I move amendment No. 1:
In page 10, subsection (1), lines 20 and 21, to delete "be established by the Minister, by order," and substitute "stand established".
Electoral Bill, 1994: Committee and Final Stages.
Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 5.
I cannot accept this amendment because I do not believe that the publication of the census figures is, of itself, sufficient to trigger the establishment of the commission. The intervention of some establishing agency is necessary and this function is assigned by the Bill to the Minister. An order by the Minister is needed to start the formal process of establishing the commission, for example, requesting the Chief Justice to nominate a chairman, arrange accommodation, etc., and somebody must initiate action involving different personnel from different offices, etc. This section gives the Minister no function other than the making of an order bringing the commission into operation after the publication of each census report.
If the amendment was accepted, the Chief Justice would have to watch for the publication of the census report and take the initiative to nominate the chairperson of the commission. I do not believe that the Chief Justice should be expected to do that. I must emphasise that the Minister has no discretion under section 5 not to make an order establishing the commission. I would imagine that if the Minister fails to make an order within a reasonable period, legal action could be taken to force him or her to fulfil this statutory duty. I ask that the amendment not be pressed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 10, subsection (2)(c), line 39, after "breaching of" to insert "provincial and".
The amendment proposes to include as a further term of reference the avoidance of breaches of provincial boundaries. The terms of reference proposed in the Bill have been tried and tested by past commissions. Given the constitutional requirements and court rulings, there is little scope for changing them. The proposal is to revise the terms of reference set out in the Bill. However, the Constitution sets out the parameters to be taken into account by constituency commissions. The main point is that each Deputy must represent broadly the same number of people. This cannot be changed except by referendum.
The High Court decision made in the 1960s was clear. Since there is nothing in the Constitution about constituencies being based on counties, and the same applies to provinces and regions, there is no point adding a further reference which the commission would then be forced to ignore. Reports of the commissions to date illustrate that, where possible, they have noted the regional dimension in their deliberations. It is not necessary or practicable to formally require the commission to consider this additional aspect to its work. The terms of reference proposed in the Bill have worked well in the past and they are as far as one can go in giving directions to the commission. I ask the House to reject the amendment.
Under the terms of the previous commissions, sucessive Ministers for the Environment directed that, in so far as it was possible, county boundaries should not be breached. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that provincial boundaries are not breached. Irrespective of whether we like it, the tradition has developed that the county unit is sacrosanct. In a sporting context, provincial loyalties are also strong, particularly in terms of adjacent counties, for example, those in Connacht and Leinster and Munster and south Leinster.
The amendment covers the possibility of breaching provincial boundaries. For example, an area outside Clonmel, which is part of the south Tipperary constituency, is part of the Waterford constituency. Two provinces are involved there. I tabled the amendment in the spirit of maintaining provincial solidarity. The Leas-Chathaoirleach suffers from this problem because there is an unnatural constituency alliance between Longford and Roscommon. These two counties traditionally have little in common in terms of administration, but they are now cheek to jowl in a political constituency. It is a strange hybrid political animal as the Leas-Chathaoirleach and others who live there will testify. In political terms, it is a case of never the twain shall meet. Each county does its own thing not just because they are two separate counties but because they are part of two separate provinces. I am surprised the Minister of State's officials did not understand the ethos and tradition behind it and that it will be cast aside without further thought.
I assure the Senator that we are not in the business of casting aside any ethos related to county or provincial boundaries. However, the reference to county boundaries will protect such boundaries in so far as that is practicable and consequently provincial boundaries. I understand the notion of the province does not occur frequently in law. The reference to respecting county boundaries as far as practicable will also deal with the provincial aspect.
Ultimately, we are governed by the Constitution and it does not refer to counties let alone provinces. Inevitably, some constituencies will breach county and provincial boundaries in the context of the Constitution. In my constituency I represent part of County Carlow. I do not know whether that is greatly appreciated — I doubt it — but that is the position because the Constitution determines the approach.
As I said on Second Stage, perhaps there is a need for a radical reform of the entire process as it relates to the formation of constituencies. Perhaps we should cut to the chase and abolish multi-seat constituencies in favour of single seat constituencies and geographic entities, county or otherwise. If boundaries will be breached anyway and my arguments about maintaining traditions and ethos are ignored, why not go the whole way and initiate more radical electoral reform? However, I do not anticipate a reply from the Minister of State on this point because it does not pertain to the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 11, line 27, to delete paragraph (c) and substitute the following:
"(c) Director General of the Central Statistics Office,".
The argument was made in the other House that the commission should not be politicised under any circumstances and the Government of the day should not be seen to be involved in any way. This applies by extension to Secretaries of Departments despite their tradition of impartiality and independence. If this matter involves perception, the person involved should be somebody outside the machinery of Government. The Secretary of the Department of the Environment is a fine individual as are his colleagues in the Civil Service. The amendment is not a reflection on him, but the entire public reaction to the Bill is based as much on perception as reality regarding the operation of the Houses of the Oireachtas. The amendment is an attempt to put at arm's length even the merest hint of suspicion that the Government of the day would be able to influence the Secretary of a Department. The replacement of the Secretary of a Department by the Director General of the Central Statistics Office is a fair compromise.
The amendments propose to replace as a member of the commission the Secretary of the Department of the Environment with the Director General of the CSO. I understand the main reason behind the amendment is the argument that somehow the Secretary of the Department or the officials involved in the franchise section might come under political pressure or influence in performing their functions relating to the commission. I do not accept that logic. If that were the case, replacing the Secretary of the Department with the Director General of the CSO would not mean that the same objection could not be made. As the House is aware, the Director General and his or her staff work under the aegis of the Department of the Taoiseach. Therefore, the same argument would apply.
The general perception of the Civil Service is that it is a professional body of men and women who would not be used in that way. However, even if there were fears in that regard, an amendment was accepted on Committee Stage in the other House that the members of the commission will be independent in the performance of their functions. That should allay any unfounded fears about the Secretary of the Department being a member of the commission. I ask the Senator not to press the amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 5 to 11, inclusive, form a composite proposal and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 12, subsection (1)(a), line 34, before "report" to insert "draft".
I oppose the amendments which propose that the constituency commission would publish a draft report and consider submissions made on it before presenting its final report. All past commissions invited submissions and considered them as part of their deliberations. Inviting submissions will be mandatory under section 9.
The reports of the commissions have been thorough in explaining the reasoning behind recommendations and outlining the alternative arrangements considered. This approach has worked well and I see no evidence of public demand for a more formal consultation process along the lines proposed. If the proposals were accepted, it would be difficult to reach finality on a matter. If a Deputy or Senator is dissatisfied with the recommendations of the commission's report, he or she can make a case in the Dáil or Seanad and put forward amendments. The Oireachtas decides whether to accept, reject or amend the commission's recommendations. The commission's report is not binding on the Oireachtas. I ask the Senator not to press his amendment.
I understand the Minister's position, but I tabled these amendments in an attempt to inject greater accountability, openness and transparency into the system. I accept the Minister's point that the final report must be ratified by the Houses of the Oireachtas. However, the Executive will propose what is to be done and the Dáil will dispose of it. While there will be an opportunity to debate the report, there will be little opportunity to change it unless the next Minister is as amenable as this one. I tabled these amendments to allow Members of both Houses to become more involved in the proposals made by the constituency commission.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 6 to 11, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 13, subsection (4), line 8, after "Oireachtas" to insert "and not later than one month from the date the final report was laid the Minister shall initiate legislation to enact the recommendations contained in the said report".
This amendment seeks to shorten the time involved in implementing the report's recommendations. I am interested in the Minister's reply.
It is not necessary to provide in the Bill that legislation must be introduced to revise constituencies. There is already a constitutional requirement for Dáil constituencies. Article 16.2.4º of the Constitution provides that the Oireachtas shall revise the constituencies at least once in 12 years while Article 16.2.2º provides that the number of people represented by each Deputy at any time must, as far as practicable, be the same throughout the country. I am advised that the latter provision means that Dáil constituencies must be revised whenever a population census shows this to be necessary. As regular constituency revision by the Oireachtas is a constitutional requirement, it is neither necessary nor desirable to repeat it in legislation.
If, for some reason, the Minister did not bring forward legislation to give effect to a commission's recommendations, it would be open to any Member of the House to initiate a Private Members' Bill to provide for a revision of constituencies. The Oireachtas has responsibility for revising constituencies. If the situation envisaged in this amendment were to materialise, any Member of the House could bypass the Minister and go directly to the Oireachtas. The Oireachtas would then be the final arbiter in the matter. I ask the Senator to withdraw his amendment.
We are talking about possible obfuscation or delay caused by the Executive. The shifts in population over the past ten years have been significant, particularly along the east coast and in north Wicklow in the Minister's constituency. Delays in setting up commissions have caused public controversy in the past. People are confused about whether changes will be discussed and proposals implemented after the next general election or during a by-election. This amendment would prevent such delays. Section 9(4) states: "As soon as may be after the receipt of a report". I accept that the amendment might tie a future Government to a specific date. However, there is nothing wrong with that. If the Opposition of the day decides to create a fuss about it, the Government can decide in its own time when to implement the proposals. This amendment does not go against the overall thrust of the Bill.
This is a constitutional imperative. It is not necessary to include this timeframe because it is already provided for in the Constitution. The Oireachtas has responsibility, as I outlined in my reply.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 13, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following new subsection:
"(2) (a) As soon as may be after its establishment, a Commission shall prepare—
(i) a statement setting out the relevant provisions of the Constitution in relation to Dáil constituencies to which the Commission is required to have regard in preparing a report under section 6(1)(a), and
(ii) statements based on the population as ascertained by the Census of Population last taken before the establishment of the Commission showing, for the constituencies for the time being in force for Dáil and European elections, in relation to each constituency—
(I) the number of members or representatives, as the case may be;
(II) the population of the constituency;
(III) the population per member or representative, as the case may be, of the constituency; and
(IV) the percentage variation of population per member or representative, as the case may be, of the constituency from the national average population per member or representative.
(b) The Commission shall furnish, on request, to any person a copy of the statements referred to in paragraph (a). Members of the Oireachtas shall be furnished with those statements automatically".
The Bill provides that the commission should make available statistical data relating to the constituencies then in force showing the latest population figures based on the most recent census and the variation from the national average for the population of each constituency. All submissions received by the commission shall be open to public inspection at such time and place as may be specified by the commission. It must permit a copy of or extracts from such submissions to be taken on payment of a fee not exceeding the reasonable cost of photocopying. A public notice will be published inviting submissions; it will include a reference to the availability of statements received by the commission relating to the constitutional provisions and statistical data prepared by it. It must also include an indication that the submissions received by the commission may be inspected.
This amendment requires that the statements should be automatically sent to each Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas. The commissions established on an ad hoc basis in the past invited submissions by letter addressed to each Member of both Houses. I envisage that procedure will continue so it will form an automatic line of communication. A statutory requirement is not necessary to give effect to this.
This amendment seeks to ensure that Members of both Houses are kept fully up to date by automatically furnishing them with the statements. The amendment states it should be done on request. The amount of documentation the Minister receives, and even that which humble Senators receive, is overwhelming. If one must initiate a request for this kind of information then, given that there are other pressing needs, it may pass one by. One may read something in the newspaper and wonder why one did not receive information on it. I agree that this legislation will concentrate the minds of Deputies and those aspiring to the Dáil so perhaps I am looking at it solely from a Seanad perspective. It seems not to be a major imposition on the machinery of State to ensure that Members of both Houses automatically receive statements without having to look for them.
I support Senator Mooney on this amendment. Over the past five or six months both sides of the House have experienced difficulties in obtaining certain reports. While reports differ to what is in question here, the principle is the same. Members should receive this kind of information as a matter of course. We have, on a number of occasions, requested copies of reports which appear for the first time in the newspapers but are not circulated to Members. I know the Bill clearly states that information can be obtained on request but, if the Minister were sitting on this side of the House, she would probably agree that it is our right as Members to automatically be furnished with information.
I fully accept what the Senators are saying. Perhaps I did not make myself clear on this point. The commission automatically writes to Senators and Deputies. That procedure is already in place and it is also an invitation to Members to make submissions. Members do not necessarily have to seek information, they will be contacted by the commission as they have relevant views on this issue. It is the current practice for the commission to automatically issue Deputies and Senators with information in written form. We do not think it necessary to provide for this as it would only maintain the status quo.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 14, lines 18 to 20, to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following:
"11.—(1) A Constituency Commission shall be served by the staff of the Public Offices Commission and the Minister shall make available to a Constituency Commission such other services, including the services of additional staff, as may be reasonably required by the Commission: provided that any additional staff seconded shall be under the sole direction of the Constituency Commission.".
We have reflected on this proposal since Report Stage and I am still not convinced that this amendment is necessary. The staff involved in providing a back-up service to the commission do just that and nothing more. I understand that, in the case of previous commissions, the individual members of staff involved in this process dealt directly with members of the commission in relation to this work. The commission members indicate what they require and members of staff act on those directions. It is straining credibility to suggest that any staff involved would be open to manipulation by the Minister of the day to point a commission in any particular direction. The House can rest assured that individual members of the commission would not be so easily hoodwinked even if such a situation were to occur. It would require a rare combination of political deviousness on the part of the Minister, susceptibility to manipulation on the part of the individual members of staff and indifference to their function on the part of the commission members for the Domesday scenario — feared by Deputy Dempsey — to come about. One must accept that the staff are there to do a job and that this is a practical way of ensuring the commission can carry out its work. I cannot accept the amendment.
The Minister is correct in stating that my colleague, Deputy Dempsey, was particularly concerned about this and sought the deletion of subsection (1). We must tread a very careful line here. Far be it from me to impugn the integrity of any public servant. However, it is natural for human nature to take its course. If I might outline a particular scenario — the results of the census might indicate that a seat will be lost in a particular constituency and a Deputy will stand to lose his or her seat. The Deputy may have previously been a Minister and may have had a very close working relationship with some of the staff referred to here. It would be human nature for them to seek to influence the outcome or direction of the commission. This would never be proven and nobody would be charged with political favouritism.
As far as the public is concerned, it is the whiff of gunpowder surrounding many of the sections of the Bill which is worrying. I wish I did not have to come into the House and defend public perception. I hate doing that as public perception is usually very far removed from reality. However, we are in the eye of the storm, we are in the firing line and we are constantly being brought to account in every conceivable way. That is an unpalatable fact of political life and that is the thinking behind this amendment. I would like to debate the issue further.
I have not smelled much gunpowder since taking up office in the Department of the Environment. We must accept that these are public servants who do a day's work and who, at the end of the day, will simply carry out the duties for the commission. The commission is very clearly governed by the Bill under section 5 (2) which states that:
A constituency Commission and its members shall be independent in the performance of their duties under this Act.
There is a very clear duty placed on the commission to carry out its functions in an independent fashion. We must accept that somebody must carry out the instructions of the commission; public servants obviously fulfil that role. The fact that the Bill places a very clear obligation on the commission addresses any fears the public may have. People generally accept that public servants are professional people who are not manipulated in the way to which the Senator refers, in spite of the fact that he is not impugning any reputation. The answer to the point made in regard to the issue of public perception is clearly laid down in section 5.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 11 agreed to.
Sections 12 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Question proposed: "That section 16 stand part of the Bill."
Section 16 is the nub of the Bill. Part III of Bill deals with payments to political parties and reimbursement of election expenses of candidates. Sections 16 to 21, inclusive, relate to this issue. I want to make my party's position absolutely clear on this issue. On Second Stage I stated that I believed there is genuine public hostility to the concept of the activities of political parties being paid out of the public purse. This is a view held by my colleagues and I. If the truth were told, colleagues on the other side of the House would probably also testify to this in the light of their hands on dealing with the electorate since this concept was first floated. It is because there is so much public hostility to this — I wish it were otherwise but there is a price to be paid for democracy——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Section 16 defines a qualified party. Payments to qualified parties are dealt with under section 17.
The provisions are interlinked and I am grateful for the direction from the Chair. In the circumstances the Minister might respond to my amendment on section 16.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is Senator Mooney opposing section 16 which deals with the definition of a qualified party? The Senator's amendment refers to section 17.
On Second Stage I referred to the fact that this section applied to political parties registered in accordance with section 25 of the 1992 legislation and which were qualified by virtue of obtaining not less than 2 per cent of the vote. I raised the question of how the figure of 2 per cent was decided upon. It is coincidental that the Minister belongs to a party which received 3 per cent of the national vote with opinion polls giving it between 2 per cent and 3 per cent of the vote. If one takes into account the 3 per cent margin of error in opinion polls then that party will either get 6 per cent or 0 per cent of the vote in the next election. Was the figure of 2 per cent arrived at because Democratic Left is in Government and it would ensure it qualified as a party under this section or was it for some other altruistic, noble and honourable reason? Of course, the Minister's activities and that of her party are noble.
Perhaps the difficulty arises because in the Bill as amended in Select Committee the relevant section is 15 while in the Bill as passed by the Dáil the relevant section is 16.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Mooney is referring to the correct section.
We are referring to the Bill as passed by the Dáil.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Section 16 of the Bill as passed by Dáil Éireann defines a qualified party.
Regarding the 2 per cent, Senator Mooney is arguing along the same lines as Deputy Dempsey, namely, what consideration constituency reviews should give to the single seat PR system. It is possible to get 2 per cent of the vote and have a very high representation at national level. The Oireachtas has created a situation where some parts of the country are gaining much more in terms of representation than others. I fail to understand why people who get a certain percentage of the vote should not receive financial contributions from the taxpayer while being allowed become Members of the Oireachtas and Ministers. There is no logic in this. It would be entirely different if one was referring to Britain. However, here it would be unfair not to give recognition to a party that had three or four members elected with between 12,000 and 14,000 votes each where the quota is between 7,500 and 8,000 votes. I understand the theory of what Senator Mooney is saying but in practice the Bill is fair. The Bill provides for an independent constituency commission, the first time such a commission will be established. We hope it is independent. This Bill gives authority to the commission under sections 5, 11 and others. I would understand what Senator Mooney is saying if the staff of the commission came from other Departments or could be influenced, but this is an independent commission.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
We have dealt with all the sections and that part of the Bill dealing with the constituency commission. We are now discussing Part III of the Bill and are dealing with section 16 which defines a qualified party.
I apologise for straying from the section but I do not think it is fair to object to the section on the basis that it refers to 2 per cent or 3 per cent.
The Senator has made our case. Perhaps I am wrong but my understanding of the Bill is that in order to become a qualified party in accordance with this section it is necessary to obtain 2 per cent of the vote in an election. What about new parties? Small parties represented in the House have less than 2 per cent of the national vote but they still have elected Members. I am unsure of the percentages but the Green Party had a candidate elected on the last occasion with less than 2 per cent of the national vote. I am unsure as to whether this is Senator Mooney's view, but this section restricts new parties because party strength is based on votes received in the previous election. This means a party cannot qualify until it has participated in a general election and obtained more than 2 per cent of the vote. Perhaps my interpretation is wrong, but this is how I read the section and I see Senator Mooney nodding in agreement.
Will the Minister clarify if what is at issue is 2 per cent of the national vote? I am not referring to the Progressive Democrats Party or Democratic Left but small parties. It would appear that no new party is qualified until it has obtained more than 2 per cent of the vote.
It seems an interesting coincidence that one of the partners in Government has a national vote hovering around 3 per cent. I am curious as to whether this is what influenced the figure of 2 per cent.
What Senator Fitzgerald said is correct. I have a problem with the concept of registering political parties. I am sure the Minister's officials will clarify this, but I understand the registering of political parties arose from the operation of subversive elements within the State, namely Sinn Féin, which was then engaged in financial collections. A raft of legislation was introduced in the 1950s when it became necessary, for example, to register in order to collect money. For decades one could go out and collect for anything without a licence from the Garda Síochána. Legislation was introduced primarily to stop the collection of money from the sale of Easter lilies. Even though I was in short trousers at the time I remember that it caused enormous controversy. Around the same time we also introduced a register of political parties. A raft of legislation was put in place to define what was a political party.
To tell the truth, I am really a secret member of the Monster Raving Loony Party but, unlike in Britain, we cannot stand because we are not a nationally organised party.
They cannot stop the Senator.
I am being facetious. The UK has a colourful electorate. There are those who would say we should not allow these nutters to take part in elections at all, but if democracy in its purest form is to operate why should we have a restriction on a percentage of the national vote if people want to involve themselves in participative democracy?
It goes to an extreme in the UK in that they have the weirdest of people but it has not upset the political equilibrium there nor has it endangered the institutions of State. It seems to be a particular eccentricity of the British tradition that they tolerate all these eccentrics. We have banished them completely since we introduced a register of political parties.
Dustin.
My colleague, Senator Fitzgerald, tells me that Dustin, for example, cannot legally stand for election. There is a view that people will be tut-tutting under their breaths, saying it is terrible and that it brings democracy into disrepute. However, the point Senator Fitzgerald made, which I was attempting to make in asking about this 2 per cent of the vote, is why should there be any percentage at all. Why should people not be allowed to participate if they so wish?
As the Minister knows, there is an attempt in the Bill to introduce a sum of money for Independent candidates, which flies in the face of this section relating to the register of political parties. If an individual wishes to stand once this Bill is passed, they will be given £5,000 for the privilege. One point contradicts the other; the Minister of State cannot have it both ways. Why have the 2 per cent at all? This is why I raised the issue.
I support the idea of a register partially because of what I have seen in Britain. It is necessary to recognise a party. Senator Fitzgerald and Senator Mooney are asking why somebody should be restricted from becoming a party. However, if people receive 2 per cent of the vote they are worthy of becoming a political party. Whether the 2 per cent should be 3 per cent or another figure is a subject for another debate. However, it seems they are not recognised until they have earned that 2 per cent. If one is confident enough to run for election and receives 2 per cent of the vote, one's deposit will be refunded.
I support section 16 which is realistic and sensible if we are going to have a register of political parties. Not too long ago a former Member of the Lower House, Mr. Sean Loftus, fulfilled an ambition to have his party's name appear on the ballot paper by changing his name to Christian Democrat Loftus. Later still he added Dublin Bay and Rockall to his name. There are ways around this. I would much prefer to see the sense of section 16 coming through. We are not talking about money at this stage but about the recognition of what a registered political party will be. I support the section.
Senator Mooney has a terribly suspicious mind. We need to be clear about what is being proposed in this Bill. Anybody can stand for election. Some people would say that anybody does stand for election, but the freedom is there for anybody to stand. If one wants to be a registered party one must qualify. There are many registered parties. If one stands for election and attains the 2 per cent level one can then become a qualifying registered party.
There is always a debate about where to draw the line but we must draw it somewhere. During the lengthy debate on this Bill, I have certainly learned much more about Fianna Fáil and that party has learned more about how smaller parties operate. I have no doubt that as we go on, if anything, there will be more smaller parties, not necessarily the Monster Raving Loony Party, but parties who seriously represent people in the Houses of the Oireachtas and who may not have the enormous base Fianna Fáil has.
The Senator cited the example of the Green Party. Had we decided to do this purely on the basis of the number of TDs it would have been unfair because the Green Party has a national vote but only one TD. That does not reduce its status as a registered party if it achieves 2 per cent of the vote. We have to set a fair threshold. We must also set a practical threshold so that registered political parties that are growing, although they may not necessarily grow very big, will be entitled to qualify in proportion to their vote once they have achieved base level.
A major party is in a different league to a smaller party but they are all in the same game. It is important to acknowledge that this is a specific mechanism. Other countries use different formulae but it is essentially the same business of setting a line and saying that this is a qualifying registered party because of what it has achieved.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 15, before section 17, to insert the following new section:
"17.—The Electoral Act, 1992, is hereby amended by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (3) of section 25:
`(3) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Registrar shall register every political party which applies in accordance with this section for registration provided that at the time the application is made—
(a) the organisation and direction of the party are governed by a constitution, articles of association, rules or other regulations which have been adopted by the party and which provide for——
(i) annual or other periodic meetings or conferences of the party; and
(ii) the conduct of the business of the party by an executive committee or similar body elected by the party; and
(b) (i) the membership of the party as certified to the Registrar in writing by a person qualified for appointment as auditor of a company in accordance with section 162 of the Companies Act, 1963, comprises not less than 300 persons (or, in the case of a party applying for registration as a party organised to contest a local election only, 100 persons) each of whom has reached the age of 18 years, or
(ii) at least one person who is a Member of the Dáil or an Irish representative in the European Parliament (or, in the case of a party which applies for registration as a party organised to contest a local election only, each of three persons who are members of a local authority) certifies in writing to the Registrar that he or she is a member of the party.'.".
On an earlier section, I had been making my case in relation to this section and I made it on Second Stage too. Therefore I do not want to proceed any further. I am interested in the Minister's response.
Since becoming a Member of the House I have tried to keep a watching brief on most Bills going through to see if they are in line with what I call best management practice. I have a serious worry about taxpayers' money being used in this case. According to Parkinson's law, spending will increase to use up the money which is allocated. The same applies in business. If we allocate money to political parties it will become something that has to be spent.
What is questionable is not where the money comes from but where it will be spent. Over the next few weeks literally million of pounds will be poured into advertising for political parties and it will be spent in a reckless way. The advertising agencies and newspapers love this spending but a marketing manager, looking at how the money is being spent, would regard it as squandered taxpayers' money. It is wasteful to use taxpayers' money in this way.
Experience in the United States has shown that restricting political funding does not seem to have reduced secret political funding, which still continues. Have we asked our taxpayers whether they wish their money to be used to support political parties in order for it to be spent recklessly as we are likely to see over the next few weeks? I wanted to get that off my chest. I think it is a bad law. I would like to see section 17 dropped but I know that is unlikely. I know the section has been debated at length with great conviction and I heard both sides of the story. This is a step in the wrong direction. Parties which wish to fight an election should be able to earn their keep with the enthusiasm of their supporters rather than by taxing people who do not necessarily support them.
There may be some confusion.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I must point out that we are dealing with amendment No. 15, which involves the insertion of a new section. Amendment No. 16 also involves the insertion of a new section. When we have dealt with these amendments we will come to section 17, which deals with payments to parties.
Amendment No. 15 provides for various requirements, including those related to the party leader and the chairperson, for a party to be registered. The amendments would be appropriate in a context providing strict procedures for registration because the Bill provides that one of the main qualifications to be satisfied if a political party is to receive funding under the Bill is that it would be a registered party. However, in view of the Government decision to defer the coming into operation of provisions relating to payments to parties until January 1998, I consider this matter should be dealt with in the context of further legislation dealing with miscellaneous electoral matters, some of which were referred by me to the select committee for response some time ago.
The matters raised in the amendments propose very important changes to the registration procedures and I feel it would be prudent to have more time to consider the points raised. I would ask Senator Mooney not to press these amendments in the context of this further Bill which will deal with the area of registration. It will allow more time for reflection and discussion on the matter.
Will you clarify one matter, a Leas-Chathaoirligh? This amendment involves the insertion of a new section. Have we dealt with section 16 already?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Yes. Section 16 has been agreed. We are dealing with amendment No. 15, which proposes the insertion of a new section.
It has to do with qualifying parties.
Is it relating to the registration of qualifying parties?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Yes. Is the amendment being pressed?
No.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 15, before section 17, to insert the following new section:
"17.—Section 25 of the Electoral Act, 1992, is hereby amended—
(a) in subsection (4)(c), by the insertion after `party' where it firstly occurs of', one of whom shall be the duly elected leader or chairperson (or the equivalent officer) of the party,',
(b) in subsection (7), by the insertion before 'A political party' of 'The general secretary of the party authorised by the duly elected leader or chairperson (or the equivalent officer) of the party,',
(c) in subsection (7), by the addition of the following words at the end of the subsection: 'and where such person fails to so inform the Registrar, whether at the request of the Registrar or otherwise, the Registrar shall cancel the registration of the party'.".
It is essentially the same argument. I would suggest that the Senator might view it in the same context of further perusal of the whole issue of registration.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 17.
Question proposed: "That section 17 stand part of the Bill".
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
This section deals with payments to qualified parties. Senator Quinn has already made his case on the section but he may speak again if he wishes. I call Senator Mooney.
The Fianna Fáil Party opposes the concept of the payment of taxpayers' money to political parties. I wish it were otherwise. This country is undergoing a period of considerable change. Politics, politicians and the concept of public duty have come under severe threat over the past couple of years. I am not one to blame the media for this because to shoot the messenger is the easiest cop out in the world. Newspapers will print whatever the editor believes will sell newspapers in much the same way as my friend and colleague, Senator Quinn, will only stock products which he knows will be sold and not for other, altruistic reasons. It has nothing necessarily to do with a philosophy or an ethos. The fact that this matter has become central to debates, whether in a public house in west County Cork, County Leitrim or County Donegal, means that we, as the body politic, need to get our house in order. I have believed for some time that politicians should be more proactive and less reactive to allegations and statements which are made against them.
I have never apologised for being involved in public life. I am the third generation of my family to contribute to the public life of this country. I know, in even making that statement, that some people will say "God deliver us from political dynasties", but one never hears such statements with regard to professions, such as banking, tailoring, drapery or the retail sector, where the training of a family member is part of the family tradition. I look on my upbringing as a period of training, albeit informal training. Anybody who has a political background will understand what I mean. One learns by instinct as much as anything else. One learns from experience on the hustings at various elections and comes to have an appreciation of what is public duty. One is constantly exposed to it on a daily basis with people calling to one's home irrespective of the time of day, whether one has just sat down to dinner or whether one has just finished it, because public duty knows no time limits.
I say all of this because I do not want my party's opposition interpreted as being against the furthering of democracy, since the thrust of this Bill is to strengthen our democratic institutions, do away with the covert political donations from major corporations and introduce more openness and transparency into the finances of the country's political system. However, the people of this country do not yet have the full understanding of what is involved in the political process which would enable them to readily accept this particular proposal and we are as much to blame for that as are the perceptions which have grown up outside.
In normal circumstances, and because this is the norm in other European democracies, we should not be having a debate on this section. We should be accepting it because it is the most sensible thing to do. Sometimes public opinion can be behind politicians, which is rather strange because we are constantly accused of following rather than leading public opinion. Maybe we are a little ahead of our time on this matter because it is being proposed in a rather spiteful, nasty atmosphere at a time when there are allegations and counter allegations about political donations, big business and golden circles. This has been going on for the past three or four years and it can be traced back to the beginning of the beef tribunal and all that emerged from it. People have become angered by what they see as monopoly money being shifted around among a business and professional elite and we are seen as being part of that elite because this is an extremely exclusive club. Not everybody understands or appreciates how we go about our business even though we are interviewed on television and radio and reported in the printed media. There is still a cloak of mystery about what goes on in here. How many times have constituents said that they never see us in the House, that we are never there. Whenever they see the Houses on television, they only see a Minister and an Opposition spokesperson. They conveniently ignore the fact that, because of the heavy demands placed on them, Ministers and Members of both Houses keep abreast of debates by watching the monitors in their offices while taking telephone calls from constituents and replying to representations. The demands placed on the body politic are horrendous and we are not paid well enough for the work we do. However, that is a matter for another day.
In addition to outside events, a gross misunderstanding of our work and the workings of democracy has led to public irritation and annoyance about and opposition to any move by politicians to be seen to be feathering their own nests. I wish it were otherwise. I hope that, because of events in the past number of years, the legislation will act as a catharsis and we will emerge from this debate as better people. Equally, I hope the public will gain a better understanding of our work.
Practically everyone who enters this House is honest, decent and honourable. Our differences are coloured by ideology, emphasis and nuance, and in some policy areas those differences are basic. Members will concede that, on a purely personal level, friendships are forged across the benches of both Houses which transcend political considerations. It is right and proper that this is the case. However, if one is seen by one's party's political activists to have that type of personal relationship, the reaction is one of surprise. Members are asked why they have such relationships with their opponents, given that they are on opposite sides of the fence, which also leads to misconceptions about our work in the House. Members' differences are not personal. If the day arrives when they become personal, politics in general will suffer.
For a variety of complex and confusing reasons, I have outlined my opposition to this section. From discussions with party colleagues and our spokesperson on this area, I am aware that there is a genuine resentment among the public which, on the eve of the general election, will be used as a stick to beat all politicians. For that reason, we oppose the section.
This issue was discussed on Second Stage. Senator Mooney readily admits that, in general, he agrees that the Bill is exceptionally good in the way it sets out to address this area. However, he also believes that the general public are not ready to accept it. In my dealings with members of the public in my area I have listened to comments about recent tribunals and heard people's perceptions regarding politicians. As Senator Mooney stated, everyone appears to be tarred with the same brush.
For the first time, the Bill before the House deals with politicians in general. When its provisions, the Minister of State's remarks and the 18 hours of debate on Committee Stage in the Lower House are taken into account, Senator Mooney must accept that this matter will be tackled once and for all. A person who might go too far in trying to gain election, by ridiculing other candidates or overspending can be investigated by the proposed independent commission. I am satisfied with that development because everyone will be placed on the same level.
It contains nothing for Senators.
That is a good point but, as Senator Mooney stated, that is a matter for another day.
I am not pleased that everyone is tarred with the same brush because the vast majority of Members are friendly with each other and can engage in debate despite their differences. When discussing what is best for ourselves and the public, is Senator Mooney stating that tribunals should be established to deal with every issue? He may want that process to continue after the election but I do not.
I am satisfied that my party will be allocated funding in line with the percentage of first preference votes it receives. A larger party such as Fianna Fáil will also be allocated funding commensurate with the percentage of votes it receives. I would prefer this to a situation where someone could enter backstage and make donations of between £5,000 and £30,000 to my party, about which I would not be informed. I would not like that to happen.
Like Senator Mooney, I was brought up to respect people's principles. Questions have been asked, rumours put about and the perception has developed that some companies or individuals gained from making donations to political parties. Many people work 60 to 70 hours a week for low pay and I would not be seen knocking on their doors during an election campaign if I thought that was the case. I would demand to know what was happening and I make no apologies for that. The Bill represents a golden opportunity for politicians to be open and up front about their activities.
I understand the concerns of Senator Mooney and his party, but the Bill will provide politicians with the opportunity to campaign on the same level. Its provisions will ensure that people do not remain under the impression that accounts were paid off or that donations were made backstage. I understand why Fine Gael and other parties were obliged to collect money to pay off election debts by means of church gate collections, private contributions, etc. However, that should not be the case. A small number of individuals should not be given the opportunity, whether they did so or not, to dictate political affairs. The public will thank us if we ensure that they are not allowed to do so.
I do not share Senator Mooney's view of the public's perception. I believe they would prefer to give me 37p per vote for every election because they would be assured that everything was above board.
I will not repeat my earlier comments on the section. As Senator Cregan stated, the Bill's objectives are worthy. However, it has one flaw, namely, taxpayers are asked to fund political parties even if they do not wish to do so. The American experience illustrates that public funding of political parties does not stop people making major secret donations. If it did, I would have no difficulty with giving the Bill my full support. Experience shows that we are likely to get the worst of both worlds. As happened in other jurisdictions, taxpayers will be obliged to fund political parties. They will spend the money they receive and then discover that they require finance from another source. As well as taxpayers' contributions, what Senator Cregan fears will come to pass. I understand the motives and objectives behind the Bill. I support what it tries to achieve but this is the wrong way to do it.
We must view this as an integrated package consisting of limited payments to political parties, the requirement to disclose substantial political donations and a control on the amount of money which may be spent by a party or candidate at an election. In formulating the proposals contained in the Bill it was recognised that the requirement to disclose substantial political donations would bring openness into the system but it would also most likely lead to a reduction in the size of such donations and we had to compensate for this.
We, therefore, provided for a limited system of State funded payments to parties. The limitation on election expenses will ensure fairness in the electoral system and the demand on the resources of political parties and candidates at an election will be reduced. Limited State funding will be provided to qualifying political parties that achieve a minimum threshold, which we have discussed already. Candidates who achieve a minimum level of support will recoup expenses incurred from the Exchequer up to a maximum specified limit. This is in line with legal advice following the Supreme Court judgment in the McKenna case. It must be remembered that the Bill must comply with that judgment, which clearly stated that all candidates must be treated equally.
As was pointed out, the level of funding for political parties is small — 37p per year for each registered elector. The Bill does not make it compulsory for a party or candidate to accept such funding. Any party or parties wishing to receive such funding and any party candidate wishing to receive recoupment will have to apply for it.
We must make clear to the public that the Bill contains a good reform package which deals with a problem that must be addressed. Disclosure and limits on spending will be put in place and limited State funding will be provided to ensure the system is open and accountable. People may try to avoid that or secretly receive donations but at present there are no controls and that has led to a tribunal which is sitting. We must implement a package which meets the need as it exists. We all wish no one had to pay anything to political parties but our democratic system has a cost. It is a good system and we must ensure the cost is met if our democracy is to flourish and is not to be distorted by funding which is out of proportion to the expected funding and completely unregulated. This introduces regulation to the system.
The Senator will recognise there are standards in the media as there are in supermarkets. It is not just a matter of printing what sells, we must ensure the products sold meet a certain standard.
I am grateful to the Minister and her latter remarks are correct. I fail to understand why the newspaper industry has not initiated a voluntary code of conduct which would, in the absence of a statutory press council, go a long way towards addressing many concerns. I should perhaps have declared my interest — I have been a card carrying member of the National Union of Journalists for over 20 years so my comments are influenced to a degree by the environment from which I come.
So am I.
I am aware of that, which may be why I agree with the last point. It is easy for politicians to lash out at the media when they write something we do not like and to bask in reflected glory when they do something we like. The Minister is right about standards and I am sure she agrees that the manner in which some columnists have attacked politicians and the political system over the last number of years has been nothing short of despicable. That is why the proposals for a regulatory body should go beyond talk. The editorial columns only call for reform of the libel laws, never for reform of the newspaper industry. Perhaps we all have agendas to pursue.
Section 17(2)(a) relates to the aggregate of payments over a 12 month period. In 1981 and 1982 there were three elections. Given the talk of a hung Dáil after the coming joust, what would be the effect of this paragraph if we had to return to the hustings within a year?
That is already covered. If the period is less than a quarter of the year, they will receive a proportion of the money.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 18.
Question, "That section 18 stand part of the Bill", put and declared carried.
SECTION 19.
Question, "That section 19 stand part of the Bill", put and declared carried.
SECTION 20.
Question, "That section 20 stand part of the Bill", put and declared carried.
SECTION 21.
Question, "That section 21 stand part of the Bill", put and declared carried.
SECTION 22.
Question, "That section 22 stand part of the Bill", put and declared carried.
SECTION 23.
Question proposed: "That section 23 stand part of the Bill".
This concerns anonymous donations. I am not breaching confidentiality by informing the House that at this morning's meeting of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party there was a brief question and answer session to clarify the provisions of this Bill. Many provisions do not come into force until next January but because of the upcoming election, concern and surprise was expressed about this section. I would like to hear the Minister's views.
Section 23(1) provides that a political party shall not directly or through any intermediary accept a donation exceeding £100 in value unless the name and address of the person is known to the party member, representative or candidate. Section 23(3) states that the Public Offices Commission shall cause notification of each payment to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and shall dispose of all moneys, property or goods received under the said subsection in such manner as may be directed by the Minister for Finance. If an anonymous donation exceeding £100 is received by the people referred to, one not only must inform the Public Offices Commission of the fact but also must provide the name and address of the person and send the money. Is that right?
Yes, if one receives a donation of over £100, one has to send the money but not the name and address because it is anonymous.
It states "exceeding £100 unless the name and address of the person are known". I was attempting to establish that if one receives £100 or more anonymously, one must send it to the Public Offices Commission. Is that right?
Yes.
Why was it necessary to include this section? It caused surprise and it will be incumbent on the people involved to ensure they get it right. If they do not and it transpires they received such donations following which this information enters the public arena, what sanctions will be imposed on them? Could they lose their seats in a subsequent legal challenge?
It is an offence. The purpose of the section is to ensure there is not an avoidance of the disclosure measures. It would be convenient if everyone sent in anonymous donations for any amount and arrangements could be made easily for this. We must ensure it is not used as a means to subvert the Bill.
I am totally supportive of the disclosure measures. Disclosure is vital and essential and I have no problem with the section. It was not debated to a great extent in the other House.
One will not lose one's seat but will be fined under section 25.
It is a radical departure and all candidates will have to be aware of it. A sum of £100 does not buy one a great deal. Will this be open to abuse? Could an individual subsequent to an election say that they sent £110 or £120 to a candidate which was not disclosed? Public embarrassment could ensue because the politicians could be fined. The Minister of State's answer could be that if it is anonymous, why was it sent anonymously? They may have done so with an ulterior motive. I am concerned and I understand the Minister of State's position. Her answer is plausible and reasonable, but it is wide open to a variety of abuses as many candidates are running, many of whom will not be elected. Has the Minister of State received any submissions or expressions in relation to the practicality of this section?
I have not been present for all of the debate on the Bill because it has been extensive, but it was not an issue.
Does the Government intend to publish guidelines or will it convey information to candidates on, for example, this section along with others of a similar ilk?
That point was often made during the debate. We are providing that information because it would be unfair if people were not given guidance in regard to the requirements of the Bill.
What form will the guidelines take? Will it be a lengthy document or will it be succinct and to the point similar to customs documents?
It will be succinct and to the point like all documents published by my Department. We will not load people down with extraneous information. Their obligations will be clearly stated and it will be presented in a simplistic form. People will not have a problem with it.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 24 to 31, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 32.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 31, subsection (1)(a)(i), line 45, to delete "£4,000" substitute "£20,000".
These amendments were tabled in the other House. The intention was to make it more practical, because while there are noble aspirations in a number of sections and the general thrust of the Bill is to be commended, there may be difficulties with monitoring and implementation. The amendments propose new and more realistic levels of expenditure for candidates. A sum of £14,000 for one individual is enormous. It is in excess of the annual income for a significant number of our population, but any person who has been involved in an election campaign will know that the costs involved are huge. Printing and related costs are significant. Such a sum is not sufficient in today's monetary terms. What is the Minister of State's view? Has she received any submissions on this proposal? Will it be open to review?
These amendments were tabled previously and following consideration of the limits, they were deemed to be fair and reasonable. I cannot go along with them. The limits proposed for spending at Dáil elections are reasonable, while those proposed by the Senator represent increases of between 25 per cent and 43 per cent depending on constituency size.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved.
Section 32 agreed to.
Sections 33 to 62, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 63.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 54, subsection (2), line 36, after "State" to insert "or elsewhere".
I introduce this amendment primarily because of Part VII of the Bill which relates to persons unable to vote at polling stations. All the sections in this Part relate to applications, the entry of names in the postal voters list and provides for those on the voters list who are unable to vote in person at the polling station. My amendment proposes that section 63 (2) will read:
For the purposes of this section "employment" and "service" shall be deemed to include participation by a person on a full time basis on an educational course of study in an educational institution in the State or elsewhere.
I suggest that in the drafting of section 2 the Minister was motivated by the concern expressed that people could be on educational courses or studying in educational institutions at the time. Under our haphazard system they do not know the date of the election. This subsection will facilitate a significant number of people to whom this problem applies on 6 June. It is also the case that there would, at worst, be a small number of citizens who may be outside the State pursuing courses of study in an educational institution on 6 June or the date of a future election. Why should they be disenfranchised? Having gone three quarters of the way in facilitating the category identified under subsection (2), will the Minister go the whole hog and acknowledge it could also apply to people outside the State? In legal terms, "outside the State" means Northern Ireland.
It may mean Northern Ireland.
I wish it were otherwise but in legal terms it means Northern Ireland. What is the Minister's view on this amendment?
Where a person's work takes them away from home, whether in the State or abroad, to such an extent that he or she is unable to vote in person on polling day, under section 63 he or she can apply for entry on the postal voters list. However, ballot papers would be issued to the address in the State at which the elector is registered. As ballot papers are posted not less than one week before polling day, this arrangement would allow many people in this category to vote before they leave home. The Senator's amendment opens up the question of emigrant voting.
The Minister has found me out.
I also have a suspicious mind. That is a wider debate which is not relevant to this Bill. I know the Senator has been concerned about the issue for some time and the matter has been the subject of considerable debate but the amendment is not relevant to this Bill.
In light of the Minister's remarks, can she ensure me that a postal ballot sent to a citizen of the State at their last known address in the State will be posted in sufficient time for it to be sent on to them? Under other sections, specifically sections 64 and 65, one must vote in front of a member of the Garda Síochána. Is it correct, therefore, that a person has to be in the State on the date of the election?
He or she does not have to be in the State on the date of an election, but he or she has to vote in the presence of a garda. The ballot papers are sent out at the earliest possible date. The purpose of this section is to enable people to vote, not to stop them.
I accept that and although the Minister accurately referred to the possibility of emigrant voting, I was not entirely motivated by that in putting down this amendment. I saw it as a bonus in the context of the acceptance of the amendment. I was genuinely thinking of people who, under subsection (2), could conceivably be outside the State, which means, in legal terms, Northern Ireland and it may not be convenient for them to vote. I appreciate that travelling is relatively easy, but we are talking mainly about students who may not have a great deal of money. It is a small flaw in the legislation that the Minister, in going so far to facilitate people, may unintentionally disenfranchise others. That is the reason for my amendment. I want clarification. Can anything be done?
It cannot be half done; "elsewhere" means everywhere. I cannot accept the amendment.
Can it be changed by regulation or must we strictly stick to the definitions laid down in the Bill?
It cannot be changed by regulation.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 63 agreed to.
Sections 64 to 68, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 57, before section 69, to insert a new section as follows:
"69. The Minister shall make provision for voting by electors who are on the Register of electors but who are outside the State on polling day for a Dáil election."
This amendment returns to the points I made on section 63(2). This section refers to the method of election. It means that anybody who is on the postal vote list must vote in front of a member of the Garda Síochána. The amendment applies to those who are outside the State on the day of an election.
The haphazard nature of our parliamentary democracy means that we do not know from one year to the next when there will be a general election. It is in the gift of the Taoiseach to decide on the date. There are related constitutional requirements — the election must be within a five year period. Although there is some disagreement, the Government could remain in office until December or January next. Because of the nature of our democracy, an election can take place at any time, depending on the political climate. However, people's lives continue and they make their arrangements. Some people may be abroad on business and will not be able to avail of their franchise. They may apply for a postal vote because they know they travel a great deal. They may secure inclusion on the register having complied with the large number of regulations involved, yet having done so may find themselves outside the State and disenfranchised.
I accept the spirit of the Senator's amendment but it is not possible to include such a wide ranging amendment in the Bill. The Bill improves the provisions for people who expect to be outside the State on polling day. It enables people who may not be able to vote for specific reasons to avail of a postal vote. We are making progress but this Bill will not be able to solve every problem. The amendment refers to a wide ranging issue with which this Bill is not equipped to deal.
I appreciate the Minister of State's difficulty. It is unfortunate that we are in a catch 22 situation on the eve of an election because this amendment might be accepted if the Bill could be returned to the Dáil. I framed the amendment so that it would not be unduly restrictive. It provides that the Minister shall make provision for electors who are on the register but who are outside the State. They could vote at our embassies and consulates abroad, rather than having to vote in front of a member of the Garda.
Why is it that the vote must be cast in front of a member of the Garda? There are other professions which would be equally worthy and acceptable. I am sure the Garda would be happy not to have to take on this responsibility. I am reminded of a public official who told me a story about having to remain available until a late hour because a voter in a Seanad election insisted that he or she must vote in front of this public official. Although there were alternatives, the voter did not avail of them, but kept this public official waiting until late in the evening.
The provision seems unduly restrictive. The timing of the debate on this Bill is unfortunate. I appreciate the Minister of State's point that we are progressing slowly in this area. However, an opportunity to vote must be given to people who are outside the State on polling day. We have embassies and consulates in an increasing number of countries and business people use them for trade purposes. Why not provide a framework to allow them to be used for voting? This is related to the issue of providing votes for emigrants. I am unapologetic in my commitment to providing votes for emigrants, but that is an argument for another day.
Ryanair has been very successful with its summer fares initiative for flights to European cities and many people have booked flights travelling between the end of May and the middle of July — at least enough to elect one or two Deputies. Those people will be swanning around Europe on election day. I know that the offers happen to coincide with the election period but there will be more people abroad on 6 June this year than on that date in past years. I accept that one cannot frame legislation on a year by year basis, but if my amendment were accepted the Minister would be able to make provision for those people to vote.
Legislation should make sense. This is a common sense amendment. However, it does not make sense that at any particular time up to 50,000 people may not be able to vote because they are abroad. There are people who are working in the Six Counties who would be considerably inconvenienced if they had to travel to the South to vote. In this era of technology a commissioner for oaths, a county manager, a county secretary or people in similar positions could be engaged to witness a postal vote. The fact that less than 1,000 votes decided eight seats in the last general election highlights the importance of this amendment.
It is unfortunate that we are on the eve of a general election, but Senator Mooney has worded the amendment is such a fashion that the Minister could introduce the regulation where it was necessary to do so. The amendment would be particularly important for a summer election because, at a conservative estimate, 50,000 people may be absent, particularly as Ryanair, Aer Lingus and British Midland have transformed air fares.
Most of the people who may be abroad are in the PAYE sector which, although it has played a major part in the economy's growth in recent years, has been neglected. The Minister of State should at least indicate that this issue will be dealt with in the near future.
To protect the integrity of the ballot paper it is important that the Garda is central to the arrangements. Senator Mooney referred earlier to public perception and making sure the system is above suspicion. We must be careful to ensure such a perception is maintained. The Garda is the appropriate body in this case.
With regard to people travelling abroad we must thank Ryanair and Aer Lingus. However, more than anyone else we should thank this good Government which has put so much money into people's pockets and put so many people into work that they can afford to go on holidays.
Surely the Minister of State is joking. She is not living in the real world and she will realise it in three weeks' time.
As Mr. John Bowman might say on "Questions and Answers", "Thank you for the party political broadcast." I am pleased the Minister of State has acknowledged the relatively good times in which we live. After all, Fianna Fáil started the ball rolling in 1992.
It is easy to spend money when you have it.
Fianna Fáil dropped the ball.
Not a second time.
It happened three times.
In the context of the amendment——
Senator Mooney, without interruption.
The Minister of State is inviting comment.
The Minister of State and I have a very warm understanding and the Senator should not upset our relationship. I do not wish to reduce the status of this House to that of a television programme, considering its dignity and Protocol which we all try to uphold, but it might be an interesting exercise to ask the members of the audience who will be in the country on 6 June, and will not be availing of the Ryanair, British Midland or Aer Lingus budget fares to the Continent, to raise their hands. I presume this section is fixed but could the Minister of State make a regulation on the matter?
The provision regarding Garda Síochána stations was unduly restrictive. I know precisely what the Minister of State is saying and I agree with her. However, for example, Members of the Seanad are legally allowed to vote in front of a wide variety of public officials; it is not restricted to any one public official. I am sure the Clerk of the Seanad could tell me who those officials are. I know the Minister of State wanted to ensure in this section that not a scintilla of suspicion would attach to the process. However, as inevitably happens with all legislation, when she comes to review the workings of this legislation she will probably come to the conclusion that it is a little unduly restrictive.
As I said earlier, we live in changing times. I am sure the Minister of State will agree that the whole thrust of policy is towards making us a more attractive location for tourists and industry by reducing costs to ensure easier access. As a result of those changes, far more people are now leaving this country on a temporary basis than ever before. Thank God they are only doing it on a temporary rather than permanent basis, as was the case heretofore. We should address the changing realities. The mindset of this Bill has not fully acknowledged those changes in modern Ireland, although I do not wish to cast aspersions on the Minister of State's excellent officials who, no doubt, were heavily involved in the drafting of the Bill. That is why I tabled this amendment.
The point of section 63 and this section is to allow people who know they will be away from home on polling day to vote. Provision is being made for the vast majority of such people. If somebody will be driving a lorry from Castletownbere to Killybegs on polling day, they will now have the opportunity to vote by post. There are many benefits in the section. While it would be nice to be all embracing, we cannot be.
Senator Calnan has made a very good point. Young people who turned 18 after 1 April and before 1 June, and who may be away, did not qualify for postal votes. What will happen to them in this situation? The closing date for application for postal votes is over. Is the Minister of State prepared to consider allowing postal votes for these people who will not be able to vote at home?
I know where Senator Calnan is coming from on this point, but the reality is that one is only allowed to apply to vote by post before the closing date of the draft register, which in some cases is several months before the traditional date of elections.
The Minister could make a regulation.
It just happens in this instance that we are close to an election. There could be a long time lag between the time one is granted one's postal vote requirement and the election. I do not wish to quibble about this.
I am glad the Minister of State mentioned the road from Castletownbere to Killybegs. Several of my friends and I, particularly when I travel with my dear wife to her home town of Castletownbere, would love to see the part of that road between Cork and Kerry improved. I understand there was a meeting last week which I hope will create a few bob. Perhaps my two friends from Cork will contribute to the road fund for next year for the Castletownbere road.
What has been said about the postal vote is right. A number of people who will be unable to leave their home to vote due to illness approached me about this recently, in the knowledge that the election date is almost set. They were in a position to go to a polling booth at the time of registration for postal voting, but they have since deteriorated. I have had two genuine inquiries about this from elderly people whose health has deteriorated and who are now seeking a postal vote.
It is important for Senators to realise this part of the Bill will not be in place for this election. It is expected to be in place for the Presidential election. There will be a supplementary list for the postal register.
Will there be a supplementary postal vote?
Yes.
But not for this election.
No, this part of the Bill will have no relevance for this election.
Does that mean we will have a supplementary draft register of electors which will enable the postal vote to be brought in for the Presidential Election?
Yes, that is right.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Sections 69 to 71, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 72.
Question proposed: "That section 72 stand part of the Bill."
This section provides for the supplement to the postal voters list and the special voters list.
The Bill jumps from section 70 to section 73.
As I read out at the commencement of Second Stage, those pages are not in sequence due to a printing error.
It is a test of concentration.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 73 to 77, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 78.
Question proposed: "That section 78 stand part of the Bill."
This section deals with free postage for candidates. I understand there is a change in that while there used to be free postage per household, it is now per elector. Or is it the other way around?
It is now per household.
What will the case be now?
This will not be operative——
But what will it mean from 1 January?
That will come in by commencement order. There will obviously be discussions with An Post in relation to that. The provision is for a household.
As distinct from a person?
Yes.
I thought originally that one had a right to send post to the person rather than to the elector.
It is to the household.
Now it is to the household.
You have the right to send additional material to the person, but you will not be covered by the Bill.
This is a reduction in the free postage facility. It now means that one will only get free postage if it goes to a household. Has the Minister defined a household in the regulations or are we buying a pig in a poke?
My daughter shares a house in Dublin with five other people and only one of them will get election literature from a candidate. That is very unfair to the others. Perhaps I am mixed up but my understanding is that only one letter will go to the household with five people sharing. Therefore, to whom will the letter be addressed?
What happens if four or five members of a household are voting in four or five different constituencies and the member of that household who receives the literature is the person who is not living in the constituency? This must be thought out more clearly. Can the Minister clarify the matter?
The manifesto will go to the household. The same applies at the moment if one is on a register and voting in different constituencies. My view is that the public would be much happier getting one piece of literature to the household. Obviously a household made up of people who are not connected — for example, people living in apartments — would all get separate post. Generally speaking, the public would much prefer one piece of literature to a household rather than a plethora of literature where there may be eight people on the register and where they can all read the one piece of literature.
How does the Minister identify the various people living in a household? Is it the housing department of the corporation or county council who decides this? Where does the Minister get a definitive list of names for a household?
It is obtained by using the register to seeing how households are formed in relation to what is on the electoral register.
There are four different families of Smiths living at Church Street, Castlepollard. How will the Minister identify who is living in each house? It can only be done through the census of population or the housing department of the local authority.
There are three Fitzgeralds living on the same road and with the same address as me. To whom will the Minister send the literature? Will she send it to the Fitzgerald family, Ballinaboola, Dingle, County Kerry? There are two Fitzgeralds by the name of Thomas, there are a couple by the name of Michael and there are three separate families. I do not agree with this proposal. My daughter shares accommodation in Dublin with five people. Who will get the literature in that household?
I do not wish to delay the House and I know this is bordering on the frivolous, but I presume the reason for this measure is to reduce the cost to the Exchequer and reduce the amount of unsolicited mail to households. As somebody who lives in an apartment, I must sometimes wade through circulars, notices and handouts that invariably tend to be piled underneath the postboxes. I have the greatest sympathy for the Minister's point of view, but I am thinking about the Independent candidates, the non-party candidates, who operate with a limited amount of money and who need all the help they can get in order to get themselves across to their electorate, as distinct from a party manifesto where the candidates are well established. I feel there is an inbuilt disadvantage in this measure for those who wish to participate in our parliamentary democracy. I would ask the Minister to look at this proposal again.
I was hoping that an arrangement could be arrived at for this year where one piece of literature would go to each household. This would mean a great saving as only one-third of literature would need to be printed. Many candidates were anxious to see this happen. However, An Post does not have the facility at the moment, but they will have the facility for this in the future. They are already sending out items of mail for advertising and they may be able to use the same process. It is a bit up in the air at the moment, but perhaps it should be investigated.
I will consider all the points made by Senators in relation to my discussions with An Post. The proposal would be beneficial to Independent candidates who at the moment are trying to compete with parties who can send one piece of literature to everyone listed on the register. In my view this is not only wasteful, but it is extremely expensive. It is also a fairer way of operating. Perhaps there will be hiccups, because it will not be possible to get it right in every case. But if one looks at the electoral register, it is not always possible to get it right either. We are talking about human beings who are fallible. I have no doubt that An Post is a very modern and streamlined organisation and that I will be able to deal with the various issues raised to the best of my ability.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 79 to 81, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 69, before section 82, to insert the following new section:
"82.—Subsection 2 of section 88 of the Act of 1992 is hereby amended by the insertion after paragraph (a) of the following paragraph:
`(a1) The photograph of each candidate should be printed in black and white and shall be included on the ballot paper in a manner prescribed by the Minister.' ".
The Minister will be aware that there has been a campaign for a considerable time by a gentleman in County Mayo who has circulated his reasons why photographs of candidates should be included on the ballot paper. I understand from the Minister of State, Deputy Allen, and from what I have read in newspapers that this particular facility will be introduced for the next European elections. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that fact. I would like to know why it has not been included in this legislation, especially as most of the sections are not due to come into operation until 1 January 1998.
As I mentioned on Second Stage, the single most important reason photographs of candidates should be included on the ballot paper is that there is a hidden literacy problem in our society. From her experience in local government, the Minister of State will be aware, as will those of my colleagues who are members of vocational education committees because the adult education officers usually implement the adult literacy programmes, that significant numbers of people refuse to acknowledge that they have a reading problem. Just as with a gambling or drink problem, acknowledging the problem is half the battle. For many years, my mother has been a presiding officer in our home town and she has often told me she is aware of people with reading problems. Like most small communities one tends to know people more intimately perhaps than in urban areas and she would know them in some other context. However, it is not her duty or obligation to point it out to them and they consequently probably spoil their ballot paper. A percentage of spoiled ballot papers come from that source, which is why this initiative should have been acted on in the past. I will be pleased if the Minister of State confirms that it will be implemented in a limited way, but I hope it will not be long before it is a standard activity in our parliamentary electoral process.
I accept the principle stated by the Senator and the objective would be to try to reach it at some point. There has been much discussion and many representations made over a number of years on this issue. Subject to resolving any technical problems, the intention is that candidates' photographs will be included on ballot papers in the 1999 European elections. The question of including photographs on other ballot papers will be considered in the light of experience of those elections.
There is a twofold technical problem that must be examined. The first relates to ensuring that the printing process can generate photographs of sufficient quality on ballot papers. The second is the time factor. Ballot papers must be printed immediately after the close of nominations to maximise the time available for postal voting. In addition to their myriad other duties, returning officers will have to check photographs and ensure that they match the names on the ballot papers. We must get these technical problems right before embarking on the next stage. However, we are making a start and it is an important breakthrough.
I understand the Minister of State's points regarding technicalities, but when one looks at the manner in which some of the sections have been drafted, it is not beyond the capacity of the excellent officials in the Department of the Environment to draft the correct regulations to ensure, for example, that it would be a requirement to provide a photograph that, similar to passport photographs, would have to be countersigned or stamped by a garda or whoever. There are a number of ways that can be done.
The Electoral Act, 1994, provides that local government elections must take place in 1998. I understand the pilot scheme is to be introduced for the European elections in 1999. Why will it not be introduced for the local elections first?
Try it out on county councillors first.
It was decided to start with the European elections because it gives a long leadin time. While photographs are easy to produce, they can be misleading and it may be possible that somebody could submit an incorrect photograph, which would be disastrous if it were put onto the ballot paper. It is an important matter. While we hope to start with the European elections, we are not fully confident yet that we will be able to do so, but we expect to and will do our best to overcome the technical problems. We are doing well.
I realise that. Am I to assume from the Minister of State's reply that the local elections will or will not take place in June 1998?
That is not relevant.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 82 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
Will the Minister of State give consideration to having the polling stations open until 10 p.m. rather than 9 p.m. on the day of an election? With regard to the section dealing with the arrangements for the counting of votes, would it be possible to allow flexibility to returning officers who may wish to start the count immediately after the close of poll rather than having to wait until 9 o'clock the following morning? While this is more practical in Britain, which has single seat constituencies, I am curious to know why provision has not been made for this. Section 79 refers to 9 o'clock on the day after polling day.
I do not have a response yet with regard to the polling stations closing at 10 p.m. and will probably have a reply tomorrow. The law provides that the counting of votes must be started on the following day. We must comply with that.
I thank the Minister of State. This is my first opportunity to have an exchange of views with her in her ministerial capacity. I have long admired her and her handling of this legislation has enhanced my admiration. I wish her well and the Bill well.
I thank the Minister of State for her attention and commitment and for the way in which she answered the questions put by Senator Mooney and others. I hope that we will have the opportunity to have debates such as this more often.
I compliment the Minister of State and her staff for putting through this Bill. It was subject to lengthy debate in the other House. The Bill will have a big effect and is part of the openness my party has always advocated.
I appreciate the detailed and thoughtful consideration given to this Bill. It is complex legislation. Over 230 amendments were tabled on Committee Stage in the Dáil with a further 87 on Report Stage. It has rightly taken up much time and consideration. The points raised were discussed in a thoughtful and constructive manner.
We are changing the way we operate, especially at election time, for the better. It is a change that requires commitment by all parties in this House. It has been evident today and I thank Senators for it.
Question put and agreed to.