The arguments put forward to date by my colleagues Senator Upton, Senator Murphy and Senator Hederman have been substantial. I would like to add a few points to what has already been said. The Minister, as indicated in the explanatory memorandum, is increasing the deposit to discourage frivolous candidates whose intervention might cause confusion to electors, and to ensure that each candidate is genuinely seeking election. The present figure of £100, fixed in 1923, is no longer an effective deterrent. What the legislation is doing is to link the old, hoary idea of franchise with property and money.
Progress has been made over the years to break that link. In fact, the greatest progress to the extension of democracy was to limit the link of the property owner and the business person. In the old days a person could not become a candidate for Parliament unless he was able to maintain himself. As late as 1923 the legislation required a candidate to put down a deposit of £100, a very large deposit. At the time, almost 70 years ago, there still were the remnants of the old era which still made, psychologically in the mind of our legislators, the inevitable link, or the necessary link as it was, which had not been broken between property and the franchise. We should distance ourselves from that link. I hope we are concerned about ensuring that the franchise is as open as possible and available to every citizen without favour and without a property or financial qualification. Increasing the existing financial qualification five fold is a deliberate attempt to establish finance as the criterion and could deter somebody from going forward as a candidate.
The Minister is talking about this provision deterring frivolous candidates. What is a frivolous candidate? The frivolous candidate is presumed, by implication, to be a poor person. He can be deterred by a financial obstacle. There can be a rich frivolous candidate who will not be deterred by a financial obstacle of £500. This would discriminate. Part of the restrictive element running through this legislation indicates that finance is something that is there to protect the franchise. An obstacle is put in to keep undesirable elements out of the scenario. All it does is discriminate against the poor and those who cannot participate fully because of the money. In 1923 £100 was a large sum of money. We have not fully broken the link of property as a qualification for the exercise of franchise. I had hoped that we had totally broken with it, but this legislation indicates otherwise.
I would agree with the sentiments expressed in that fine article by Richard Humphreys, the lecturer in University College, Dublin, when he saw the origins of this coming from the Representation of the People Act, 1985, in Britain, where the 1918 figure was increased from £150 to £500 — exactly similar to what is here. As has been pointed out already, there were certain reasons which were well grounded on that occasion. Britain has had a development in recent years which we have not had. The ordinary man in the street there could say that there has been a range of relatively frivolous candidates coming forward. Whether or not that is desirable is another matter. Candidates who are going forward, like the Raving Loony Party could be described as not being there for serious reasons, though that depends on one's opinion. They were addressing that.
Secondly, they were trying to address the fact that there was a swing towards fascism and that certain candidates were presenting racist scenarios. Their provision was to deter candidates of this nature.
In our case we have had a history of very responsible candidates, who have been generally single issue candidates and who have gone forward in this country because certain issues have developed from time to time. An example of that is the present Independent TD, Deputy Tom Foxe, who went forward in Roscommon in the last election as a hospital candidate. There have been pothole candidates, who have been referred to already, haemophiliac candidates and the Army wives' candidates, where the women put themselves forward as Army candidates because their menfolk were soldiers and were debarred from standing. We have a good history of candidates who are not in any way frivolous going forward on single issues. What we are trying to do here is to introduce a solution to a non-existent problem. That has come up again and again in this legislation. We are introducing responses to issues which have not arisen. I do not see why we should go down that road. I do not think that the Minister can give any valid reason why it is desirable to bring into operation a response to something that has not emerged as a problem. If it did, the Minister could introduce an amendment to deal with the situation.
We are putting forward an alternative in the amendment. We are saying that the Minister should go ahead with the provision for a £500 deposit, but allow a reasonable alternative for those who may not have financial means. The suggestion that a certain number of signatures of electors be obtained is a reasonable suggestion and is eminently practicable. It is in operation in quite a number of European countries at present. I do not know what is going to happen after the Maastricht Treaty but we have ratified the Single European Act and it now governs our activities. We have participated in Europe and will continue to participate in Europe. This might be one area of integration we could pursue. Perhaps we would go along with our European colleagues — Belgium, Denmark, Germany and Italy — which have got, as an alternative means of nomination, a certain number of signatures. I understand it is only 700. They have larger electorates to deal with in a given constituency. Why not introduce an element of flexibility. It has been pointed out by almost all the contributors here today that the financial impediment operates in a discriminatory fashion against one sector of the population rather than against the other sector. Let us have an alternative for those other people who can demonstrate, by collecting 1,000 signatures, that they are not frivolous and are not vexatious.
In relation to amendment No. 63, there is a further proposal that we would reduce the amount to what existed in 1923. It has served us reasonably well for the last 70 years. I would like to hear the Minister give an example of how that £100 deposit has not served the function of deterring frivolous or vexatious candidates. Could the Minister give us a single example of one frivolous or vexatious candidate who has slipped through because there was only £100 as a financial deterrent?
In amendment No. 64, we propose that the deposit should be waived for unemployed candidates. Whatever about having a deposit of £500 for those who can clearly afford it, if a person is unemployed and wishes to stand for election, surely that must be a discriminatory obstacle in the way of that person going forward? On £55 unemployment benefit at the present time one would have to accumulate ten weeks' dole money to put down the deposit to stand for election to the Oireachtas. For that ten weeks one would have to exist on water, not even on bread and water. It seems reasonable that any candidate who is unemployed and who wishes to contest an election as his democratic right under the law and the Constitution should not be debarred by a very significant financial obstacle being placed in the way.
In amendment No. 65 we are asking that that section stipulting legal tender be deleted. The returning officer should have the option of deciding what he should he take. That is a totally unnecessary section. Whether it is our legal tender or some other legal tender, as long as the actual substance of the quantity of money is supplied that should be the determining factor. What happens if somebody comes along with an ECU after Maastricht? What is the legal tender then? Is it the Irish púnt? Is it sterling? Is it the currency of one of the member states? I would hate to say that it might be a Danish kroner but, if it is, will they not accept an ECU? We are going to be paid from Europe in ECUs. We are going to have a common currency, but what is the legal tender? It is wrong at this time to insist on or to specify that legal tender should be specified in the Bill with the ongoing situation in relation to European Union.
Finally, for me, the principle is that we should be endeavouring to extend the franchise and extend the opportunity of becoming Members of the Oireachtas to every citizen who is so qualified. We should seek to facilitate them by not putting any obstacles in their way. In that context, as has been referred to already, there is the possibiity of a constitutional questioning of this provision which might lead the Minister into trouble in the future. The Minister would be doing well to provide the alternative at this point — improve the situation, introduce flexibility and avoid having to appear in the courts and having the legislation overthrown because of this provision.
