Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Friday, 22 Mar 2002

Vol. 169 No. 14

Electoral Amendment Bill, 2002: Second Stage.

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

The Bill has its genesis in the findings of the High Court in a case entitled Thomas Redmond v. Minister for the Environment, Ireland and the Attorney General. In that case, the High Court held that the provisions of sections 47 and 48 of the Electoral Act, 1992, and section 13 and rules 8 and 9 of the Second Schedule of the European Parliament Elections Act, 1997, which required candidates to pay a deposit to be placed on the ballot paper for elections to the Dáil and European Parliament, were repugnant to the provisions of Article 40.1 of the Constitution.

The net impact of that judgment is that the requirements for deposits at Dáil and European elections are no longer valid and there is, in effect, no test of the bona fides of a prospective candidate in existence in terms of their entry onto the ballot paper. The Bill before the House today seeks to address this issue, post Redmond, by providing for alternative arrangements.

Before outlining the details of the Bill, it might be useful if I briefly sketch the historical background to deposits. The deposit requirement followed the practice in the UK where a deposit of £150 was first introduced as part of the Representation of the People Act, 1918. It was intended as a means of restoring the cost of candidature which had been eroded since the middle of the 19th century and to reduce the number of "freak or propaganda" candidates, as they were referred to, which had emerged during the war years—

Those are the Minister of State's words.

Nothing derogatory is intended.

Acting Chairman

They are in inverted commas.

It was intended as a means of restoring the cost of candidature which had been eroded since the middle of the 19th century and to reduce the number of "freak or propaganda" candidates, as they were referred to, which had emerged during the war years whose intervention was thought to threaten the smooth running of parliamentary elections. The deposit in the UK was increased to £500 in 1985.

The deposit provision has been part of our electoral law since 1923 when the Electoral Act, 1923, provided for an amount of £100 for Dáil elections and that figure was increased to £300 under the Electoral Act, 1992. It is interesting to reread the debates when that Act was making its way through the Houses. The original proposal was for an increase in the deposit from £100 to £500 and there was a variety of views expressed including some interesting opinions in the Upper House. These ranged from maintaining the requirement at £100, requiring a deposit of £100 plus 30 signatures to having no deposit at all and 1,000 signatures. Eventually, the deposit was set at £300 and has remained at that level up to the High Court judgment last year while the deposit for European elections was set at £1,000.

The arguments for and against deposits are well rehearsed by this stage and were examined in detail in the Redmond case. In essence they are that, on the one hand, deposits are a necessary restraint to protect the integrity of the electoral system from non-serious candidates and, on the other, the need to have an open democracy with no financial penalty on any person wishing to stand as a candidate. Whatever the arguments and their respective merits, the deposit, up to the Redmond case, was a well established and accepted feature of our electoral system. It appeared to be the simplest and, at the same time, most satisfactory way of establishing the serious intent of a candidate.

However, while it may well have established the earnest of a candidate, there is no evidence that the deposit requirement deterred many would-be candidates at Dáil elections. The lack of increase in the amount means that the real value has fallen dramatically since it was originally introduced and the statistics on the number of candidates standing at elections would seem to support that contention. At the last three general elections 370, 481 and 484 independent candidates respectively were nominated. The number of candidates increased by 30% in 1992 after the deposit was increased from £100 to £300. Interestingly, the constitutionality of deposits was questioned as far back as the 1980s in the late John Kelly's book, The Irish Constitution, when he remarked that “the constitutional permissibility of the requirement must be in doubt”. The judgment in the Redmond case has now confirmed that view.

Limiting access to a ballot paper is a common feature of most parliamentary democracies to prevent an overly large number of candidates from contesting an election. Members of this House could be forgiven for feeling that the Seanad nomination procedures must be one of the more elaborate in existence. In Ireland, the purpose of any general election is to elect members to Dáil Éireann in accordance with the Constitution and, subsequently, to form a Government. It follows that for such a process to take place, there must be a consensus among a majority of the members of the Dáil. General elections must have some structure and predictability in the sense that a voter must reasonably foresee what the impact of his or her vote will be on the eventual composition of the Dáil if he or she is to exercise a meaningful choice. Where there is a very large number of candidates in a constituency, the outcome could depend more upon chance than a reflection of voters' preferences. Having an overly large number of candidates could impact on the democratic right of voters to play a meaningful part in the political process.

There are generally three procedures used to limit access to a ballot paper. The first is the cash deposit system as used in the United Kingdom and, up to now, in Ireland. The second is one where a candidate is required to obtain the signature of a number of registered electors and the third system of filtering candidates applies in countries with PR-list electoral systems. In those countries, there is generally a requirement to be a candidate of a registered political party and to be included on the party list to get on the ballot paper. While it is possible for independent candidates to stand, there is a requirement for signa tures, which can be as many as 500 in some cases. This is a serious restriction on independent candidates and one which, in practice, results in a small number of them contesting elections. Where the number of signatures is set as high as 500, the impact will vary depending on the type of candidate. For example, it would be easier for an organised political party to obtain 500 signatures and this could discriminate against independent candidates. Disabled candidates would also find it harder than the payment of a deposit, while wealthier candidates may find it easier to obtain 500 signatures.

In this country, there is no national ID system unlike mainland Europe where the system of obtaining the support of registered electors is commonly applied. The absence of an ID system and a requirement for a very large number of signatures raises the issue of verification and the possibility of corruption. Furthermore, the entire electoral process would become much more cumbersome if a period was required, after nominations had been received, to allow for the verification of large numbers of nominators' signatures. As always in these matters, there is a balance to be struck between providing for a reasonable test of the earnest of a prospective candidate and setting that test so high as to unduly restrict people from seeking election or creating administrative difficulties.

Having considered the issues, the Government has proposed the measures provided for in the Bill. Candidates at a Dáil election, not in possession of a certificate of political affiliation, will have to have their nomination papers assented to by 30 Dáil electors registered in the constituency. As Senators will be aware, a certificate of political affiliation confirms that a candidature is authenticated by the relevant officer of a political party registered in the register of political parties. The reason such candidates should not require 30 assentors is clear. First, it can be safely assumed that if a political party authenticates a candidate, he or she will have the support of at least 30 people. In the revised section 25 of the Electoral Act, 1992, which became operative from 1 January 2002, new political parties will be required to have at least 300 registered members. Second, a party candidate will normally have to undergo a selection procedure at the local branch level which also would normally involve more than 30 members, most of whom would be from the constituency concerned.

Support for the approach being adopted in the Bill came from the expert witness for the plaintiff in the Redmond case who made the points that a system of nomination with additional assessors or supporting signatures would be just as effective as a deposit, if not more so; no European or other accepted democratic system permitted an entirely open access to the ballot paper as all had some provisions designed to protect the system from abuse; apart from the deposit requirement, the Irish system was exceptionally open; and some form of deterrent to abuse was desirable.

The Bill is short and contains six sections. Senators should note that a number of amendments were also made to it in the Dáil to which I will refer in my comments. Section 1 provides in paragraph (d) that the nomination form for a candidate without a certificate of political affiliation will have to be assented to by 30 registered electors for the constituency excluding the candidate or the proposer. Paragraphs (b) and (c) contain consequential amendments relating to the procedures for details to be entered in the notice of election and in the notes on the nomination form.

The new section 46(4B) sets out the procedures for the assentors to assent in a nomination form. Each candidate without a certificate of political affiliation, or the proposer, will lodge a nomination paper in the prescribed local authority offices, generally the principal offices of the local authority, for assenting to by 30 electors. Each assentor will be required to sign the nomination form in the presence of a local authority official and produce one of the prescribed photographic identification documents. The local authority official will then enter on the nomination paper the elector's number on the register of electors, the nature of the identification document produced, including any number on it, the time and date of the assentor's signature and the official's signature.

Where constituencies extend over more than one county or in the case of Dublin and Cork, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government will prescribe more than one local authority office where the nomination paper can be lodged. Local authority offices, rather than the office of the returning officer, are a more suitable location as they are generally better known and the persons involved will have ready access to the register of electors details. This will be important where an assentor may not be on the published register but has applied for entry in the supplement; such information may only be available at the local authority office. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government will also prescribe the acceptable photographic identification in regulations after the Bill is enacted. The documents under consideration include a passport, driving licence, travel pass, work or student identification. If Senators have other documents in mind, I am open to considering suggestions.

The candidate or proposer will be responsible for ensuring that the completed nomination paper, with the 30 signatures, is delivered to the returning officer before the closing time for receipt of nominations at the election concerned. Section 18 of the Electoral (Amendment) Act, 2001, reduced the nomination period from nine to seven days after the issue of the writs to provide necessary additional time for the printing of photographs and party emblems on ballot papers. I am not aware if there are any prospective Dáil candidates in the House today but, if so, they can take careful note of the reduced time period. There is no statutory or other responsibility on the local authority in this matter; the responsibility is entirely that of the candidate or the proposer to deliver the nomination paper in time to the returning officer.

The procedures I have outlined may appear bureaucratic but if the system is to have any credibility, it must be thorough and certifiable. The extra work for local authorities should not be too onerous as the average number of non-party candidates per constituency at the 1997 general election was 2.5. The average per constituency in the Dublin area, where there are four major local authorities, was just over four.

A further change in the law is contained in paragraph (f), which provides that a returning officer will not accept as a valid nomination a nomination paper which is not accompanied by a certificate of political affiliation, without the 30 signatures correctly witnessed by the local authority. Again, it is important for candidates or their proposers to allow sufficient time to have the 30 assentors sign the nomination form and have it delivered to the returning officer. Paragraphs (e), (g) and (h) are consequential amendments.

I wish to refer to an issue which has been causing concern generally, that is, the question of electoral abuse. In particular, the procedure for applying for entry in the supplement to the register of electors may be open to abuse arising from the lack of a minimum residential period for entry, that is, any person over 18 years of age who is ordinarily resident can apply. Despite the fact that a registration authority can seek supporting evidence of information contained on the application form, it is difficult to disprove that a person is not "ordinarily resident" even if only for a few hours. A person could claim that they are residing with another person while seeking accommodation and employment. In addition, in some cases, bulk applications are received by registration authorities close to the closing time for receipt of applications, thus making it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the registration authority to properly consider the application forms in time for the poll in question. In such circumstances, there is extreme pressure on the registration authority to approve the applications for the poll, which may lead to unqualified applicants being included in the supplement. In response to these concerns, the Government moved an amendment on Committee Stage in the Dáil to amend the provisions of the Electoral Act, 1992, in relation to the supplement.

Section 1(i) provides that each applicant for entry in the supplement must in future be signed in the applicant's local Garda station in the presence of a member of the Garda Síochána. The garda will have to be satisfied of the person's identity and then sign, date and stamp the form. Similar procedures apply to other official forms such as a passport application, certain road vehicle forms relating to motor taxation and licensing of trailers and voting by certain postal voters. In view of the importance of maintaining the integrity of the electoral system, and notwithstanding the extra work that may be created in Garda stations in the run up to the poll, the Government considers that the supplement application procedure should be strengthened. The closing date for receipt of an application for entry to the supplement is 15 days before polling day.

Where an applicant for entry to the supplement cannot attend their local Garda station, the amendment provides that the application form can be signed in the presence of an official of the registration authority if the applicant states in writing the reason they are unable to get the form witnessed in the local Garda station. If a person, because of physical illness or disability, cannot attend their local Garda station or registration authority offices, the application form can be accompanied by a medical certificate in the same way that an application for entry to the postal voters or special voters lists is accompanied by a medical certificate.

The amendment also provides that an application for entry in the supplement must be made directly by the applicant to the registration authority. There has been some concern in recent years about canvassers and others collecting supplement application forms and delivering them in bulk to the registration authority. This will no longer be permitted.

Sections 2 and 3 provide for similar new regimes for nominations for European and local elections except that the number of assentors required will be 60 and 15 respectively, reflecting the different types and scale of elections involved. The provision for direct elections for local authority cathaoirligh will be dealt with in regulations to be made under the Local Government Act, 2001. A draft of those regulations will have to be approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Section 4 makes four amendments to the Electoral Act, 1997, which sets out the expenditure and donation regime for election candidates and public representatives. Paragraph (d) provides that the travelling expenses incurred by a candidate or an assentor in meeting the requirements of the Bill at Dáil or European elections will not be regarded as an election expense in the same way that the cost of an election deposit was deemed not to be an election expense.

The amendments in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) were introduced on Committee Stage in the Dáil and they provide for a number of clarifications. Paragraph (a) clarifies that if a political party raises funds at an event, such funds or part of them can be used for supporting that party's candidates at an election, notwithstanding that this may not have been referred to in the notice of the event. This can arise if the fund-raising is held before the candidates are selected and some concern has been expressed that the total sum raised might be regarded as the amount for donation purposes rather than the individual net contributions.

Paragraph (b) clarifies that expenses, other than money, by a political party on behalf of a candidate of the party at a Dáil or European election, a Member of either House of the Oireachtas or MEP will not be a donation. The source of funding for such expenses will have to be disclosed by the political party if a donation is over the specified limit and any individual donation to the political party must not exceed the limit set out in the Electoral (Amendment) Act, 2001.

Paragraph (c) provides that the appropriate officer of a political party or the responsible person in relation to a third party or an accounting unit will have a defence to a prosecution for the receipt of a prohibited donation or a donation exceeding the disclosure limit if they did not know and could not reasonably have known of the receipt of such a donation. Similar provisions are already provided for election agents in parts 5 and 6 of the Act. The need for this amendment arises from the new provisions on the prohibition of certain donations provided in the Electoral (Amendment) Act, 2001.

Section 5 provides that the travelling expenses incurred by a candidate or an assentor in meeting the requirements of the Bill at local elections will not be regarded as an election expense. This mirrors the change made in section 4(d) for general and European elections. Section 6 provides for the normal Short Title, collective citation and construction of the Bill.

Elections are fundamental to the operation of our democracy and it is incumbent on us, as legislators, to ensure they are conducted in a fair, orderly and open way. During the High Court case that gave rise to the Bill, the distinguished expert witnesses who gave evidence for the plaintiff and the defendant agreed that a test of bona fides, provided it is fair and reasonable, should be imposed on prospective candidates at elections. They also agreed that a nomination and signatures system could provide an alternative to the deposits system. This Bill provides for such a system. The requirements provided in the Bill are not onerous and represent a reasonable and proportional response to the High Court judgment.

The additional requirements for applying for entry in the supplement of the register will strengthen the security aspects of the supplement procedures and are a necessary change to assist in deterring bogus applications. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government is also reviewing the list of specified identification documents which can be produced by voters at the polling stations and the number of electors who may be asked to produce an identification docu ment. A revised list will be included in the regulations which will be required following the enactment of the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. My party will support this legislation which arose from a High Court case. I do not believe too many people were prevented from running for election because of the monetary requirement that applied in the past. Under the old system, a candidate submitted a cheque or cash and a few weeks after the election, if elected, would find a £20 note in his or her suit, if he or she got back the deposit. The elected candidate would feel on good terms with himself or herself, having held not only on to the deposit but also the seat.

A proper balance has been struck on the number of electors required to assent to an independent candidate's nomination. Independent candidates are as entitled as the member of any political party to run for election and it is important that they should be facilitated as far as possible in so doing. I take it from what the Minister of State said that a person can assent to only one candidate's nomination, that the same 30 electors cannot nominate three or four candidates. The Minister of State might clarify this. I also note the provision for the number of assentors required for a candidate's nomination for local elections.

I presume that regulations to be brought forward will be in force for the forthcoming general election. Are they well advanced, given that there are various other rules and regulations governing spending, donations etc. to which candidates must adhere?

Will candidates' photographs appear on the ballot paper? If so, what type of photograph will the returning officer require? I have heard everything from a disc to a few hard copies being mentioned. We would not want the name of Senator Dardis to appear on the ballot paper with my mugshot or that of Senator Doyle opposite his name.

God forbid.

Or a younger version of the Senators.

Or that of a female.

Exactly. How far advanced is the work on this provision? Can one produce one's first communion or confirmation photograph to improve one's looks or give the impression of eternal youth? Will the Minister of State indicate the regulations that will be introduced and when, bearing in mind that a general election will probably be called within the next month or sooner?

I presume that access to polling stations is being made as user friendly as possible, whether for those in wheelchairs or the elderly. There used to be a polling station in the Dún Laoghaire area where voters had to climb a flight of stairs, that was before they could apply for a special vote. It was crazy in that some had to be carried up the stairs.

Difficulties concerning certain polling stations came to light in the recent referendum. I am sure the difficulty that arose concerning two polling stations in my consistency was an innocent mistake. There are two schools in the constituency with the name St. Brigid's, one in Foxrock and the other in Stillorgan, a little more than one mile apart, polling cards for one of which were incorrectly described as being for the other. It might not be possible for people having gone to one polling station to then have to travel to the other. I ask the Minister of State to ensure this matter is brought to the attention of the respective returning officers. The forthcoming general election has been posted well in advance and it should be possible to have the list of polling stations drawn up at this stage in order to avoid such errors. I am pretty certain that the difficulty to which I referred was a genuine mistake, but there was a mix up.

I agree with what the Minister of State said about the supplementary register, but care must be taken in drawing up the main register. A case was brought to my attention recently where the register showed that two members of the one family were named Michael, but one of the names should have read Michelle. We should encourage people to ensure their names are correctly recorded on the register. We could tell them to make such a change by calling to their local Garda station or local authority office and provide identification. This is an important aspect, particularly now that people are changing jobs and addresses more frequently than in the past.

I support the Bill, which deals with an important aspect of our democratic system. While there is a need for care and scrutiny regarding the register and precautions must be taken to guard against fraud, there should be some flexibility in regard to it. The Minister of State might address the points I raised.

Glacaim leis an fháilte roimh an Aire Stáit. Is Bille beag é seo, ach tá sé tábhachtach. I join Senator Cosgrave in welcoming this short Bill, which regulates the position following the High Court decision on election deposits. The system which was found to be unconstitutional was reasonably effective, but, as the Minister outlined, it did not act as a deterrent. It is important that our democracy strikes a balance between ensuring access to the democratic process for those who wish to participate and preventing frivolous candidates who may distort the outcome of an election.

While I appreciate that the number of candidates may be limited by the fact that not much time is available before an election for 30 assentors to go to their local authority, I am conscious that previous Bills have made provision for candidates to receive State subventions in respect of electoral expenses. As such expenses may include hospitality and food and drink for canvassers, I wonder if the subvention will induce people to stand in an election without being serious about participating in the political process. I realise that the system may be regulated by the fact that one has to receive a number of votes equivalent to a proportion of the quota to qualify for the subvention.

The number of electors whose assent is needed should be kept under review, while retaining a balance between ensuring accessibility and preventing a proliferation of candidates who are not serious. As the Minister of State said, the outcome of an election should not be influenced by candidates who may undermine the political process. Our system of proportional representation means those seeking election may be successful by chance rather than as a reflection of the electorate's preference if we are not careful. It may be that the number of assentors will have to be set at a proportion, for example 0.1%, of the number on the register of electors in a constituency if the provisions of the Bill transpire not be adequate.

Under the proportional representation system, someone may be elected by chance if there is a large number of candidates as voters may not consider their votes as extensively as they go down the order of preference. The introduction of the single seat constituency, which has been discussed in the House on many occasions, would make enormous sense if combined with proportionality. A candidate would be successful if he achieved over 50% of the vote after the distribution of transfers. Smaller constituencies may be preferable to the large multi-seat constituencies we have at present, where local affiliations are sometimes seen as more important than electing people to formulate legislation in parliament and govern the country. Local considerations should be addressed in local authorities rather than being a matter for central government.

The Bill deals with some minor matters, such as the supplementary register of electors. While it is important that people are not excluded from the register, we must ensure it is not abused, as has happened in a neighbouring jurisdiction where there has been anecdotal evidence of personation. The provision in section 3, that those wishing to be placed on the register will have to identify themselves at a Garda station and satisfy a garda that they are entitled to be on the register in order that the form can be countersigned, represents a sensible approach to the problem. Similarly, the proposal that moneys collected through party fundraising can be spent equally on candidates is logical and removes doubt.

I welcome the defence of party officers found not to be in possession of certain information, as it can be difficult to efficiently administer large parties with many branches and the relevant officer may not be aware of any offence. While we need to protect the integrity of elections, we have gone overboard in that regard, as I predicted in the House. It may happen that people of the highest integrity will be accused of having made administrative errors. It is too close to a general election to make changes now, but I hope these provisions will be examined and simplified. If candidates' spending is to be limited, the amounts should be specified and the areas in which money can be spent narrowed. We have gone too far if expenditure on meals for canvassers, for example, should be a factor in election expenses. The provision of a set amount of expenditure during the election should be reconsidered and simplified. This short Bill makes sense as we approach an election, as it tidies up affairs. Its thrust is in the right direction in most of the areas I have mentioned.

I welcome the Minister of State and, having listened to his speech and examined the Bill, I agree with its thrust. I was quite dismayed by the High Court decision on this issue, as it may facilitate those who wish to abuse the political system. We may invite candidates similar to Screaming Lord Sutch, who was a feature of political life on the other island, to stand in many constituencies, including Kildare South and Kildare North.

I would like to raise a few issues. I agree strongly with Senator Walsh's argument that we are tying ourselves in knots regarding electoral legislation, although few Senators made such an point when previous Bills were going through the House. I may have been the only Senator to question the ideas of openness and transparency and point out that accountability is more important. It has become impossible to ensure one meets all the regulations.

I would appreciate a comment from the Minister of State on the section of the Bill which states that expenses incurred by a political party on behalf of a candidate authenticated by the political party shall not be counted as a donation of money. I am not opposed to this provision, as it has a variety of possible interpretations, but I am not sure what it means and would like to hear an explanation. As the election approaches, many of us are rereading Acts to examine how they apply to our campaigns.

One of the questions that has emerged relates to expenses incurred on behalf of a candidate. Could such expenses be considered as a donation other than money? I will give an example. Under the Electoral Act, so-called office support in a constituency is not considered a donation. I contacted the Public Offices Commission and asked for an explanation of what is meant by an "office". The Act does not refer to a room or a space, but an office. There must be a difference, but it is not defined.

This arises for me, but it could also arise for others in many different ways. Half the Members of this House have another office associated with their business, profession or whatever. Perhaps to a large extent, we all do the same business in both places in order to manage our time. One might be sitting in the office associated with one's business or profession or at home, rather than one's office in Leinster House, and deal with a political query. One might get someone who is part of one's business or profession to type a letter. In the strictest interpretation that constitutes a benefit-in-kind of some description. We need to clarify these issues. This is no reflection on the Public Offices Commission which has to interpret the legislation. However, there are difficulties of interpretation regarding the word "office".

My initial reading of section 4 is that if one is a member of a political party which provides some assistance, this does not have to be declared as a donation of money. I do not oppose this measure, but where is the converse or the balance regarding an independent candidate? I have raised the issue of the Trade Union Act, 1913, which allows unions to operate a political fund of which they have to keep account. Many trade unions or bodies have an interest in doing something. A nominating body for the Seanad might find it important to nominate someone who would win the election. Would they also be allowed to help someone and to have that help regarded as something other than a donation of money? I have a problem with that and any fair-minded person would argue that this issue needs to be examined.

I am not trying to reopen the discussion on the Bill, but I take Senator Walsh's points. There are issues which we should examine. The last thing we want is honest people to be caught out by the legislation. That can easily happen. Those of us who have examined this issue carefully can see that if people do not organise themselves for this election, they will be quickly in breach of the legislation. That can easily happen and we in the House, perhaps through the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, need to remind people standing for the Dáil or the Seanad by way of simple advice of what they should do and the checks they need to make. There is an issue in this regard.

I am not being pedantic, but I am seeking reassurance from the Minister of State. He referred to a candidate "without a certificate of political affiliation". This means someone being a member of a political party. Section 2(a) of the Bill refers to “a candidate whose candidature is not authenticated by a certificate of political affiliation”. That is clear. I have no difficulty with the provision in the Bill and I see the thinking behind it. As an Independent I feel somewhat left out, but I see the logic of the position and I do not object to it. However, will the Minister of State reassure me that the phrase in his speech is short-hand and that it will not appear in the legislation? I would not be happy if that were to happen. Someone could produce a certificate of political affiliation who might not have had his or her candidature endorsed by that party and could be a member of a different party. All sorts of things could happen in this regard.

I wish to draw the Minister of State's attention to section 2(f)(a)(ii) which states: “in the case of the nomination paper of any candidate, the paper is for any other reason not properly made out or signed.” The Minister of State did not deal with this issue in his speech. This provision may be sensible, but I am worried about the phrase “for any other reason”. This section deals with a returning officer ruling out a nomination paper. It would be simpler if the Bill stipulated that a returning officer could rule out a nomination paper because it is not properly made out or signed. However, I do not understand the use of the phrase “for any other reason it is not properly made out or signed”. It does not matter if there is another reason. If a nomination paper is not properly made out or signed, it should be ruled out. I do not know why the phrase “for any other reason” is included. Who cares about the reason?

I am seeking clarification. For example, the paper might be illegible or indeterminate. I agree that the returning officer should have discretion, but the phrase "for any other reason" creates confusion and there might be a difficulty if the matter came before a judge. It is a matter of a returning officer looking at a paper and ruling it out because it is not properly made out or signed. The reason is the conclusion. I ask the Minister of State to deal with the two points I raised. I am not trying to be picky, but I wish to tighten the Bill. I do not intend to table an amendment, but I ask the Minister of State to go on the record regarding these issues so we will know what is intended.

I note, and agree with, Senator Cosgrave's points about photographic evidence. I wondered whether I should get my hair coloured or add hair extensions and considered what would be needed to make a proper impact on the electorate. I wish to be assured that the photograph has to constitute a likeness and be reasonably accurate in terms of reflecting the age and state of the person at the given time. As a medical doctor, I am sure the Minister of State will go along with my comments. People can do all sorts of things with photographs and, worse still, they can do all sorts of things with their bodies.

Senator Cosgrave referred to disks. I accept that he was not talking about himself, but some people might use an expert to touch up a photograph which is held on disk. We would like to be reassured that we are playing on a level field and that 52 year olds look like 52 year olds. We do not want any Oisíns coming back from Tír na nÓg with their confirmation photographs or photographs from the attic. I ask the Minister of State to respond to this issue.

I note the requirements regarding the supplement. I agree with the reasoning behind this measure, but it is a little difficult for people to go to a Garda station. However, I accept that this measure is probably sensible. I have said for years that the phrase "normally resident" could mean anything to anybody. The legislation refers to a constituency in which the person is normally resident. A person could be normally resident in a number of constituencies. One cannot legally cast one's vote in more than one constituency, but one could make a choice as to in which constituency one wished to vote. It would seem to be legal to have one's name included on a number of registers so long as one only voted in one constituency.

I ask the Minister of State to again consider the issue of on-line voting. We can now do all sorts of things on-line. It is possible to buy property, book holidays and flights, check bank balances and pay bills by entering the appropriate number and the system is foolproof because only the person with access to the information can do it. There is no problem with counting afterwards. The holding of elections in the middle of the week, when people cannot always vote, and the casting of votes in one place reflect an age in which people lived locally and did not have to travel to vote. Now students and businessmen might find it impossible to get home to vote. Will the Minister of State have a word with the Taoiseach about the day of the week on which the next election is held?

The Government should consider introducing a participatory quota before the outcome of a referendum is accepted. If less than 40% of the electorate participate in a referendum, its outcome should not be accepted. If things continue in the current fashion, we will end up with a situation where one person will vote in a referendum and change all our lives forever.

I support this legislation and recognise the Government is under pressure to pass it. For that reason, I will not cause any delays.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. In the dying days of this Administration, I recognise the fact that he has been an assiduous attendee in the Seanad and has always been available to us. We thank him for that.

When Senator O'Toole was speaking, I had a surreal notion of him being airbrushed. When this legislation was introduced, I had the even more bizarre idea of using the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell's or the Tánaiste's picture opposite my name on the ballot paper. That would improve my chances of being elected. Perhaps a loophole in the legislation would allow me to do that.

The democratic process should be as inclusive as possible. I have been a Member of the House for 12 years and on each occasion a Bill of this nature has been introduced, I have argued that point. I have tabled amendments about putting pictures and party logos on the ballot papers, but each time I was told, in no uncertain terms, that it would not be tolerated because it would lead to a beauty contest. I tabled those amendments because it is invidious that someone who might be illiterate should have to "shout" a vote. The secrecy of the ballot box should be protected to the greatest possible degree and people with disabilities should not be excluded from voting. The first South African election, which had such a huge turn out, had pictures and party logos on the ballot papers.

The Representation of the People Act, 1918, stipulated a deposit of £150, a substantial amount that is probably a relic of the English rotten boroughs because it would exclude many people. There should not be a deposit. I welcome the court's ruling because I disagree with Senator O'Toole – no one should be excluded. If the Monster Raving Looney Party, as Gaeilge, wants to contest an election, it should be able to do so. The Minister of State mentioned the multiplicity of candidates upsetting the balance of the outcome of an election. I do not share that view. The electorate is sophisticated and able to make choices; people should not be aggrieved because it is not possible for them to have their name on the ballot. I agree that there must be regulation to protect the integrity of the ballot box and the outcome of the election, but that is a different issue from participation. Those who want to participate should be able to do so. It might even lead to increased voter turn out.

I welcome the recommendation of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution, which published its seventh progress report on Parliament yesterday. I welcome its recommendation that the age at which people could stand for the Dáil or the Presidency should be reduced to 18 years. Some of the regulations go back to a precious view of life that only those who are grey can be trusted to run the State. Some of those in very senior positions at the foundation of the State, however, were very young by today's standards. If a person is old enough to vote, he or she is old enough to stand and be elected to Parliament. There would be no harm in younger people coming through these hallowed portals.

With modern technology, it should be possible for someone holidaying in Donegal to cast his or her vote in Kildare South. It can be done securely and with confidence. I do not underestimate the cost involved, but I commend the work being done by some of the officials in the Department of the Environment and Local Government who are endeavouring to bring forward an electronic system that is workable and user friendly. I recognise the nostalgia about the free-for-all outside polling stations which has since extended to nostalgia for the merits of the tallying system. There is a certain excitement, except for candidates like the Attorney General and Deputy Gormley in the last election. They would have welcomed an electronic system that would have shown an outcome several days earlier than was the case.

I was privileged to attend the first election in the Palestinian Territories. At 4 p.m. in a polling station in Gaza, the ballot box was so full that we had to empty it into plastic bags that we sealed with candle wax in front of those supervising the election. It was so full because the ballot paper was three feet long. Conventional ballot boxes had been brought in by people used to European elections who did not know the ballot paper would be so enormous that it would cause problems. That suggests that large numbers of candidates can be handled. On that occasion I saw a very elderly lady who was illiterate. She was accompanied by her grandson or great grandson who read the ballot paper to her and she indicated how she wanted it marked. I see nothing wrong with this. We can be too precious in our attitude.

I accept the need for regulations regarding the voting register and have sympathy with the view that the supplementary register must be compiled in a certain manner. However, consideration must be given to the anxiety caused to voters who, believing they are on the electoral register, attend a polling station and are then told they are not on it. At the last general election I saw a lady crying because she could not vote. That contrasts sharply with those who do not bother to vote.

Everything possible must be done to ensure the right to vote of those who wish to participate in democracy is vindicated. The prevalent view is that the onus is on voters to ensure they are on the register. I disagree with this. The onus should be on the State to ensure that those eligible to vote are on it. In the days when there were rate collectors in rural areas there was no difficulty in compiling the register because they did it in the course of their work. However, during the last general election I encountered several cases involving people who had not moved house, but whose names had disappeared from the register after being on it for many years. This is an example where computers, which could assist in the use of electronic voting, could be a hindrance in compiling the register. If an operator presses the wrong button, people's names could be removed from it.

It is reasonable that democratic systems do not allow total open access to the ballot paper. There must be some degree of control, but in all cases there is a need to strike a balance. Senators Walsh and O'Toole referred to the legislative provisions regarding expenditure. Those who wish to be compliant with the legislation and make every effort in that regard will still, after an election, be subject to objections to the returns they make by vexatious individuals. Complying with the regulations has become even more com plex than filling in the very complex application forms used by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. There are numerous guidelines, but in the hurly-burly of a campaign, when candidates do not know if they are on their head or their heels, they are likely to consult them only on rare occasions. Errors will be made which might make candidates liable to prosecution – I suspect the authorities would not prosecute – and open to accusations of impropriety. Frequently, only accusations are required to damage them.

While it is correct to impose limits on spending, to have regulations on contributions and to impose a cap on corporate donations, there is a need to strike a balance. Senator Walsh asked if buying drinks for a few people should be disclosed. Having read the regulations I do not consider it to be necessary, but a candidate could overlook disclosing it and find himself or herself in trouble.

I have previously advocated that provision should be made to allow for voting on Saturdays and Sundays, although at the time it was considered to be undesirable. Provision should be made to allow for voting over two days. Why should people not be allowed to vote on a Friday and Saturday? In the case of the recent abortion referendum, it was wrong that the polling stations opened at 9 a.m. when most people travelling to Dublin from the constituency of Kildare and elsewhere leave home at 7 a.m. and do not return until 8 p.m. If we want people to vote, we should ensure they have the facility to do so. Too many provisions in this area date back to the last century and 25 years ago. They need to be changed.

I thank Senators for their fine contributions and consensus regarding the status of the legislation. Senator Cosgrave referred to the question of assent. A person can only assent to the nomination of one candidate at an election. The regulations on identification documents are being drafted and should be ready for signing next week.

With regard to polling stations, returning officers are advised to provide ramps. Alternatively, a voter can apply to vote at a different polling station if they cannot access their usual station. If there are difficulties in this area, advertisements will be placed in newspapers to alert voters on the location of stations.

The Minister has made regulations on the question of photographs on ballot papers which set out the conditions that prospective candidates must fulfil. Photographs must be in full colour and taken recently, that is, within 12 months of the poll. They should be supplied on disc or in the form of two hard copies. However, I understand the provision of photographs is not mandatory.

Senator Walsh referred to the question of assent. The number required is subjective and can be revised, but there must be a balance between accessibility and maintaining the integrity of the electoral system. The assenters must be registered in the constituency. The Senator also referred to the electoral system. This question has been raised with the Minister in recent years and needs to be further debated.

Senator O'Toole referred to the requirements of the Electoral Act, as amended. If any candidate has doubts, he or she should contact the Standards in Public Office Commission for guidance. The guidelines issued by the commission should be of assistance.

Senator Cosgrave referred to errors on the register. If there is an error, a person can, if necessary, apply to be included on the supplementary register.

Senator O'Toole raised a number of other matters which I will refer to the Minister for consideration. The Senator asked about the meaning of section 4(b) which provides that any expenses incurred by a political party on behalf of a candidate authenticated by it at Dáil or European elections, Member of either House of the Oireachtas or representatives in the European Parliament, other than a donation of money, is not regarded as a political donation. However, the political party will be required to disclose the source of funding if the donation is over the limit and will be subject to the donation limits as set out in the 2001 Act. The provisions also apply to expenses incurred by a political party on behalf of its members.

Senator Dardis referred to some of the recommendation of the Oireachtas all-party committee on the Constitution. Its report was only issued yesterday and I am sure the Senator will excuse me for not replying in detail as the recommendations will need consideration. In some cases a referendum may be necessary, especially regarding the proposal to reduce the age requirement for Dáil candidates. The Senator also raised questions on the issue of electronic voting, which will have to be carefully considered in the future. He welcomed the proposal to replace the deposit with a better system. He did not appear to be too concerned about the question of the number of candidates.

On the question of polling over two days, flexibility will be the norm in the future. We will have to explore all the options. It has been proposed that polling could begin earlier in the morning, running from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. Polling over two days has also been suggested as an option.

May I suggest that we use Zimbabwe as a model?

Senator Dardis has more experience than I on that issue.

A number of Senators commented on the issue of the supplementary registerand the safeguards that the Bill will put in place. Everybody welcomes that aspect of the Bill. Many of the amendments made in the Dáil are also of value. I thank all the Senators for their contributions to this Bill and for its speedy passage through the Seanad.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Top
Share