We will deal now with Committee——
Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1990: Committee and Final Stages.
When the Chair is speaking Senators are supposed to be seated. It is a matter of decorum, it is in Standing Orders.
It is contained in Standing Orders.
I think the Chair should enforce that rule.
I thank the Senator for the advice. I will take it up in the New Year.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
This is an opportunity to make reference to a comment I made on Second Stage and which I know is echoed by Members on all sides of the House. May I ask the Minister if perhaps in consultation with his colleagues he would take up the suggestion that was inherent in comments made by the Government Chief Whip in the other House following the debate on this Bill in the other House that he would be prepared, with all-party agreement, to re-open the debate on the question of single seat constituencies in the electoral reform? In light of the sentiments which have been expressed, encompassing all sides of this House, will he convey the wishes of the Members of this House as elucidated in their comments? It is now some 30 years since there was a serious debate on this issue and perhaps in consultation with his colleagues the Minister might initiate a debate on it with the support, of course, of all Members of this House.
In the words of the late Brendan Corish, I have a feeling that Senator Mooney is a bit previous when he talks about the agreement of all Members of the House and the sentiments which might have been expressed, or, in our case, which were not expressed. One should not draw conclusions on the basis of silence as a man with a knowledge of the law, as Senator Manning has, will be too readily aware.
In relation to alterations to the Constitution, the PR system has served this country well. In the words of the Minister this afternoon the people have a considerable affection for PR. It may have its limitations. There is no perfect system but I feel that the people will go on expressing that affection for PR, whether that will be expressed in referenda or whether the message will be got through to people without the necessity of having a referendum on the matter. It is very important that the system of electing representatives that we have here maintains and embodies proportionality. One of the effects of the work of the various commissions which have dealt with the allocation of seats——
I do not wish to interrupt the Senator but section 2 deals specifically with the numbers in the next Dáil after the Bill is enacted and what he is saying is somewhat irrelevant.
Thank you. I may be able to deal with that under the next section.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
It is important that whatever system we have will give us representatives in Dáil Éireann in proportion to the votes cast for the parties which contest the election and, indeed, for the people who are independent. At present we have a very good approximation to the proportion of votes cast in terms of the proportion of membership of the House. That arises to a fair extent because of the work of the commission in redrawing the constituencies and in the manner in which they have defined them. That is desirable. In many ways it will give us an increasing number of coalition Governments. I believe they are here to stay and that is a good thing. It is highly desirable that all points of view should be represented in the forum which determines what happens in this country. If we talk about going down the road of single member constituencies, then we will be into a high degree of dis-proportionality which would have very serious consequences. To be honest about it, it is academic because I am absolutely certain that the people would not accept it. It is just a spot of debating which, in many ways, is no harm. It has happened before and it was rejected and I do not believe that it will——
May I remind the Senator again that what he has said is not relevant to this section?
What I was about to say is in relation to what Senator Upton has said and if his remarks are not in place, neither are mine.
I will allow the Senator in so far as he can make his remarks relevant.
I made the remark earlier that I personally — and I emphasise "personally"— proposed the single seat PR application. I felt it would do much to eliminate the unnecessary in-fighting within parties and that is not in accord with what Senator Upton said.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
I am sorry for delaying the House but I want to be as precise as I can. I am a little disappointed at Senator Upton's remarks. Perhaps he misinterpreted what I said earlier.
What he said was irrelevant and I do not want the Senator to misinterpret it now.
Section 4 deals with the number of Members to be returned for a constituency. In the context of what was said I wish to be precise. It is not an academic exercise. It is an exercise that could have far-reaching and beneficial effects on the electoral system and, ultimately, the people. Perhaps I am being a little strange here but I have to point out to the House that the reforming Leader of Fine Gael — and I mean this with the greatest respect — has at least on record, opposed a debate on this issue of the single seat constituency. Senator Upton represents the Labour Party and says he is opposed to it and that the people reject it. Yet it was a leader of his party, Mr. Norton, and his famous amendment which, if it had been accepted——
What the Senator is saying is not relevant to this section.
In the context of the number of Members to be returned——
I will not allow a situation to develop now where the debate cannot be carried on in a serious manner. I am asking Senator Mooney to make himself relevant in the context of section 4.
In the context of section 4 and the number of Members to be returned for a constituency, I only wish to repeat what I said already to the Minister, that he would at least have consultation with his colleagues to initiate a debate. That suggestion has already been made by the Government Chief Whip in the other House and there should at least be a debate on this issue. Once again, I will emphasise that what I am talking about is the single seat constituency with a single transferable vote.
This is not relevant.
I approve of what is being done here for the reasons I have already outlined, in other words, that there will be a number of representatives in the Dáil in proportion to the percentage of the votes cast. One small point in relation to what my distinguished colleague, Senator Mooney, said about the Nortons, it was Paddy Norton, the son of the Leader of our Party, who put down the amendment not the leader.
Section 4 is, in fact, the nub of this Bill. We will oppose this section because it includes the dismembering of County Galway and on account of the great unfairness and hurt which is visited on Senator Hussey, to which Senator Cassidy referred. Obviously, the Cathaoirleach is above politics but——
I am not, you know, but in here I am.
We have the unnatural bonding of Longford and Roscommon crossing all sorts of boundaries. For all the reasons we outlined, this is the kernel of the Bill. All that we object to in the Bill is contained in this section, so we will be opposing it.
This is the recommendation of the commission, not of the Minister or myself.
The Minister would do a better job if he was doing it himself.
Thank you for being so complimentary, Senator.
Senator Manning said that Fine Gael would be opposing this section of the Bill and I believe that is reckless and irresponsible. The constituencies at the moment are unconstitutional. There was a constitutional case brought forward in the context of the last general election and many people were very anxious about the position in relation to the present constituencies. It would be irresponsible if this section did not go through. Our present constituencies are unconstitutional. If we do not pass this section it will delay the process of reforming the constituencies for many more months. It is reckless and irresponsible of Fine Gael to oppose it.
It is an important principle that the representation in the Dáil should be as close as possible to the proportion of votes cast for the different parties. It is difficult to understand how that could be achieved within a single seat constituency. The most important point and it has been re-affirmed by the people in several referenda, is that the proportional representation aspect of our Oireachtas be fully maintained. For that reason this section should stand. I thank the Minister for his interest in the Mayo constituency and point out to him that I did not say that this all began from one parish; it was a party colleague of his own, Deputy McCreevey, who said that. I would not suggest that the Minister for the Environment was guilty of any impropriety in respect of this Bill.
Question put and declared carried.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
I was unhappy with the reply the Minister gave Senator Mooney in relation to the registration of electors. The point was made that in the Presidential election large numbers of people found they were not on the register for no explicable reason. Surely, in an age of computerisation and at a time when it is possible to remedy omissions, the Minister should be able to tell us more than what was contained in the false little sermon he gave about going to our post office or Garda station and checking the register. If a person can verify that he or she is that person, his or her name should be added to the register. While not opposing this section I want to make that point, which was also made by Senator Mooney.
I support Senator Manning on this point. With the greatest respect to the Minister of State, Deputy Connolly, we have checked the register and put names on it that were missed at previous elections. At the Presidential election, and the previous general election, names were taken off the register. There must be another way other than going down the same road again. In County Clare we have given names of supporters of other parties because people have come to us and said they were not on the register. That has been done cross-party.
The Senator's party have taken off a few also.
I have suggested reviews of the register and I have wanted that for a long time, as has Senator Manning. Names are always being left off. It is not simply a matter of going to the post office. Omissions are serious.
I agree with the two previous speakers, Senators Manning and Honan, and I suggest to the Minister that, given the technology which is available, he should come up with some alterations even if they have to be introduced in a separate short Bill in six months' or one year's time. I share the frustration which the previous speakers have referred to when meeting people who, for no apparent good reason, find their names off the register. The reality is that while we should all go to the the post office or Garda station to check whether people are on the register, most people do not do that. I am asking the Minister to look at the options and, in due course, come back with a short Bill to solve the problems.
I am very pleased that several Members have referred to a matter I raised on Second Stage. In the context of the Minister's reply, and for the information of the House, I am aware that in some states of the United States registration is allowed up to the day of the election. In some states the population would exceed that of the Twenty-six Counties. As I pointed out in my Second Stage speech, surely it is not beyond the mental ability of the people who look after these matters in the Department of the Environment, considering the size of the electorate, to be able to eliminate this injustice in 1990. I am not singling out the Minister. He is here today and, as my colleague Senator Honan has said, he has conducted the debate with his usual aplomb, but I hope he will take the comments of all sides of the House as an accurate reflection of the frustration that is felt by many people.
I overlooked, in my reply to the debate, informing the House that we are preparing an electoral Bill which will deal with the register of electors. I cannot give details of the contents of the Bill but it will be published shortly. We will then have an opportunity to debate it here and we will listen to the views of Members of both Houses as to what should be done. I accept that there have been irregularities. The Minister has already given an undertaking about the effect and that will be issued very shortly. We are as anxious anyone to improve the position and, if we can, we will do that. We will see what improvements can be made. There will be improvements in it but if there are more that we can take on board that will be done.
I want to refer to a few points the Minister should take on board. Local authority officials check the register in August and it happened in my constituency that 200 or 300 people arrived in September. They had no Presidential vote, which was very disappointing. They know, however, that the register check has been done in August when they were not resident in the area. I would like the Minister to consider the 18-year olds who think they automatically have the right to vote. They are the people who are disillusioned and only a percentage of them vote. If an 18 year old has to wait until after 15 April the following year to be put on the register and an election is called in the meantime it stands to reason that that person will be disillusioned. Therefore, the next time around that person might not be as excited about the idea of his or her first vote.
There is no reason why one has to wait until April of the following year to vote. I concur with Senator Mooney in regard to the United States. I have heard from people who came expecting a vote, they are now resident in Ireland, and said they were in the United States the previous week and were able to vote in their own state. I was able to vote in the hotel I was staying in because the computer found I happened to be on the absentee list. We are away back in the middle ages as regards voting. These are simple things that could be computerised to get the franchise for 18 year olds. They should be allowed to vote immediately on reaching 18 years.
I support the points made by some of the previous speakers. I am surprised at a point made by Senator Jackman because I know in County Kerry while the enumerators start in August they do not complete their work until towards the end of September. It has to be after 29 September. A revision court starts in January or February and any person reaching the age of 18 between that time and up to 15 April can go on the register. I suggest to the Minister that whatever is decided on will mean a second revision court as it would be no good having a revision court three days before an election as one would not be able to handle the applications coming in. I would suggest that within one week of an election being called there should be a revision court to deal with late applications of people who should have been on the register. People who had been abroad but were resident here the previous September would be entitled to be on the register. The only solution would be to have a second revision court called within seven days of an election being declared.
As I said, we will be introducing a Bill. I fully appreciate the views and anxiety of Senators about this. We will see what improvements we can make and I hope that there will be a 100 per cent improvement, if possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 6 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
Question: "That the Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill" put and declared carried.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Question: "That the Bill be received for final consideration" put and declared carried.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I want to thank the Members of the House for their co-operation with me on this Bill and also for their co-operation during the year. It was much appreciated.
I thank the Minister for the way he handled this Bill today. He listened very carefully. He was a breath of fresh air in the House and it is always a pleasure to have him here. I hope he will be carrying a heavier portfolio the next time he comes here but, one way or another, the Minister is always welcome.
It was the intention this morning to take the Private Members' motion at 6 p.m. and that still stands. There was a suggestion earlier that we might bring that debate forward to 5.30 p.m. but, unfortunately, that is not possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 5 p.m. and resumed at 6 p.m.