Amendments Nos. 1 and 7 are related and will be taken together by agreement.
European Parliament Elections (Amendment) Bill 2003: Report and Final Stages.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, lines 15 and 16, after "CONSTITUENCIES" to insert "TO AMEND THE ELECTORAL ACT 1992, TO AMEND THE INTERPRETATION ACT 1937".
It has been very evident over the past week that the Government has made a mess of the European Parliament voting process. Anyone from another EU member state looking at what has been happening here would be shocked. One is sometimes ashamed to be an Irish citizen.
The Senator should please speak to the amendment.
It is causing great embarrassment to us as a nation. There is a great deal of spite and arrogance — which is the Government's style — in trying to railroad this Bill through the Houses.
The Senator should speak to the amendment.
In supporting this amendment one has to say the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and his Ministers of State are making many contradictory statements on the issue. Last week the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, made the best case for verification when he stated that he feared that the accompanying paper ballot trail could yield a different result to the electronic one. This is a serious fact. Many people are quite annoyed about it. Last night on the radio another Minister of State said——
This is not relevant to the amendment.
Of course it is.
I ask the Senator please to speak to the amendment.
This is legislation which we do not want to see adopted in its present flawed state. The Minister and his Ministers of State are running around like headless chickens on this issue. We should congratulate the Fine Gael leader, Deputy Kenny, who on behalf of the people forced the Government into a partial climb-down on the issue.
Fine Gael wants Internet voting.
I am not happy with this matter as it is. At this late stage the Government should withdraw the introduction of e-voting in the interest of confidence in the system. While I accept that electronic voting represents the way forward, it should not be introduced now. The European and local elections will take place in 14 weeks and I do not believe it will be possible to train a staff of approximately 15,000 in that time. We may have difficulty in getting staff to man the polling stations throughout the country. I ask the Minister of State to advise the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, to postpone the introduction of e-voting until after the local and European elections to allow time for testing in the interests of the people. People are fed up and their confidence has been undermined. This matter is the topic of almost every radio and television show in the past fortnight and particularly in the past week.
As the Cathaoirleach was told this morning, Members on this side of the House may take the matter further and ask the President not to sign the Bill into law.
That is not relevant to the amendment.
I second the amendment.
A Chathaoirligh, I know you have given us very clear guidelines. However, perhaps you will be somewhat tolerant and give me a minute to answer the point. I did not think I would have to take the opportunity to advise Senator Bannon on the different mixes. Voting electronically will differ somewhat from voting with the traditional ballot paper as that method depends on the mix and the particular bundle selected. There are no headless chickens as far as that matter is concerned. This is a fact that cannot be disputed. Senator Brady made reference to the Fine Gael suggestion of Internet voting. Is Senator Bannon saying that the ideal solution is to use the Internet, which can be hacked as opposed to a machine that has been developed and designed specifically for that purpose alone? I rest my case.
I am sorry if I have deviated. Sometimes it is difficult not to respond to some questions raised by Senators. In response to amendments Nos. 1 and 7, as I said on Committee Stage, the Parliamentary Counsel and the office of the Attorney General, who are the Government's advisers in the drafting of legislation have advised me that this amendment is unnecessary.
The Government has failed miserably to secure public confidence in the new e-voting system.
This matter is not covered in the amendment.
That is not relevant to the amendment.
The Minister should acknowledge the serious public concerns about e-voting. I again appeal to the Minister to consider the views not alone of my party and the Labour Party but also the concerns of the general public.
Is the Senator speaking to amendment No. 1 or No. 7?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 6 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, to delete lines 19 and 20 and substitute the following:
1.—In this Act, save where the context otherwise requires—
‘Act of 1992' means Electoral Act 1992
‘Act of 1997' means European Parliament Elections Act 1997
‘Minister' means Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.'.".
I second the amendment.
This amendment would add definitions to section 1 of the Bill. These amendments are unnecessary as the Minister is defined in section 2 of the Electoral Act 1992 and in section 2 of the 1997 Act, which is being amended. The proposed addition of "the Electoral Act 1992" is linked to amendment No. 5. As I indicated last week on Committee Stage when discussing the other amendment, I understand the reasoning behind the amendment as it is a matter that is discussed by candidates and elected representatives coming up to an election. There is no perfect solution. However, my advice is that this amendment is not necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 3, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:
2.—Section 6 of the Act of 1997 is amended—
(a) in subsections (1)(b) and (2) by the deletion of “statutory declaration” and the substitution therefor of “statement pursuant to this section”;
(b) in subsection (2) by the deletion of “said declaration” and the substitution therefor of “said statement”;
(c) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (4):
"(5) A person who furnishes a statement pursuant to this section which is false or misleading in a material particular shall be guilty of an offence and on summary conviction shall be liable to a fine of not more than €3,000 or imprisonment for a period of not more than 12 months or to both such fine and such imprisonment."
I know the Minister addressed this matter in his response on Committee Stage. Under section 6 a European national who wants to be on the register in Ireland has to furnish a statutory declaration. For example, he or she must go to a solicitor to confirm that he or she is not in a position to vote abroad. This is extremely inconvenient and goes beyond the European Union directive, which merely requires a formal statement to that effect. My amendment allows for a more convenient form of statement pursuant to the subsection, which would not need to be witnessed by a solicitor and could be incorporated. It reduces the burden of responsibility on the person in question and reflects the reality of the European directive in a more reasonable way.
I second the amendment. I support Senator McCarthy's amendment. Earlier I referred to a similar matter. Independent candidates must round up — if that is the correct term — up to 30 people to sign a declaration before they can be nominated. This issue needs to be addressed urgently. We live in a democratic State. Those not representing a party are entitled to stand for Parliament and the Minister should introduce legislation to ensure this provision does not apply in future. The Constitution requires that all our citizens be treated equally. There is no evidence of equality when such candidates have to submit 30 signatures to a returning officer prior to nomination.
As I said on Committee Stage, this amendment is unnecessary. I refer to the EU directive that defines the requirements in this area. It specifies that resident EU citizens wishing to vote in their member state of residence must certify their nationality, address and any other details as are required on the form. They must do this by way of formal declaration which, if inaccurate, makes the person concerned liable to penalties in accordance with the national law applicable. I recognise that the Senator's amendment makes it very clear there should be a fine in the event of a person providing the wrong information. We have agreed on the penalties.
We have had such a formal declaration for 66 years following the enactment of the Statutory Declarations Act. I see no point in deleting and duplicating in electoral law a system that operates satisfactorily. This procedure has been used extensively since then in all types of legislation. Electoral law already provides for such declarations to remove any doubt in the case of registering individuals as electors.
When I first read this, prior to Committee Stage in the Dáil, and saw the term "formal declaration", I presumed immediately as do many Senators that it would require a declaration to be witnessed by a commissioner for oaths.
That is not the case. It can be witnessed by a peace commissioner, a notary public or a commissioner of oaths. We are asking those from other member states resident in Ireland to provide a formal declaration. What we are doing here applies in all member states. It is similar to the statutory declaration for Irish citizens who require a postal vote by virtue of their employment, which must be signed by a peace commissioner or a commissioner of oaths. I do not believe it is more onerous than that. There is no discrimination whatsoever. I am regretfully unable to accept the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 4, to delete lines 39 to 47 and in page 5, to delete lines 1 to 18.
We have had many long debates in the House about the abolition of the dual mandate. Eventually people came around to the idea that it would happen, with one notable exception. The reasons behind it were well articulated in the House by the Minister and various others. It was argued then that the dual mandate went much further than the interlinking between local government and the Oireachtas. Looking around the House, one can see a number of business people, doctors, teachers and so on, who in effect have their own unique dual mandates.
The abolition of the dual mandate was a good thing. We are sometimes reluctant to acknowledge what is good, but this is something we all sought when we were sitting on county councils. People have now done what is required in terms of resigning their seats, organising replacements and so on. It is good to see the new system up and running. It is wholly unacceptable, however, for us to allow the European dual mandate to operate until 2007. It gives the Government an advantage because some of its Deputies are standing for election as MEPs and under the current system no by-election will be required, so the Government will maintain its presence in the Oireachtas. I understand that would be the case no matter who is in Government. The status quo may suit the Government but it may not always suit the Opposition, which is the case currently.
The codes dealing with dual mandates are inconsistent. It is not proper to operate a system which allows a lucrative and time-consuming dual mandate while not allowing another one. In the interests of consistency and leadership, the Government cannot allow this to continue. The Minister of State did not accept this amendment on Committee Stage — that is why we are discussing it now. However, I urge him to reconsider. He knows best about taking advantage of a dual mandate in terms of being able to return to domestic politics after a time in Europe. I would like him to consider the inconsistency that currently exists and I urge him to accept the amendment so that this anomaly may be addressed.
I second Senator McCarthy's amendment, which deals with the blatant manipulation of the system in the Government's favour. The Government's track record means it would not now have the confidence to go before the electorate if some of its Deputies were elected to Europe. It is playing a cowardly game.
The electoral system we have here is unique in Europe. It is a system of proportional representation based on a single transferable vote and incorporating multiple-seat constituencies. If we had a rainbow coalition government with a majority of one or two seats and a couple of their Deputies or Senators decided to run for Europe, I am sure those on the far side of the House would be supporting them.
We would not be on the far side of the House.
We cannot change things. If we tried, we would need a referendum to change the Constitution. It is not on.
I support Senator Brady. The dual mandate has been discussed fully in the House. We must respect the decisions of the courts. I pay tribute to the Deputy who took the case to court in the interest of the common good. The current system benefits all parties. It gives a choice to the parties that are finding it hard to obtain European candidates.
I reiterate what I said on Committee Stage. The effect of this amendment would be that the temporary derogation for Members of the Oireachtas who stand as candidates in next June's European Parliament elections to hold the dual mandate until the general election to both Houses would not apply. The arrangement negotiated during the 1998 to 2002 discussions allowed for a rolling derogation because of the requirement, as pointed out by Senator Brady, for by-elections to fill vacancies, especially for Dáil Éireann. To fill vacancies by way of a list system or an internal arrangement would require an amendment to the Constitution. It is true that where there is a minority government or one with a small majority this could lead to a general election and would create uncertainty. This would not necessarily be in the best interests of the country, which should always come first. Any party could find itself in this situation.
Members will recall the European election in 1984. I cannot remember the candidates who stood, but I am sure there were some from the Government party. There was an opportunity for the coalition Government of 1982 to 1987 to take an initiative at that time, but it was not taken. I appreciate the points made by Senator McCarthy and Senator Bannon. There are political points to be made; I am making the political point about the mid-1980s.
I also accept Senator McCarthy's point about inconsistency. He is correct — it is inconsistent that the dual mandate allowing Members of the Oireachtas to be members of local authorities is no longer operative. We should not implement legislation to give that a mirror image. A minority government or one with a majority of one or two could be affected and we would not want that. However, we are making it known well in advance of the next election, whether it takes place in 2007 or earlier, that this will no longer apply and that this Government will not make any case for further derogations.
The provisions which permitted the dual mandate are set out in European law. It was only in September 2002 that agreement was reached on ending the dual mandate for Members of both Parliaments. Reference has been made to the position of the dual mandate involving local authorities. This was flagged for a considerable time. The ending of the dual mandate has been on the domestic agenda for many years. The directives of June and September 2002 are relatively recent and include the derogation agreed at EU level. It was a derogation for Ireland and the UK, with specific focus on Northern Ireland, in view of the triple mandate of Dr. Paisley and the dual mandate of Mr. Hume. This no longer applies in view of their decision not to contest the election. Our approach was practical and pragmatic. The Government will not seek to negotiate any derogation so those who are participating in the European election as Members of the Oireachtas will know where they stand at the next general election.
Perhaps the Senator will consider withdrawing this amendment as the situation will no longer apply after 2007 or the next election.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply. This amendment is in the interests of consistency. The Government had a clear policy to end the dual mandate in the context of membership of the Oireachtas and local authorities. When the legislation was introduced there were some good debates in this House and the legislation was subsequently enacted. Accordingly, the dual mandate finished. There is a small number of exceptions and Senator Bannon might be one of them but, by and large, that policy has been implemented.
We have been lectured about the dual mandate at local and national level and the dual mandate at national and European level will finish in a number of years. However, if there is something morally wrong with the dual mandate it is worse to have it at European level than at local level. The Minister is one of the few people who finished with domestic politics and took that gamble. Then he returned, which was a selfless thing to do.
He was called back.
It is a good example. If the project had backfired in the election, it would probably have been classed as something else. I feel strongly about this amendment. If the dual mandate is to be abolished at one level, the policy should be applicable across the board regardless of the type of dual mandate. Obviously, it is more high profile when it occurs in politics but there are also the professions and occupations. These people have dual mandates. During the four years I was a member of the local authority I found it difficult to continue my ordinary occupation. Indeed, I had to resign the job to contest the general election.
There must be consistency across the board. The Minister of State can argue with justification that this dual mandate will finish in 2007. With regard to the instability of a previous Government, the Minister must have been referring to Fine Gael MEPs during the 1980s because the Labour Party lost its four seats in 1984. However, it caused considerable political uncertainty for some Governments. In the overall political context, the dual mandate is applicable to every role a politician can have, whether it is their ordinary profession outside the House or their membership of another body. The Minister of State made a salient point about the triple mandate in Northern Ireland. It is also a significant burden on the Exchequer but that is the will of the people.
I accept the position the Minister takes but I am unhappy that he will not accept the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 6, before line 1, to insert the following:
4.—(1) Section 88 of the Act of 1992 is amended in subsection (2)(a) by deleting from and including “alphabetically in the order of” to and including “names are the same, in such” and to insert “in random”.
(2) Section 88(2)(a) as so amended is set out in Table to this section.
TABLE
(2) Ballot papers shall be prepared in accordance with the following directions—
(a) a ballot paper shall contain the names and descriptions of the candidates standing nominated at the election, as shown in their respective nomination papers. The names shall be arranged in random order as shall be determined by lot by the returning officer,".
I second the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 7:
7. In page 6, to delete lines 30 to 33 and substitute the following:
5.—The Interpretation Act 1937 is amended by inserting the following into the Schedule of the Act, before the expression ‘Rules of Court':
25A.—The expression "representative in the European Parliament" shall be construed as a reference to a member of the European Parliament and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.'.".
I second the amendment.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Bill received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank the Senators for their co-operation in bringing the Bill through the various Stages. I appreciate their interest. They put their amendments down in good faith and I hope they accept that the points I made in response are in the best interests of the House, particularly with regard to the derogation period. I hope I provided good and justifiable reasons for not accepting the amendments.
The urgency of having the Bill passed arises from an EU legal requirement to have the Council decision of June and September 2002 adopted by the end of February. It is also necessary to give legal effect to the changes in the European Parliament constituencies so candidates and political parties will have certainty before they get down to the serious business of campaigning for the June poll. While I had to differ on the amendments proposed by the Opposition Members, I appreciate the courteous manner in which the debate on the Bill was conducted.
I believe I speak for both Houses when I pay tribute to all our MEPs, particularly those who will not seek re-election. I thank them for their commitment to the development of Europe and to the development of Ireland's interest within the ever increasing and changing landscape of Europe. Many of these Members served in the European Parliament for a number of years and have seen many changes. However, at all times practically all Members wore the Irish jersey and worked in the best interests of Ireland. I wish all those who are not seeking re-election well in their retirement. They are relatively young and fresh so their retirement is from public life.
Those who served us well over the years were, in alphabetical order, Nuala Ahern, who served for ten years, Niall Andrews, who served for 20 years, Mary Banotti, who also served for 20 years, John Cushnahan, who served for 15 years, and Jim Fitzsimons, who spent 20 years in Europe representing the constituency of Leinster. In addition, Liam Hyland served for ten years and my constituency colleague for many years in Connacht-Ulster, Joe McCartin, served for 25 years. All of them made a remarkable commitment to and were closely associated with the development of the Union.
Two other MEPs from the island of Ireland served in Europe since the first direct elections in 1979. They are Dr. Ian Paisley and Mr. John Hume. They worked closely with the 15 Irish MEPs on the International Fund for Ireland, the European Fund for Peace and Reconciliation, INTERREG and CAP reform, which were so important for this island. I wish them well. I wish both the Members and their families continued success.
I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House to conclude the debate on this Bill. We all know he has served on every rung of the ladder. He has served on Donegal County Council, in the national Parliament, at ministerial level and as an MEP for the Connacht-Ulster constituency. I regret that we have not retained the name of that constituency because the names of the provinces refer to our Irish identity.
I join the Minister of State in his tribute to the outgoing MEPs of the island of Ireland. They did an excellent job and kept Ireland to the forefront in mainland Europe. We have always had the proud distinction of having good people to represent us in Europe, both Commissioners and MEPs. No matter what part of Europe to which one travels, people know at least half of the Irish MEPs, which shows the high esteem in which they are held throughout Europe. I wish them well. I also wish the best to the candidates going forward and hope the best will be selected by the electorate next June.
I too would like to thank the Minister of State and his officials. It has been a demanding week for him since the Minister, Deputy Cullen, was away in the Far East on European business. Who would have known when he was leaving what brouhaha would be caused here on a number of issues?
It is important to note the excellent work done by our MEPs. All politicians moan but MEPs can justifiably complain about the lack of publicity they get. I know MEPs who work diligently but by and large their work goes completely unnoticed until the election comes around and then they are accused of not having been seen since the previous one. This could not be further from the truth.
The Minister of State referred to a number of MEPs who will not contest the election. The seven or eight he mentioned have 120 years of service between them which is phenomenal. They deserve the tribute paid to them.
In the context of the legislation, we are here to do the best we can and that is why we propose amendments. We try to improve the legislation where we think improvements are needed but the Minister has the prerogative to decide what is necessary. Although the Minister of State did not accept any of our amendments the job was done and I thank him and his officials.
I, too, thank the Minister of State. The depth of his answers here and on Committee Stage shows that he has a good grasp of this complicated legislation. I congratulate the Minister and the Department on the manner in which it has handled some of the misinformation which has been bandied about with regard to some aspects of the elections. This legislation is important and I thank the Minister for his time.
Question put and agreed to.