiding officer that his or her eyesight is so impaired or that he or she is otherwise so physically incapacitated that the voter is unable to vote without assistance, that voter may have the ballot paper marked on his or her instructions by a companion or the presiding officer. Where the voter wishes to have the ballot paper marked by a companion, the companion goes with the voter to the voting compartment and there marks the ballot paper in accordance with the voter's instructions. The companion then places the marked ballot paper in the ballot box. Where the voter opts to have the ballot paper marked by the presiding officer, the presiding officer marks the ballot paper in the presence of the voter and personation agents present in the polling station, before placing it in the ballot box.

Other measures have been taken on an administrative basis to facilitate disabled voters. At each election and referendum returning officers are advised by my Department that they should, as far as possible, select buildings for use as polling stations which are accessible to people with disabilities. In particular, they are advised that polling buildings should have level access and doors of adequate width to facilitate wheelchair users. It is made clear to returning officers that polling stations should, in all cases, be located on the ground floor to provide easy access by disabled voters. It is also suggested to returning officers that in the event that a polling station cannot be reached without negotiating steps, they should consider providing a suitable ramp where this can be done safely.

Presiding officers are asked to advise elderly voters or voters with physical disabilities that they may sit at a table provided for this purpose rather than using a voting compartment while marking their ballot paper, if this is more convenient for them. Presiding officers are, of course, instructed that they should ensure that, where this arrangement is availed of by a voter, secrecy of the ballot in relation to that voter is not compromised.

The arrangements, both statutory and administrative, already in operation go a long way towards assisting physically disabled voters and voters who are elderly in exercising their right to vote. The Bill which is the subject of today's debate, in addition to providing for the replacement of special voting arrangements with postal voting, proposes to put on a statutory basis administrative arrangements already in place in relation to the selection of suitable buildings for use as polling stations, the facilitating of wheelchair users in marking ballot papers as well as other modifications to electoral law to facilitate disabled voters.

I share with all Members the view that proposals to improve facilities for disabled voters should be welcomed and implemented where they are judged to be practicable and in the interests of the voters concerned and our electoral system as a whole. However, I consider that the formulation of proposals on matters such as those provided for in the Bill would best be approached on a more considered basis with a view to bringing forward an integrated set of proposals dealing with this aspect of electoral law.

The extensive list of suggestions for improvements in electoral law and procedures to be considered by the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs covers a wide range of electoral matters, such as the registration of electors, voting arrangements, statutory provisions relating to candidates and their agents and the inclusion of additional information on polling cards. The list also includes — I know the Deputy will be interested in hearing this — specific suggestions closely connected with the matters dealt with in this Bill. For instance, there are suggestions, now being considered by the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs, for facilitating electors with reading and writing difficulties and about the possibility of extending special voting facilities to those who incur a disability following the publication of the register of electors and to disabled persons entered in the supplement rather than the register proper. I also invited the committee to examine the suggestion that braille on ballot papers, or braille templates, should be provided for electors with impaired eyesight.

Matters such as those I have mentioned are directly related to the proposals contained in this Bill and I feel strongly that it would be best if all these proposals — not just dealing with elements of disability but the visually impaired and all the others that Members may wish to bring forward — could be dealt with in a composite and comprehensive way.

Improvements to the electoral laws should, as far as practicable, have crossparty support. For this reason, and because of the far reaching implications of some of the proposals in the Bill, I consider it would be of great benefit and assistance if the issues of principle involved were considered by the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs before we decide to give this Bill a Second Reading. The fact that it would be open to the select committee, in preparing its report, to seek submissions from interest groups, including those directly affected, and to have regard to any suggestions which any such group may make would be another advantage of proceeding in this way.

It is important that we bear in mind, in considering any changes in the electoral law, that any new systems must be capable of being implemented within the short timeframe which exists at election time that is, between the declaration of an election and the ballot. Arrangements for receipt of nominations, printing of ballot papers, appointment of staff, organisation of polling stations and so on, must all be completed within strictly limited periods. We will need to look at the proposals in the Bill in that light. Let us take one example: the proposal to reduce from seven to five days the period for seeking a transfer to a more convenient polling station may have practical problems having regard to the length of time required for posting correspondence between parties, publication of the supplement to the register, the issue of polling cards, etc. Other sections of the Bill seem to recognise the practical problems by including the phrases "where possible" or "shall endeavour".

The issue which will, of course, require the most careful consideration is the proposal in the Bill to replace the existing special voting arrangements with unsupervised postal voting. In considering this, we have the benefit of experience of the operation of various forms of postal voting to guide us. I know the Deputy did not want me to refer to our experience in this regard, but all parties were concerned about what happened after the 1970 local elections.

As the House knows, a fairly openended system of postal voting was introduced for the 1974 local elections and available to electors who could not vote in person due to the circumstances of their occupation or employment or because of physical illness or disability. The system was tightened up considerably for local elections which took place in 1985 and additional safeguards were introduced. However, the experience at these two elections was that unsupervised postal voting was open to abuse — that was a view shared by all political parties — that it had been abused and that there was every likelihood that it might be abused again. I would like to stress that there was no question on either of these occasions that disabled voters themselves were the perpetrators of the abuse; on the contrary, there were instances in which such electors were the victims of abuse and had their ballot papers marked by third parties without their knowledge or consent.

In the light of experience with postal voting on these occasions, the Oireachtas decided in 1986 to introduce the special arrangements enabling persons with disabilities to vote at home at all elections and referenda so that no third party would make the ultimate democratic decision on their behalf. I am not aware of any widespread demand for the replacement of this system and a return to a form of postal voting.

Under any system of postal voting, the elector and his or her ballot paper must be given the same protection and guarantee of secrecy afforded to an elector voting in person at the polling station. This is a constitutional right which must be safeguarded. In the case of members of the Defence Forces and the Garda Síochána to whom a postal voting facility is available, the electors are members of the security forces and adequate safeguards are built into the voting system. Diplomats and their spouses posted abroad, who can also vote by post, must mark their ballot paper in the presence of a person authorised by the Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, normally the head of the mission, and have a declaration of identity witnessed by the authorised person. Stringent requirements are in place for postal voting in the limited areas where it is allowed.

Under the provisions contained in the Electoral Bill, 1994, for the extension of postal voting to those unable to vote in person due to the circumstances of their occupation, service or employment, electors will be required to go to a Garda station, to mark their ballot paper in the presence of a member of the Garda Síochána and to have a declaration of identity witnessed by the garda.

The disabled electors who avail of special voting arrangements are mainly persons who are housebound but we must build into any new system a guarantee of the secrecy and integrity of their vote. How can this be achieved without a supervised postal voting system? If we accept that there must be supervision, how is this to be provided for? These are important matters which, I am convinced, can best be teased out in committee and we should all reserve our position on them until that debate has taken place.

I have long had a concern for matters affecting people with disabilities and trust that my reluctance on this occasion to endorse the particular proposals in this Bill will not be misunderstood. As Minister for Health, I was particularly concerned to improve services for people with physical disabilities and in 1993, and again in 1994, I was able to secure additional funding of £1.5 million for the development of these services. A much greater sum was provided for significant improvements in services for people with a mental handicap. This was the first time that development funding on this scale was provided for health services for people with physical disabilities. It was used to provide additional residential and respite facilities, community based therapy services, home support services, improved equipment and transport facilities as well as increased funding of voluntary organisations.

My Department also has a concern for many matters which impact positively on the daily lives of people with disabilities. In 1994 and 1995, for example, over £750,000 has been paid in grants for implementing facilities for mobility impaired people in the Dublin area; works covered include the dishing of footpaths, provision of barriers, skid resistance work at pedestrian crossings, tactile paving and new traffic signals.

Through the building regulations we are seeking to ensure that, as far as is reasonable and practicable, buildings should be usable by people with disabilities. There are specific requirements relating to access and use of buildings and the provision of sanitary conveniences in buildings, where appropriate. Some of these requirements, which apply to new buildings, extensions of existing buildings and works in connection with material alterations and material changes of use should, incidentally, lead to better access to polling places where they are located in new or renovated buildings.

In the roads area, local authorities have been urged to pay particular attention to the needs of disabled people, including those of the blind, when planning and executing road works, pedestrian facilities and providing on-street parking facilities. In the case of driving tests, an informal arrangement is in place whereby an applicant with a physcial or medical disability is tested by a supervisory tester; this allows a more flexible and relaxed approach and, if necessary, more time, since the supervisor is not constrained by a tight schedule.

In housing, there are a variety of special measures for disabled people. We provide, directly or through the housing authorities, the disabled person's new house grants scheme under which the conditions restricting the floor area of the house and disqualifying those who previously purchased dwellings do not apply. There is the disabled person's adaptation grants scheme and a scheme, introduced under the plan for social housing, which can be used to extend or adapt private housing for a disabled occupier who, in their own right or as a member of the household, has been approved for local authority housing.

I mention these schemes to illustrate that there are many positive developments to improve the position of disabled people and enable them to live full lives, and also to show that this Government, like its predecessor, is aware of the problems of people with disabilities. We accept that further action is needed and will consider this in a comprehensive way when the report of the Commission for the Status of People with Disabilities is available. This report is probably the most important and comprehensive one ever commissioned by Government to address this issue of disability. It brings together the disabled to argue and present their case. There is a commitment from Government that the report will be acted on.

I understand and have already applauded the positive approach adopted by Deputy Wallace in preparing this Bill. I will be happy to work with her and other Members in devising and legislating for the best possible package of measures in the electoral area to facilitate and assist people with disabilities. The Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs or, if it is too busy, a subcommittee, as was established to deal with the issues in the Waste Bill, 1995, should deal comprehensively with the issues which impact on those with disabilities and the vindication of their right to be full citizens of this State.

I ask the House and, in particular Deputy Wallace and the Fianna Fáil Party, to approve the amendment to the motion which does not seek to kill off this Bill or is not a neat way around addressing the issues which the Deputy rightly brought before the House but which will allow a comprehensive examination not only of the specific provisions in the Bill but many other related matters that directly impact on accessibility to voting places for people with a variety of physical disabilities. I ask for a common and cross party approach. I assure Deputy Wallace that I will react with equal generosity if she accepts the Government amendment in my name and does not divide the House on this important issue.

Ba mhaith liom mo chuid ama a roinnt leis an Teachta O'Dea.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I listened with interest to the Minister and I am a little disappointed by the tenor of his speech. Obviously he has a long consultative process in mind. He may have some proposals which are not included in this Bill but if that is so, then I have two suggestions. He should accept this Bill and table amendments on Committee Stage to include any proposals he believes are urgent. If in the future other reforms are required, there is nothing to stop him introducing another Bill, presuming this Government is in power. Our experience of these processes is that they are very drawn out.

The Minister has difficulty with postal voting, which surprises me. Once again the poor Constitution, which is blamed for every difficulty, is at fault. It is the same Constitution which gave me the right as a graduate of a university to vote in Seanad elections. All graduates use postal voting and it is accepted that the secrecy of the ballot is maintained in that system. It is an insult to the Seanad and those elected by a system which is predominately postal voting to say the system of voting is inferior and open to widespread personation. The percentage of the electorate eligible to vote under the postal system would be small, unlike the Seanad where every graduate uses that system.

We have problems with polling booths, some of which could be avoided with forethought, although there is no easy answer to others. It can be difficult to get buildings with suitable access facilities, particularly in rural areas. My constituency is revising the polling scheme and we have a difficult choice to make. One building has about 15 narrow steps and people with disabilities have had to be carried into it. It is totally unsuitable not only for those in wheelchairs but for those who are old or infirm. Our dilemma is that the next nearest public building is five or six miles away and some people would have to travel 12 to 15 miles to vote because of the peculiar geography of the hills in the area in which I live. There is a problem of accessibility in terms of being reasonably near a polling station and the buildings themselves. It is a coincidence that the public building I have in mind is a health centre. It is important that all public buildings be made accessible, and that will not happen overnight. There will be difficulties, particularly in rural areas where there are school buildings, etc., which do not have good access. For this reason the facility for people with a physical disability to vote is important.

The proposal to facilitate people with a physical disability is very important and reasonable. We are talking about a small number of people — on the latest figures about 3,000 people nationally. Even allowing for a doubling or trebling of that figure on implementing the Bill we are talking about only 9,000 people. It is a small number, but we are talking about a fundamental right for which the people of this country fought hard.

I cannot see why they cannot be given a postal vote as proposed. I would go further and say that two major difficulties arise regarding voting arrangements for disabled persons. They have to get on the list in November and are then on the list for the year, but they may forget to make sure they are on the list or have become disabled or infirm over a relatively short time as a result of a stroke or other physical illness. I cannot understand why the date for applying to go on the special list cannot be the same as that on which the special supplementary list is completed.

In the western world we think we know all the answers. However, as an observer at elections in the Ukraine a few years ago I was very impressed by certain things they did. They had an interesting and quite simple alternative which would certainly be worth examining. On the day of the election they had two ballot boxes at the polling station, a big one and a small one, and four people presiding. All a disabled person who could not make it to the polling station had to do was ring the polling station and the ballot box was brought to him. This would be a good way of dealing with this problem in cities. I know that it might not be acceptable in our situation to allow this on an ad hoc basis, but it shows that with a little ingenuity many problems could be solved. Also, people who would be away on the day of voting could vote a day early and polling station were specially manned 24 hours ahead to facilitate them. We are not the only ones who think about these problems of accessibility. It would be worth our while to look at what other jurisdictions do and not confine that, as we have a habit of doing, to our nearest neighbours.

I hope that between now and tomorrow the Government will think once again about allowing the Second Stage of this Bill to be agreed. It is a vast improvement on the present situation. I have no doubt the Government accepts in principle that this is a reasonable proposal, and it could be amended if a committee comes up with further ideas.

Cinnte, tá ceist vótála tábhachtach don phobal. Tá go leor athruithe tagtha ar nósanna na ndaoine maidir le cúrsaí vótála. Tá sé fíor-thábhachtach go dtuigfeadh gach duine go bhfuil ceart vótála acu. Molaimse an Teachta Wallace as ucht an Bille seo a thabhairt os comhair na Dála. Tá cúram faoi leith á dhéanamh aici de dhaoine a bhfuil máchail orthu agus molaim í as an obair atá á déanamh aici. Chuir sé iontas orm nuair a chuala mé an tAire ag rá go raibh fadhbanna ag baint le vótaí poist a chur ar fáil do dhaoine a bhfuil máchail orthu. Creidim nach raibh leithscéal fíor aige agus dáiríre creidim gurb é atá ar bun ag an Rialtas ná nach maith leo a admháil gur féidir le tada fónta teacht ón bhFreasúra. Is bocht an scéal é sin agus is bocht an scéal é go bhfuil gach seans ann anois muna nglacfar leis an mBille seo go rithfear an chéad Olltoghchán eile faoin sean réimeas atá i bhfeidhm faoi láthair. Chiallódh sé seo go mbeidh daoine nach mbeidh deis cheart vótála acu ag an toghchán sin. B'fhéidir gurb é an fhadhb atá ann ná go gcreideann páirtithe an Rialtais nach mórán vótaí a fhaigheann siad ó sheandaoine nó ó dhaoine a bhfuil máchail orthu.

Tá súil agam go ndéanfaidh an Rialtas athmhacnamh air seo idir seo agus amárach agus go bhfeicfidís amárach gurb é an rud ceart daonna a dhéanamh ná glacadh leis an Dara Chéim den Bhille seo, leasuithe, má tá a leithéid acu, a chur ar aghaidh ar Chéim an Choiste agus an Bille a bheith achtaithe cinnte roimh an chéad toghchán eile. Níl a fhios againn ar aon taobh den Teach an gearr nó fada uainn an lá sin. Ach rud amháin dearfa, beidh toghchán ann roimh dheireadh 1997.

Mar sin molaim an Bille seo agus molaim an Teachta a chuir faoi bhráid an Tí é.

I commend my colleague, Deputy Mary Wallace, for bringing forward this timely and necessary legislation. Neither the Minister for the Environment nor his Minister of State needs any advice from me. However, if I was the Minister's political and spiritual adviser I would advise him most strongly to change his mind and accept this Bill.

Deputy Wallace and I will not fall out if I say that the Bill is not earth shattering or revolutionary and will not shake the State to its foundations. It is minimalist legislation designed to deal with one irritant in the electoral system. It concerns one of the disadvantaged groups in society, namely, the disabled. Its purpose is to give the disabled the same opportunity to vote as everybody else in so far as it is possible to do that. It tries to put the disabled person in the same position as an able-bodied person from the point of view of ability to exercise the franchise.

People are invariably disabled through no fault of their own, and it is a sad reflection on society that in 1996 we are allowing an avoidable obstacle to stand in the way of a disadvantaged group exercising the franchise in the fullest and freest way possible. The barrier that unfortunately, stands in their way can be removed quite simply by the Government indicating its intention to accept this Bill. The avoidable obstacle that stands in the way of the disabled and increases their disadvantage vis-ávis society as a whole can be removed virtually at a stroke.

This Bill presents the Government with the opportunity to do just that. It deals with two categories of disabled persons. First, for those whose disability is such that they can go to the polling station to exercise their franchise it provides that, where possible, polling stations accessible to them should be provided by the local authority. The Minister is given a role in this regard and that seems eminently logical. Where a local authority does not provide a reasonably accessible polling station in circumstances where it could easily do so, the Minister can compel it to do so. That is logical and reasonable.

The second category of persons with disability which the Bill deals with is those people whose disability is such that they are unable to travel outside their homes to vote. As we are all aware, arrangements are in place for that category of disabled person, namely, the special voter system. The Bill proposes to change that and institute the postal voting system in its place. That proposition seems to be unarguable.

The postal voting system, as the Minister will be aware, already exists for members of the Defence Forces, Garda, prison officers, etc. It is available also to university graduates during Seanad elections. It is discriminatory and indefensible that a facility which is extended to members of the security forces and university graduates voting in Seanad elections is not available to people who are so disabled they cannot leave their homes to vote. Instead, those people have foisted on them this special voter system which is unnecessarily intrusive and oppressive. I talk from personal experience because a number of my close friends are disabled. I keep in touch with disability groups within my constituency and people have made representations to me on this matter. I did not have time before tonight's debate to ask people for permission to use their names in the House but I am sure if I had been able to contact them they would have allowed me use their names. I can communicate the names to the Minister if he so wishes. They told me that because of the nature of the special voter system they would not exercise their franchise. They felt disenfranchised by the special voter system supposedly designed for their benefit. I do not have the figures, but I am sure that system is much more costly than the postal voting system. It is also a gross waste of Garda time. We are all aware of the remorseless rise in the crime rate and Garda time could be better used than in supervising the implementation of the special voter system.

It is eminently logical — and I have not heard any argument to the contrary — to extend the postal voting system to people whose disabilities are so severe they are unable or would not wish to leave their own homes to vote. A working party constituted in 1983 recommended the extension of the postal voting system but, 13 years down the road, nothing has been done about it. The barriers placed in the way of disabled people are removable and this Bill proposes to remove them. I hope the Minister of State will communicate the message to the Minister, that to allow any avoidable obstacle which prevents people with a disability from voting casts a blight on our democracy and challenges our claim to describe ourselves as a Christian society. The case for the Bill is so obvious that very compelling reasons would have to be advanced by the Minister for his refusal to accept it.

In his contribution the Minister did not outline any such compelling reasons. It was larded with terminology such as "consideration", "suggestion", "discussion", "discourse", "study" and "examination". The Minister said he wants to have the views of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities before he does anything. Virtually in the next breath he said he needs the views of the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs which he said will invite submissions from individuals and perhaps other committees and groups who will study, consider, parse and analyse the recommendations. Does the Minister seriously think the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities, the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs or any of the groups or individuals who will make recommendations to either or both of those committees will have a different view to that of Deputy Wallace when she proposed this Bill tonight? Does he think any of those committees, groups or individuals will say we should not provide reasonable access to polling stations for the disabled, that we should not facilitate the disabled in every way possible or that we should not remove the artificial barriers which prevent disabled people from exercising their franchise?

I have to conclude that the pious platitudes we heard from the Minister were simply tawdry excuses for inaction. It is especially ironic that the Minister was sent in here tonight to put up these obstacles to the Bill because when he sat on this side of the House as his party's spokesperson on health he practically had the people of the country in floods of tears with the passion with which he expressed sympathy and concern for all disadvantaged groups in our society. I must conclude from watching the Minister's performance not only tonight but since he came into Government that all those tears were crocodile tears and all the guff we heard from that side of the House——

Has the Deputy forgotten what he did as Minister for Health? Is the Deputy suffering from amnesia?

——were merely hollow, empty rhetoric. Deputy Penrose may not like to hear that, but he will hear it from me any time he wishes to come into this House.

Just before Christmas the Government accepted Fianna Fáil's Sexual Offences (Jurisdiction) Bill, 1995. That is welcome because it dealt with a very important matter, but it certainly does not compare in importance to the right to a full, fair and free franchise for the disabled. One must question why the Government, which put up these road blocks tonight, accepted that legislation with some alacrity. It would have been politically incorrect to turn it down — it would not go down well with The Irish Times and its editorial writers. The Sexual Offences (Jurisdiction) Bill dealt with a sexy subject but, unfortunately, the disabled do not seem to have the same priority with this Government. When we were in Government we accepted legislation from Deputy Shatter to deal with commercial mortgages because we believed it was good legislation. Commercial mortgages are important but they do not equate in importance to the right to vote and the right to a full and free franchise for the disabled.

I ask the Minister to change his stance and remind him that it will not be a blot on his record if he accepts this Bill. We realise that the Government is busy and cannot deal with everything. If an Opposition party identifies a niche problem, carries out the necessary research, brings forward the necessary legislation properly drafted to allow the Government solve a problem it may not get to in the ordinary course of events, the Government should accept that legislation. It can be debated in committee and we would be open to Government amendments to improve it — the Government can insist on them because it has a majority in the relevant committee.

If the Minister accepts this Bill, the disabled people who will have proper access to polling stations will not remember who introduced it. The Sexual Offences (Jurisdiction) Bill was the subject of a two part article in The Irish Times recently. The leader article actually mentioned the names of the Bill's proposers, Deputies John O'Donoghue and Eoin Ryan, so I assure the Minister that accepting a Fianna Fáil Private Members' Bill will not be a blot on his record. It will be a blot on his record, however, if he marches his troops in here tomorrow afternoon to vote against the disabled.

I want the Minister, and his colleagues, to act responsibly and change their minds on this matter. It was enough for the Minister for Justice to marshal her troops, including Deputies from both left wing parties, to vote against minimalist rights for the victims of crime without repeating the performance.

What did the Deputy's party do for them in the past nine years?

The Deputy has the chance to do something now.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share