Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 11 Nov 1993

Vol. 138 No. 4

Presidential Election Bill, 1993: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Browne,

Wexford): The purpose of this Bill is to consolidate, with amendments, the law relating to the election of the President. The Bill deals comprehensively with all aspects of presidential elections from the nomination of candidates through the taking of the poll, and the counting of votes to election petitions. The Bill continues the programme of electoral law reform commenced last year with the enactment of the Electoral Act, 1992. The objective of the programme is to update and improve the entire electoral law.

The 1992 Act, which amended and consolidated the law relating to Dáil elections, represented the first substantial step in this programme. The present Bill continues the process and, as envisaged in the Programme for a Partnership Government, it is intended to follow up, in due course, with similar measures dealing with referenda and the other branches of the electoral law.

The Constitution lays down the fundamental principles relating to the election of the President. It deals with the right to vote, the qualification of candidates, the right to nominate, the electoral system, the time frame for holding an election and the term of office of the President. The detailed regulations governing the election are provided for in ordinary legislation. At present, the law relating to the election of the President is contained in the Presidential Elections Acts, 1937 to 1992. The principal Act, which is the Act of 1937, has been extensively amended by the Electoral Act, 1963, and, to a lesser extent, by later enactments. The law is rather fragmented and the conduct of a presidential election requires reference to six separate statutes. In addition, there are certain technical defects in the law which could give rise to difficulty in particular circumstances. The Bill makes good these defects, provides for a more streamlined and efficient procedure for the conduct of the count, introduces a procedure for reviewing the result of a presidential election and provides for the consolidation of the law.

The most obvious change proposed by the Bill is the elimination of the central count. Under existing law, the first count is carried out in each Dáil constituency by the local returning officer and the first count result for each constituency is announced locally. The ballot papers are then parcelled up and sent to the presidential returning officer who is required, by law, to count the votes and ascertain and declare the result of the election.

With the exception of the 1945 and 1990 elections, the result of every presidential election was decided on the first count. However, under existing law, candidates and the country at large, have to wait while ballot papers are transmitted to the presidential returning officer, who goes through what seems to be a superfluous and time consuming counting process, before the result can be formally declared. There is, in fact, no necessity for a central count, even in cases where it is necessary to eliminate one or more candidates.

The Bill provides for the conduct of the entire count at constituency level. The result of the first count will be reported to the presidential returning officer, who will then calculate the quota and declare elected any candidate who reaches the quota on the first count. If no candidate reaches the quota, the presidential returning officer will direct each local returning officer to exclude the candidate with the lowest overall total of votes and to transfer the papers of the excluded candidate. This operation will be carried out at constituency level and the results reported to the presidential returning officer. Where necessary, the exclusion of candidates will continue on this basis until one candidate can be declared elected.

Candidates and their agents will have the right to attend at, and supervise, proceedings at the count in each constituency and also at the central ascertainment of the result. As at present, candidates will have the right to demand a complete recount of the ballot papers.

As an indication of the time factor involved, the result of 1990 presidential election was not declared until nearly 48 hours after the close of poll. Under the arrangement provided for in the Bill, it should be possible to have the count completed in a single day even where the elimination of a number of candidates may be involved.

The apparent defects in the present law to which I referred earlier relate to the nomination of candidates and related procedures. Under existing law, if a Member of the Oireachtas signs more than one nomination paper all papers signed by him, except the first received by the presidential returning officer, must be disregarded. This could lead to a situation which was clearly not intended. For example, if a Member were to sign a nomination paper which has fewer than 19 other signatures and subsequently join in an otherwise valid nomination with 20 or more members, the later nomination must be disregarded entirely while the original nomination paper would be ineffective due to the absence of a sufficient number of signatures.

The Bill provides that where an Oireachtas Member signs a nomination paper in respect of more than one person his or her signature on the nomination paper first received by the presidential returning officer will be regarded as valid. The signature of the member on any subsequent nomination will be disregarded without prejudice to the signatures of any other Oireachtas Members on that nomination paper.

Under existing law a candidate may only withdraw during the ruling on nominations or on a later day appointed for withdrawals. In other words, he or she may withdraw only when it is too late for the proposers to consider a new nomination. The Bill provides for a change to this. Henceforth candidate will be allowed to withdraw at any time up to the completion of the ruling on nominations and it will be open to the proposers to nominate another candidate within the remaining time allowed for nominations.

The existing law providing for procedures in the event of the death of a candidate is incomplete. At present if a candidate dies after the election has been adjourned for the purpose of taking a poll the election is commenced afresh with a new period for nominations. However no provision is made relating to the death of a candidate when it occurs just after the close of nominations or so shortly before such close there is not sufficient time to nominate a replacement candidate. To cover this the Bill provides that where a candidate dies more than five days before the close of nominations the election will continue and the proposers of the deceased person will be free to nominate another candidate. If a candidate dies during the five days preceding the close of nominations or after the close of nominations, a fresh election will be held with a new period for nominations.

The law relating to the ruling on nominations provides for a judicial assessor, who is the President of the High Court or another judge of that court, and for a tribunal, consisting of three judges of the High Court, to rule on any objections. The respective roles of returning officer, judicial assessor and tribunal are not clear. Accordingly the Bill clarifies the position. The function of the judicial assessor will be to furnish his opinion on any matter referred to him and the provision for a special tribunal is repealed. However, a candidate or his authorised representative will still be entitled to object to the ruling on the validity of a nomination or in relation to the qualification of a candidate and the objection will be heard by the High Court.

Under existing presidential election law an elector who is unable to vote at his or her normal polling station due to employment by the local returning officer may be authorised to vote at another polling station in the same constituency. The Bill will remove the provision restricting the exercise of this facility to the constituency for which the elector is registered. At a presidential election the same ballot paper is used in each constituency throughout the State. There is, therefore, no compelling reason an elector at a presidential election, registered in one constituency, should not be authorised to vote in the constituency in which he or she is employed by the local returning officer. The Bill provides accordingly.

Unlike the other electoral codes, no statutory procedure is provided in existing law for questioning the result of a presidential election. It would seem appropriate to lay down a specific statutory procedure for dealing with any possible challenge, as is done in other electoral codes. The Bill, therefore, provides for a petition procedure based on and applying, with appropriate modifications, the Dáil petition procedure contained in the Electoral Act, 1992.

In addition to amending the law as I have outlined, this Bill consolidates the presidential elections code using the Electoral Act, 1992, as a model. It applies, with appropriate modifications, the procedures in the 1992 Act which are common to elections generally, including procedures relating to postal voting, voting by disabled electors, polling on islands, taking the poll in polling stations, arrangements for counting of votes and the retention and disposal of election documents.

This Bill provides a suitable opportunity to remove deficiencies in existing presidential elections law to include desirable procedures currently omitted and to improve procedures in the conduct of a presidential election. I am sure the House will agree that in view of the status of the office of President it is desirable that the law in relation to the election to that office should be comprehensive, watertight and up to date. I believe this Bill provides such a law.

Mr. Belton

We will support the Second Reading of this Bill. If we were asked to name pressing legislation, this Bill would not be mentioned. Only yesterday Members were emphasising how little legislation was being put through Parliament. This Bill is hardly urgent given that a presidential election is not due for nearly five years. One wonders why it is being introduced now. Was it to keep more controversial issues at bay? However since it is here I welcome it.

This is an effort to combine various aspects of the presidential elections system in one Bill, and that must be applauded. The Minister said returning officers will now be allowed vote. It was extraordinary that a person's role for a day as returning officer disqualified them from voting. It was a simple matter to deal with since there is only one ballot paper nationally. I welcome that measure.

Another issue involved is emigrant voting. This highlights how easily this operation could be undertaken in a national election, such as a presidential election. Emigrants could vote in such polls and it seems workable for returning officers.

Elections for the office of President should only take place every ten years. Such a period would give the holder more time and greater status and would give the office more permanency. Our current President has done a great job at international level to give our country a new image. One ten year term of office should be sufficient; the office would become more politicised if the elections were held more frequently.

The count system is being changed and seemingly will be more convenient and easier to work. It will also speed up the results. Counting will be done in each constituency where as heretofore it was done centrally. The old arrangement was to provide for second and third counts. The new system will speed up the process and there is no doubt that it will be welcomed by returning officers and by those who are responsible for the overall result.

I welcome the Bill and hope it will improve our voting system.

Mr. Finneran

I welcome the Minister to the House and I welcome this Bill. Senator Belton said that the Bill is not sufficiently important to take up the time of the House but I——

Mr. Belton

At this time.

Mr. Finneran

——disagree with that. It is appropriate and if all matters were dealt with when they were not topical there might be more balanced debates. Often legislation is debated in circumstances when it is urgently needed. There is no urgency about this Bill with the result that we can evaluate it having adopted a cold and calculated approach.

There is a need to amend existing legislation regarding presidential elections and the Presidential Elections Bill, 1993, sets out to do that. Nobody could argue with improving a situation where seven different Acts had to be adhered to in a presidential election. This Bill streamlines the present position and is part of the ongoing process of electoral reform started by the Minister for the Environment some time ago. This is a continuation of that reform and is to be welcomed. It is also necessary to do away with what appear to be anomalies in the existing legislation. New thinking was required and this Bill is the result.

Senator Belton referred to this and said it was inappropriate that presiding officers or polling clerks did not have an opportunity to vote in the presidential election if they were acting in those capacities in a polling booth that was not in their own constituency. It is important to note that there was a great deal of debate on this issue during the last presidential election, and we propose to address it now.

The anomaly in relation to the nomination of candidates is now being addressed. As regards the death of a candidate, nobody would wish that to happen but we must be realistic. When legislation is being drafted all options must be examined. This matter is addressed in the Bill but, hopefully, the provisions in that section will never be availed of. However, it is there to deal with a particular set of circumstances.

In relation to the counting of votes, I agree with the proposal that the counting should be done in the constituencies. It is appropriate that the people who canvass on behalf of a presidential candidate should attend the local count in their constituency as in any other election. This is a most welcome development.

The President's position is to some extent one of a figurehead but it is of immense importance to the nation. I compliment our current President, Mary Robinson, on her performance in the office of Uachtarán na hÉireann. She has been a great ambassador for this country. She has taken every opportunity to promote the trade and tourism industries. She has shown herself to be ready and willing to carry out these functions and has brought international credit to Ireland.

I wish to put a question on Sunday voting. This issue comes up time and again, usually at election time. People claim that if elections were held on a Sunday there would be a higher turnout and it would provide an opportunity for people to vote who, in some circumstances, would find it difficult during the week. I appreciate that there may be some objections from the church but I do not see any objection and I would welcome any such development. Some people in different churches may not approve of such a development but Sunday voting in a presidential election could be used as a test case. If it proved successful and got a positive imprimatur from the public it may be something to be looked at for other elections. I am not sure if there is need for a change in legislation in that regard and I ask the Minister to clarify the position in his reply.

Generally I welcome the Bill. It is appropriate that the matter is dealt with now. The provisions in the Bill are necessary. The Programme for a Partnership Government promised electoral reform. While this may not be pressing legislation at this time, it is important to update existing presidential legislation especially as there is so much fragmentation in that area. I welcome this Bill and commend it to the House.

Mr. Dardis

Thank you, a Chathaoirligh, for facilitating me by allowing me to speak at this point.

An Cathaoirleach

In fairness you can thank your colleagues behind you.

Mr. Dardis

I thank my colleagues. This is relatively non-controversial legislation. It is part of an overall electoral reform package, part of which we have already discussed on the Electoral Reform Bill, 1992. It will not be opposed by the Progressive Democrats on Second Stage. That does not mean it cannot be improved because there are elements that could be improved. It raises a question about the constitutional provisions under which nominations in presidential elections are conducted. We increasingly find, when dealing with this and other legislation, that the provisions of the Constitution are becoming more archaic. It raises the question of the desirability of an overall redrafting of the Constitution, but I suppose that is a matter for another day.

We must accept — I am sure every one in this House accepts; we have said it repeatedly — how much we are impressed by the way our President conducted herself during her term of office and what a marvellous ambassador she is. Those who saw her on television during her tour of India were greatly impressed by her reception there, the authority and grace she has brought to her office and the obvious affection she enjoyed in countries as far away as India and New Zealand. That affection is even more manifest in our own country. All public representatives who attended functions where she was present were impressed at the way in which she has articulated our sense of community, the positive values in our society and how she has made herself available to many small communities throughout the whole island — not only in this State.

As far as the provisions of the Bill are concerned — this brings me back to the point about the Constitution — it should be made easier to nominate people to stand for the Presidency. It is the most important office in the State — I accept that it must have a status because of that — but restricting a nomination to certain members of the Oireachtas or a number of county councils is not democratic. There should be facilities to make it easier to nominate contestants for the election.

When we discussed the Electoral Reform Bill in the House, there was a certain dialogue concerning the desirability of having frivolous candidates on the ballot paper. Some of us thought that it would be no harm if the Monster Raving Loony Party, or its Irish equivalent, offered itself for election. That might bring a certain degree of levity to——

Mr. Roche

We already have such a party; we call them the Progressive Democrats.

Mr. Dardis

I will pretend that I did not hear what Senator Roche said.

Mr. Roche

We will let all such talk go on then.

Mr. Dardis

People who may be on the political margins should be allowed to contest an election campaign, if they are willing to put up the money. However, I draw a distinction between the presidential and other elections. It would not be desirable to make it easy to nominate a person on a ballot paper for the most significant office in the State who may only want to do it for the crack. Having said that, however, we should look at the way in which the President is nominated and make it easier for nominations to be made.

The role of emigrants in elections — not only in presidential, but in all elections — has been referred to already. I strongly support the view that emigrants should be entitled to vote, especially in the presidential election. If they wish to do so, procedures to facilitate this could be devised through the embassies or through the post. Those who left the country within the last seven to ten years — I would be flexible as to the time limit — should be especially entitled to vote. There is interest among all our citizens, however widely spread, in the presidential election and there should be a mechanism allowing them to participate. I look forward to future legislation on that matter.

I support the comments by Senator Finneran about Sunday voting, not only for presidential elections but for elections in general. This practice is common in other countries. Many people, especially university students and those commuting to Dublin for work, are greatly discommoded by the present system and it would be better to hold elections on a Sunday so that they would not be disenfranchised. The objective of legislation should be to ensure the maximum degree of participation in elections and that people are not disenfranchised because they find it difficult to get to their home constituency. Senator O'Kennedy may have some views about getting people to Tipperary, for example, from Dublin to cast their votes.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator O'Kennedy might also say "What if Tipperary were playing in the Munster final?"

Mr. Dardis

That had occurred to me, a Chathaoirligh. I can imagine that there would have been an effect on the last election if Mayo had been in an All-Ireland final on the day of the election, but it is possible to——

Mr. Roche

Neither myself nor Senator Dardis will have to worry about that.

Mr. Dardis

I will still pretend I have not heard Senator Roche.

Mr. Roche

Hearing aid batteries are available down below — neither of us, unfortunately, will be too bothered about that.

Mr. O'Kennedy

That is nice — denigrating your counties.

Mr. Dardis

I am sure a Sunday can be found that does not clash with major events. In the normal course of events in general elections, we would ensure that it would not clash with, for example, the World Cup match next Wednesday.

Another point that worries me — it is a technical one — concerns the ruling on votes that are not valid. If one returning officer in a certain county rules in a particular way and another officer rules in a different way, that could have a substantial bearing on the outcome of the election. In the last European election, the Leinster returning officer ruled certain papers to be invalid while similar papers were deemed valid in other constituencies because the general election was held on the same day, one could have 1, 2, 3 on one ballot paper and 4, 5, 6 on another paper. A general election could be held on the same day as a presidential election and the same practice might occur. One returning officer could say that option No. 4 is a clear preference and, as an indication, equivalent to a No. 1 and another officer may say no. This could decide the outcome of the election. It would be desirable to adopt a uniform method of ruling on the validity of ballot papers from county to county because it appears from the legislation — I have not read it in great detail — that different decisions could be made as to the validity of ballot papers, that needs to be cleared up.

In this modern and technological age, in addition to the name, a photograph of the candidate should also be on the ballot paper. It could be done cheaply — it will not greatly increase the cost of the election — and it would be desirable. After all, there are some in our midst who are not literate and it would help them. No one, by virtue of disability or any other matter, should be excluded from participating in the democratic process. If that facilitates it, it is welcome.

The Second Stage of the Bill will not be opposed, but improvements could be effected on Committee Stage.

Ms O'Sullivan

I welcome the Minister to the House, I also welcome the Bill. I agree with Senator Belton that it is not urgent, but it is important that reform of the electoral law is ongoing and this Bill falls into that category. The legislation the House dealt with this week can be categorised into three different types. The Irish Aviation Authority Bill produced a robust and controversial debate on some areas, which were hotly contested on all sides. On the other hand, the Adoptive Leave Bill, while considered to be pressing, was non-contentious and was agreed on all sides. This Bill is also non-contentious and not as urgent as the Adoptive Leave Bill, but we need to continue to update and reform our electoral law. As Senators Belton and Finneran said, it follows from the Electoral Act, 1992, which updated other aspects of the electoral law. Senator Finneran also said that it is consolidating and tidying up legislation — seven pieces in all — that have dealt with presidential elections in one way or another.

There are several aspects to the Bill. It is mainly intended to update the Bill on electoral law in comparison to other aspects of this law. It deals with areas such as postal voting, special voting, questioning the results of elections, etc., and brings them in line with general and other elections. All elections should be run in accordance with the same laws and systems.

The Minister referred to the change in relation to the count. I support this change. At present, the first count takes place in the constituency, then, if necessary, the contents of the boxes are brought to a central location for further counts. This time wasting procedure is necessary even if there is no need for additional counts. This is unnecessary given the nature of a Presidential election where the electoral area covers the entire country. There is no need for this distinction between local and central counting. Allowing all stages of the count to be carried out in the constituency would save time. As the Minister said, it would enable the count to take place in one day. This is desirable because everyone wants to know the result of an election as soon as possible, including the candidate and those working for the candidate. This aspect of the Bill is welcome.

I agree with Senator Dardis's comment about consistency in relation to the various rulings in different consistencies. Different rules should not apply in different areas, the count should be same throughout the country. Members who have been involved in elections know how decisions are made in relation to deciding whether a vote is valid and they have seen such decisions questioned. It is important that the same rules are applied throughout the country. I concur with Senator Dardis in this regard.

Members referred to the fact that the Presidency, while it does not have a legislative role, is important to our image, how we see ourselves and how we are perceived abroad. We can be proud of the President in this regard. She has been a morale booster for us and our emigrants. It is important that presidential elections are up-to-date, consistent and organised. In that context, I welcome this Bill and I hope it will have a speedy passage through the House.

Mr. Burke

I welcome the Minister to the House. While I welcome the Bill, there are few aspects of it which we would like changed.

Regarding the present system of counting votes, the first count is in the constituency and subsequent counts at a central location. We could use the system applied in European parliament elections where there are four centres. Perhaps the counting of votes could take place on this basis. Under the new system the first, second and subsequent counts will be in the constituency. As Senator Dardis said, a serious situation could arise in relation to deeming votes spoiled and this could affect the outcome of the election. If elections were held in accordance with European parliament elections rather than on the 41 constituency basis, there would only be four centres to deal with.

I agree with Senator Finneran's point about Sunday voting. It should be introduced and I do not foresee any activities which might affect this. Although it may clash with another event, a Sunday is always available. Wexford might not always win the All-Ireland.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): It would be a national day of celebration.

Mr. Burke

It is one day the Minister would take off. I agree with Senator Belton's suggestion in regard to a ten year term. A term of office should be for ten years and for one term only. Having served one term, the President should be ineligible for re-election. I support Senator Dardis's comments in relation to the right of emigrants to vote in presidential elections. A presidential election would provide an opportunity to make a start in this regard.

Another provision which should be included in the Bill relates to photographs on ballot papers. There are 400,000 illiterate people in this country. The Constitution provides for voting in secret, yet one must question this secrecy when people must ask others to vote on their behalf or ask the presiding officer to call out the names. In a Presidential election there are usually only two, three or four candidates and this would be an ideal opportunity to put photographs of candidates on the ballot paper.

A recent radio programme dealt with illiteracy in this country. A Mr. Ernie Sweeney from Castlebar, County Mayo, who was illiterate up to ten years ago spoke on the radio and, within 30 minutes 60 telephone calls were received by RTE from illiterate people. The photographs of candidates should be on the ballot paper. I welcome the changes in the Bill.

Mr. Roche

I, like other speakers, believe this is worthwhile legislation. I take issue with Senator Belton who suggested that this legislation is not important enough to be considered at present. This is a good time to introduce such legislation because we are a long way from another presidential election and we can look calmly and dispassionately at this area.

The Minister's speech was interesting given the plethora of presidential electoral law. The consolidation of legislation in this area is welcome. As Senator Dardis and other speakers said, there is a welter of law in this area and alternative determinations on points of law may arise, particularly during a count. One could end up with a catastrophic situation during an election for the highest office in the land, the Presidency. It is proper that there should be a consolidation of law in this regard and it is surprising it is not in place.

I too welcome the change to the count, the elimination of the central count is a sensible and worthwhile innovation. It does, however, raise a series of other issues. Although the Presidency is the most senior office in the land, a unique one representing the people, including those who live abroad, such elections offer us an ideal opportunity to look at the way we conduct elections in the widest sense. For example, the abolition of the central count is a worthwhile proposal. It is surprising that it has never been thought of before.

When acting with Members of this and the other House as a UN observer during the Nicaraguan elections, I was amazed at the efficiency and high technology of elections in a country I had thought of as relatively primitive. While they did not have our electoral system, they counted votes in each individual polling station. The information was then sent down a phone or fax line — in code to avoid any interference — to a central location. There were two separate transmissions of these local results to further ensure there could not be any interference. By midnight, three hours after the polls closed, they had full results for the entire country, and that was, after all, a country that had gone through the turmoil of civil war. It was impressive to see how they could introduce modern technology to ensure absolute uniformity in the electoral system, even among primitive people. I remember that the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht and I had the task of observing voting in a tribal area. It was quite extraordinary how modern technology fitted in and how easily they handled it.

That leads me to another point which, I suggest, is a deficiency. If we are talking about experimentation or electoral change, one area where change is long overdue is the automation of the voting system. Our PR system would ideally lend itself to automation. The system of counting tens of thousands of votes in most constituencies by hand, drawn out through a day and half of sweating on both sides of the Border, is primitive to say the least. As we all know, it can also be subject to significant error. From time to time we have witnessed examples. I remember a famous case in an election many years ago — I was not involved in it, I was on the far side checking the votes — where a bundle of 100 ballots went missing in County Wicklow. It would have had an absolutely catastrophic effect on one candidate and an absolutely marvellous impact on the votes of another candidate, because in our system the voting is very tight. We should give serious consideration to automation in that area.

Computerisation in every polling station would be difficult but there is no reason some sort of computer card system could not be introduced to allow people to clearly mark their voting preferences on computer legible cards. These could then be taken to a central location to be counted automatically and quickly. The various preferences could equally, with a high degree of security, be cross tallied and counted to arrive at a final result. That would do an awful lot to alleviate the nerves and hypertension that some of us feel at election time. Having gone through a recent election, not the best from my point of view, but very close, I can imagine the tension during long recounts such as in the case of Deputy Briscoe and Councillor Eric Byrne. Frankly, while that made good spectator sport for some people on the periphery of politics, it was inhuman for both candidates. I know that, for some strange reason, politicians do not have any right to claim compassion from anybody but at the same time, in the interests of democracy and simple humanity, I would like the Minister to look at the whole issue of automated voting. An election for the Presidency, particularly with the local counts going through, would be an ideal area for the introduction of automated voting.

Like the Acting Chairman, I welcome the tidying up of the nomination procedure. He would probably go a little further than I in questioning the democracy of the current procedure. That point should be debated. It is a fact, as he said, that we do not want to allow every person just looking for personal publicity to utilise the presidential election for that purpose or to gain notoriety. We should, however, be looking at the system of nominations for presidential elections to ensure that it does not exclude people who could have a great deal to offer.

The President is President of all the citizens and people of this State regardless of whether they are resident here. Therefore, in a sense, the Presidential Elections Bill, 1993 is ideal legislation to discuss the issue of ex-patriate, nonresidential voters, or emigrant voters, to use the more emotive term. We need to get our minds clear about this debate. In principle, I cannot understand the arguments against giving votes to non-residential citizens who happen to be ex-patriate at a particular time. We have been dragged along on the emotive aspect of this and I would be as guilty of that as any other person. We have not given enough consideration as to how this will be put into operation.

I would like to instance a couple of cases from the European Community and elsewhere. The Italians introduced nonresidential citizens' votes some years ago and have had strikingly poor results. People simply have not voted although it seemed like a simple thing to go along to a consulate or embassy to do so. If you happen to be an Italian running a chip shop — or a high-tech industry, let us not be insulting to our EC colleagues in this matter — will you travel the equivalent distance from Killalla to Dublin to vote? I think not. That issue will have a big impact here too because the willingness to travel long distances to vote will be determined very much by class. People of a certain class or profession, with a certain income, will be far more willing to travel a long distance to cast their votes than those of our fellow citizens, perhaps of a different class, who cannot afford to. We have not given enough consideration to this aspect.

The alternative to voting in a legation or embassy is postal voting. It does not stretch the imagination too much to see that the registration of postal voters could be grossly abused by political parties, particularly by parties that have the funds or ideological inclination to do it. My reaction has been to say yes whenever I have been asked but there are practical problems. The British introduced the postal voting system purely and simply because the Conservative Government of the day took the view that middle and upper middle class people would vote. Therefore, they cynically took the view that this would bring more support for themselves. In the not too distant past, British ex-pats all over the world were surprised when Margaret Thatcher Christmas cards fell by the ton through their letter-boxes to say that she was caring for and thinking about them. It was the first time that happened. Perhaps if the British ex-patriates were as cynical as some Irish people about politicians they would have seen through the ploy. Without overly stretching the point, Members will see that there are practical difficulties involved.

The American experience of ex-patriate voting has been very interesting. In some parts of the United States more ex-pats from the various states vote in elections than residential citizens. I know that the US primary elections were very well contested last time.

I agree with Senator Finneran that we should be looking at weekend voting. The present situation is crazy because there is such inflexibility about voting that many people are denied the vote. In fact, if there had been more flexibility in the voting system, there could have been different results in upwards of a dozen constituencies in the last general election. I am not saying that one party or the other would automatically be favoured but when a handful of votes can decide elections in constituencies, it is clear the inflexibilities in our current system which make it difficult, if not impossible, for gardaí, electoral workers, teachers, shift workers and travelling salespersons to vote need to be addressed. This could be done in this legislation.

Senator Dardis referred to the consistency of rulings. It is imperative there be consistency by returning officers in all constituencies. We would all wish that results, whatever they are, be reached in a consistent manner throughout the country. We are mindful of what happened in the last European elections. I am sure the personnel in the relevant section in the Department, Mr. Sexton and his staff, are conscious of the need to issue clear guidelines. Senator Dardis's point is very valid.

It was suggested that we also consider the use of photographs. That would favour some of us more than others. I am not sure whether it would favour me. Senator Norris would gain immeasurably if that were the case.

Mr. Norris

I am sure Senator Roche would too, with a little judicious attention to his hair.

Mr. Roche

Do not be jealous. I would favour photographs on ballot papers if they made voting more accessible to people. I am not certain whether it is a major step forward or a major step backward.

Senator Burke raised the issue of the shouted vote. The instance of this type of vote should be looked at by the electoral section in the Department of the Environment in the interests of consistency. Some years ago I did some academic research on the shouted vote. This vote was regarded by Sax and Bax as part of Irish gombeen politics, a way of enforcing repayment of political favours. I thought this was spurious nonsense until I looked at a ballot box in one of the Galway constituencies, where the highest proportion of shouted votes is recorded. I inquired about this. It would be unfair to identify the candidate whose name was being shouted so loud that it could be heard at the crossroads. It was pointed out to me that not all of those who shouted their votes were illiterates. One of them was a BA graduate of UCG. An unkind person may say that this does not automatically mean such persons are literate but I would not agree with that, I might be looking for their vote some time. Abuse of the relevant section of the Electoral Acts providing for the shouted vote and the tendency to overuse it in particular ballot boxes should be examined. If this practice is used for political purposes it should be stopped and shunned.

This is good legislation which is ideal for discussion on a quiet afternoon in the Seanad. We could range very widely over it. We could talk about the democracy of looking after middle class young people who attend university and consider the extension of the ballot to others. Senator Norris will be politically correct and agree with me, whatever his inner feelings are in this area. It would be unfair for me to continue on this course.

This Bill will be welcomed by all in the House. It gives us the opportunity to consider a number of issues, including votes by emigrants and a general tidying up of our electoral system. The Minister should consider automated voting. I favour weekend voting. There should be more flexibility in the voting system but this would have to be consistent with the protection of the integrity of the ballot. This is an area about which I would be worried if we are to give votes to emigrants. We will have to consider this very carefully because I can foresee circumstances in which it would be easily abused.

Mr. Norris

I also welcome the Bill. This is an opportune moment for us to have a calm and reasoned debate on this important matter because we are not in the immediate run up to an election when things would be more heated. The Minister has experience of presidential elections and the heat that can be generated during them.

I accept it is useful that counting be done in the constituencies for reasons such as efficiency and the feeling of direct local participation in the excitement of the election. With the proliferation of local radio stations, local areas can have a direct focus on the situation as it emerges in their constituencies. However, I slightly regret that the count will no longer be centralised in Dublin. I am glad that during the last election the count was held in Ballsbridge. Ballot boxes from all over the country arrived there. I found it an electrifying moment when the ballot boxes from the Aran Islands were opened. Since the foundation of the State voters there voted solidly for Fianna Fáil. I remember the excitement of the crowd when they saw a majority on those islands voted for Mary Robinson, who is now Her Excellency, the President of Ireland. I was glad to experience this kind of electoral excitement before the situation is reformed. As the result will be declared at the central count in Dublin we will still have that excitement in Dublin.

I am not very much in favour of Sunday voting. Perhaps it is because of my Protestant background even though I disclaim the title of Protestant because I am of the view that the Church of Ireland is the church established by St. Patrick in 432 AD. The rest of you went wrong somewhere around the 12th century.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Dardis)

I was not aware the Senator was high church.

Mr. Norris

I am a floating church person. I can be high or low.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Traditionally you have protested that the rest of us went wrong.

Mr. Norris

That is true. I am delighted to have my etymologically pure Protestantism confirmed by Senator O'Kennedy.

I like the idea of the sabbath, not just from a religious point of view, although this would be part of my tradition, but for a very practical reason. It is important people have a day on which they do not have public obligations. One thinks not just of the voters but of the people employed in polling stations. Such voting would compel people to work on a Sunday. I do not say this from any narrow Protestantism. I spend quite a lot of time in the Middle East, both in Muslim countries and in Israel. I have been very practically confirmed in my belief of the usefulness of a day of rest by the beauty of the Jewish sabbath, during which virtually nothing runs. At first this is an irritant but it is immensely refreshing.

In case this does not go straight to the Minister's heart, may I produce economic arguments? I presume if elections are to be held on Sundays workers will have to be paid triple time. This would increase expenditure on the election very considerably.

It is not that difficult to vote. My withers were not particularly wrenched listening to the argument about teachers. I am a teacher. I am also a Member of the Seanad. I have many irons in the fire. I have never missed voting in an election. Polling stations are open until 9 or 10 o' clock in the evening. There is no excuse whatever for not voting unless someone is geographically displaced.

In the near future we should look at the whole electoral system and make it much more modern and computerised. I do not see why people should not be able to vote by inserting a card with a magnetic tape into something like a banklink machine anywhere in the country. This card would indentify them. This is the way we will have to go. It would simplify the system. I know the technology exists to enable this to be done although I may not have described it very accurately. This would be an efficient voting method.

With regard to the nomination of the President, I have memories from the last election of one person ganging up on me and haranguing me because I would not nominate them. I had already given a commitment to somebody else. The system of nomination should be much wider and this Bill does not go anywhere near addressing the situation.

Senator Roche tempted me to go down the road of opening up the university seats. Some day I will take him on in that argument and I will demonstrate, once again, that the university seats are the most democratically elected because the nominating body is itself enfranchised, as the Senator knows. All this talk about delegated universal suffrage is the greatest load of rubbish and codswallop anybody ever heard. It only does what it is intended to do, which is to allow the political parties to have a stranglehold on the whole senatorial process. Everybody knows that.

It is the same in a sense with the presidential election. It was a miracle, almost a fluke, that we elected our current President because she emerged as an independent candidate in a certain sense — not directly in the control of one party. She made it clear throughout the election that she would not be a captive of the two parties which were principally promoting her. I was honoured to be one of the signatories to her nomination. However, I do not agree with allowing the Oireachtas or four county councils to nominate, which is where this delegated universal suffrage rubbish which is trotted out for the Seanad elections comes into play.

Why are we so suspicious of our citizens? Why do we think that they are not entitled to nominate candidates? We should set a figure, for example, 1,000 or 5,000. If somebody is able to convince 1,000 or 5,000 of his or her fellow citizens to nominate them, why can they not be put forward directly without this patronising involvement of county councillors in what I regard as a completely fraudulent machine? I do not think the county councillors are any more gifted or intelligent than the people they represent. In fact, sometimes I think the inverse ratio would be more appropriate. It seems that there is a suspicion of the voter. Why should a certain number not be allowed to nominate directly?

I also do not see why there is all this fuss about people nominating two or three candidates. There is an elaborate machinery which stipulates that it will be the first paper which arrives on Sunday 3 February, or whatever. Who cares? What difference does it make? It all evolves around whether a person who signs a nomination paper is saying that the person they nominate is the only person who has the exclusive capacity to become President. Nobody really believes that. In signing a nomination paper one is saying that this is a person worthy to be President.

In most presidential elections, I think all the candidates are worthy to be President. One may strike a person as being better than the others or reflecting their ethos more strongly but in the last election we had three excellent candidates. I knew early on which one I was going to vote for, but I think we would be would have been ably represented, for different reasons, by any one of the three candidates. To say that a person cannot nominate more than one candidate is nonsense, if it is accepted that nominating a candidate means saying that this is a person worthy to represent the people of Ireland as President. I cannot think of an occasion on which somebody has been nominated to be President who would not have been a suitable candidate.

I agree with the idea of a photograph of the presidential candidate, not because it is terribly important in the presidential election. By the time voters come to the polls, they know who is in the race and if they do not they ought to stay at home. However, it introduces a precedent for having such items in electoral systems. It would be valuable during general elections where there are many candidates and sometimes there are candidates with similar names. I would not be surprised if there were even two John Brownes. Repeated names can be confusing, particularly for elderly people or those who do not have good literacy skills. Although I do not think it is vital in this election, it would be a good headline and might make it easier to get it into a revision of the general electoral system.

I am delighted that one is now permitted to withdraw from the list once one dies. It seems a rather extreme measure to have to take in order to get off the list, but I suppose it is legitimate that one cannot be elected as a dead President. It is the ‘drop the dead President' clause, of which I approve.

It is a disadvantage that there is nothing in the Bill about the amounts of money which are spent on election campaigns. Senator Roche touched on this issue. There should be an examination and a ceiling set on the amount of money which any candidate or party can spend. Perhaps this could be looked at at some stage. It gives the candidate of the major party a considerable advantage over any smaller party's candidate or an independent candidate who emerges. I would like to see some ceiling set on the amount which can be spent. It is possible to envisage a situation where unscrupulous interests could attempt to buy the presidency. One has only to look at the United States of America where one has to be a millionaire and get the support of wealthy interests to be elected to the presidency.

I am happy to support the suggestion that people outside this State should be permitted to vote in presidential elections. The stronger we keep the links between our emigrants and the mother country the better, and I cannot think of a more appropriate presidency under which this change should take place. I know it is almost becoming a cliché that the President has the light in the window but it is a moving image, particularly in a country which has traditionally suffered so heavily from emigration.

I have been among those who, for a number of years, have proposed that the ideal place to have a constituency is the Seanad where, for example, in the university seats we successfully and efficiently deal with the registration of voters abroad and have a high level of participation. Considering the fact that it is a postal ballot and that the register has to be kept up to date, it is astonishing that up to 55 to 60 per cent of the electorate votes for the Trinity College seats, it shows that people do appreciate this. However, I would not want to overestimate the level of their appreciation.

I was in Australia a year ago and a number of Irish emigrant groups told me they felt they were disenfranchised. I made what I thought was a generous suggestion and said I had put on the record when discussing reform of the Oireachtas that there ought to be two seats in Seanad Éireann for emigrants. They did not regard that as the greatest offer they were entitled to expect. I was rather hurt that they held the Seanad in such moderate esteem. They wanted participation in the Dáil elections. I would not overestimate the gratitude of our emigrants for being permitted to vote in the presidential election. However, I think there would be a high level of participation and they would appreciate being involved.

I welcome the Bill. There are certain areas which I think could have been spelled out a little more, such as the question of the amounts of money spent on the campaign. The most central point is the machinery by which people are nominated. I do not think it is satisfactory to keep this process of nomination so firmly locked in the grip of the political party system. I would ask the Minister to look at that once more.

Mr. O'Kennedy

When one addresses the issue of the election of President one should also have a look at the base text in relation to the presidency, which is the Constitution. Article 12.2 of the Constitution states: "The President shall be elected by direct vote of the people." It goes on to state that every citizen who has the right to vote at an election for members of Dáil Éireann shall have the right to vote at an election for President. It equates the right and responsibility of the electors in relation to the election of the President with that of election to the Oireachtas and that is how it should be. The President has a constitutional function and at different times Presidents have interpreted that constitutional function in slightly different ways.

The former President, Dr. Hillery, will be remembered as one who vigorously defended the Constitution and who always worked in a conscientious fashion within the confines and direction of the constitutional framework. He was a President who certainly thought that was the fundamental priority he was going to attach to his office. In my view and I am sure in the view of everyone in the House, he did it remarkably well and resisted attempts to bring the presidency into areas where, in his strict interpretation of the Constitution, it should not be involved. We were lucky to have such a President.

This debate is both important and appropriate. The current President has certainly established the style, authority and impact of this presidency both at home and abroad. She clearly has a rather different view of the presidential role under the Constitution. I have, perhaps, known her longer than anyone else in this House. I hate, each time I stand up in this House, to have to refer back to things that happened 30 years ago.

I have known our current President on a personal level as a fellow member of the Irish Council of the European Movement in the early 1960s, a fellow member of the Bar and other organisations and, once in a while, as a fellow member of the Oireachtas. Our views did not always coincide but I have always acknowledged, privately and publicly, the unique capacity of our current President, her personal ability, constitutional awareness and her awareness of the relationship between laws and the citizen. It is evident that in her pursuit of her presidential responsibility she has interpreted the Constitution in a way that some might be surprised others before her did not.

I expressed the view on her election, without any degree of apprehension, that we were going to see the limits of the presidency greatly extended within the Constitution. It has, in my view, been a remarkable and healthy development and one to which the people have responded. For this reason, when we now talk about election to that office, we have to treat it with a degree of seriousness and responsibility that we might not have attached to it 15 to 20 years ago.

I always wondered about Article 15 of the Constitution but it was not for me to interpret it. I had little doubt about its meaning and stated this publicly in our own party rooms, as some of my colleagues will recall. It says very simply in Article 15:

The Oireachtas shall consist of the President and two Houses, viz.: a House of Representatives to be called Dáil Éireann and a Senate to be called Seanad Éireann.

That is a simple assertion. Article 15.7 states: "The Oireachtas shall hold at least one session every year." That seems to me to be the simplest statement of a mandatory obligation on the Oireachtas, comprising the President and both Houses yet I do not recall any previous President who saw it that way.

Some thought this would be a matter of discretion or a possibility. What I read and indicated then has since emerged to be the case. I could not imagine that President Mary Robinson would not be aware of the mandatory effect of that Article and, not surprisingly, we had a joint session of the Oireachtas addressed by the President on 8 July, 1992. Although it is for the President herself to interpret her constitutional function, I imagine that it will not be the last such occasion.

I welcome all this greatly because it is within the terms of the Constitution. The laws must put in place effective machinery for the exercise of the constitutional function. We must do what we can to assert the link between the people and the presidency or an t-uachtaránacht, as I would perhaps prefer to have it called. That link must be promoted and built into our legislative process, particularly legislation which relates to the election.

In future there will be a new dimension to the presidency. It will be seen very definitely as representing the mood, will and ethos of our people at home and abroad. By coincidence, I collected my local papers on my way in here and found the following article on page one of the Tipperary Star.

The President, Mrs. Mary Robinson visits Tipperary Town this afternoon, Wednesday during which she will present the first Florence Nightingale Medal ever awarded to an Irish Red Cross recipient for work carried out by the Red Cross in Ireland.

The medal will be presented by Mrs. Robinson to Nurse Nellie Keane of Murgasty, Tipperary town for her exceptional dedication and pioneering work in the promotion of nursing care at home.

It is obviously the first time this medal has been presented to an Irish person and the President is adding distinction to the occasion and the achievement by presenting it. One can illustrate the sharing and participatory role of the President at home and abroad by reference to a variety of events.

We will experience an interesting constitutional development over the next number of years. Looking at the Constitution and the capacity of people who understand and interpret it to use and expand their role within it, we could be on the verge of a shift between the various functions of the Constitution. It is important that we recognise that reality.

These things are not always decided by the civil servants who prepare legislation and I have the greatest of regard for those civil servants. These issues are more often determined by people who use imagination and conviction. We are looking at something like that now.

We must acknowledge that we have not been true to ourselves as politicians If we truly understood political representation as derived from the Greek concept of the polis and the representative of the city state, we would not see the term “Politician” used in such a denigratory way. We would not tolerate our reputations, personally and collectively, being tarnished as they have been. We would not accept being regular targets of implication and innuendo in the press and otherwise. Each of us would always be conscious of our role and not our passing advantage and that is something which cannot be said too often.

If we are conscious of our role as distinct from our passing political advantage — and I agree with what has been said recently in the Seanad in terms of whether an initiative comes from one or other side of the House — surely we can find that collective sense of responsibility which is emerging in these debates. Then we would find a respect for each other and for the Legislature and Government.

It is evident that politicians at all levels do not enjoy the esteem we would like to have. However, it is equally evident that the presidency does. That applies to this President and the previous President who, in different ways and for different reasons, were greatly admired. That is a tribute to both of them. We must come to terms with that welcome fact and ensure that the presidency is not only representative but also linked as closely as possible to the people at all stages from nomination to election.

I support this Bill and the progressive changes in it. Clearly, it is the result of much thought and appropriate amendment. I tend to support the view that the nomination procedure should be, as far as possible, operated through direct universal suffrage. After all, the Constitution refers to the people. It does not refer to county councils. I think it would be appropriate, although it might be practically difficult, to have a nomination function for the people, subject to certain limits in law. I express that as a personal view and one that is consistent with the role of the presidency both in the Constitution and in its execution in recent years.

I have a reservation in relation to the election, which is the next stage. The citizens entitled to vote are the same age as those who are entitled to vote in Dáil elections. However, I offer a reservation to those who enthusiastically support — and I understand why — the case for votes for emigrants. Emigration is an emotional theme in Ireland and has been throughout our history. Irish culture and literature cannot be understood unless one is aware of the dán deoraíochta. We do not spend as much time thinking about it now as our predecessors did. However, the deoraíocht — the tears that were shed and the beautiful music — was part of Irish culture every minute of every day, and it still is. That is a demonstration of respect and regret for those who are away. In the course of my visits abroad as Minister for Foreign Affairs I always considered it a privilege and obligation to meet our emigrants wherever they were — India, Australia, America and other countries.

We would do well to ponder the issue and I agree with Senator Roche in this regard. We are different from the Germans, the British and the French who have a voting facility for emigrants. The great difference is that there are more of our emigrants abroad and that is a regrettable fact. When Senator Dardis made his proposal I did not violently disagree with the sentiment but we must ask at what stage would a person be determined to be eligible to vote as an emigrant — after ten years out of Ireland, 15 years or 17 years? We should be aware that if we introduce that proposal there are two or three consequences which I will outline. I have met many emigrants who have told me to be very careful because it is difficult to say you are against votes for emigrants because they are likely to reply there is no point listening to politicians who are responsible for them having to emigrate and then opposing them getting the right to vote at home. One can see the emotional responses.

Equally, we would be foolish to ignore the fact that the imbalance between the number of Irish abroad and the number of Irish at home could mean that emigrants would determine the government, the implementation of policy and the selection of every representative from President down. Maybe the Italians are more casual. There is always something tutto differente per gli Italiani affari. They can wander around the world and do their own thing. I know their style well: I have lived with them, I love them, but the Irish might take a different view.

I wish to caution that the consequences of universal suffrage for emigrants include the practical problem of counting emigrants' votes and the balance that would arise where by those who decide the Government and the presidency would not be resident here and would not have to live with the consequences of their decision. That said, I greatly sympathise with their right. I consider Senator Norris's suggestion that they be represented in this House significant although he said that the Australian emigrants did not see it that way. We should be a little more sensitive to their views in this House as distinct from the direct political arena in the Dáil.

Although it is not in this Bill I believe it is time we automated our counting system. It was one of my privileges to be a member of the constitutional committee under the late Seán Lemass which looked at a range of constitutional options for voting in 1966 and I regret that most of our recommendations in relation to elections and electoral systems have been left lying. That is a great pity as we put much thought into it over 12 months on a non partisan political basis. I would like to see some of those recommendations resurrected.

The electoral system — the PR system — as it applies to the presidency is, as Senator Roche said, haphazard. Let us not delude ourselves. Some say it is fair and proportional but it is haphazard, particularly in respect of transfer of surplus after a second or third count when the top bundle of votes is picked. People say that is a representative sample of the total bundle of votes: it is no such thing and it is a distortion to pretend that it is. I ask those who vigorously and consistently argue for a fair system, PR, to look at the counting system and see how a number seven vote can effectively become a number one. Is that a fair system, never mind the haphazard fashion in the transfer of surpluses?

The election of the President and the counting in the presidential election is an ideal opportunity to try the automated system and I hope in time, we would be able to extend that. I wish to see the linkage between the electoral system for the presidency and the role and status of the presidency being recognised by us. Our people recognise the role and status of the presidency and we as politicians must not drag our heels when their views are coming across clearly and consistently. I would like to see the automated system introduced.

It has been said that the electoral system and the arrangements, whether for Sunday or otherwise, must be such as to maximise the response from the electorate at every level, from the youngest to the oldest, from the most intelligent to the disabled, intellectually or otherwise. I share that view in respect of President Robinson or any other President. We have had some very distinguished Presidents, each of whom in his own way broadened understanding and respect for the Presidency. I think of the late Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh and the late President Childers. The office of President will feature more prominently in Irish life because of the status and the contributions of our Presidents over the years. We must ensure that our electoral system is extended to and includes the marginalised groups for which our current President shows particular concern and properly so, sometimes to the extent of shocking the awareness of some of us who are a bit more comfortable in our general attitude.

You have been patient with me, a Chathaoirligh, in allowing me to range a little more broadly than one should over this area. I have little to add to what most of what my colleagues said with regard to the mechanical arrangements on election day. I hope what I have said puts in context why it is important to acknowledge the fact that the Minister is introducing this Bill to make the election of the President more directly responsive to the people and why it is important that this should be done in view of the enhancing role of the Presidency, particularly in these times.

Dr. Henry

I welcome the Minister to the House. When I was elected to the Seanad I naturally took advice from Senator Norris as to how I should behave here. He told me that the most important thing I had to do in the House was to say "hear hear" every time he spoke. Most of what I will say is in agreement with what he said.

Our President has enormously expanded the role of the President, I will not argue with Senator O'Kennedy as to which of us has known her longer.

Senator O'Kennedy spoke about the Florence Nightingale medal awarded today. It was already awarded to another Irish nurse, Helen Staunton, some years ago, for her work in Uganda with the Red Cross.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Someone should tell the Tipperary Star— I believe what I read in the Tipperary Star.

Dr. Henry

Some of the important points I support have been in regard to the nomination from people other than Members of the Oireachtas. This is very important because it narrows enormously the number of people who can be put forward and if this can be included in this Bill it would be welcome. Senator Finneran spoke about Sunday voting, which would maximise the opportunity for people to vote. I hope it will be seriously considered for all elections because, particularly for young people living away from home, it is very difficult to vote on a Wednesday or Thursday.

If postal votes are being examined, could we kindly work out why disabled people have to be certified sane when the rest of us can go in and do what we like? There is a strange anomaly that just because a person may be unable to get into a normal polling station, that person needs to be more mentally alert than those of us who can wander in off the street.

It has been suggested that emigrants should have a postal vote. The Presidential election would be an important one to start with because people abroad see the President as someone who represents them internationally as well as in the local sphere and I hope this could be examined when discussing this Bill. The Bill is great in its scope and there are marvellous things in it as Senator Norris said, such as the fact that a candidate can avoid running for election if he or she is dead. I was very pleased to see that a retiring President, if he or she wants to go for re-election will get the papers free of charge. That is a nice touch in the Bill.

Mr. Maloney

I welcome the Minister to the House. If the Bill does anything to update our electoral laws it has to be welcomed. It will bring us into the 20th century if that is possible. The Dáil elections were the first to benefit from the process of reform. This is the second and I hope there will be referenda later because we have seven different electoral codes in force at present. I am glad that the necessary reforms are being introduced in this House instead of leaving it to lawyers. It says a lot for the elected representatives.

The Bill deals with the right of people to vote, the qualifications of candidates and the rights to nominate people. One of the important factors is that it eliminates the central count which was a terrible burden during election time. It meant that the first count was carried out in the constituency and then votes were sent to the Presidential returning officer where they were counted again and so on. It is nice to see it being done in the constituency because that is where the interest lies. The last time there was a count it took 48 hours to elect the President. The system is a bit cumbersome and the counts should be quicker next time.

Our President is performing excellently on our behalf at home and abroad. She has been a unifying force for all parties in the Dáil. Other Presidents have also performed admirably. They are always a unifying force and people do not set them up as political scapegoats. Sunday voting was mentioned and we should examine this issue. European countries do it and it cuts out the need to lose working and school days. It does not create a problem in other religious countries, they seem to operate it very well and there is no reason we should not do the same.

It bothers me that there is an age limit — 35 — for standing for the election of President. When a person reaches voting age, 18, I do not see why that person is not considered mature enough to stand for President. There is no great need for the age limit when people are considered mature from 18 onwards. Other reforms, such as improvements for disabled voters and the elimination of intimidation outside polling booths are welcome. We could improve the Bill further but it will reform our electoral system and I welcome it.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Browne,

Wexford): I thank Senators for their contributions and I am glad they have no great difficulty in supporting the Bill. I wish to deal with some of the issues raised.

Senator Dardis and other Senators referred to certain aspects of change required for nomination procedures. While the Bill provides for certain changes in this regard, the matters referred to by the different Senators are issues governed by the Constitution. Any change in the provision in question would require amendment of the Constitution. It is not relevant to this Bill and, therefore, we cannot take any suggested changes by the Senators in that particular area.

Senator Belton raised the issue of duration of the office of President. He suggested that the President should hold office for ten years. Again this is a constitutional matter and, regardless of our views on these matters, they are covered in the Constitution and cannot be dealt with in relation to this Bill.

A strong case was made by most Senators for Sunday voting although Senator Norris gave reasons for not doing so. The Electoral Act, 1992, removed the statutory barrier to voting on Sundays and there is now no reason an election should not be held on a Sunday. It is a matter for decision on each occasion which day should be appointed as polling day. However, as Senators mentioned, some minority churches would have difficulty with the concept of voting on Sundays on grounds of conscience and, as legislators, we have to take that into account. I am not sure that Senator Maloney's point that the children would not have a day off would go down well. Most school children love an election because they have a day off.

I have sympathy with the view expressed by Senator Dardis and others about the need for a uniform approach by returning officers in relation to the validity of ballot papers. I assure Senators that I will arrange for my Department to take this up with returning officers in each constituency.

The automation of elections was raised by a number of Senators and there are no specific proposals on this matter. A preliminary examination of this issue some years ago indicated that computerised voting is technically feasible but would involve significant practical difficulties and costs, particularly on account of our single transferable vote system. It is not clear that the advantages derived from automated voting would outweigh the difficulties and costs involved. I assure Senators that we will keep the position under review particularly in the light of technological developments during the past few years and perhaps we would have further discussion on it in the Seanad at a later stage.

Senator O'Kennedy referred to the commission of which he was a member in 1966 which made a number of recommendations in relation to the electoral system. Perhaps we could take its report off the shelf, dust it down and look again at some of its recommendations, they might be relevant. Senator Norris raised the question of declaring the result of an election. I confirm that while the counting of votes will take place in the constituencies the overall result will be declared centrally by the presidential returning officer. A number of Senators put forward arguments in favour of including a photograph of each candidate on the ballot paper. There are advantages in favour of this proposal, but there are also disadvantages and problems associated with it, particularly the danger of mistakes being made under pressure at an election. It would be turning the election into some kind of beauty contest and——

An Cathaoirleach

The Minister of State would score well.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford):——the high profile candidates would have an unfair advantage. It might not be in the best interests of all the candidates. It is a matter we can keep under review and see what develops.

Votes for emigrants is a major issue which was raised in previous discussions in the Dáil in relation to this Bill and touched on yesterday in relation to electoral reform. Senators also made a number of suggestions in this regard today. The legal advice available to the Government is that under the relevant provisions of the Constitution it would not be possible to extend voting rights to citizens who are not part of the population of the State except to limited categories such as those who are abroad for only a short period of time. As the House is aware, the Programme for a Partnership Government accepts in principle that there should be constitutional change to give voting rights to emigrants and the programme indicates that the issue will be further examined.

The ongoing examination is a matter initially for the Minister for the Environment. It will be comprehensive and all the options will be fully considered. There are many different opinions about the type of votes emigrants should have for a presidential election, a general election, a European election or in referenda. The examination will be thorough in the sense that it will explore the detailed technical arrangements required to give effect to each option and the nature of the constitutional amendment required in relation to each. Having completed the examination the Minister will invite the Government to examine the different options and those put forward by the Seanad will be considered in this examination. It is expected that the completion of the examination will be concluded in the lifetime of this Government.

There are major problems in this area and Senator Roche touched on some of them. I will not go into detail but one has to consider the different viewpoints and options and the ways in which we could give voting rights to emigrants. It is the view of all political parties in both Houses of the Oireachtas that some voting contacts should be made with emigrants and I hope this can be considered as fairly and as equitably as possible during the lifetime of this Government. A decision will be made on the matter as quickly as possible.

While the Bill may not be the most glamorous or exciting legislation coming before the House, as many Senators pointed out it is timely to discuss it now rather than prior to a presidential election. The reality of any good legislation is that it is not over exciting or over glamorous and does not provide an opportunity for punchy media sound bites. It is right that we should discuss this matter and make the changes and the Bill amends and consolidates the law relating to presidential elections. Many Senators felt that this was important, bringing together all the different legislation we had over the years and ensuring that the Presidential Elections Bill is given a status and an importance it deserves. I am looking forward to further debate in the Seanad in the coming weeks to discuss further any amendments that may be put forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 18 November 1993.

An Cathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Mr. Mullooly

It is proposed to sit again at 2.30 p.m. next Wednesday.