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.