I would like to take the opportunity to sincerely thank the Members from all sides of the House for their kind words and good wishes to me on my appointment as Minister of State at the Department of the Environment. I very much appreciate their remarks.
I would like to express my appreciation of what has been a very useful and constructive debate. Many issues have been touched on, either by way of suggestion or seeking clarification. I hope to deal with the main issues as fully and helpfully as I can. In a sense, it is a tribute to the Bill that much of the comment related to what is not in the Bill rather than what it contains.
Several Senators referred to the question of votes for emigrants. The position is that the Government are examining the feasibility of this matter; consideration has not been finalised but it may be anticipated that the Government's position will be made known shortly.
Many Senators referred to what are seen as defects in the law relating to the election of the Seanad, including the University electorate, the financing of the University register and the case for automatic re-election of the Cathaoirleach. The present Bill is essentially a Dáil electoral measure and only touches incidentally on the other electoral codes. It would not be practicable to deal in a substantive manner with all seven electoral codes in a single Bill.
Several Senators regretted that the Bill does not contain provision in relation to the funding of political parties and the control of expenditure at elections. Those questions are inter-related and would need to be examined in a broad context.
Up to 30 years ago the amount which a candidate could spend at an election was subject to statutory limit. This control was removed on the recommendation of an all-party Oireachtas Joint Committee which took the view that the control was neither necessary, relevant or effective.
In considering the financing of political parties it would be necessary to address questions such as public funding, contributions from trade unions and similar bodies and from business and private individuals as well as disclosure of sources and monitoring of expenditure. The examination would have to take account of the parliamentary functions as well as the electoral role of parties. The present Bill, which deals essentially with the technical procedures at Dáil elections, would not be an appropriate vehicle for dealing with such questions.
Senators Murphy and Ryan expressed support for compulsory voting. Other speakers thought it might be a good idea if an element of compulsion were to be introduced in relation to the registration of electors. It is regrettable that there is such a low level of co-operation from the general public in the compilation of the register. However, I do not think that the idea of compulsion is the answer or would be in keeping with our liberal democratic traditions. We all have a role in getting across to people the supreme importance of the register which is the very basis of our democracy. The new timetable and the new procedures will, I hope, provide an opportunity to step up efforts to improve the register. The obligation to revise Dáil constituencies is placed by the Constitution on the Oireachtas. A Constituency Commission can therefore have only an advisory role, whether it is appointed on an ad hoc basis or, as suggested by Senator Costello, on a statutory basis.
Senators Foley and Conroy spoke of the desirability of a more far-reaching review of our electoral system and Senator Brendan Ryan seemed to favour single seat constituencies with a single transferable vote. Whatever about the desirability of change, any substantial changes in the system would require constitutional amendment. This Bill could not therefore deal with these matters. The same would apply to Senator Mooney's suggestion that the Dáil should have a fixed term and the suggestion made by a number of speakers that the age for membership of the Dáil should be reduced to 18.
Most of the contributors referred to the proposal on the regulation of opinion polls and a fairly wide cross-section of opinion was revealed. Some Senators are apparently opposed in principle to any regulation of opinion polls. Others, on both sides of the House, either are not entirely convinced of the necessity for regulation or have reservations about the effectiveness of the provision proposed in the Bill. The Government have decided not to proceed with a restriction on the taking of opinion polls in the days preceding an election or a referendum. This decision follows full consideration of the views expressed by many interests and takes particular account of the views advanced by Senators in the course of the debate on the Electoral (No. 2) Bill, 1991.
The proposal to regulate the taking of opinion polls on electoral matters was brought forward last year in response to concern about their possible effects on voting intentions. In recent decades several democratic countries have moved to regulate polls. Some have proceeded with control measures while others decided on balance not to adopt this course. When the Electoral Bill was published last year it was made clear that the Government were not necessarily committed to the particular form of regulation proposed and were anxious to receive the views of all interested parties on the issue. Having now considered all aspects of the matter the Government have decided that the proposal to regulate the taking of polls should not proceed. An appropriate amendment to the Electoral Bill will be moved on Committee Stage.
In relation to the increase in the deposit, there is recognition of the need to discourage non-serious candidates. As Senator Upton said, such candidates seek to make a mockery of the election process. I am not talking about single issue candidates or candidates with radical or far out views. I am talking about people who become candidates for reasons that have nothing to do with the election, people who are pursuing their own private agenda and have no intention or desire to be elected.
We have probably the most open system of nomination in the world. Any citizen of Ireland, irrespective of place of birth or residence, irrespective of any connection with the country or the constituency, may nominate himself or be nominated by just one elector. The choice of methods of discouraging non-serious candidates lies between restricting the right to nominate to registered parties — this might not be generally acceptable — requiring the signatures of a substantial number of electors — checking the validity of such signatures would be an impossible task for returning officers — or requiring a deposit fixed at reasonable level.
Requiring a deposit is of long standing, is well known and understood and, of course, the deposit is refunded if the candidate attracts a certain minimum of support. That minimum is being reduced from one-third to a quarter of the quota. If a candidate, no matter how poor, is genuine and has serious policies, he or she will have little difficulty in putting a deposit of £500 together. I believe £500 is a reasonable level for the deposit and I would not favour the suggestion, made by a number of Senators, that the deposit be raised to £1,000.
Senators Neville, Dardis and Raftery suggested that the threshold for the refund of the deposit should be further reduced to, say, one-fifth or one-sixth of the quota. Senator Costello would have it reduced to one-tenth. The reduced threshold of one-quarter proposed in the Bill would represent about 2,000 votes in an average constituency. This seems a reasonable level.
In another connection, Senator Lanigan thought it unlikely that a candidate would attempt to contest more than one constituency. In fact, at the 1987 General Election one candidate contested a total of 13 constituencies. The deposit at local elections is not affected by this Bill.
It is an offence to nominate a candidate without consent. The returning officer is required to give notice in writing to each person nominated as a candidate.
In reply to Senator Costello, I would like to say that the disqualification for election of certain prisoners is not new. It has been part of our law since 1923 and a similar provision is found in the electoral law of many countries.
In regard to picturesque additions to candidates' names, this is dealt with in section 52.
In relation to the register of political parties, a number of speakers, including Senators Dardis, Murphy and Neville, expressed the view that parties who espouse violence should not be registered. I think the point was well answered by Senator Brendan Ryan — the measure is unlikely to be effective. I understand that a test of this kind applies in relation to candidates for council seats in the North. It does not seem to have achieved the desired objective.
In response to Senators Naughten and Doyle, I want to confirm that the register will still be published each year as it is at present. It will, of course, continue to be the main document — the supplement will only be used to add names which should have been included from the start. It is generally accepted that there must be a cut-off point for applications for inclusion in the supplement. Several Senators made the point that omissions from the register are most likely to come to light in the run-up to an election. They suggested that applications should be accepted up to a week or ten days before polling day. Further thought will be given to this matter but it is essential that we have regard to the danger of abuse and to the risk, referred to particularly by Senators Doyle and Hederman, of undermining the status of the register proper. In response to Senator Neville, the supplement will apply in relation to the register proper. The postal and special voters list will continue to be compiled on the existing basis.
In relation to the cost of preparing the register, Senators Lanigan and Doyle inquired why section 20 provides that the State "may" rather than "shall" meet three-quarters of the cost of preparing the register. The intention is, of course, that the State will meet this increased proportion. However, the general policy in relation to grants for local authorities favours block grants rather than special purpose grants. The wording of section 20 will leave it open to include the registration payment in a block grant at some time in the future.
Senator Ó Foighil's point in relation to anonymous claims for correction in the draft register will be referred to the registration authority.
The need for the provision in relation to single registration arises from the ruling of the Supreme Court in November 1990. The court ruled that certain students were, under existing law, entitled to be registered for more than one constituency. This situation, which could apply to other categories as well as students, is undesirable.
Under the proposed provision nobody may be registered more than once. Where a person occupies more than one residence, he or she will have a choice as to which of these to be registered for. Thus a third level student may opt to be registered for the home constituency or the constituency in which he or she lives for the purpose of attending college.
As the Minister said in introducing this Bill, the Supreme Court ruling was not a statement of any constitutional or other fundamental right, it simply clarified the meaning of the existing legal provision. In effect, the Bill will restore the provision to what it was assumed to be before the court ruling.
Senators Doyle, Honan, Jackman and others suggested that students should be afforded free travel to and from their home area on polling day. This suggestion would involve open-ended expenditure and would not seem to be practicable. If the facility were to be given to students, in fairness, it would have to be extended to others in a similar situation, to anybody absent from their polling place, abroad or elsewhere, at election time as well as to electors living at a distance from their polling station.
Senator Lanigan and others inquired if it would be an offence for an elector to be registered more than once. The obligation to register is and will continue to be on the registration authority. The question of an offence of plural registration, as such, does not arise.
A number of speakers referred to the proposed new timetable for compiling the register and some saw difficulties with certain aspects of it. The objective of the new timetable is two-fold — to reduce the overall time scale and to take the time for public scrutiny of the draft register out of the Christmas period. Subject to these objectives, I am open to suggestion on the detail of the timetable. Should the dates decided on give rise to practical difficulty, it would be possible, under section 20, to alter the timetable by order of the Minister with the approval of both Houses.
Senator Jackman suggested a "qualifying period" rather than a "qualifying date" for registration purpose. I should like to explain that the requirement for registration is "ordinary residence", and, for this purpose, temporary absence or temporary presence is disregarded. The requirement is quite different, for example, from the census where de facto presence on the census date is what counts.
The prohibition on political activity in the vicinity of polling stations was included in response to representations from many sources. We have an obligation to deal with the matter and the prohibition will apply to candidates as well as everybody else. However, under section 98 the candidate and his election agent will have the right of admission to any polling station.
The distance of 50 metres will be measured, in effect, from the school gate. A number of speakers suggested that this distance is insufficient and should be extended to 100 or 200 metres. I would be happy to be guided by the House in this regard. The prohibition will apply to posters affixed to vehicles as well as fixed locations.
In regard to access to polling stations, the Department recently requested returning officers to review all buildings used for polling purposes with particular regard to the requirements of the disabled and the infirm. I assure Senator McDonald that all care is taken to ensure that rules are fully complied with and that security is adequate at polling stations.
A number of speakers referred to the arrangements for free postage for candidates. The Bill continues the existing situation but enables the Minister to alter the arrangements following appropriate consultation, with the approval of both Houses.
The "free postage" facility is very expensive. For this reason it should not be extended to local elections as suggested by Senators Mooney and Hederman. The cost, like the other costs of conducting local elections, would have to be met by the local authorities. The same consideration would apply to Senator Doyle's suggestion that the issue of polling cards should be obligatory at local elections. Because of the high cost involved, the matter should continue to be left to the discretion of the local authority concerned.
A number of Senators suggested that postal voting be made available for various categories — emigrants, students, merchant seamen, fishermen, prisoners, the disabled, people working away from home and so on. An excellent case could be made for such a facility for all sorts of categories. However, experience here and elsewhere has shown that postal voting is very open to abuse. There is a solemn obligation on us as legislators to ensure that elections are not affected by abuse. In 1986 the Oireachtas decided on home voting for the disabled rather than postal voting. It is unlikely that there would be general support for extended postal voting now.
Senator Conroy would like to see the polls staying open later and Senator Cosgrave favours earlier opening. Under the Bill the polls must be open for a minimum of 12 hours within the period 8 a.m. to 10.30 p.m. It would be possible, if considered desirable, to have them open for up to 14½ hours.
Senators Foley and Lanigan inquired why illiterate votes may not be assisted by a companion, as in the case of blind and incapacitated electors. This is a continuation of the existing provision. The difference in treatment of the categories seems to relate to the prevention of abuse.
A companion may assist not more than two electors. This seems to be a prudent precaution and I understand that a similar restriction is not unusual in the law of other countries.
Senator Dardis questioned the provision under which the presiding officer may refuse assistance in the last two hours of polling. What we are doing here is reducing the existing period from four to two hours. Presiding officers are, and will continue to be, instructed to avail of this only where absolutely essential.
The suggestion by Senator Upton that the instructions to the voter appearing on the ballot paper should be printed in larger characters will be taken up with the returning officers at the appropriate time.
In response to Senator Hederman and Senator Ó Foighil, there is no obligation whatever on any candidate to use the expression "Non-Party"; a candidate is free to leave the relevant space on the nomination paper and ballot paper blank.
A number of Senators suggested that the names on the ballot paper should be randomised. This would cause serious difficulty for electors, particularly those with imperfect vision or with a low level of literacy. Electors are long accustomed to the alphabetic order; to change it could cause confusion. The House will recall that this question was the subject of legal action in 1986. The High Court took the view that the alphabetical system of listing candidates provided for in the 1963 Act was a reasonable one.
If a change in the format of the ballot paper were to be considered, there may be a case for grouping the candidates of each party together on the ballot paper as is done in Malta where the single transfer voting system is also used in multimember constituencies.
Senators Ryan, Finneran, Cosgrave and McDonald favour Sunday voting. Under existing law, Dáil elections could not be held on Sunday. This Bill will remove the blanket prohibition and it will be possible to consider the matter for future elections. However, there must be regard to the fact that the minority Christian churches are opposed to Sunday voting.
