Amendment No. 172 is consequential on amendment No. 22, amendment Nos. 23, 24, 25 and 26 are related alternatives and amendment No. 27 is related and all may be discussed together.
Electoral (No. 2) Bill, 1991: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 21:
In page 21, between lines 19 and 20, to insert a new subsection as follows:
"(2) Subject to sections 7 to 10, a person who reaches the age of eighteen years after the specified date for the coming into force of the register of electors and before the expiry of the said register shall on reaching the age of eighteen years be entitled to apply to be entered on the said supplement.".
—(Senator McMahon.)
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 22:
In page 21, subsection (2), lines 22 to 24, to delete paragraphs (a) and (b) and substitute:
"(a) consideration of applications under subsection (1) by the registration authority and the ruling on such applications by the registration authority.
(b) the ruling on an appeal against the decision of the registration authority, and"
The proposed amendments to section 15 of the Second Schedule provide for a revised time limit for the submission of applications for entry in the supplement to the register and for an amendment procedure for dealing with the applications. The closing date specified in section 15, as drafted, for applications for entry in the supplement in respect of an election or referendum is the date of the order appointing polling day.
Amendment No. 24, in the name of Senator Naughten, proposes that the closing date for application for entry in the supplement should be seven days before the polling day, while Senator Ó Fóighil, in amendment No. 25 proposes to have a cut-off point nine days after the date of the order appointing polling days. Amendment No. 23, in the name of four Labour Senators, provides for the deletion of subsection (5) which sets the cut-off point after which applications for entry in the supplement will not be considered at an election or referendum. Amendment No. 27 provides for insertion of a new subsection (6) which would allow supplements to be published at any time during the lifetime of a register.
I have carefully considered these proposed amendments and the comments made by various Senators during Second Stage debate. At the outset I have to say that I regard the cut-off point as absolutely essential. We must make sure that applications for inclusion in the supplement will be fully checked out. We must also make sure that the status of the register proper is not undermined, that we are not, in effect, providing an easy and less difficult way for getting on the register. There must be a cut-off point and it must provide adequate time for the registration authority to check applications thoroughly. For this reason, I cannot accept the amendment which would remove the cut-off point.
In so far as amendment No. 27 is concerned, I would like to assure the House that a registration authority will consider all applications for entry in the register received through the year. Any application received after the closing date in respect of an election or a referendum will still be processed and electors eligible for entry in the supplement will be added to it and will be eligible to vote at any further poll which may be held later in the registration year.
During Second Stage debate many Senators thought the closing date proposed in the Bill was too early and did not give people a real opportunity of getting on the supplement, particularly as omissions are more likely to come to light during the election campaign. Other speakers stressed that we should have regard to the danger of abuse and the risk of undermining the status of the register proper. Having carefully considered both viewpoints, the Minister has come to the conclusion that a closing date somewhat closer to polling day would be possible and would be desirable in order to allow as many people as possible to avail of the facility. I feel, however, that the deadline of seven days before polling day, as proposed in amendment No. 25, would be too late and would give very little time to the registration authority to process the applications and have the supplement finalised for delivery to the returning officer in good time before polling day.
Government amendment No. 22 proposes a deadline of 12 days before polling day for applications for entry in the supplement. This would broadly be in line with Senator Ó Foighil's proposal because, at a typical Dáil election, there would be a period of about three weeks between dissolution and polling day. I consider that this revised closing date strikes the correct balance and will give potential applicants about a week after the election has been announced to check the register and submit their application while allowing reasonable time for the registration authorities to process applications. If the time for receipt of applications is extended, as now proposed, it will be necessary to revise and simplify the procedure for dealing with applications.
The procedure provided for in the Second Schedule to the Bill is rather cumbersome and time consuming and follows, as near as possible, the procedure for preparing the register proper. It provides for investigation of the application by the registration authority, a recommendation to the county registrar, publication of a notice setting out details of the application and allows a period of five days during which objection may be made to the inclusion of an applicant in the supplement. The county registrar would then rule on the application as soon as possible after the five day period. If the time for receipt of applications is extended, as now proposed, it would not be practical to comply with this procedure and amendment No. 172 proposes a shorter and simpler method of dealing with applicants. Under this method, the registration authority will rule on applications and, in the event of an application being refused, the applicant will have the right of appeal to the county registrar.
I believe that amendments Nos. 22 and 172, in extending the time for applications and simplifying the procedure, will meet the general view expressed. In the circumstances, I suggest that the Senators concerned may wish to withdraw their amendments and instead support Government amendments Nos. 22, 26 and 172.
I welcome this Government amendment and, indeed, amendment No. 26. Quite a few of us have spoken on this Bill on Second Stage and now on Committee Stage. The Minister of State listened to us as a former member of local government; indeed, in the Minister, Deputy Smith, I can see the trace of somebody familiar with elections in these Government amendments.
I also welcome the right to appeal to the county registrar in the Minister's amendments. I hope we will get support from all parties on the Government amendments here this afternoon.
We could argue about 12 days, ten days, five days or two days, but I believe the Minister has struck a reasonable enough compromise. Perhaps it might not be the one I would have come up with myself, but it goes a fair way to meet the concerns of Senators. It is important, in relation to that, that the registrar and the Department of the Environment should ensure that the public are made fully aware of the deadline being 12 days away so that the political parties have an opportunity to check the register to find out whether certain people are on it. Then they can get their act together in time to allow people who are legitimately entitled to a vote to be in a position where they cast their vote. I am happy enough with the compromise produced by the Minister. I thank him for acceeding to the general concerns which were expressed during the debate.
I believe the Minister has struck a reasonable compromise. What are the criteria laid down? When there is a dissolution and a polling day is set, what is the minimum time? Is 21 days the minimum or the maximum time? The Minister said 12 days before polling day was only an approximate figure. How close would it be to polling day?
The poll at a Dáil Élection shall be taken on such day as shall be appointed by the Minister by order, being a day which is not earlier than the 17th day or later than the 25th day following the day on which the writ or writs for the election is or are issued.
It could, in fact, be as little as five days? Is that correct?
Seventeen is the minimum.
No; for the people to get on this supplementary register, if polling day was close it could take five days to be registered.
That is correct.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 23 to 25, inclusive, not moved.
Government amendment No. 26:
In page 21, subsection (5), line 41, to delete "date on which an order is made by the Minister appointing" and substitute "twelfth day (disregarding any excluded day) before".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 27 not moved.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.
Section 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 22, subsection (2) (a), line 42, to delete "suffered by him".
This amendment deals with the use of language. My understanding of people who suffer from a variety of different disabilities is that they are concerned about the use of language, particularly the term "suffered by". Maybe it is a subliminal slip on my part; I used it in the previous sentence. That is why we are suggesting that that term be deleted. I do not think the deletion of the term will seriously change the meaning of the Bill. For that reason I am anxious that the Minister accept the amendment.
Subsection (2) of section 17 sets out the category of electors eligible for entry in a special voters list. The category includes any elector unable to go in person to the polling station to vote because of physical illness or physical disability suffered by him.
Amendment No. 28 proposes the deletion of the word "suffered by him". While at first glance the words may seem superfluous I would like to explain that if the words were deleted it would be open to an elector to apply for entry on a special voters list on the grounds of illness or disability suffered by somebody else. For example, another member of the household might be ill or disabled and might be cared for by the elector. This might make it difficult for the elector to vote in person at the polling station and he or more likely she would reasonably take the view that this entitled him or her to avail of the special voting facilities. Obviously this is not the intention of the original legislation and I doubt if it is the intention behind the proposed amendment. Nonetheless, if the words were removed the provision could reasonably be read as having this meaning.
It is clear that when the special voting arrangements were introduced in 1986 only persons actually suffering from disability were intended to avail of this facility. I consider retention of the words to be essential in order to put the matter beyond doubt. In any legislation we must strive above all for clarity and certainty, even if this may demand a certain awkwardness of expression from time to time. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.
I am disappointed that the Minister cannot accept the amendment. Essentially, my concern is the use of terminology which is offensive to people who have a physical illness or disability. I understand that these people are concerned at this terminology, I can understand the Minister's concern for clarity in legislation but I hope it would be possible to attain that clarity while at the same time not offending the sensibilities of certain groups in the community. I ask the Minister, perhaps on Report Stage, to have another look at the terminology used. It is a relatively small point.
It should be possible to clear up the difficulty by use of another set of words. I sincerely hope it is not beyond the capacity of the Minister and his advisers to come up with terms which would meet both his concerns and the concerns to which we are alluding in this amendment.
I do not see what is offensive in the words in the Bill but if Senator Upton knows people in this position who find it offensive, I am prepared to accept that. I wonder would he accept the following words, "he is unable to go in person to vote at the polling place for his polling district by reason of his physical illness or physical disability".
It is seldom that Senator Upton makes a point that he, like myself, does not feel strongly about. Obviously, like Senator Hederman, I am not quite sure why the words "suffered by him" upsets Senator Upton, but maybe it is because the section deals with special voters lists, and section 100 is tied to it. All of us in the House have been close to these special people and I appeal to the Minister and his senior advisers to look at this. Like Senator Hederman I do not see the problem with the present wording but because this specific section deals with special people, I appeal to the Minister to look again at it.
We put down this amendment arising from representations from groups who simply disliked the use of that terminology. I have no difficulty in conceding this is not a fundamental point. All I am asking is that the Minister would look at other ways of covering the concerns he has while avoiding the use of that language. I am confident it is possible to do that. I do not want to build it up into a big issue. It is just a matter of trying to meet those concerns. I sincerely hope it can be done. Senator Hederman made a good suggestion. Perhaps the Minister would consider that and come back with a change on Report Stage.
I will look at it and come back on it on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 22, subsection (2) (b), line 46, after "made" to add ", or
(c) he is unable to go in person to vote by reason of imprisonment".
This amendment relates to people who are unable to vote because they are imprisoned. This was debated here in considerable detail already and I do not want to go through all the points which have been made. I just want to say that imprisonment involves the removal of the right to liberty but it need not necessarily involve the removal of a series of other rights. For those reasons I ask the Minister to accept this amendment.
Amendment No. 29 proposes to extend to prisoners the special voting arrangements currently available only to disabled prisoners. As the House is aware, special voting for the disabled involves a visit by a special presiding officer and a member of the Garda Síochána to each special voter at his or her place of residence, where a ballot paper is delivered to the voter. The voter marks his or her ballot paper in the presence of the special presiding officer and garda and returns the sealed ballot paper envelope to the special presiding officer.
In relation to the registration of electors, we stated in this Bill: "prisoners are registered at their home address." A prisoner, like any other elector, could only vote in the constituency where he is registered. He could be detained in a prison at a considerable distance from his constituency. Any prison might contain prisoners from all or most of the 41 constituencies. If the special voting facility were to be extended to prisoners, we could have the situation where the prison would have to be visited by a special presiding officer and a garda from each constituency concerned. This would not be practicable. No special facility is provided for voting by prisoners but then no special facility is provided for other categories who, for one reason or another, ther, are not able to go to their polling station, categories who have at least as strong a claim for consideration as prisoners. It is relevant to say that in most countries of the EC prisoners are debarred from voting or standing for election.
The special voting facility was designed specifically for disabled voters. It is a cumbersome and expensive system to operate. It was introduced to facilitate a category of electors rendered housebound due to physical disability or illness. It is clearly not suitable for extension to prisoners and I ask the Senator not to press the amendment.
Acting Chairman
Is amendment No 29 being pressed?
While we have been through this matter on a number of occasions already in this Bill, we have now entered the phase which could loosely be described as the dialogue of the deaf. For that reason I will not press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 17 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 23, before section 18, to insert a new section as follows:
18.—A person who is entitled to be entered on the Special Voters list and was not so entered, may apply to the registration authority for inclusion in a supplement to the list referred to in section 17 (1) and the provisions of section 15 (5) shall apply to any application made under this section.".
The purpose of this amendment is to extend the facilities to those who may become housebound or physically disabled who were not included on the list of disabled voters and that a supplementary list should be available for those people to be included; in other words, to give the opportunity to the maximum number of people to use their democratic right to vote on election day. For example, people who from the time the register was compiled had become housebound or disabled in any way could opt for a vote on a supplementary register for disabled voters.
The effect of this amendment would be to enable a person who is eligible for entry on the special voters list but was not so entered to apply for entry in a supplement to the special voters list. The closing date proposed for applications would be the same as that applying to applications for inclusion in the supplement to the register under section 50.
The amendment to section 15 which we have discussed will allow applications for entry in the supplement to the register up to the 12th day before polling day. This cut-off date would not be suitable in relation to special voters because, depending on the polling day selected, special voting could already be underway by the 12th day. In this connection section 81 requires ballot papers to be delivered to special voters as soon as practicable after the close of nominations.
The procedure for dealing with special voters applications would also render this cut-off date impracticable. A medical certificate may be necessary and the registration authority may require further information. Under rule 20 of the Second Schedule a minimum of seven days must be allowed for the furnishing of such information. Also, special voting requires detailed forward planning by both returning officer and the Garda authorities. Even if it were practicable it would be most undesirable to have special voting applications being made when an election is already underway. We are dealing here with some of the more vulnerable sections of our community, the disabled, the ill and the old. They should be allowed to make up their own minds in their own time, free from the kind of pressure that can be generated by the heat of an election. To have applications up-to-date as suggested would be neither practicable or desirable. I suggest that the amendment be pressed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 18 to 20, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 21.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 24, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following new subsection:
"(6) No order for costs may be made in proceedings under this section.".
This amendment relates to appeals. One of the reasons people will not take cases to court is the enormous costs that are involved. At the same time, very important principles are frequently at stake which should be decided by the courts. It is for that reason that we have put down this amendment, namely, that no costs should be made in proceedings under this section, to allow people to have the opportunity of being able to take cases without having to worry about the effects of decisions being made against them in relation to costs.
Section 21 restates existing law in relation to the right to appeal to the Circuit Court against any decision of a county registrar on a claim in relation to the register of electors. Provision is made in this section for an appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of the Circuit Court on a point of law.
Amendment No. 31 proposes that no order for costs may be made in relation to proceedings under this section. It is a normal part of the process of legal proceedings through the courts that a person initiating an action or lodging an appeal against a court decision may be awarded costs or have costs awarded against him. The same applies to other parties to proceedings. I do not see why an exception should be made in the case of appeals made to the Circuit Court or the Supreme Court in relation to revision of a court decision. A claimant for entry on the register who decides to appeal to the Circuit Court, and possibly the Supreme Court, should if his claim succeeds be eligible to have his or her costs paid by the respondent to the proceedings. I think it would be outrageous for the law to provide that he could not recover his costs if the court finally upheld his claim. It is also reasonable that a person who, having gone through the full procedure laid down in the Electoral Acts for the registration of electors, fails to establish his entitlement to be registered should be liable to have the costs incurred by other parties to the proceedings awarded against him. This should apply particularly where the original claim may have been frivolous. It is, of course, a matter for the courts to decide, in any case, whether an order for costs should be made. It is reasonable to assume that the courts would have regard to all relevant facts in considering this question in each case. This is a matter which could and should be left to the courts. I would ask the Senator not to press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 24, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following new subsection:
(7) The decision referred to in subsection (1) shall contain notice of the right of appeal to the Circuit Court, and the decision of the Circuit Court shall contain notice of the right of appeal to the Supreme Court on a point of law.".
This amendment simply endeavours to ensure that where decisions referred to in subsection (1) are being contested and when decisions have been made, people should be informed of their right to appeal to the Circuit Court. The decision of the Circuit Court, in turn, should contain a notification of the right to appeal to the Supreme Court on a point of law. It is a provision aimed at making people aware of their entitlement to further appeals when decisions have gone against them.
Section 21 repeats existing law in relation to the right to appeal to the Circuit Court against any decision of a county registrar on a claim in relation to the register of electors. Provision is also made in this section for an appeal to the Supreme Court against a decision of the Circuit Court on a point of law.
This amendment provides for an insertion of a new provision in section 21 requiring the decision of the revision court, on a claim, to include notification of the claimant's right to appeal to the Circuit Court and his right to further appeal on a point of law to the Supreme Court. Rule 12, paragraph (3), of the Second Schedule to this Bill provides that the registration authority shall, on receiving from the county registrar his decision on the claims at the revision court, notify the claimant and any other person appearing to them to be interested, together with the intimation of the right of appeal against the decision of the Circuit Court under section 21. The first part of the proposed amendment is, therefore, already provided for.
It is unnecessary and possibly inappropriate to make provision in this section for the regulation of the procedure for notification by the Circuit Court of its decisions. This would be a matter for the court itself and for the rules of court. Its normal for appellants in the Circuit Court to engage legal representatives to handle the appeal. It would be a matter for the legal representatives to advise the claimant of his or her right of appeal on a point of law to the Supreme Court. The court itself would almost certainly give this advice in any case.
From the point of view of consistency it may be inappropriate, or at least undesirable, to provide for such detailed procedural provisions in legislation. This type of provision is not normally provided for in legislation and could be confusing if it were provided for in an isolated case such as in this Bill. I would ask the Senator to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 21 agreed to.
Sections 22 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 25.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 25, subsection (3), line 37, to delete subparagraph (i).
This section deals with the registration of political parties. Subsection (3) says "The Registrar shall prepare and maintain a register (to be known as the Register of Political Parties) in which, subject to the subsequent provisions of this section, he shall register any political party". It subsequently states that it is is necessary that the registrar should form the opinion that what is being registered is a genuine political party. It also refers to its "being organised in the State or a part thereof to contest a Dáil election or a European election or a local election." I would have thought that the organisations which come together to contest elections are, by definition, political parties. I cannot see the need for the use of the term "genuine". It seems to suggest there are such things as bogus or pseudo political parties or that there are dud or Mickey Mouse political parties. It is beginning to sound like Monty Python's Flying Circus with its semi-silly and semi-serious parties. I do not understand the need for this term which seems pejorative. The reference to genuine political parties, real political parties makes them sound like real ale, the language taken from the slogans of politics, which are bandied about at election time, when we are all trying to put one over on the opposing candidates. I do not understand the need for the term "genuine" here. The least that might be done is to amend the section to read: "in his opinion is a political party.".
The purpose of the introduction of a system of registration of political parties was to enable the names of parties to be entered on ballot papers in relation to the names of their candidates; up to 1963 the names of political parties were not included on ballot papers. The procedure for the registration of political parties was introduced by the Electoral Act, 1963, on the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Electoral Law. One of the recommendations of the joint committee was that only parties which, in the opinion of the registrar, genuine political parties could be registered.
The purpose of the subparagraph is to give clear guidance to the registrar that he may register only groups whose objectives are political and who have a serious intention of selecting and presenting candidates for election to public office. If the groups' objectives are other than political, if their aims are basically commercial or if the intention is to entertain or provide amusement, then they may not be registered. The registrar must, in the first instance, decide whether a group is a genuine political party. How he satisfies himself on this and what evidence he may require are matters for the registrar. It is likely, however, he would seek to establish whether it is the group's intention to engage in elections, to select and present candidates, whether it has a statement of aims, a constitution, rules and political documents of whether it has a structure geared towards decision making and policy formation, in other words, does the group have the characteristics we normally associate with political parties. All these questions arise under subparagraph (i).
Under subparagraph (ii), the registrar would consider whether the group had the organisation, at least in outline, necessary to put these objectives into effect. Subparagraph (i) sets out the essential conditions for register. It is, in effect, the core of the provision. Without it, the instructions of the Oireachtas to the registrar, the appeal board and the courts would be vague and incomplete. The subparagraph is essential and this section could not stand without it.
The concerns of the Minister would be covered by the words "he shall register any political party". Once you have said that, I do not see the need to say that the political party must be a genuine political party. I am also concerned that under the term "may provide a means by which" some people may be excluded from being registered as political parties. There was a time in this country, not all that long ago, when a number of groups of people who considered they were political parties had difficulty being registered. Subsequently the regulations and their interpretation became more liberal. These groups have duly been registered and, as far as I can see, it has made no difference at all. I do not understand what the Minister's concerns are in relation to this matter.
My own view of the democratic process is that it works its way to a certain conclusion. I do not believe business people would waste money running political campaigns for non-political purposes. I am concerned about business people being behind certain groups of politicians for reasons that would be considered business rather than political reasons. I do not understand why the term "genuine" needs to be used. I have many reservations about that term; it has a certain ring to it which, in this context, is unacceptable. It seems to hint at the possibility that certain elements who are engaged in the political process might not be considered to be genuine and, therefore, should be excluded.
In that regard I want to allude to the role of people who have been involved in violence. Over the years, one of the cases which has been strongly made by many people is that it is very important that people who have pursued physical force as a means of attaining political objectives should submit themselves to the test of the ballot box, they should become involved in the everyday business of politics. If they did that, the restraints imposed by the practice of politics would be a very strong encouragement for them to desist from the use of violence.
The term "genuine" seems to contain a suggestion of censorship. What would be a non-genuine political party? Even if there were such a thing, where is the difficulty? Such people come and go and they do not last very long. The outlook for new political groups in this country is not encouraging. One has only to look at all the groups which have come and gone since the foundation of the State; Ailtirí na hAiseirghe, for example, were around at some stage in the forties; there was Saor Éire, Clann na Poblachta, Clann na Talún, Aontacht Éireann. It is a considerable list. I do not want to suggest that any of these groups were not genuine political parties. Perhaps I am wronging the Minister if I suspect he is becoming somewhat patemalistic, feeling that these groups, who have not much chance of succeeding in the longer term, should be protected from themselves and not allowed to waste effort and money in establishing themselves, having a short half-life in nuclear terminology, resembling the more suicidal of the enzymes, which do not last very long. Perhaps the Minister even has some deeply held subliminal anxieties which relate to his concern about the Progressive Democrats and the outlook for that party. I wonder if they would be considered a genuine political party in the context of the historical treatment of groups which come and go?
I hope I do not seem a trifle smug when I take these positions. I speak as a member of the oldest of all the political parties in this country, a party whose impending death was forecast, with a great deal of enthusiasm, by many people. Yet, after all those years, here we are, alive and well and looking good for another 80 to 100 years or so. Again, I appeal to the Minister to reconsider the use of the term "genuine".
I would like to support Senator Upton in much, perhaps not all, of what he said and to thank him and the other Labour Senators for having put down this amendment. I intended to put it down and it slipped my notice.
What is the difference between a political party and a genuine political party? The introduction of the word "genuine" before "political party" suggests, as Senator Upton said, that there are non-genuine political parties. I also find it difficult to accept the provision that it must be, in the opinion of the registrar, a genuine political party. We all have our opinions on issues. There are probably as many opinions in this House as there are Senators and every registrar probably has a different opinion. Perhaps in the previoius Act some criteria are laid down which are not mentioned in this section of this Bill. Are there more criteria laid down, so that the registrar does not have to rely too heavily on his opinion, which may be different from that of a previous or subsequent Clerk of the Dáil? I do not know. I have not been here long enough to know how long, on average, a Clerk of the Dáil stays in his post. Since I have arrived in Leinster House, the Clerk of the Seanad has gone to become Clerk of the Dáil. Presumably that means in my short time here there have been at least two Clerks of the Dáil. Do they have the same opinion with regard to what constitutes a genuine political party?
The Minister mentioned that up to 1963 there was no mention on the ballot paper of a candidate's political party affiliation. I am sorry it was ever allowed to be introduced. I think we would have far better politics without it. I do not intend any offence to any Deputy. On the Seanad ballot paper there is no mention of political parties. It would be far better if, when candidates were standing for the Dáil, and even more so, for local authority elections, that they were not allowed to put their party political affiliation on the ballot paper. They then might have to stand on their own feet. They might have to be people who had a genuine base in the constituency, who were well known, who had a track record, perhaps in the case of local authority elections, of commitment to the community. They could not be drafted in at the drop of a hat or imposed by headquarters in Dublin and forced on that area. I do not know much about this because I am not in a political party. The fact that candidates have Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour or The Workers' Party after their names means the good old stalwarts who just blindly vote on party lines do not have to know who they are. As long as they see Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or whatever, they are happy to put the tick after the name. It does not matter a tinker's curse the standing of that candidate. I greatly regret that. I suppose I would be only wasting my breath asking the Minister to consider bringing in regulations to go back to the pre-1963 situation where there were no indications of party affiliation after candidates' names. The present system is wrong and I would dearly love to see a change in it.
Members of political parties often get out of difficult situations by saying "I was under the party whip". Once they are under the party whip everything is forgiven. They can do what they have to because they are under the party whip, and their opinion does not matter. All that could be done away with if we discontinued this system.
To what is the Minister referring when he speaks about a political party with commercial aims? Will he clarify that? Is he suggesting that groups would put forward candidates as an advertising gimmick? If so, would he explain how it could be done? I would then be satisfied with what he said.
If the register were to be approached by a group who wanted to call themselves the party of Independents would that cause any problems, or is that a contradiction in terms? I am an Independent; I have always been an Independent and I hope always to remain so. Many Independents feel frustrated by the present party system. They believed, at the local election, that they heard the voice of the people telling politicians what they felt about many political candidates in the considerable boost that was given to Independents. If we wanted to register as an Independent Party, would that, in the opinion of the registrar, be a genuine political party?
I support Senator Upton's amendment. It should be acceded to.
We must differ on the word "genuine" because it is the core of the section. We all know of people participating in politics who were not genuine or sincere about their cause. The registrar must, in the first instance, decide whether a group is a genuine political party. What evidence he may require is a matter for the registrar. It is likely that he would seek to establish whether it is the group's intention to engage in elections, to select and present candidates, whether it has a statement of aims, a constitution, rules and policy documents, or if it has a structure geared towards decision making and policy formation, in other words, whether the group has the characteristics normally associated with a political party. These questions arise under the subsection. I would ask the Senator to withdraw the amendment.
Is amendment No. 33 being pressed?
Yes.
There are all sorts of innuendoes here. I may appear naïve, but the Minister must remember that since I have never been a member of a political party I do not know what goes on there. I do not know to what the Minister is referring when he talks about people who are not sincere. Is it possible to have a genuine political party which might not necessarily select candidates or a policy document and policy formation normally associated with political parties? I agree with the necessity for a constitution. The Minister is saying that the political parties we have are the ideal and anything that does not conform to that cannot be genuine. We can only go along with what we know. The Minister and his colleagues have tunnel vision when it comes to political parties; I am not referring to the Minister personally, but to the political parties in general. I am not singling out any one party — although the Green Party do not subscribe to this way of organising their affairs. The Minister goes along with the idea that everybody who wants to have a genuine political party must have a policy document and a system of policy formation that is normally associated with political parties, and woe to those who do not go along with that; woe to anyone not prepared to kowtow to the party whip. They are thrown out of the party, as we saw here last week. That has been the practice in this country heretofore.
Many countries, however, do not operate the party political system as it is operated here with its tunnel vision accommodating only those who subscribe to, bow to, agree with, the party line and are prepared to stop thinking for themselves because the party tells them how to think. If people are prepared to allow the party dictate to them, although they do not agree with it, they can beat their breast and say they had to obey the party Whip. That excuses everything. I do not believe that is the way parties should operate. The Minister is now saying that unless a political party subscribes to that view it will not be a genuine political party. I find that alarming, and I am sorry Senator Upton is not alarmed by it.
I would ask the Minister to be more explicit about what he means by people who are not sincere. Could he give me examples? Could he explain what he meant when he spoke about people with commercial rather than political motives?
I would like to comment on the statement made by Senator Hederman. It is an abuse of freedom by somebody from the Independent benches to attack the motives, purpose and good intentions of political parties. It is regrettable that Senator Hederman does not have——
Acting Chairman
Will the Senator address his remarks to the amendment?
As they say in Kerry and Clare, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
It is unfortunate that Senator Hederman has not had the experience of being a member of a political party because in most political parties every matter is debated and decisions are arrived at democratically. That is the essence of democracy. I do not subscribe to the idea that all politicians in a national Parliament should have the freedom to vote whichever way they want. The democratic and party systems have served this country well, and I do not like to see them being attacked.
I repeat, that a party must be a genuine party. These are the words of the Joint Committee on Electoral Law. That is what they recommended. With regard to the Senator standing as a member of "the Independent Party", there is no reason why that could not be done.
Who said they had to be a genuine political party?
That was the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Electoral Law, the word "genuine" is in their recommendations and we are including what they recommended.
It would be interesting to know who was on the Joint Committee on Electoral Law. Senator Howard misinterpreted what I said and accused me of an abuse of freedom as an Independent, attacking the motives and intent of political parties. That is not what perturbs me; I am perturbed about the Minister's assertion. He gave us a list normally associated with political parties and implied that unless a party subscribed to them they were not a genuine political party. I do not wish to insult any Member of this House or the other House, but the criteria which applied to political parties 20, 30 or 50 years ago are now outdated. We should move forward and act like other European countries, where they believe in consensus rather than the three line whip. We should allow freedom to evolve towards that end instead of on these curtailing provision "which, in the opinion of the registrar, is a genuine political party". When I asked the Minister what he meant he said they will be engaged in the selection of candidates, they will have a constitutional policy document and other matters normally associated with a political party. What worries me is that if a new type of political party, more geared to be effective in the Ireland of the nineties as we became more closely involved with our European colleagues, is formed it may not be the best or most constructive way forward. In my opinion the Minister is tying us to what may have been suitable up to relatively recently. The Minister has not explained what he meant when he spoke about people whose aims were commercial. Will he spell out what he meant? If he does, I will not return to it. How could people who were not sincere form a political party? What or who is the Minister thinking of?
Acting Chairman
We must move on as this amendment has been adequately debated.
We have not heard much from the Minister except repetition.
I take your point, a Leas-Chathaoirligh. I have a good deal of sympathy with what Senator Hederman says. The fact that Senator Hederman is, to some degree, outside the political club and not a member of a political party gives rise to a distinct and separate perspective of the political process. To some extent she speaks for the average person whereas with political parties, there is a tendency to think in terms of the members of the club. I have no difficulty understanding the fact that the joint committee of politicians, all of whom presumably were members of political parties——
Were they all politicians?
They were members of political parties in the electoral reform. I have no difficulty understanding that people who are members of political parties would succumb to that type of thinking process, but there is a wider world out there. There are what would be legitimate political parties which might not qualify under the category of a "genuine political party" and the broader dimension of political parties, to which Senator Hederman referred, is a useful concept. Those of us who are members of political parties may be guilty of thinking in terms of the members of the club in how we respond to people who are not directly a part of the political process. For those reasons I ask the Minister to look afresh at this amendment.
I have explained why the word is there and where it came from. Unfortunately, we differ on this, and I have nothing further to add.
I promised I would sit if the Minister answered the two questions I put to him but he did not. In saying that what the Joint Committee on Electoral Law said must be right, the Minister led me to presume that High Court, if not Supreme Court, judges headed that committee, and that a cross section of people from trade unions, etc., were members of that committee. Now, Senator Upton tells me — and as the Minister did not shake his head I must assume that Senator Upton is correct — that the Joint Committee on Electoral Law was made up of party politicians. Is that correct?
Yes.
It was the club.
Senator Upton has been helpful. The Minister is now saying that the people in the club decided the rules for the members of the club and they will not allow anybody else into the club. Senator Upton is correct in saying it is a club. A club makes the rules and the people in the club are all right but for those who are not members, it is their bad luck. Are there any criteria covering this? Are there any criteria laid down for what the Minister so articulately trotted out in regard to political parties engaging in such matters as selecting candidates and so on? Are there rules informing the Registrar of the criteria in relation to political parties?
Acting Chairman
We have spent enough time debating this amendment. Is this amendment being pressed?
Yes.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 22; Níl, 7.
Tá
- Bennett, Olga.
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Sean.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Conroy, Richard.
- Doherty, Sean.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Foley, Denis.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Honan, Tras.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lydon, Don.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Wright, G. V.
Níl
- Costello, Joe.
- Hederman, Carmencita.
- Murphy, John A.
- Norris, David.
- Ó Foighil, Pól.
- Ryan, John.
- Upton, Pat.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Fitzgerald and S. Haughey; Níl, Senators Upton and J. Ryan.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 26, subsection (6) line 21, to delete paragraph (b).
There are two issues to be dealt with here. The first related to political parties not being allowed to register if the name of the party is considered to be unduly long and the second refers to the prohibition on the use of regional names by political parties. I do not see any problem with that. In many ways it is self-limiting for political parties to use names which were unduly long. The names will obviously be confusing, unwieldly, and, may lead to the use of an abbreviated term or alternatively, to the demise of the political party. I do not understand why the Minister is worried about that issue.
The term "unduly long" is rather vague. The Minister should be more precise if he wants to limit the length of names of political parties. If that is his objective he should have either specified the number of words or the number of letters that could be used. I do not accept that the term "unduly long" is appropriate and that is why I propose that paragraph (b) be deleted.
In my opinion the Minister has nothing to worry about in this regard because I do not visualise any serious or even half-serious political party using a long and unwieldly name. That would not make sense; it would not allow the party to develop a proper profile or image and, accordingly, would seriously militate against the success of the party. However, if a party were successful in using an unduly long name, inevitably and indeed rapidly that name would be abbreviated to something much more mangeable. Most parties abbreviated their names, in any event.
Like FF.
Like FF, double F, as some of us call them, FG or the PDs. Of course, we, in the Labour Party, have persisted with our old name but that is short, crisp terminology. I am not aware of any party who have a long name. As Senator Honan has mentioned FF — or double F, as I call them — they have an ancillary handlebar on their name as they are also known as The Republican Party.
And no apologies for that.
We are not talking in terms of apologies; how could anybody even think for a second in those terms? That party, who have the somewhat unwieldy name of Fianna Fáil, The Republican Party, for the most part use their abbreviated name of Fianna Fáil. Similarly, Fine Gael have abbreviated their name to FG and the PDs quickly abbreviated their name having started life as the Progressive Democrats. Therefore, I do not understand the Minister's concern in that regard. I sincerely hope his concern has not emanated from listening to the "Monty Python Flying Circus" political party broadcast in which there was a gentleman from one of the African countries who seemed to be part of a very long and unwieldy party, or had he a very long and unwieldy name? I cannot quite remember. I do not think we have anything to be worried about.
Subsection (c) precludes political parties from using local or regional terms in their names. I do not see any difficulty with a Clare Fianna Fáil Party, a Cork Fianna Fáil Party or a Cork Labour Party. While there could be a short term local gain for such a party they could also lose out on a national basis. These things usually balance and people will be sensible about the issue. Those who belong to national parties are at an advantage when running for election and I do not believe that advantage would be lightly sacrificed. A person representing a Cork or Clare Fianna Fáil Party or Labour Party, is confined to that area and precluded from moving. Therefore, I cannot see it doing any harm in the short term. Such a party running against a similar national party would soon find themselves in difficulties.
There are other ways of dealing with local issues. People can simply change their name, as various people have done, the most distinguished being Seán (Dublin Bay) Rockall Loftus, who changed his name to suit the issues which concerned him from time to time. Indeed, he got his point of view and concerns across in a far more effective manner than if he had gone forward as the Dublin Bay party, in which, perhaps, nobody would have taken a great deal of notice. I believe we would be better off letting people use local names or names that are designed to highlight some special issue. In a relatively short period of time those people would simply fade from the scene and, therefore, there is nothing to be concerned about. There is no need to incorporate those preventive measures in a Bill such as this. The old political process takes care of that kind of thing, so on that point I will move the two amendments.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.