We must conclude Second Stage within three hours and 30 minutes.
Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 2002: Second Stage.
I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
The Bill has its genesis in the findings of the High Court in a case entitled Thomas Redmond v. Minister for the Environment, Ireland and the Attorney General. In that case, the High Court held that the provisions of sections 47 and 48 of the Electoral Act, 1992 and section 13 and rules 8 and 9 of the Second Schedule of the European Parliament Elections Act, 1997 – which required candidates to pay a deposit to be placed on the ballot paper for elections to the Dáil and European Parliament – were repugnant to the provisions of Article 40.1 of the Constitution.
The net impact of that judgment is that the requirements for deposits at Dáil and European elections are no longer valid and there is, in effect, no test of the bona fides of a prospective candidate in existence in terms of their entry onto the ballot paper. The Bill before the House seeks to address this issue, post-Redmond, by providing for alternative arrangements.
Before outlining the details of the Bill, it might be useful for Members if I briefly sketched the historical background to deposits. The deposit requirement followed the practice in the UK where a deposit of £150 was first introduced as part of the Representation of the People Act, 1918. It was intended as a means of restoring the cost of candidature which had been eroded since the middle of the 19th century and to reduce the number of "freak or propaganda" candidates, as they were referred to, which had emerged during the war years and whose interventions were thought to threaten the smooth running of parliamentary elections. The deposit in the UK was increased to £500 in 1985.
The deposit provision has been part of our electoral law since 1923 when the Electoral Act, 1923 provided for an amount of £100 for Dáil elections and that figure was increased to £300 under the Electoral Act, 1992. It is interesting to re-read the debates when that Act was making its way through the Houses. The original proposal was for an increase in the deposit from £100 to £500 and there was, at that time, a variety of views expressed. These ranged from maintaining the requirement at £100 to requiring a deposit of £100 plus 30 signatures to having no deposit at all and 1,000 signatures. Eventually, the deposit was set at £300 and it has remained at that level up to the High Court judgment last year. The deposit for European elections was set at £1,000.
The arguments in favour and against deposits are well rehearsed at this stage and were examined in detail in the Redmond case. In essence they are that, on the one hand, deposits are a necessary restraint to protect the integrity of the electoral system from non-serious candidates to, on the other, the need to have an open democracy with no financial penalty on any person wishing to stand as a candidate. Whatever the arguments and their respective merits, deposits, up to the Redmond case, were a well established and accepted feature of our electoral system. It appeared to be the simplest and, at the same time, the most satisfactory way of establishing the serious intent of a candidate.
However, while it may well have established the earnestness of a candidate, it must be said that there is no evidence that the deposit requirement deterred many would-be candidates at a Dáil election. In reality, because of the lack of increases in the amount, the real value has fallen dramatically since it was originally introduced and the statistics on the number of candidates standing at elections would seem to support that contention. At the last three general elections 370, 481 and 484 candidates respectively were nominated. The number of candidates increased by 30% in 1992 after the deposit was increased from £100 to £300.
Interestingly, the question of the constitutionality of deposits was signalled as far back as the 1980s in the late John Kelly's book The Irish Constitution when he remarked: “The constitutional permissibility of the requirement must be in doubt.” The judgment in the Redmond case has now confirmed that view. It was not the first time that John Kelly was before his time. Limiting access to a ballot paper is a common feature of most parliamentary democracies to prevent an overly large number of candidates from contesting an election. In Ireland, the purpose of any general election is to elect members to Dáil Éireann in accordance with the Constitution and, subsequently, to form a Government. It follows that for such a process to take place, there must be a consensus among a majority of the members of Dáil Éireann. General elections must have some structure and predictability in the sense that a voter must reasonably foresee what the impact of their vote will be on the eventual composition of the Dáil, if they are to exercise a meaningful choice. Where there is a very large number of candidates in a constituency, the outcome could depend more upon chance than the reflection of the preference of voters. Having an overly large number of candidates could impact on the democratic right of voters to play a meaningful part in the political process.
There are generally three procedures used to limit access to a ballot paper. The first method is the cash deposit system as used in the United Kingdom and, up to now, in Ireland. The second is one whereby a candidate is required to obtain the signature of a number of registered electors and the third system of filtering candidates applies in countries with PR-list electoral systems. In those countries, there is generally a requirement to be a candidate of a registered political party and to be included on the party list to get on the ballot paper. While it is possible for independent candidates to stand, there is a requirement for signatures, which can be as many as 500 in some cases. This is a serious restriction on independent candidates and one which, in practice, results in a small number of such candidates actually contesting elections.
Where the number of signatures is set as high as 500, the impact will vary depending on the type of candidate. For example, it would be easier for an organised political party to obtain 500 signatures and this could discriminate against independent candidates. Disabled candidates would also find it harder than, say, the payment of a deposit. Wealthier candidates may also find it easier to attain 500 signatures. There is no national ID system in Ireland, unlike mainland Europe where the system of obtaining the support of registered electors is commonly applied. The absence of an ID system and a requirement for a very large number of signatures raises the issue of verification and the possibility of corruption. Furthermore, the entire electoral process would become much more cumbersome if a period was required, after nominations had been received, to allow for the verification of a large numbers of nominators' signatures.
As always in these matters, there is a balance to be struck between providing for a reasonable test of the earnestness of a prospective candidate but not setting that test so high as to unduly restrict people from seeking election or creating administrative difficulties. Having considered the issues, the Government has proposed the measures provided for in the Bill. Candidates at a Dáil election, not in possession of a certificate of political affiliation, will have to have their nomination papers assented to by 30 Dáil electors registered in the constituency. As Members are aware, a certificate of political affiliation confirms that a candidature is authenticated by the relevant officer of a political party registered in the Register of Political Parties.
The reason such candidates should not require 30 assentors is clear. Firstly, it can be safely assumed that if a political party authenticates a candidate they will have the support of at least 30 people. In the revised section 25 of the Electoral Act, 1992, which became operative from 1 January 2002, new political parties will be required to have at least 300 registered members. Secondly, a party candidate will normally have to undergo a selection procedure at the local branch level which also would normally involve more than 30 members, most of whom would be from the constituency concerned. Support for the approach being adopted in the Bill came from the expert witness for the plaintiff in the Redmond case who made the following points. A system of nomination with additional assessors or supporting signatures would be just as effective, if not more effective, as a deposit. No European or other accepted democratic system permitted an entirely open access to the ballot paper – all had some provisions designed to protect the system from abuse. Apart from the deposit requirement, the Irish system was exceptionally open. Some form of deterrent to the abuse of the electoral system was desirable.
I will now deal with the detail of the Bill which is short and contains six sections. Section 1 provides, in paragraph (c) that the nomination form for a candidate without a certificate of political affiliation will have to be assented to by 30 registered electors for the constituency excluding the candidate or their proposer. Paragraphs (a) and (b) contain consequential amendments relating to the procedures for details to be entered in the notice of election and in the notes on the nomination form.
The new section 46(4B) sets out the procedures for the assentors to assent a nomination form and these can be summarised as follows: each candidate without a certificate of political affiliation or their proposer will lodge a nomination paper in the prescribed local authority offices, generally the principal offices of the local authority, for assenting to by 30 electors; each assentor will be required to sign the nomination form in the presence of a local authority official and produce one of the prescribed photographic identification documents; the local authority official will then enter on the nomination paper the elector's number on the register of electors, the nature of the identification document produced, including any number on it, the time and date of the assentor's signature and the official's signature.
Where constituencies extend over more than one county or in the case of Dublin and Cork, I will prescribe more than one local authority office where the nomination paper can be lodged. Local authority offices, rather than the office of the returning officer, are a more suitable location as they are generally better known and the persons involved will have ready access to the register of electors details. This will be important where an assentor may not be on the published register but has applied for entry in the supplement as such information may only be available at the local authority offices.
I also intend to prescribe the acceptable photographic identification in regulations after the Bill is enacted. The documents I am considering include a passport, driving licence, travel pass, work or student identification. If Deputies have other documents in mind, I am open to considering their suggestions.
The candidate or proposer will be responsible for ensuring that the completed nomination paper, with the 30 signatures, is delivered to the returning officer before the closing time for receipt of nominations at the election concerned. Section 18 of the Electoral (Amendment) Act, 2001, reduced that nomination period from nine to seven days after the issue of the writs to provide necessary additional time for the printing of photographs and party emblems on ballot papers. Candidates and political parties should take careful note of the reduced time period. There is no statutory or other responsibility on the local authority in this matter – the responsibility to deliver the nomination paper in time to the returning officer is entirely that of the candidate or the proposer.
The procedures I have outlined may appear bureaucratic but I consider that if the system is to have any credibility it must be thorough and certifiable. The extra work for local authorities should not be too onerous as the average number of non-party candidates per constituency at the 1997 general election was 2.5. The average per constituency in the Dublin area, where there are four major local authorities, was just over four.
A further change in the law is contained in paragraph (e) which provides that a returning officer will not accept as a valid nomination a nomination paper that is not accompanied by a certificate of political affiliation, without the 30 signatures correctly witnessed by the local authority. It is important for candidates or their proposers to allow sufficient time to have the 30 assentors sign the nomination form and have it delivered to the returning officer. Paragraphs (d), (f) and (g) are consequential amendments.
Sections 2 and 3 provide for similar regimes for nominations for European and local elections, except that the number of assentors required will be 60 and 15 respectively reflecting the different types and scale of election involved. The provision for direct elections for local authority cathaoirligh will be dealt with in regulations to be made under the Local Government Act, 2001. A draft of those regulations will have to be approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas.
Sections 4 and 5 provide that the travelling expenses incurred by a candidate or an assentor in meeting the requirements of the Bill at Dáil, European and local elections will not be regarded as an election expense in the same way that the cost of an election deposit was deemed not to be an election expense. Section 6 provides for the normal Short Title collective citation and construction of the Bill.
Before concluding, I wish to refer to an issue which I know has been causing concern to Members and that is the question of electoral abuse. I am concerned that the procedure for applying for entry in the supplement to the register of electors may be open to abuse arising from the lack of a minimum residential period for entry. For example, any person over 18 years who is ordinarily resident can apply to go on a register. Despite the fact that a registration authority can seek supporting evidence of information contained on the application form, it is difficult to disprove that a person is not "ordinarily resident", even if only for a few hours. A person could claim that he or she is residing with another person while seeking accommodation and looking for employment.
In addition, in some cases, bulk applications are received by registration authorities close to the closing time for receipt of applications, thus making it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the registration authority to properly consider the application forms in time for the poll in question. In such circumstances, there is extreme pressure on the registration authority to approve the applications on hand for the poll, which may lead to unqualified applicants being included in the supplement.
I will be moving three amendments to the Bill on Committee Stage. The first two provide that the provisions in the Electoral Act, 1992, relating to applications for entry in the supplement be strengthened by requiring that each such application be signed in the applicant's local Garda station in the presence of a member of the Garda Síochána. The garda will have to be satisfied of the person's identity and then sign, date and stamp the form. Similar procedures apply to other official forms such as a passport application, certain road vehicle forms relating to motor taxation and licensing of trailers, and voting by certain postal voters.
In view of the importance of maintaining the integrity of the electoral system and notwithstanding the extra work that may be created in Garda stations in the run-up to a poll, I consider that the supplement application procedure should be strengthened. The closing date for receipt of an application for entry to the supplement is 15 days before polling day.
Where an applicant for entry to the supplement cannot attend his or her local Garda station, the amendment will provide that the application form can be signed in the presence of an official of the registration authority, if the applicant states in writing the reason he or she is unable to get the form witnessed in the local Garda station. If a person, because of a physical illness or disability, cannot attend either his or her local Garda station or registration authority offices, the application form can be accompanied by a medical certificate, in the same way that an application for entry to the postal voters or special voters lists is accompanied by a medical certificate.
The amendment will also provide that an application for entry in the supplement must be made directly by the applicant to the registration authority. There has been some concern in recent years about canvassers and others collecting supplement application forms and delivering them in bulk to the registration authority. This will no longer be permitted.
The third amendment will provide for three changes to the Electoral Act, 1997. The first of these will clarify that if a political party raises funds at an event, such funds or part of them can be used for supporting that party's candidates at an election, notwithstanding that this may not have been referred to in the notice of the event. This can arise if the fund raising is held before the candidates are selected and some concern has been expressed that the total sum raised might be regarded as the amount for donation purposes rather than the individual net contributions.
The second amendment will provide that expenses, other than money, by a political party on behalf of a candidate of the party at a Dáil or European election, a Member of either House of the Oireachtas or an MEP are not political donations. The source of funds to meet such expenses will have to be disclosed by the political party if it receives a donation over the specified limit and any individual donation must not exceed the limit set out in the Electoral (Amendment) Act, 2001.
The third amendment will provide that the appropriate officer of a political party or the responsible person in relation to a third party, or an accounting unit will have a defence to a prosecution for the receipt of a prohibited donation or donation exceeding the disclosure limit if they did not know and could not reasonably have known of the receipt of such a donation. Similar provisions are provided for election agents in Parts 5 and 6 of the Act. The need for this amendment arises from the new provisions on the prohibition of certain donations provided in the Electoral (Amendment) Act, 2001.
Elections are fundamental to the operation of our democracy and it is incumbent on us, as legislators, to ensure that they are conducted in a fair, orderly and open way. During the High Court case that has given rise to the Bill, the distinguished expert witnesses who gave evidence for the plaintiff and the defendant agreed that a test of bona fides, provided it is fair and reasonable, should be imposed on prospective candidates at elections. They also agreed that a nomination and signatures system could provide an alternative to the deposits system. The Bill provides for such a system. The requirements provided in the Bill are not onerous and represent a reasonable and proportional response to the High Court judgment. The additional requirements for applying for entry in the supplement of the register will strengthen the security aspects of the supplement procedures and are a necessary change to assist in deterring bogus applications. I am also reviewing the list of specified identification documents which can be produced by voters at the polling stations and the number of electors who may be asked to produce an identification document. A revised list will be included in the regulations which will be required following the enactment of the Bill.
I commend the Bill to the House.
As the Minister stated, this legislation emanated from a High Court decision to the effect that the £500 deposit which was previously required could act as a barrier to potential candidates. He provided an extremely interesting history of the deposits system and I had not realised that history was so chequered. I was not aware of having an interest in politics as a child, but I recall listening to election results on what was then termed the "wireless" and wondering why so many people were so careless as to lose their deposits. It has never come to my attention that a potential candidate was prevented from standing due to their inability to produce a deposit. One would have thought that a person with a groundswell of political support would have been able to raise the required amount. If someone does not have such a level of support, if they are pursuing a personal campaign on a particular issue or if, as the Minister stated, they are merely a "freak" candidate, they should not be involved in a general election because the latter involves the serious issue of choosing a Government.
I completely agree with the High Court judgment in that money should never be a barrier to anyone interested in seeking election to parliament. However, I do not believe this has ever proved to be the case. I feel obliged to state that with so many other pressing issues and important outstanding legislative proposals which must be dealt with this week and next and which are of far greater relevance to the vast majority of the population, it is a shame we are devoting precious time to debating this measure in the dying days of the current Dáil. I accept this is an issue of principle, but I do not believe it is the most pressing issue for the vast majority of the electorate. However, the judgment has been made and it is our responsibility to legislate in respect of it as best we can.
Fine Gael supports the approach the Government is taking on this matter. However, in abolishing the need for a financial commitment on behalf of a candidate I do not believe we can, at the same time, abolish the need for any commitment. People must demonstrate that they have such a commitment. The election of a Government is a serious matter and should be treated as such. It is reasonable for the public to expect that all candidates should in some way be able to demonstrate that they do have seriousness of intent and are genuinely committed to the process. We must balance the need for reasonable accessibility to the system with reasonable precautions to protect its integrity.
In terms of deciding on the conditions and qualifications for potential candidates, there will always be those who consider that the bar is set too high while there will be others who consider that it has been set too low. We have had a number of discussions on this matter in which suggestions on acceptability have varied. There are almost as many views about this matter as there are people. However, given the nature of the court decision, the Minister's approach is probably as good as any other.
Requiring the assent of 30 electors for qualification to be a candidate in a general election is not an onerous condition. I do not believe this will prove a barrier to anyone's participation. On the other hand, a minimum effort will be required on the part of a potential candidate to find 30 electors to support them. He or she will also be obliged to encourage these people to appear at local authority offices to verify their support for them and to provide proof of their agreement to be assenters and of their residency in the constituency. I understand that the 30 electors must present with photo IDs and that neither the prospective candidate nor the proposer can be one of their number. I accept that it will take a good level of organisation to manage this within the tight timeframe provided. It is reasonable that the assent of only 15 electors will be required for local authority elections and that the assent of 60 will be required for European elections.
I hope the outcome of this court decision will be to genuinely increase the choice of candidates for the electorate and not to produce some sort of anarchic situation where there will be such a profusion of candidates that confusion among voters will result. On a purely practical level, if voters were faced with ballot papers that ran to pages and pages which made voting an onerous task it would actually diminish rather than increase their ability to make choices. This outcome would be totally contrary to what was intended and would prove counter-productive.
There is no doubt that the minimum commitment which will now be required will be open to potential abuse. The obvious abuse would be commercial interests using it for advertising purposes. Anyone seeking to market themselves will be able, with very little effort and no financial outlay, to have their name and photograph appear on every ballot paper in a particular constituency. More significantly, they will be able, at taxpayers' expense, to have an advertising message sent to every home in a constituency via a litir um toghcháin. They could do this in every constituency in the country if so desired.
The other possible abuse which might arise will be practised by those who may simply wish to make a farce of the system by putting either themselves or other candidates forward with no seriousness of intent other than to amuse themselves. The Minister will recall that this happened previously, even when deposits were required and there is a possibility that such behaviour could become more commonplace. We all regard the Monster Raving Looney Party in Britain as somewhat of a joke, but at least it is one of a kind. If the effect here would be to produce dozens of such candidates in each constituency, we would regard it as much less of a joke. The holding of general elections is a serious business and it would demean the process and diminish our democracy if people try to make a joke of it.
In recent years we have discussed on many occasions the disrepute into which politics and politicians generally have fallen and how, if we do not restore public confidence in the system, it will become increasingly difficult to encourage young people in particular to enter politics. It is against this background that we must strike a balance between putting in place the mechanisms necessary to protect the integrity of the system and minimising the number of barriers to entry.
Lack of money for a deposit should never inhibit genuine candidates from participating in elections. I am of the opinion that political parties offer the best chance of forming stable Governments and of providing continuity of policy. Nevertheless, independent and single issue candidates have an important role to play in the system because they increase the range of choice for members of the public and act as a balance in the system in terms of providing a warning to political parties that they ignore important single issues at their peril. It is a healthy sign that when people feel strongly enough about political issues, they are willing to put themselves forward and become directly involved in bringing about improvements in society.
At present, there are adequate numbers of quality candidates willing to come forward and offer themselves to the public. If there is a threat to our democracy it is not the shortage of candidates, it is the shortage of voters. At a time of peace, stability and relative prosperity, when there is no apparent threat to democracy, there is less incentive for people to bother voting. However, just as much as wars or military dictatorships, apathy is also a threat to democracy.
During the recent referendum, I thought the best of all the posters was the one issued by the Referendum Commission which said "If you do not vote, somebody else will decide." That conveyed a salutary message to all of us. The most worrying feature of our electoral process is that fewer people are deciding the results. Many say they do not vote because they are disillusioned. The converse could equally be true, that people are disillusioned because they do not vote. A greater danger than being disillusioned by politics is to be disenfranchised, which is a possible consequence if people do not participate in democracy. Perhaps we need to concentrate more on providing voters than providing candidates. We must give people every incentive to vote, remove barriers they may be experiencing in going to vote and address aspects of our society that may be acting as a deterrent to voting.
Certain recent trends and developments have worked against participation, apart from the many scandals that have put people off politics in many ways. With regard to the ban on posters and canvassing near polling stations, which has been partially reversed recently, I suggest, in retrospect, it was not a positive move. Perhaps one good reason for rowing back on it was that people had difficulty finding polling stations. God knows, if people bother to go out to vote, we should at least make it possible for them to find their polling station. By playing down elections, as the initial restrictions did, one loses that sense of excitement and occasion of the event. It is, indeed, an occasion and a privilege to have a democratic process and the ability to cast one's vote, and we should not play it down by making it seem less important.
There is a tendency for people to suggest we should not have election posters at all, but I do not agree with that view. There is also a politically correct attitude emerging that canvassing, campaigning and political activity is slightly grubby, distasteful and not something in which to engage. In reality, there is nothing grubby about politics, as such. Why should we not be political? It is not something we have to be ashamed of – indeed, we should celebrate it. It makes no sense to hide the fact that we have elections. That is a dangerous step nearer to making it possible for us not to miss elections if we do not have them at all.
The main reason for posters is to provide information. Those of us directly involved in politics and obsessed by it may find it difficult to accept that many people do not even know when there is an election coming up. I recall knocking on doors during previous elections only to find that people were totally unaware of the event – not only in referenda or local elections but even in a general election. People are unaware of an election until the posters appear. I believe if posters were abolished, the voter turnout would plummet. It is true that, in the past, posters caused litter but the quality of posters nowadays is such that they are much too expensive to allow them to become litter. Furthermore, the new litter fines, which are very rigorously enforced, ensure that the posters are down within seven days after the election. On reflection, I had better check that before the next election.
There are other issues which are barriers to voting. In relation to the electoral register, although there have been several electoral Bills, the system is still not properly organised for collecting names and putting people on the register. It is an appallingly archaic system. With all the technology at our disposal in this information age, the system should be improving rather than getting worse, as is the case. The increase in the number of people entitled to vote is just one factor. Perhaps this is not the occasion to deal with this issue. At another time when we can give it more consideration, we should look at how the responsibility might be placed on people to ensure they are registered rather than sending local authority officials from door to door to contact them. It should be possible to check on-line whether one is on the register. The whole system is out of date and cannot really cope with the increased mobility of the population, the increased employment levels whereby people are not at home during the day and the inaccessi bility, especially in Dublin, of apartment complexes.
All this makes it very difficult for local authorities to update their registers. Problems also arise with polling schemes and perhaps I can make a plea for my constituency – I notice from the Minister's speech that it is also an issue in Cork. There is a problem where constituency boundaries transcend county boundaries and there was a particular fiasco in my local authority area of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown – it was an accident waiting to happen. In a number of areas, people were sent to the wrong polling station and had to be redirected. In some cases, people were disenfranchised as a result. I believe the problem arises from the fact that local authorities prepare their registers on the basis of local electoral areas. It is exacerbated where people vote at different polling stations in local and national elections so that, even if they get the right polling card, there is still confusion. I suggest to the Minister, if he is still in charge at the next review, that the Boundary Commission should be mandated to observe county boundaries more closely to avoid the present chaotic situation.
The choice of election day is another key issue which has been discussed in previous electoral Bills and, as the Minister said, almost every day of the week has been tried at this stage. The choice of Wednesday for the recent referendum poll was a disaster in terms of facilitating or encouraging people to vote. We need to change our electoral system to take account of changes in society. There are many more people at work and people are commuting to work over much greater distances than before. For example, for somebody commuting from Mullingar to Dublin, the difficulty in getting to vote during polling hours is obvious. Even for shorter distances, commuting times have become much longer. Perhaps the second generation, so to speak, of electronic voting could allow a person to vote at any polling station in any constituency. In those circumstances, the problems associated with particular days of the week would be greatly diminished.
In the meantime, serious consideration should be given to voting on a Saturday. Although it was tried at one of the by-elections, the south Tipperary one, that may not be the best basis for drawing conclusions. By-elections are very important to individuals but they have not got the same attraction for people as the election of a Government through a general election. Fridays have also been tried, including at the last general election, but that is a very bad day for many people as it is the end of the working week. People are either anxious to get home or to socialise and voting is probably the last thing on their minds. Saturday should certainly be considered, although it may become problematic during the summer months when people go away for the weekend. No doubt there will be some problems anyhow, regardless of the day of the week.
In relation to the general election, while the Minister may or may not know the day and date at this stage, if it is to be on a weekday, I urge him to provide for greatly extended opening hours. I suggest that 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. is not adequate in a general election. From this week, RTE's "Morning Ireland" radio news programme starts at the earlier time of 7 a.m. in recognition of the fact that people are leaving home earlier in the morning. Extended opening hours at polling stations may present staffing difficulties and we may have to move to a shift system but we need to make it easier and possible for people to vote.
I have probably wandered from the provisions of the Bill. I do not intend to deal with these issues by way of amendment because of the time constraint. They require thoughtful debate and no doubt the forthcoming election will throw up other issues. We will have to constantly update and adapt our electoral system to reflect the changes that are happening in society to ensure we make it as easy and as attractive as possible for people to vote to maximise participation in the democratic process.
Tá áthas orm seans a bheith agam labhairt sa díospóireacht seo ar an mBille (Leasú) thoghcháin. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this legislation. In general terms the Labour Party supports the Bill. It is a sensible and rational approach to take in the wake of the Redmond v. Minister for the Environment and Local Government judgment which ruled that financial deposits should have no place in the electoral system.
Having reflected on the matter, I welcome that judgment and am glad to see the back of financial deposits. An important principle was elucidated in the Redmond judgment, namely that a citizen's eligibility to stand in an election should not be linked to his or her ability to pay. That was apparently not a view shared by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government – the supposed champion of electoral reform. When Mr. Redmond, a man of limited means, took his High Court case the State and the Minister for the Environment and Local Government defended tooth and nail the system of financial deposits. Wisely the arguments put forward on behalf of the State were rejected out of hand by Mr. Justice Herbert.
A press report of 1 August outlines the State's line of defence in this case. The State argued that without deposits elections would be overrun by spurious candidates and democracy would be undermined. The State similarly claimed that voters would be confused by the increase in the numbers of candidates that might result from the abolition of deposits. Neither of these arguments support the retention of financial deposits. They are arguments in support of criteria that candidates should comply with before putting their names on the ballot paper. However, nothing in the arguments put forward by the State back up the need for financial deposits. The judge rightly rejected the case put forward on behalf of the Minister and found in favour of Mr. Redmond.
That judgment has led to the Bill before the House and I welcome this development. The Bill specifically refers to people, not members of registered political parties, who wish to stand at a general, local or European election. As the Minister has outlined the Bill will replace the system of financial deposits and introduce a system whereby 30 assenting electors, for the purpose of a general election, will be required to enable a person stand. This is a rational and sensible approach and it has the support of the Labour Party.
I also support the three main conditions attached to this process. It is reasonable and proper to expect a person assenting to an individual's candidacy to live in the constituency and to produce some form of photo ID. I also agree that a person should be allowed to support only one candidate in an election. This is simple and straightforward legislation. Why the State had to take a court case to be forced into producing this relatively short electoral amendment Bill is beyond me. I will be the first to admit the Labour Party may never have urged the abolition of electoral deposits, in fact many of us in organised political parties may never have questioned the process. However, when Mr. Redmond lodged his case, and highlighted an inequity in our electoral law, the Minister should have acknowledged the value of his argument, thanked him and brought forward amending legislation. Unfortunately, Mr. Redmond was brought through the courts as the Government sought to cling to this discredited system. That said, I am pleased the Bill has been brought before the House.
On the wider aspect of electoral reform I would like to use this opportunity to raise a very serious issue with the Minister. Along with many of my colleagues, I have received numerous complaints from people about the fact that the recent referendum was held on a Wednesday. This decision disenfranchised thousands of potential voters. To make matters worse the polling booths were open from only 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. One would not have to be of a cynical disposition to question the motives of the Minister in making these arrangements.
As an example of just how difficult it was to vote, I will tell the Minister about a constituent of my colleague, Deputy Wall. The young woman in question lives in south Kildare and travels to work in Dublin every weekday. The polling booths were not open at the time she left for work. In addition to working she attends a night course in an institute of technology on a Wednesday evening. Due to a decision taken by the Minister this person was deprived of the opportunity to have her say in the referendum. At a time of declining voter turnout it is nothing short of outrageous that these nonsensical voting arrangements were employed. The Minister's decision has been roundly condemned by the Union of Students in Ireland. However, it was not just students who were disenfranchised, thou sands of workers around the State were also prevented from casting their ballot.
The time has come to open polling stations at 7 a.m. to ensure people working and travelling can use their votes. It is time to realise that midweek voting has the potential to disenfranchise many voters. I also suggest to the Minister that it is high time the electoral register was available on-line so that people can check if they are on it. The day of expecting people to turn up at Garda stations to check the register are long gone and we should use the opportunities presented by information technology to make it easier for people to exercise their democratic voice. I have always taken seriously Minister Dempsey's interest in electoral reform. However, I will cast a cold eye on his future pronouncements given his record in relation to the recent referendum and his record in this Dáil in general.
Another issue in regard to elections about which I am concerned also relates to students. I understand that in the Waterford constituency there were 16 students able to cast their votes at the centres where they were attending college. The elector must apply to his or her local authority to be accepted as a postal voter and when the vote is being cast it must be done in the presence of a member of the Garda. These provisions have been in place since 1997 and I put it to the Minister that they have not been sufficiently promulgated. On certain days it may be difficult for students to get to Garda stations. Is it not possible for a member of the Garda to attend at the institution on the day in question? Every effort should be made to make it easier for our citizens to exercise their franchise. There is a great need to make this aspect of voting more clear.
Issues also arise regarding the register. The conversion of the register to an electronic format would be very welcome as people's names currently disappear off registers for no apparent reason even when they have been living in an area for a long time. I urge the Minister to continue to look at this area with a view to coming up with fail-safe systems to ensure that people are not inadvertently removed from registers and that people are informed of the process in every way possible. The process of getting on the register for the first time and of transferring votes should be simplified.
I reiterate the support of the Labour Party for the principle behind this Bill, though we may table amendments on Committee Stage to improve aspects of the legislation. I conclude by stating my appreciation of the stance taken by Mr. Redmond who believed he was right, took on the forces of the State and won.
I welcome the Minister's proposals and hope that the Bill has a speedy passage through the Houses of the Oireachtas. Most Deputies, Senators and other candidates are thinking of the forthcoming election and will be interested in what the Minister has said in relation to the supplementary register. I welcome the proposed changes which will bring a degree of propriety and order to the supplementary register scheme. The clarification the Minister is effecting is necessary. I ask him, however, to look at the provisions which apply to disabled and elderly voters. At present the supplementary register system and the postal vote system provide fit, able-bodied people who cannot attend polling stations due to work or study with the opportunity to vote. Unfortunately, elderly people and the disabled can only register once a year and that is unfair. We cannot stand over the fact that fit, able-bodied people who cannot vote at polling stations can obtain a postal vote up to the last minute, while the elderly and the disabled have only one opportunity to register per annum.
I would like the Minister to examine this and to bring a degree of fairness into what is an unfair system. It is not beyond the Minister's remit to introduce a suitable amendment to provide for the inclusion on the postal vote register of people who can certify that they require a postal vote due to illness, infirmity or old age. It is necessary to bring about that change and to give those people a fair chance to exercise their franchise.
I welcome the Minister's clarification of the other Electoral Acts as they apply to spending limits. This will be the first general election in which the spending limits apply and the vast majority of candidates will end up spending much less than the maximum allowed. There has been much confusion about such issues as the use of Oireachtas postal facilities, offices and telephone equipment. The Minister is aware that there appears to have been confusion about what we, as Oireachtas Members, interpreted the legislation to mean and the interpretation of the Public Offices Commission. Every issue which needs to be clarified must be clarified as a matter of urgency, but while the proposals in this Bill will help, certain issues remain obscured. All candidates intend to comply fully with the provisions of the legislation and with the orders the Minister has introduced. There are still a number of areas, however, which cause concern and confusion and these need to be addressed. Oireachtas Members were issued with a rather helpful bulletin last week in which the issues affecting candidates were outlined, but a number of issues still need to be clarified. I encourage the Minister to effect that clarification in the immediate future.
In the run-up to the campaigns which will take place over the coming weeks, it is important that the House sends a strong message to the electorate to urge that every voter uses his or her vote in the forthcoming election campaign. It is only a few weeks since the constitutional amendment referendum for which the turnout was extremely disappointing. It was somewhat better than the appalling turnout for the referendum on the Treaty of Nice last year, but we still have to address the issue urgently. I support what Deputy O'Shea has said regarding the need for voting to take place at the weekend to maximise turnout. It is disappointing so many people take such little interest in politics and have no wish to vote. There are thousands who are unable to exercise their franchise because of the day chosen for the election or the limited number of hours available for polling. The Minister and the Taoiseach have been asked on quite a few occasions over the past few weeks to indicate that weekend voting will be introduced. I hope that is given the most serious consideration.
An excellent suggestion was put forward by the President of the Union of Students in Ireland, Mr. Richard Hammond, which proposed that voting should take place over a two-day period. Polling booths would open on a Friday evening at 5 p.m. and close at 10 p.m. and then remain open all day on Saturday. Of course, we could come up with reasons that would be costly or difficult from an administrative point of view, but on an occasion on which we ask the electorate to choose the Government and to chart out the course of the State's business for the next five years it is incumbent on us to allow the maximum number of people to participate in the poll.
In the Minister's constituency and the other two where electronic voting is being introduced more people may come out to vote due to the interest generated by the novelty of the new system. However, in the vast majority of constituencies we have seen a fall in the numbers participating in elections over the past decade. The last general election, in 1997, produced the lowest ever turnout and we must ask ourselves what we in this House can do to facilitate the democratic process by encouraging increased voter turnout. I ask the Minister to look at the question of weekend voting with a very open mind.
I have heard a number of commentators make the point that the Government will ask itself what is the advantage of holding the election on any particular day. There is no advantage to be gained by any particular party, but it is important for democracy and participation that we maximise turnout. A turnout in a general election of 60% to 65% means up to 40% of the people are saying no to all of us and we all lose. I appeal to the Minister to put measures in place to increase turnout and to facilitate voting. The case has been made for weekend voting and for Saturday voting, with which a certain number of people have difficulty on religious grounds, as they do with voting on Sundays. The suggestion by the USI of Friday evening voting, with polling on Saturday, should be considered. We need to take a dramatic step to ensure that people turn out in large numbers in the general election to be held in a few weeks.
This is probably the last opportunity I will have to speak on an issue for which this Minister has responsibility. The Minister brought many ideas to the Department and I was disappointed he did not succeed in implementing all of them. I was particularly disappointed he was unable to implement his views, which I support, on the dual mandate. The Minister also has strong views on, and proposals in relation to, electoral reform and the system whereby we choose our public representatives. I hope the next Dáil, regardless of which parties form the Government, will look at those issues in a mature fashion.
It is easy to be comfortable with the system that elected us to this House but I do not believe it serves the country as well as it should. I endorse what the Minister tried to do to reform politics. I am not making a political point but the Minister was not supported to any great degree by his colleagues, which was most disappointing. I hope the next Government will not be dependent on a few people who can simply hijack good policies and have them put aside.
I support this legislation and I hope the Minister will take our comments on board, particularly in relation to the registration of disabled voters and weekend voting.
My colleague has dealt with one of the points I wished to make on this legislation, the need to facilitate students and young people voting in elections. In recent years many of our students and members of our workforce have had to move to the cities, especially Dublin, which means that if voting takes place on a Thursday, they are unable to vote for the people they support and know best. That applies across party lines. I hope this issue will be addressed in the last few days of this Administration.
If possible, an election should be held on a Friday or Saturday. There was a trial of Saturday voting in Tipperary but that generated more questions because many young people were away playing sports and so forth. Friday is probably the best choice, aside from Deputy Bradford's suggestion of holding an election over two days. Friday would suit many people, provided the polling stations stay open until 10 p.m. to facilitate those who have to travel long distances to, for example, Kerry or Donegal.
I urge people to look again at the electoral register before the election is called. It is surprising how many people found they were either unable to vote or did not receive voting cards in the last referendum. I am heartened by the number of parents and young people who come to my office, as they do to other public representatives, to find out why they are not on the register and how they can be included in it at this stage. The rules have been changed so that in the first two days after the election is called names can be put on a supplementary register. It is vital to convey to the public that people who are not on the register but who want to participate in deciding the next Dáil should ensure they are put on the register.
Students who attend college in this State have the right to apply for a postal vote. Unfortunately, however, students attending college in Northern Ireland do not have that right. If the Good Friday Agreement is to mean anything, the many students from Border areas who have to attend colleges in Northern Ireland should be allowed to cast their votes. Last night I talked to one family about this. They have two adult children in college in Northern Ireland and one in college in Dublin. The student in Dublin has the right to vote but the two attending college in Northern Ireland will have to travel home, regardless of whether that suits them. Given all the talk about a peace dividend, the people who live in the Border areas and who, for many reasons, have to go to college in Northern Ireland should be able to vote. I am aware it is dangerous to widen this facility to other areas but over the years we have provided these students with grants and so forth so it should not be too difficult to facilitate them in this regard too.
Cavan-Monaghan was one of the constituencies with a high turnout in the last general election. Indeed, the turnout was one of the highest in the country so we cannot complain about that. However, I am anxious to ensure that all those who vote in the next election are entitled to vote and that those who are entitled to vote are facilitated in every possible way.
I support the Bill. It is the result of a legal judgment with which we must comply. It is the reason so many independent candidates are coming forward in the Cavan-Monaghan constituency. They are entitled to do that. We must accept the legal situation and the Bill provides for that. I urge the Minister to ensure that the next general election is held on a day when as many young people as possible will have the opportunity to vote in their home constituency for their preferred candidate. It is vital that we encourage them to be part of the system.
I thank the Deputies for their positive and constructive contributions to the debate. I have noticed that debates on electoral legislation are similar to debates on county roads at parliamentary party meetings in that one always gets good, constructive contributions.
The Deputies raised the issue of what day the next election will be held. I can assure them that no decision has been made on that. Furthermore, no decision has been made not to have the election at a weekend. The decision is at the discretion of the Taoiseach. A good deal of comment in the media over recent weeks appeared to indicate that a decision has been made to rule out a weekend poll. I will convey the Deputies' views to the Taoiseach that there is a strong feeling that the election should be held nearer to the weekend rather than midweek.
I am from the school of thought that it does not matter what day of the week an election is held – there will be advantages and disadvantages no matter what one does. There is a great onus on Members of the House to make the election as interesting as possible, to put forward the best possible candidates and policies and to give people a real choice. That will contribute more significantly to turnout in the election than the day of the week it is held. Having looked at the figures for both elections and referenda over the years, the polls have been held on every day of the week except Sundays and Mondays, and I see no connection between the day of the week and the turnout. There is a connection, however, with how much people are exercised at the time about the issue before them or the election.
However, I accept that some people feel strongly about this. I accept there would be a number of advantages to weekend voting. It would certainly facilitate electors who are normally outside their constituencies during the week. That would include students, commercial salespersons and people who work outside their constituencies. An increasing number of people work abroad and return home for some weekends. Weekend voting would also facilitate them. It would also eliminate the need for school closures, although the pupils might not like that.
They do not vote.
It would give a wider choice as to the time of day at which people could vote because more people would not be working. It would obviously suit people who work shifts.
Weekend voting also has its disadvantages. There is a strong feeling among the Churches in this regard. When my predecessor, Deputy O'Shea's colleague, raised the issue of Sunday or weekend voting with the Churches in 1996 there seemed to be a degree of consensus, even among the two larger Churches, that Sunday voting would be acceptable. In 1999 or 2000, however, I checked again and a number of the Churches had changed their attitude because of the changes in society since 1996. They took the view that Sunday was becoming less and less meaningful as a day of rest, religious observation and so on because shopping centres were open and they were becoming like churches. While they did not veto it and we can make the decision to vote on a Sunday, the Churches certainly expressed a strong preference that voting should not take place on a Sunday. Obviously there are other religions which observe the Sabbath on Saturday and they also have views on this matter, but the Catholic Church has changed its view since 1995.
When I nominated Saturday as the day for the south Tipperary by-election, the first question I was asked on a radio programme was, "Do you not realise the Munster final is on the following day and the problems that will create?" There will be a problem no matter what day we choose.
Given that there is postal voting and that a person who may be ordinarily resident in more than one place can choose the place of registration and voting, and for a number of other such reasons, the argument for weekend voting is not as compelling as it was. However, the general consensus among Members of the House is that, as with the Tipperary South by-election where the turnout increased by 3% in 12 months, it is worth experimenting in a general election to see if it will have an effect. I have taken on board that view and I will convey it to the Taoiseach in the context of the forthcoming general election.
I am not slow to take responsibility. Deputy O'Shea criticised me harshly for pursuing the Redmond case and congratulated Mr. Redmond for seeing it through. I also congratulate him in that regard. It is great that the citizens of this country can take on the State and win. It did not necessarily suit, but I would agree with the process. I must tell the Deputy, however, that the case started when his colleague was Minister for the Environment. The lead-in to this case began in 1992 and eventually the case was taken. I do not believe it is significant that Deputy O'Shea's colleague and Mr. Redmond are from the same constituency. He was trying to contest the election in the then Minister's constituency.
I accept the point about the longer opening hours at polling stations. In the Electoral (Amendment) Act, 2001, we provided, with the agreement of all parties, for the opening of polling stations for any 12 hour or longer period from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. It is my intention that the polling stations will open as early as possible and for as long as possible for the forthcoming general election. Those of us who commute will understand my reasoning. When I started coming to this House in 1987, I left my home at 8.10 a.m. and arrived here around 9 a.m., without breaking any speed limits. I hope I still do not break any speed limits but I now hear the cars whizzing past my door at 6.15 a.m. That is when the traffic starts heading for Dublin. The hours I mentioned would give people an opportunity to vote earlier and if they cannot vote in the morning, it would give them an opportunity to vote in the evening. That is a suggestion I will take on board for the forthcoming general election. While I do not have discretion in the calling of the day, I can influence the opening hours at the polling stations.
Deputy Bradford made a number of points. I regret we are discussing this matter at this stage but it is something which has been at the back of my mind. I agree with what the Deputy said about older people and people with a disability who get one chance per year to join the special voters' register. We need to facilitate people who become ill during the year and to make it much more convenient for them to join the special voters' register. We should make it as easy as possible for people to qualify. I am told the requirement that certain categories of postal voters must register annually is necessary to ensure the condition which gave rise to their eligibility still exists. There is a certain validity in that argument. In the case of disabled voters, my predecessor brought in the requirement that a medical certificate was required only for the first registration and that goes some way towards making it convenient. We must examine this to make the pro cess of registration easier for people, particularly people with a disability or older people.
Deputy Bradford will be pleased to learn that I have already examined the possibility of introducing two-day voting. It is something I would have liked to have tried, but the advice I received is that the introduction of two-day voting would require a referendum because the Constitution indicates that we vote on one day. We have received the report on parliament, etc., from the constitutional committee and in that context two-day voting is something we should consider in the future.
Regarding some of the other amendments we are introducing to the Electoral Act on the spending limits and expenditure, and the confusion which is evident, now is the time for anybody who is in any doubt about the helpful clarification which the Public Offices Commission put forward in the past week or so to clarify it with the commission as far as possible. I have stated previously in regard to this Bill that I have a fear, because of the complicated nature of provisions of the Electoral Act, that a large number of Deputies elected to this House in May will be answering questions to the Public Offices Commission. These will be people who will genuinely try to abide not just by the letter of the law but also by the spirit of the law. They will have to answer questions because of the confusions and contradictions we have incorporated into the Electoral (Amendment) Act – I am not blaming the Public Offices Commission in this regard. Most Deputies in the House know that when one has to answer questions of this nature, one is automatically assumed by everybody outside the House to be guilty until one proves oneself innocent.
In light of the amendments that were tabled, if a Member of the House is in any doubt and needs clarification, he should go to the Public Offices Commission because it is the body from which clarification is received. By raising questions with the Public Offices Commission, in the context of its guidelines document, one may be bringing matters to its attention that need clarification and that may be of assistance to other people who have not even thought of these questions.
I know everybody in this House who will be a candidate in the election will not try to do anything illegal or wrong. They will try to abide by the spirit of the law, but there is a danger because it is so complicated. People outside the House and maybe some Members of the House do not realise how complicated it is and they will end up answering questions and will be branded as having done something wrong.
All the parties should decide, either before or after this election, that they will at least give the benefit of the doubt to anybody asked questions by the Public Offices Commission after the election. Instead of making a political football of it in this House, we will assume that a person made a mistake until the Public Offices Commission produces a report saying that the candidate deliberately breached the Electoral Act and should be dealt with, rather than the other way around. Certainly, if any of the representatives of the other parties are interested in sitting down to talk about that now or in the run-up to the election, we should do so. Perhaps it will not be as easy after the election. We should agree among ourselves that we will leave that business to the Public Offices Commission. If somebody has to be dealt with then, we will deal with it here in the House and not go down the route we have tended to go down in the past, that is, automatically concur with the public perception or media perception that somebody is guilty just because a question is asked of him. Taking the route of hanging, drawing and quartering people before they are proved guilty of an offence does Deputies and politics a disservice.
I will respond briefly to the point raised by Deputy Bradford on electoral reform. Again, a report was published today by the All-Party Committee on the Constitution which states that the system we have is the best one. If we are to look at alternatives, the one I have been proposing for some time is probably the best. We still need to look at electoral reform and the electoral system. We should try to do that on a non-partisan basis. If we want to do a lot of the things we talk about doing here in the House and making them more relevant to the public, we need to examine seriously the electoral system. This is a good start by the committee.
Deputy Olivia Mitchell and others raised the point about students, keeping them informed and making them aware of the elections and the register. We co-operate as much as we can. We encourage and help groups such as the USI to produce a brochure on registration. We inform, and co-operate fully with the USI to inform, students. We put all the details on registration on the Department's website. We have an annual advertising campaign, which we will continue to carry out.
The other point Deputy Olivia Mitchell raised was the register of electors. Again, we dealt with this in the 2001 Bill. The Deputy contributed strongly at that time as well. I share the Deputy's concern that the register of electors should be prepared to the highest standards of accuracy. I am not satisfied that is the case at present. There are too many errors in and omissions from it. We have made some changes which I think will be of help. Under the Electoral (Amendment) Act, 2001, we made provision for the inclusion of electoral lists in some registration authority areas as a pilot measure. That list will make much easier the task of updating the register by addition and deletion of names. It will provide for the register to be on-line, as has been suggested by a number of Deputies.
I will be arranging for the preparation and maintenance of a national register of electors, which will assist the registration authorities to note the changes, especially in terms of electors moving from one part of the State to another.
I made a proposal, which was supported and accepted on all sides of the House, to investigate if bodies such as the ESB, the telephone companies or An Post were interested, on their own or in partnership with the registration authorities, in compiling and maintaining the register. This is because they are in regular contact with every house in the country. We will be pursuing this objective. In the meantime, registration authorities should make improvements in terms of their efforts to ensure the register is accurate. The fact that there was a recent referendum is some help. If I remember correctly, the figure pertaining to changes in the register and extra people being added to the register was about 11,000 in the run-up to the referendum. People spotted they were omitted from the register etc., and it will probably be a little more accurate than before.
Deputy Olivia Mitchell also raised the point about the prohibition of canvassing and other activity in the vicinity of polling stations. With regard to urban areas, she made the point that the absence of posters outside polling stations in urban areas meant that people did not know there was a station there or even realise there was an election taking place. I have no argument with this. We had an argument, however, when we tried to make a change in this regard in the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 2001. We have reduced to 50 metres the distance within which posters may be displayed. I asked my official when the Deputy raised the point again if we could draft a quick amendment to abolish that clause, but he did not agree with that. We should look at the matter again. Posters will not make much difference to anybody but perhaps they add a little to people's interest.
I have dealt with the major points and I am sorry if I left out any. The point raised by Deputy Crawford concerning students from the Republic in universities in Northern Ireland is worth adverting to. I will ask my officials to investigate the matter. Obviously, nothing can be done in the short-term before the next general election. This is something we should re-examine. We often talk about including the entire island of Ireland and this would be worth considering again.
I thank the Deputies who contributed. The points they made deserve attention and I thank them for making them. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.