Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Dec 1996

Vol. 149 No. 15

Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1996: Second Stage.

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

Miss Ormonde

May I preface my contribution by apologising for my late arrival. I welcome the Minister of State and I compliment Deputy Mary Wallace on bringing forward this important Bill. The essence of the Bill involves giving fair and equal opportunity to participate in the democratic process. It merits cross-party backing and is supported by the major organisations which represent those with disabilities. I understand a number of organisations made representations to the Government asking it to support the Bill.

The issue of providing accessible polling stations and the unfair discrimination caused by the lack of such facilities has been raised on many occasions. Members are familiar with constituents with disabilities who are faced with this problem. The essence of democracy is the ballot box, but ballot boxes are usually situated in rooms and buildings that are not accessible to some people with disabilities. For this reason Fianna Fáil stresses that another election or referendum must not be allowed to take place under the current discredited and discriminatory system.

The two basic principles of the Bill are that people should not be denied the right to vote at their local polling stations simply because they cannot walk, and those who cannot travel to their local polling station because of physical disability or illness should be treated equally with other categories of voters to whom the facility of postal voting is extended. The current position is that polling stations are situated close to people's homes. However, a quick assessment shows that a major percentage of such stations are inaccessible to wheelchair users. What happens? Presiding officers make special arrangements where these people can vote at home under the supervision of a garda.

The special voting system was introduced in 1986 which required that those applying for registration had to produce a statement of their sanity and capability of voting. This aspect was reformed by Fianna Fáil in 1992. However, I believe it is very intrusive and intimidating that people with disabilities must be supervised by a garda when voting at home. This indicates that they are less trustworthy than other voters. A full postal voting service includes members of the security forces and graduates of the universities, particularly those who vote in Seanad elections. Is it any wonder that people with disabilities who are intimidated in this way have disappeared from the register of voters in recent years?

This Bill suggests that polling and voting must be made accessible for people with disabilities. Sections 2 and 3 state that any building made available to serve as a polling station must be accessible to wheelchair users. It is the duty of local authorities to find accessible buildings. Returning officers will be obliged, where possible, to locate polling stations only in places accessible to wheelchair users and to make it easy to mark voting papers and place them in ballot boxes. It must be made as easy as possible for people with disabilities to vote.

Postal voting will replace the special voting system and will allow those unable to vote in person, due to physical illness or disability, to vote through the current polling system. If the Bill is implemented, this will be a welcome reform. Many groups and organisations representing people with disabilities informed me that the special voting system is so cumbersome that they would welcome this change. The Bill received cross-party support in the Lower House and there is no need for me to fight my case. We are in agreement on this matter.

In publishing this Bill, Fianna Fáil is saying that the widespread marginalisation of disabled voters in the electoral system must be challenged. We have provided the practical means to begin to meet this challenge. The Bill addresses the fundamental issue and commands widespread support among those affected by the existing discriminatory system. I ask the Government and the House to support the passage of the Bill.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Allen)

This Bill, which was introduced in the Dáil by Deputy Mary Wallace as a Private Members' Bill, is designed to facilitate electors with a physical illness or a disability in voting. It contains measures to allow such electors who, because of a disability or illness, cannot go in person to vote at their normal polling station to vote at home. The Bill also gives statutory backing for the provision of facilities to assist voting by electors with a physical disability who are, nonetheless, mobile and able to go to their polling station.

The Bill in its present form differs from the Bill as originally presented. This follows detailed cooperation between the Minister for the Environment and Deputy Wallace in amending the original Bill so that we now have short but very workable legislation. In addition, it will provide the electors concerned with a better opportunity to exercise their franchise, a matter which I am sure this House will welcome.

Section 2 provides for an amendment to electoral law to require a local authority, in making a polling scheme, to endeavour to appoint polling places in which at least one polling station is accessible to wheelchair users. This, new provision puts the onus on local authorities, in considering a new polling scheme, to do everything possible to ensure that polling places designated in polling schemes have suitable buildings for use by wheelchair users. Local authorities will have to be more thorough than they may have been in the past in checking out potential buildings for use as polling stations.

A further provision to be inserted in electoral law by section 2 will allow local authorities to change a polling place in an existing polling scheme. This power will enable a local authority to change a polling place which has no accessible building in favour of another polling place which has a suitable building. This will give local authorities a greater degree of flexibility in ensuring that polling stations are accessible. Under existing law, a local authority is required to make a complete new scheme to effect such a change. The new provision keeps formalities to a minimum. The prior approval of the Minister will not be necessary for such a change. However, a decision to change a polling place will, like the making of a polling scheme, be a function reserved to elected councillors.

Section 3 provides for the insertion of a provision which is complementary to that set out in section 2. It requires a returning officer to provide, as far as practicable, polling stations which are accessible to wheelchair users. I take this opportunity to say that, while the Bill addresses the needs of electors with disabilities, its provisions will also facilitate elderly electors and other less mobile electors.

Section 3 also provides for a requirement on returning officers at an election or referendum to make arrangements at polling stations to facilitate the marking and placing in the ballot box of ballot papers by voters who are wheelchair users. An example would be the provision of a table of suitable height, located in such a way as to ensure secrecy in voting. The Department already advises returning officers to provide such facilities at each election or referendum. The Bill will give statutory backing to the current arrangements and will leave no doubt that the facilities must be provided.

Section 3 also provides that the Minister may make regulations putting arrangements in place to facilitate voters with visual impairments to mark their ballot papers without assistance. The Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs, in an interim report on electroal procedures, recommended that Braille ballot papers or Braille templates be made available at all polling stations or, at a minimum, at polling stations at which it is known that voters would wish to avail of such a facility. This is a complex question and is one which needs further detailed consideration. For example, consideration will have to be given to such matters as the feasibility of using Braille ballot papers and templates under our electoral system where the names of up to 20 candidates may appear on a ballot paper and the fact that an elector may record as many preferences as he or she chooses. I mention these matters to stress to the House that the provision of such assistance needs careful consideration from a technical point of view. However, I assure the House that the Minister intends to have this matter examined without delay.

Section 4 provides for the extension of postal voting to electors living at home who are currently entitled to vote under the special home voting arrangement. It restricts the right to be entered in the special voters list to electors who are resident in a hospital, nursing home or other similar institution for persons with a physical illness or a disability. While not wishing to single out any particular group, the risk of abuse in unsupervised postal voting is likely to be higher where a large number of electors are resident at a single location. This is not intended to cast any aspersions on the staff in such places. The possibility of abuse is an eventuality which must be guarded against, even if it only occurs in very isolated cases.

Ideally, a postal voting scheme should have adequate safeguards to ensure the integrity and secrecy of the ballot. There would, in the normal course, be a strong case for requiring that the voter have a declaration of identity, witnessed by an authorised person, drawn from specified categories of office holders acceptable for this purpose. Such requirements apply in relation to voting by diplomats and their spouses posted abroad who are required to have a form of declaration witnessed by an authorised person, normally the Head of Mission. Likewise, the Electoral Bill, 1994, which proposes to extend postal voting to persons unable to vote locally due to their occupation, requires a declaration to be witnessed by a garda. However, the Government in agreeing to extend postal voting in this Bill, recognised that a witnessing requirement in the case of such electors would almost certainly be unacceptable due to its intrusiveness as the witness would have to visit the elector at home. This is the main objection to the existing special voter arrangements. The approach adopted in the Bill strikes the correct balance, and meets one of the main objections to the existing special voting scheme.

Section 5 proposes to require returning officers, where practicable, to ensure that they appoint counting centres which are accessible to wheelchair users. This provision should ensure that wheelchair users have full access to all stages of an election and are not prevented from attending the count because it takes place in an inaccessible building. Section 6 contains a transitional arrangement to enable the Minister to appoint dates for giving public notice and for the receipt of applications for entry in the postal voters list for forming part of the register of electors which will come into operation in February next. Once the Bill has been enacted, the Minister intends to appoint these dates without delay. This should ensure that electors with disabilities living at home will be registered as postal voters in the 1997-98 register, which will come into operation on 15 February. This register will be used for any election or referendum held between that date and 14 February 1998. The provisions of this Bill contain a welcome package of measures which will make it easier for electors with a physical illness or disability to vote. The Government supports the Bill and I hope the House agrees to it.

Dr. Henry

I am glad the Government has accepted the Bill. This is a very good provision and I congratulate Deputy Mary Wallace and Fianna Fáil on bringing it forward. Some years ago we thought it was a good idea to allow people go to the homes of those who were restricted from leaving them to supervise them when voting. However, it did not work out so well in practice because people were afraid of this intrusion into their homes. There were cases of people falsely gaining access to houses and elderly people were loth to allow anyone into their homes when voting. The elderly are enthusiastic voters so it is in our interest to enable them to get to polling stations and maximise the poll. I hope the abysmally low poll in the last referendum was not due to the elderly being too afraid to go out to vote and remaining indoors.

It is not just wheelchair users who will benefit from this measure. Many elderly people and those who are less mobile but not wheelchair bound will also benefit. Voting is also difficult for people who are visually impaired. Even if ballot papers are printed in Braille the confidentiality of the ballot will be easily broken. If there is only one blind person voting on the Braille ballot paper in a polling station, whoever counts the votes will know how that person voted. That is a difficulty I discovered when I looked at this matter in the past.

I am interested that the Minister of State foresees problems with regard to old folks' homes, where people could be pressurised into voting a certain way. Apart from having witnesses present, as is proposed, I doubt that we can do much more about it. It might be a good chance for the medical profession to get involved in yet another way by certifying that people are fit to vote.

The fact that ill people and patients in maternity hospitals who have their babies on the wrong day, as it were, cannot vote is interesting. I watched the elections in eastern Europe, which is not considered a great bastion of democracy, and was fascinated to see the returning officer accompanied by his assistants pushing the mobile ballot box around the wards. The practice has obviously gone on for years because it appeared to be accepted as normal. The attitude appeared to be "You had your appendix out this morning or you had a baby this morning but wake up now because it is time to vote". It is interesting that these countries have devised such a system and it appears to be working well.

I wish to comment on another matter which is not directly relevant to this Bill. The use of postal votes will have to be examined further. Senators on the Universities Panel are used to dealing with a postal electorate. However, there is great pressure for emigrants to be given votes. The proposal brought forward in this regard by the Minister for the Environment was not considered satisfactory, but that does not mean we cannot look at the matter again. Should we not try to introduce a postal voting system which will give emigrants influence if not seats? I accept that the majority of emigrants would like to have influence in terms of seats in Dáil Éireann and that seats in the Seanad will not satisfy them, but it might be possible to start the process by giving them postal votes in presidential elections and in referenda. In such cases, their votes would be part of the global vote and would not heavily influence events in constituencies.

I congratulate the Minister of State for accepting the Bill and I congratulate Deputy Mary Wallace and the Fianna Fáil Party for introducing it.

Mr. Hayes

I welcome Deputy Wallace who is in the Visitors' Gallery. She is responsible for this legislation. If it were not for her initiative in raising this issue in 1995 and 1996, this measure might not have been introduced. The Bill is an example of the Government and the Opposition co-operating to provide good legislation which will affect our business by increasing the vote. It is in everybody's interest to increase the vote. Deputy Wallace deserves great credit and praise for this legislation.

Government do not have a monopoly on wisdom; on many occasions it can be found in the Opposition. A former leader of the Fine Gael Party, James Dillon, said one can frequently achieve more in Opposition than in Government. I suspect that might be true.

Mr. O'Kennedy

He had considerable experience of that.

Mr. Hayes

This Bill is part of a general process of electoral reform. In the last five years a number of measures have been introduced to change the procedures under which elections are run. The primary objective of those Bills was to increase the number of people who vote. The reform in this legislation is much needed by one sector of the electorate. There is an urgency that it be passed by the Oireachtas and I am delighted the Government has been so co-operative in this regard, particularly this evening.

Election turnouts are interesting. In six of the last seven elections the number of people who voted reduced in each election. There is an underlying trend and message in that for politicians and the Oireachtas. In 1977, 76.3 per cent of the electorate voted while in 1992, 68.4 per cent voted. Only one election bucked that trend. The underlying trend is a continuing reduction in voter turnout at elections and that fact must be confronted by politicians. We can either assume the attitude of some churches, which decide they will not address the issue of participation in the church, or we can address the issue. We can bury our heads in the sand and say it has always been thus and we will continue on that road or we will look at ways of increasing voter participation to equal the European averages which this country has not achieved. This Bill is a small but useful step in that direction.

I agree with Senator Henry that we should be prepared to look at other voting systems. There is also the issue of disabled people not just voting but being involved in politics. There are few people with a physical disability involved in the political system and that is a loss for politics. The main reason they do not participate is probably that we meet late and in inaccessible places. The embargo, as it were, was broken by the former Senator Crowley. He is a shining example for people who believe they have a contribution to make in politics, not just in terms of the agenda for disabled people but in terms of the general good of the country. Political parties must do as much as possible to advance not only the cause of people with disabilities but also their participation in mainstream party politics. Politics is where the centre of power lies and until that changes that is the area where people with disabilities should be. I urge more people with disabilities to get involved in the political system and I hope this legislation will send the right signal to them.

In 1992, there were 3,933 electors on the special voters list; that figure decreased to 3,293 in 1995. That demonstrates that more and more people with disabilities are not registering for the special voters list. There is something wrong and we must change it. By extending the postal ballot to people with disabilities we will encourage them to get involved in the election process and that is useful. There is also the issue for local authorities of selecting polling stations which are accessible to wheelchair users. That too is a welcome development. Many buildings being built at present will be used as polling stations in ten or 20 years time. They should be approved by the National Rehabilitation Board before they are put out to tender or constructed. I hope this problem will be reduced as more public buildings become accessible to wheelchair users.

The count is the dynamic centre of politics. Those of us who have stood in elections know the atmosphere of a count, and people with a disability should be able to gain an appreciation of that. A certain percentage of disabled people are employed in the public service. What percentage of the staff who count votes are disabled? I ask the Minister to address this issue. Some councils are achieving great results employing the disabled but others are not. This is an issue the Department of the Environment needs to continue to push, not just for the disabled but for society.

I and another Member of this House had the great honour of observing the Russian presidential elections. Senator Henry stole my thunder when she referred to the mobile ballot. It is a unique system which has always been operated throughout Eastern Europe. If a voter cannot make it on the day, they ring the polling station and ask them to send out the ballot paper which arrives at four or five o'clock. Political representatives can accompany the polling officer. If someone was in hospital, five or six parties may visit to see if the system is fair. This system works well in Russia. We should consider using it to ensure that people are given every possible opportunity to vote. Under the Russian system, if I was in the constituency of Dublin South-West, wanted to vote in a referendum or a presidential or European election, and was in Cork on business on that day, I could vote because a voter can be registered in a constituency they are not living in. Obviously, this system could not work for the 41 Dáil constituencies but it could work in a presidential election or a referendum, as Senator Ormonde said. Under that system more people could have voted in the bail referendum.

I congratulate Deputy Wallace on this timely legislation. We should pass it with a degree of urgency as the new register will be created in February. This will allow people who were previously on the special voter's list to be put on the postal ballot list. I and this side of the House welcome this provision.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The right to exercise the franchise is the most fundamental right of every citizen. Deputy Wallace must be congratulated and commended for an initiative which should not have been needed at this stage of enlightenment in society. She is ensuring that this fundamental right to which we are all entitled to under the Constitution can now be exercised without any inhibition or disqualification. I do not suggest there was ever a deliberate disqualification, but simply the disqualification of disability and lack of suitability of some polling stations. Deputy Wallace's initiative and the Government's and all parties' response to it comes at a time when the disabled community is more determined to be seen as a full and equal partner in democracy and in the exercise of their rights at every level.

Colleagues will be aware of the Centre for Independent Living. I have been privileged as the nominee of the Irish Wheelchair Association to be closely involved with that movement in endeavouring, belatedly, to ensure that their right to be independent and to exercise their functions will be recognised, respected and vindicated. It is appropriate that this legislation is introduced at a time when that movement is gaining strength and support throughout the community.

We all know many young people who have been disabled as the result of serious accidents— unfortunately, over the Christmas holiday many others may be disabled — and old people suffer natural disability. What they have in common is their fulfilment as citizens and their individual dignity in exercising fundamental rights. I cannot adequately express what this legislation means to them. Many of them have contacted me to express how they feel fulfilled by this recognition and the provision that they can do what the rest of us do as a matter of routine.

As Senator Hayes said, in the past the Oireachtas and its elected representatives were not aware of the disability we imposed on this special section of our community. We did not offer access to the House and give the disabled the opportunity to see what was being done in their name, and to listen to and criticise what was not being adequately done in their name. This was not done deliberately but rather through a lack of awareness.

It was a happy coincidence that I entered the Seanad as the nominee of the Irish Wheelchair Association at the same time as Senator Brian Crowley. What any of us do, say or suggest is minuscule in comparison to what his presence here represented and the awareness it stimulated. As Senator Hayes said, the capacity he demonstrated has stimulated a magnificent response throughout the community and has enhanced the rest of us in recognising the special rights and capacity of those who suffer from disability.

I am pleased that Senator Ormonde, who has considerable experience and was in consultation with Deputy Wallace on this Bill, is representing our position on it in the Seanad. She expressed a comprehensive and enlightened view on our behalf. Men delude themselves that they are concerned with the macro affairs of the economy, the development of infrastructure, education and international negotiation. Women representatives have focused on the vital human dimension of recognition, which we have overlooked, to the great advantage of representation in public life and to those who have a special right to be recognised. For this reason I am happy that Senator Ormonde promoted the Bill on our behalf in the House tonight. It is significant that women in public life have taken such an active role in this matter. The actions of the Government and Opposition in both Houses and the Minister's enlightened speech will take this issue a stage further, and further stages remain to be achieved.

I like the suggestion in the Bill that facilities must be provided at every polling station or, alternatively, at a polling station designated for that purpose nearby. This is a correct, practical and simple provision although it may not be as easy to achieve in some cases as it appears. The proposers of the Bill and the Government should be commended on the effective consultation and co-ordination process which took place in light of the provision that the returning officer must draw up a list of polling stations which do not meet the criteria.

This is unusual and significant because it means people will be notified in advance that a facility is not available but they can exercise their franchise, as hitherto, in their homes. Most disabled people would prefer to go to polling stations in their wheelchairs and be seen to do what everybody else is doing there rather than exercise their franchise in their homes because, in that case, they are not as independent as they want to be. They want to be seen to vote in the same way as all other citizens. We should make a constant and determined effort to ensure that, in the shortest possible time, every polling station meets these requirements.

There is also the social aspect, when individuals go to vote and meet people on the way. They will not meet as many people as they did in the past due to an initiative, which perhaps was not as enlightened as it was intended, taken by Fianna Fáil in Government at the suggestion of the then Taoiseach, Mr. Charles Haughey, to prevent tribal confrontations at polling stations.

Mr. Hayes

A wonderful decision.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Some people say they miss the colour and excitement at the polling station. Senator Hayes made an interesting point that the number of people exercising their franchise is declining. Politics is an important expression of instinct, theatrics, competition and involvement. I do not suggest the reason fewer people are voting is the lack of colour and excitement but I am not sure it has not had some small effect on the overall decline in votes.

I am happy the Bill also applies to the elderly. If they are disabled they should not be discriminated against just because they are elderly. They must be treated in the same fashion as others. This ensures that will be the case. The provision of basic facilities in polling stations is also essential. It may be necessary to deal with this aspect by ministerial regulation. I am not sure it can be left to presiding officers because their notion of what is, or is not, adequate may vary. It is important to have standard facilities, such as tables, to ensure votes can be cast fully and freely in all designated polling stations.

A number of people is so badly disabled that they are unable to use a pen or pencil, although they are not disabled in any other sense. Their mental and intellectual capacity more often than not more than compensates and we are all aware of brilliant people who have achieved greatness through disability. However, they may not have the capacity to write and I presume the position which obtained hitherto will still obtain, that they can communicate their preference to a trusted friend or family member.

Given the experience of other countries, we almost appear to impose disability in another sense on people who cannot conveniently vote on a particular date, such as commercial travellers or people working in hospitals, etc. This should be examined to ensure everyone is able to exercise his or her franchise. Some people will be temporarily disabled and there is no reason people in hospital, even for a short time, cannot vote. It can be done in Russia and, as Senator Hayes said, they are relatively new to democracy.

As I said over the years, the only distinction between totalitarian states, which were sometimes held up as examples although I did not share that view, and us was that they were not free to exercise what we take for granted. For example, people were not free to move outside their countries. However, they are now free to vote and if Russia, Hungary and Poland, after such a short experience of democracy, can arrange voting facilities for people who are temporarily disabled in hospital, I hope that will be the next stage of reform in Ireland. It must be possible. Nobody can anticipate whether they will be in hospital at a particular time but people still have the right and obligation as citizens to vote.

I welcome the Bill as a significant move in that direction and I again congratulate Deputy Wallace, Senator Ormonde, the Minister and the Government for their response to it. We are not just recognising disabled people who want to live independently but also enhancing ourselves by recognising them. For that, we owe thanks to them also.

Mr. Sherlock

The Bill is timely given the recent publication of the report of the Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities. The foreword to the report states:

We, as people with disabilities, are shouldering our responsibility to ensure that disabled people are included as full citizens in Ireland. It is now time that everyone else joins this process so that we can all live and participate together as equal members of society. Our democracy has been in place for over 70 years and, proverbially, familiarity breeds contempt. We do not have long queues in front of our polling stations, as was the case in the 1994 South African elections. We are lucky if we get more than a trickle as was demonstrated during the recent bail referendum. Yet, while the vast majority takes their vote for granted, there are still those in our society who are disenfranchised and effectively excluded from full citizenship.

I welcome this Bill which is designed to further enfranchise people with disability and enable them to exercise one of their most fundamental rights on the same basis and under the same conditions as other citizens. I recognise, of course, that there is currently a provision for people with a disability or long-term illness to be entered on the special voters' list. There are also arrangements whereby voters who are mobile, but who have difficulty gaining access to a particular polling station, can arrange to vote at another station. This has been mentioned already.

However, these provisions, while welcome, are cumbersome and serve to reinforce the separateness of people with a disability; neither do they take account of short-term disabilities. The proposals in the Bill refer specifically to polling stations but, if implemented, they would also have the effect of making our schools wheelchair accessible, since the vast majority of polling stations are located in school premises.

The Commission on the Status of People with Disabilities recently published a report which particularly addressed the issue of access. In 1994 Democratic Left made a submission to the commission which, among other things, urged that all public buildings be made fully accessible to the disabled. There is general agreement on the desirability of that objective, yet we seem as far away from realising it as ever.

A recent poll conducted by my colleague, Cllr. John Ryan, in Limerick found that 75 per cent of public buildings in Limerick are inaccessible for people with disabilities. Among the buildings surveyed were those housing public services, major shops financial institutions and hotels, as well as a random selection of churches, pubs and smaller shops. The survey found that 80 per cent of entrances to all buildings had obstacles, such as heavy doors, narrow doorways, door saddles and narrow opening angles, while 56 per cent lacked necessary ramp entrances. Of multi-storey buildings, 72 per cent lacked a lift while just 20 per cent had wheelchair accessible toilets. To add to the obstacles faced by disabled citizens, over the period of the survey an average of 80 per cent of parking spaces provided for disabled drivers were occupied by able bodied drivers. That practice is very widespread in our towns. These figures are alarming but I do not believe they are unique. I am sure a similar study in Cork or Dublin would reveal the same results.

The effectiveness of our democracy depends on the fullest participation by all those entitled to vote. Until we have ensured that all those who wish to vote are enabled to do so in as unbureaucratic and convenient manner as possible, our democracy will remain less than perfect.

I welcome this Bill, which is an important first step in securing an equal franchise for people with disabilities. Ultimately, our aim should be that all polling stations and public buildings are fully accessible, that local authorities have a statutory obligation to secure such access and are accountable for any failure to do so rather than simply placing the onus on returning officers or on the custodians of individual buildings.

This Bill, of its nature, is limited to considerations of voting access but the right of people with a disability to enjoy full and equal citizenship requires much more. In particular, it is vital that the forthcoming equal status legislation compel those in charge of public buildings to make them fully accessible, and that stiff penalties be imposed on able-bodied people using facilities intended for the disabled. We will not achieve a society based on equality until the rights of people with disabilities are moved to the top of the political agenda.

On sections 2 and 3, a lot of responsibility is put on the returning officer. There might have to be a reference to the local authority in section 3 because of the onus being placed on the returning officer. That might be addressed in the reply.

Professor Lee

I echo the welcome for this Bill. It is the kind of Bill that, when it comes before us, one wonders why it was not thought of a long time ago. I welcome the Bill in itself and in its contribution in raising the profile of the disabled in society as a whole. It improves our alertness to the plight of the disabled. We have not discriminated against the disabled through malice aforethought but through no forethought, inadvertence and thoughtlessness. It is only by specifically addressing concrete issues of this type that we will catch up with the neglect we have inflicted on the disabled through mindlessness over the years.

I am not unduly bothered by the details of the Bill. We have had discussions from professional politicians on the details and I am glad that we are getting out of the rut of the ritual of polling day, which means that we cannot think of other ways to conduct the poll. This is a question of willpower. If we are determined to do it, it is not beyond the intellectual resources of this civilisation to find ways of coping with what are relatively simple problems. If we do not want to do this, we can think of any number of reasons it cannot be done. It is a question of political will driving this through.

That is why my one reservation is that there are such phrases in the Bill as "as far as practicable". I am not suggesting that it is intended here but that phrase is an escape route in our constitutional ideology. Here it is meant positively but there should be stronger phraseology here. Who decides what is "as far as practicable" in any given circumstance? Will local councillors or returning officers decide? This section could be toughened up. Instead of endeavouring to do things, it should be made clear that unless an absolutely unanswerable case can be made against doing those things, they are expected to be done.

The ethos of the Bill is admirable as far as it goes but it should be toughened. There should be deadlines to ensure that average practice conforms to best practice very quickly. Lists of best practice constituencies should be drawn up and shown to those which are lagging. It is a question of willpower once the decision is taken.

Senator O'Kennedy made a reasonable point about people who have to work on polling days and why they cannot have arrangements made without the process of democracy being subverted. I like Senator Hayes's suggestion that the design for any new public building should gain the approval of the NRB. There are still a huge number of public buildings, and Senator Sherlock was correct to mention schools, which were obviously designed with no thought of the disabled in mind. The higher the profile that perspective can achieve for new and old buildings the better.

In itself and in its symbolic value, I welcome the Bill and congratulate Deputy Mary Wallace and all those who have worked so hard to bring it to fruition.

Miss Ormonde

I congratulate Deputy Mary Wallace for initiating this Bill. It took a lot of work on her part to get it off the ground. I congratulate the Minister on consulting Deputy Wallace. It is timely as we approach a general election and it is good it has come so far. It is workable legislation which will be easily implemented and should be in readiness for the electoral register which will be published in February of next year.

There is concern about the use of the word "shall" for returning officers. There should not be any difficulty. The returning officer, as far as practicable, should ensure an accessible building is provided. This is the thrust of the Bill which should be implemented without difficulty. Local authorities should also work to ensure accessible buildings are made available. I welcome the fact that access to the count will be available. If people have access to polling stations to vote, they should also have access to the count.

I congratulate and thank Deputy Wallace, the Minister of State, the Government and all those who contributed. This Bill will be welcomed by those who, on behalf of the disabled, have promoted the aims incorporated in it.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take Remaining Stages now.