Vol. 4 No. 7
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 6, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following subsection:
"(9) The Údarás na Gaeltachta Acts, 1979 to 1999, and this Act in so far as they relate to Údarás elections may be cited together as the Údarás na Gaeltachta Elections Acts, 1979 to 2001, and shall be read together as one.".
The amendment seeks to include a reference to Údarás na Gaeltachta Acts, 1979 to 1999, in section 1, which provides for collective citations. While there is a number of references in the Bill to Údarás na Gaeltachta elections, none of the Acts is being amended. The Údarás na Gaeltachta Acts form a separate legislative code and while they are referred to in the Electoral Act, 1992, the citation is not included in that Act. When a similar amendment was tabled on Committee Stage in the Seanad I undertook to raise the matter with the parliamentary counsel. I have consulted him and I am advised that the amendment is not necessary.
Amendments Nos. 3, 52 and 58 are related to amendment No. 2 and all may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 6, before section 3, but in Part 1, to insert the following new section:
3.-A political party, the President, a member of either House of the Oireachtas, of the European Parliament, of a local authority or of Údarás na Gaeltachta, or a candidate for any of the said offices, shall not directly or indirectly accept a donation for political (including electoral) purposes from any person (including a body corporate) other than a Dáil elector.
This relates to the core political issue in the legislation. The Electoral (Political Donations and Contributions) Bill, 2000, was introduced in the House by the Labour Party last December during Private Members' Business and was then referred to the committee. Its purpose was to completely ban corporate funding of politics. The select committee met some months ago and I sought to progress the Bill but was opposed by the Government. The Minister in written communication with the committee indicated that he did not want to proceed with our Bill because the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 2000, was before the Seanad at the time and it was his intention to make amendments to it which would address the issues raised in the Labour Party Bill.
The Minister's amendments do not address the core issue in the Labour Party Bill, which was a complete ban on corporate funding of politics. The major lesson we must learn from the revelations at the tribunals is that the public wants the link between business and politics to be completely broken.
My amendment seeks to confine the making of political contributions to registered electors. That would exclude the right of corporate entities to make contributions. Such entities do not have political rights similar to citizens and they are not defined in the Constitution. Therefore, the right to make contributions to a political cause should be confined to those who have a political status in our Constitution and consequently to those who are registered electors. That is a core issue in the Bill. The Minister's amendments seek to limit the extent to which contributions can be made from any source. Our proposals would limit the contributions being made by individuals. However, there should be a complete ban on the corporate funding of politics. That is what the amendment seeks to do. It is a core issue in the Bill. I hope the Government will respond more positively to the proposal than it has in the past.
This will happen anyway. The days are numbered for the continued corporate funding of politics. My party has already indicated that should it become involved in any discussions with parties after the next general election about the formation of a Government the banning of corporate funding of politics will be a core issue. The mood and demand of the public are such that corporate funding of politics will be banned. The Government is making a mistake by continuing to drag out and hold on to the corporate funding of politics in the way it is doing, albeit in a way which will provide for a limitation of such funding. There is now agreement between the Labour Party, the Fine Gael Party and the Green Party which are opposed to the continued corporate funding of politics and it is only a matter of time before it is brought to an end. It is significant that some Ministers and a number of individual Deputies on the Government side are also opposed to the continued corporate funding of politics. We would do the political process a better service to end it now rather than in 12 months or two years' time.
It is well known that I have considerable sympathy with the point of view expressed by Deputy Gilmore. He mentioned that the effect of the amendment he proposes would be to exclude corporate entities. I understand his argument in that regard. However, the limits provided for in the Bill are so modest it would be difficult to suggest that any influence of any consequence could be wielded over a Member of the House. The suggestion that the support of a Member could be bought for the amount mentioned in the limits is not sustainable. The level of influence available to be wielded in terms of benefit to the corporate sector by backbench Members of the Oireachtas is so small as not to be of great consequence. I know some of them have influence in other areas, but that is something which did not work out in a particular way.
Deputy Gilmore mentioned that corporate entities would be excluded. However, unless I am misreading it, the effect of the amendment proposed would preclude fund-raising for political parties or political purposes outside the country. That would not have much effect on me, but I am sure it would affect some political entities and personalities and trade unions, an issue on which I seek clarification.
Before I speak to the amendment I protest at the way in which the Bill has been brought before us. It has been amended so many times that we cannot truly say we have given it the type of scrutiny which important legislation deserves. We also have little time for Committee and Report Stages. I also protest at the fact the Bill has been introduced as an amendment to previous Bills. This should have been a consolidating Bill, particularly in respect of the provisions dealing with donations and expenditure where clarity is essential. I have spoken to a number of Members of the House who think they have read the Bill and understand it. However, there are not two Members who agree about what is now required of us. The least we are entitled to is clarity. As I said on Second Stage, having read it as best as I can in the time available, I would not canvass in a general election or any other election without having a lawyer, an accountant and a copy of the Bill with me. It is extremely complex and not obvious from reading it what is required of us. We would need to carry several Acts with us.
It is bad that candidates and members of political parties are not sure about election expenditure. I appreciate that an attempt has been made to clarify what constitutes election expenditure. Everyone, including political parties, must appoint agents who will be responsible for our spending. If we make mistakes, wittingly or unwittingly, the agents will be liable for them. It is too much to ask the people concerned, most of whom will be volunteers, to take on this responsibility without clarifying what is required of everyone involved.
Deputy Gilmore said the issue the amendment seeks to address is a core one. It is also a core issue for Fine Gael which has taken a stand on it. We are the only party which has stopped taking any type of corporate donation. There is no doubt this will make fund-raising more difficult. The reason this has been done is that we realise it is not a matter of limiting the amount. Corporate donations are not acceptable to the public. It is not that they corrupt, but that they are perceived to do so. Once that is the perception, we demean politics and ourselves and we leave ourselves open to accusations until we cut the interdependency between politics and the corporate sector. It is a big and difficult step for political parties which have built up a machine that depends on extensive fund-raising. That has become more sophisticated as we have got involved in more expensive advertising, polling strategies and focus groups. However, the message from the public is that it is no longer acceptable. People do not accept that the interdependency does not carry an element of compromise. We cannot deny there is potential for compromise. Politicians and political parties would be better off for their own sakes and for the sake of the body politic to rid themselves of this dependence.
We need to do more than tinker with the rules. I recognise the Government has come a long way from the original limit it imposed on donations which has been reduced from £20,000 to £5,000. That is a big step, but we must change the rules and the game to one which is above being dependent on any business or corporate group. The Government should reconsider its position. It rails against the tide of public opinion to insist that corporate donations are acceptable. They are not acceptable to any of us. It does not serve itself or the rest of us well to keep this in the legislation, albeit at a lower level. Deputy Killeen said no one will be bought for £2,000 or £5,000. However, that is not the point. The point is that people think we can. We need to end that perception.
These two amendments, which are almost identical, propose that only donations from Dáil electors can be accepted and corporate donations will be prohibited. The Bill, following amendments agreed by the Seanad, provides for limiting donations to £5,000 to political parties and third parties and £2,000 to individuals. The Bill will also require every public representative to deposit certain donations received for political purposes into a special donation account. This requirement will apply to political parties at all levels and to campaign groups who accept such donations for political purposes. It will be an offence not to pay money so donated into such an account. In addition, public representatives, public parties and campaign groups will have to certify on an annual basis that the donationswere lodged in the account. Donations from non-Irish citizens resident abroad and companies with no office for the conduct of business on the island of Ireland will be prohibited. The subject matter of these amendments was discussed by the Deputies on Second Stage when the arguments from the different political parties were madefor and against, and again during the Seanad debate.
Amendments Nos. 52 and 58 seek to delete the provisions for the prohibition on the acceptance of certain foreign donations.
In relation to amendments Nos. 2 and 3, it would not be feasible to restrict donors to Dáil electors. What about other electors who are not Dáil electors but who are eligible to vote in European and local elections? Surely these people should also be entitled to make a donation to a political party or a candidate.
I do not accept that it is practicable or feasible to distinguish between corporate and non-corporate donations. Most of the arguments have been made in the Houses on this matter and the opposing parties have not changed their stance.
In relation to the deletion of the prohibition on the acceptance of foreign donations, the prohibition does not apply to Irish citizens resident abroad so as to meet constitutional rights of citizens. The Government has considered this matter and its decision is reflected in the Bill.
In regard to political donations, the position which pertained in the past and which may have led to the events being disclosed in Dublin Castle in connection with a few individuals no longer applies. It is important to make that point. The regulatory context in which we operate today is substantially different from what it was some years ago. The disclosure requirements now in operation would have highlighted or prevented some of the matters being investigated by the tribunals. Nobody condones that kind of activity. The Public Offices Commission, in its 1999 annual report, stated that it was satisfied the present practice in Ireland compares well with that in other countries, and indeed many countries are at present looking at the Irish model with interest. The Government's proposals in the Bill on limiting donations for political purposes will provide an open and transparent system for all. That is what is needed. On Second Stage, some Deputies reluctantly and indirectly acknowledged that the Government had moved towards their party's position on some of these matters, certainly in relation to the limits.
In general, the public will agree that the proposals are the proper way to go forward. Arguments about whether a cheque is a personal or a business cheque are not the issue. The issue is openness and accountability. They are the key determinants in relation to these matters which did not exist in our system when the matters now the subject of tribunal inquiries generally took place.
In May 2000, Fine Gael, on page four of its discussion document on the funding of political parties, stated that it "does not believe it is possible to distinguish between corporate and individual donations". That is exactly the Government position now. On the same page the document further states: "We believe that the source and size of a donation, corporate or individual, is more important than the legal status of the immediate donor". I could not agree more.
I listened to Deputy Gilmore on behalf of the Labour Party. The Labour Party is not infallible and absolute righteousness is not on its side. The Government has taken steps in the Bill which we are satisfied will deal with the type of situation that arose in the past and which is unlikely to arise, to any great extent, in the future. There will always be rotten apples in every barrel regardless of what regulations, rules or legislation is introduced, but with the requirements in place now, any untoward action on the part of individuals will more than likely come to light, so they will suffer that. Disclosure and openness is the route we must continue to follow.
We have introduced a sensible and an operative scheme on donation limits. They are reasonable, as far as most people are concerned.
On the question of corporate donations, without asking an individual to certify that the donation is his or her personal fund, it is difficult to see how a ban could operate effectively. Even if an individual gave such a certificate, how would one prevent the amount of the donation being recouped at a later stage? How wide would the definition of "corporate" need to be? Would it include a business, whether incorporated, owned by an individual? To distinguish between individuals and bodies corporate is wholly impractical. For instance, many campaign bodies are incorporated. Would they also be banned from accepting corporate donations for political activity? To go down this avenue would lead to constitutional court actions on restrictions to freedom of speech and assembly. A system of limits on amounts and disclosures fully meets the public concerns widely expressed in this area. That is the route the Government is taking.
Much of what the Minister of State said is true. Openness and accountability are the key issues. I accept we are all operating in a different climate, and it is true that at one stage Fine Gael adopted the view that it did not matter whether it was a corporate or a personal donation, but to quote the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Public Enterprise, Deputy O'Rourke, that was then and this is now. It is a different climate now. Higher standards are expected of us and we have to expect higher standards of ourselves in terms of the demands the law makes on us. It is disingenuous to say it does not matter whether the donation is a personal or corporate one. Ireland is a small country and, inevitably, even in terms of the smallest corporate donation, at some point in our political lives there will be something on which we vote or over which we have some influence that will favour or disfavour somebody. We will then leave ourselves open to accusations of favouring a particular business. That may be untrue but there is no way of disproving it, and that is the problem.
If we are to begin to restore the good name of politics, we have to turn our backs on the corporate sector in so far as taking donations is concerned. Getting support from an ordinary individual is different, even if he or she is a significant business person. If they put their hands in their own pockets to support the political process, that is an entirely different matter and it is seen as different by the public. That is critical.
The position of the Labour Party is based neither on infallibility nor righteousness, as the Minister of State seemed to allege. It is based on our judgment of, first, what the public whom we represent now expect from us in relation to legislating for the funding of politics and, second, the perception of these matters, which has to be a major consideration.
The Minister of State is right in that what is currently being discussed at the tribunals in Dublin Castle will not now be possible because of the new regime in relation to disclosure of contributions, taxation matters and so on. That, however, does not prevent the perception that what is being investigated at Dublin Castle is somehow contemporary. I find it difficult, as I am sure the Minister of State must do, that the sins of people whom he and I opposed from perhaps different perspectives at different times in the past are now being visited on the current generation of people who are engaged in politics. We must leave no room for ambiguity here.
Many people will not make a distinction between a contribution of £1,000 or £100. There is a perception that funding from the corporate sector carries with it some political obligation. We know that in the past politics was to a large extent financed by contributions from corporate sources. My party to a less extent than some of the other parties was a beneficiary of that. By and large the financing of politics from the corporate sector in the past did not influence political decisions. As we know from the tribunals, there were cases where it appears it did, but that did not have general application. The problem now is that there is a very strong public demand that the financial link between business and politics should be completely broken. Any slight tie, whether it be £1,000, £2,000 or £5,000, still leaves the same impression in the public's minds that there is a link between business and politics and we need to break it. That is where the Minister and I differ in our respective views on this. He seems to believe that it is sufficient to limit it, I believe that the break has to be complete and total.
The Minister made passing reference to constitutional considerations. When the Taoiseach originally opposed the Labour Party proposals in this area, he stated that he had opinion from the Attorney General that a complete ban on corporate funding was unconstitutional. Since we published our Private Members' Bill over a year ago, we have been asking to see that advice in relation to the Constitution. We have not yet been supplied with it and I do not believe it exists. I do not believe that there is advice to the Government that the banning of corporate contributions is unconstitutional and I will continue to express that belief until I see that advice produced. If the alleged legal advice to the Government that this proposal is unconstitutional really exists, I again ask the Minister of State to produce it. Apart from that, I intend to press the amendment. It is a core issue and is one that has been debated a number of times.
Is the amendment being pressed?
Does the constitutional advice exist?
The State has available to it legal advice in these matters.
I am sure it does. Does it have specifically advice from the Attorney General that the banning of corporate contributions would be unconstitutional?
Yes.
Can we see it?
It is a matter for the Government.
We have been asking for it for a year and it is extraordinary that the advice has not been produced. The Attorney General is not slow to offer opinion and advice even where he is not asked for it and even where it is at variance with the Government position. I am sure the Attorney General would have no difficulty with the Government making available his advice on this matter. May we see it?
That is not a matter for me to decide. The Attorney General advises the Government.
Will the Minister put it on the record of the committee?
I can convey Deputy Gilmore's interest.
It is just Committee Stage of the Bill.
It is not being put on the record here.
It does not exist. There is no advice. It is not unconstitutional.
I ask the Chairman for guidance on this. I have stated that advice has been given to the Government and a member alleges that no such advice was given.
The Minister has offered to convey Deputy Gilmore's request to the Government. Does he agree with that?
No, I do not want the Minister to act as a messenger boy for the committee. The Minister is here to represent the Government at this committee which is considering the issue. It has been claimed by the Taoiseach that what I am proposing in this amendment is unconstitutional. The Minister of State in his reply to the amendment referred to constitutionality and as a member of the committee, I am entitled to ask to see the legal advice on which this claim is made. This is where we are deciding it and the Minister is here representing the Government.
The Government is not accepting the amendment the Deputy is proposing. There is no obligation on the Government to publish legal advice given to it by the Attorney General.
In that case, I will continue to believe that no such advice exists and that the Taoiseach misled the House and the public when he claimed that there was legal advice that this proposal was unconstitutional.
The only point I am interested in is whether the Deputy is alleging that I am telling an untruth here. I ask the Chair to request that that allegation be withdrawn.
Will Deputy Gilmore clarify his remarks that the Minister is misleading the committee?
I did not say that. I said the Taoiseach misled the House and the public and I said that I would continue to believe that there is no legal advice available to the Government that this proposal is unconstitutional because of the Government's failure to produce the legal advice. I am entitled to have that belief.
Nobody is denying that Deputy Gilmore can believe what he wants. If he does not want to believe the facts as enunciated, that is up to him, I can do nothing about that. He has an amendment here which I am not accepting. I have indicated to him that there has been advice to this effect and he is alleging that no such advice was given. He is, therefore, making out that I am telling an untruth, and I resent that. I ask him to withdraw it.
I made no such allegation. The record can be checked.
If I say advice was given and the Deputy says he does not believe it was given, he does not believe what I tell him. He believes I do not know. That sort of allegation does not get us very far.
Is the amendment being pressed?
Yes, it is.
As there are fewer than 15 Members present, in accordance with Standing Order 76B we are obliged to wait eight minutes or until full membership is present before proceeding to a division.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 6, before section 3, but in Part 1, to insert the following new section:
"3.-A political party, the President, a member of either House of the Oireachtas, of the European Parliament, of a local authority or of Udarás na Gaeltachta or a candidate for any of the said offices or their agents or representatives shall not accept a donation for political purposes from any person (including a body corporate) other than a Dáil elector.".
Deputy Ó Caoláin wants to contribute on amendments Nos. 52 and 58.
We have already discussed them. We discussed amendments Nos. 2, 3, 52 and 58 together.
I am aware of that. He has permission to raise one point.
I apologise to the Minister of State and members for not being present at the commencement of business and appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on the amendments concerned.
There are three critical areas in relation to the proposed ban on corporate donations. In the margin beside amendment No. 2 in the name of Deputy Gilmore, on which there was a division, there is the legend, "Prohibition of corporate donations." In earlier contributions on the issue I made it patently clear that I opposed corporate donations. We should work collectively towards their banning but the thrust of the proposition put before us does not address the issue. It seeks to impose a wider ban on those not registered as Dáil electors. I welcome the decision of the Minister to extend what was signposted in the Taoiseach's responses to the initial Labour Party sponsored Bill where an individual resident on the island of Ireland——
Are we discussing the amendments again? We have already briefed Deputies.
I am giving the Deputy an opportunity to make a point, but we have already debated the amendments.
I was unaware of that because I was not present.
In fairness, that was not my fault.
I was present before the vote was called. There was a division on amendment No. 2 before I was allowed to speak on amendment No. 52.
I am sorry. The vote had been called.
If this is irregular, I will conclude by saying that I welcome the extension in the Bill allowing citizens of the island of Ireland to make contributions. Clearly, the deficiency remains where not everyone who would wish it has access to Irish citizenship. Those among the Irish diaspora do not all enjoy automatic access to Irish citizenship. A much wider body of interest has aided the objective of a new political dispensation on this island and, accordingly, I seek the support of the select committee for the deletion of lines 7 to 21, in page 50, in line with amendment No. 52.
We will deal with that amendment when we come to deal with section 50. We cannot deal with it now.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 6, before section 3, but in Part 2, to insert the following new section:
3.-(1) The Referendum Commission is hereby renamed An Coimisiún Toghcháin or in the English name the Electoral Commission.
(2) The Minister may by order assign to the said commission such of his or her functions under the Electoral Acts, 1992 to 2001, as he or she considers fit.”.
The amendment seeks to change the name of the Referendum Commission to the Electoral Commission and have the Minister assign functions to it under the electoral Acts. This is not an issue appropriate to the Bill. Provisions relating to the Referendum Commission are set out in the Referendum Act, 1998, and any changes in the commission's functions would be considered in the context of that Act and referendum law generally. I cannot accept the amendment.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 7, before section 4, to insert the following new section:
4.-Section 12 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion in subsection (1) in the definition of 'spouse' of 'or partner' after 'the spouse'.".
There are references in the principal Act to spouses of certain office holders and public representatives from which certain requirements arise in relation to declarations and to which I propose we add a reference to "partner." This is necessary if we are to be consistent. However, I enter a caveat.
I have doubts about the appropriateness and constitutionality of the references to "spouse" in the principal Act. Thankfully, we live in an era in which spouses or partners are no longer considered appendages of public persons. I understand the requirement for declarations to avoid any circumnavigation, through spouses, of the provisions in the Bill but have doubts as to its appropriateness. People are independent in their own right. The spouse or partner of someone standing for public office is not necessarily in the public domain and may, in their own right, have an independent life, career and occupation. I have doubts about whether this should be in the Bill. If it is to be in the Bill, it should be consistent. The consistency would mean that it applies to partners as well as spouses.
Under section 12 of the Electoral Act, 1992, a person who is a diplomat attached to a diplomatic mission abroad and a spouse of that person is deemed to be ordinarily resident in the State for registration purposes and under section 14, such electors may vote by post. The actual voting takes place under the supervision of a person appointed by the Secretary General of the Department of Foreign Affairs.
The amendment provides that either a spouse or a partner resident with the elector shall be deemed to be ordinarily resident in the State and, therefore, entitled to be registered as an elector. I take it that the amendment is designed to cover the case of cohabiting couples.
The privileges and immunities guaranteed under the Vienna Convention conferred on Irish diplomats posted abroad by the Diplomatic Relations and Immunities Act, 1967, extend only to the diplomat and members of his family resident in the household. The amendment, if accepted, would be difficult to implement. In the case of a spouse it is possible, through a marriage certificate, for a registration authority to establish that the person is eligible for registration as an elector. The inclusion of a partner under this provision would make it difficult to establish the bona fide nature of the arrangement involved.
However, having said that, I understand that the general question of the treatment of a partner is under consideration by the Department of Finance and pending the outcome of those considerations, I am unable to accept the proposed amendment. It is possible it could be looked at again on the occasion of the next discussion on an electoral Bill here if the position of the treatment of a partner has been determined by then.
My earlier remarks were intended to apply to a different application of the references to spouse and I apologise to the committee for that. I am aware that this is an issue of some concern to persons serving abroad. A distinction should not be made between spouse and partner. The number of people involved is small. It is easy, for the purposes of granting voting rights, to establish the bona fides of the people concerned.
I take some comfort from what the Minister says, that the general question is being examined in any event by Government, but there is an issue of voting rights here which is perhaps a little more urgent. I will withdraw the amendment and table it again on Report Stage.
The word "partner" is much too vague and is capable of many different meanings. People could have joint tenantship or ownership of property and need not necessarily have any other relationship between them other than that they are partners in the ownership. It is something which needs careful examination before one proceeds with it in legislation.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 8, to delete lines 32 to 55, and in page 9, to delete lines 1 to 12.
This amendment proposes to delete the new section 13C, which provides that the Minister may, by order, assign the function or the preparation and maintenance of the register of electors to a body other than a registration authority. Over the years there have been complaints about the accuracy of the register, many of which have been made in both Houses of the Oireachtas.
The amendment contrasts with the views expressed last Friday during the Second Stage debate. There are organisations which have much more frequent contact with households than local authorities, for example, An Post, ESB and Eircom, and the availability of an updated national database of addresses is essential for their business. Perhaps one or more of them may be interested in compiling and maintaining a national or individual register. Some registration authorities may also be interested in having the assistance of a private organisation to assist them in this function. Perhaps they could do the job more efficiently than registration authorities because of their more frequent contact with households.
While there are no specific plans at present to remove the function from registration authorities, it is proposed that the power should exist so that the matter can be investigated to see if the task can be carried out more efficiently and effectively. One way of testing it would be to have a pilot scheme in a local authority but it is necessary to have the legislation amended to allow for such a pilot project. Needless to say, any proposal would be subject to the public procurement requirements. Before the provision can be operated, a draft order must be approved by the Houses of the Oireachtas.
I regret I cannot accept the amendment.
My main concern is that the preparation and maintenance of the register of electors would be privatised. I see logic in some of the suggestions made during the Second Stage debate, for example, the possibility that an organisation like An Post which calls to the door regularly might be involved. If, for example, the postal services are deregulated and there are different organisations providing postal services to households, that would make that difficult to achieve. A similar difficulty would apply in the case of companies supplying electricity and other services.
I take some comfort from the provision in the section that any such order would have to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and would not be made until a resolution approving it was passed. It is something to which the Houses would return in any event. However, it is something about which I would be extremely cautious.
I again repeat my dissatisfaction with the way in which the electoral register is compiled. It is highly inefficient and inaccurate and to some extent it is open to abuse. There is a need to tighten it up and to have it done more efficiently. I will withdraw the amendment and reserve my position on it until an order under this section is brought before the Houses of the Oireachtas.
Perhaps this is not appropriate under section 6, but I take it that there are no changes in the Bill regarding impersonation. Many concerns are voiced about abuse of the register. This is about people moving constituency etc., but in the old days there were stories about somebody voting in the name of a dead person. Some people feel that the system is now far more sophisticated and that one can create fictitious people. There does not seem to be anybody checking the system.
Under the new savings scheme, one cannot open an account without an RSI number. I am beginning to wonder whether one should provide an RSI number to be listed on the electoral register and it would appear on a national computer system. At present, I could probably register in every constituency ten times and get away with it, and then vote in my own name also. There are many imperfections in the system and there is a feeling that the system is not only open to abuse but is being severely abused. Perhaps the system works well in small villages in rural areas where everyone is known. It worked in the old days when we stood outside the polling station. Incidentally, I am pleased the Minister of State is reducing the canvass-free zone at polling stations to 50 metres or whatever.
That is just for posters.
I thought it applies to canvassers also. There were complaints about canvassers hanging around outside polling stations in the old days but if they saw a person going in ten times to vote, they provided a valuable service. At departmental level, is there concern about the integrity of the register in urban areas? At local level, there is a great deal of concern about it. A person should need an RSI number to be on the register. The system is much too loose and is being widely abused.
There is concern regarding the ability of persons to vote without proper identification verifying that they are the persons named on the register. The guidelines for presiding officers will be revised in order to ensure they are aware of their duty to require identification more regularly. This requirement has been applied to a small percentage of those who present themselves seeking a ballot paper. It is the intention to require presiding officers to exercise this duty more often than in the past and that they ensure the identification provided is authentic.
I am glad to hear that. It would be good if everyone was required to provide photographic identification.
One can imagine the logistics of that.
It is necessary.
We are only after putting photographs on the ballot paper and now the Deputy wants photographs on the register of electors.
Even if an elector had to show a membership card which included a photograph, it would not be enough because the person concerned may be on the register in two constituencies. One would not know from where the person comes. It is not a pure science. It is not merely the case that people try to vote in the name of a dead person. The ways of abusing the system have become much more sophisticated and we must do something about the matter.
I agree with Deputy Ahern. I was going to raise this important issue under another section because it is something I want to raise on Report Stage. We have all heard anecdotal evidence in the past and certainly at the last election there were allegations in some constituencies that this practice was widespread. Recently there were allegations that it was widespread during the elections in Northern Ireland. Before this happens at the next general election or local elections we must ensure polling cards are not gathered from apartments and flat complexes, where the system is extremely lax and open to abuse. It is not a huge imposition to require people to bring some evidence to show that they are who they say they are. Certainly, driving licences and passports contain a photograph. Even the official card containing a person's RSI number, or PPS number as it is now called, would be sufficient. If we are to protect the integrity of the system, some evidence that the person is who he or she purports to be will be necessary. I want to flag that it is a matter on which I want to follow up on Report Stage.
It is important to note that there already is a requirement in the Northern electoral system for the presentation of various forms of identification. Allegations of abuse in this regard may not always reflect the reality but the discontent of some with the result. That said, it is important that there is a process of identification. I do not oppose such a process. It is a requirement. I agree with Deputy Gilmore that there is laxity in the compilation, maintenance and up-keep of the register of electors. This is something which is clearly required. We are highlighting a number of points and should deal with the facts. These are the requirements and I have no hesitation in supporting them.
I spoke on this general theme when we were debating the Local Government Bill. One of the current difficulties lies in encouraging people to vote. I do not see a great deal of evidence that there are individuals who are so keen to vote that they go around gathering up polling cards to present themselves voluntarily at a number of polling stations in order to exercise multiple votes. There does not seem to be a great deal of evidence that there are people who are so anxious to vote that they will arrange to have themselves registered in a number of different places. Where it does happens, as it does, it is fair to assume that somebody has organised it and that whoever has organised it is either a candidate or a party contesting the election. We need to provide in electoral law for severe penalties. Disqualification is the ultimate penalty. If it is established, for example, that a person voting at an election breached electoral law at the behest of a party or candidate contesting the election and there is evidence of electoral fraud, there should be a provision in law under which the candidate may be prevented from holding the seat.
There must be a crackdown on this practice which does not happen by itself. Electoral fraud is not an individualised activity; it is organised. The crackdown must be on its organisation, on those organising to put people on the electoral register who should not be on it or organising people to cast multiple votes or votes which do not belong to them. Often those who commit the fraud are rather innocent patsies whom they manage to round up. It is those organising it who need to be addressed.
The maximum fine on summary conviction is £1,000 and on indictment £2,500. This is an important issue. Under section 111 of the Electoral Act, 1992, the presiding officer on his or her own volition may or, if required by a personation agent in a polling station, shall request any person at the time of applying for a ballot paper to produce a specified identification document. If the identity document is not produced or if the presiding officer is not satisfied that the person is the person to whom the document relates, such person shall not be permitted to vote. In addition, the presiding officer may and, if so required by a personation agent in the polling station, shall put a series of three questions to an elector and unless the questions are answered correctly, the person shall not be permitted to vote. The questions are contained in the 1992 Act. They are, "Are you the same person as the person whose name appears as AB on the register? Have you already voted at this election? Have you reached the age of 18 years?" They must be answered correctly or the person will not be able to vote. The presiding officer may and, if so required by a personation agent in the polling station, shall administer to a person when he or she applies for a ballot paper an oath covering certain facts and if the person refuses to make the oath, he or she shall not be permitted to vote.
A polling information card is also sent to each elector. While it is helpful if the elector produces this card at a polling station, it is not a specified identity document. While some think that because they have the polling card, which was only given to them for information to guide them where to go, give them their number and help speed up the process at the polling station, it is not an identity document as set out in the Act.
The advice given to presiding officers by the Department suggests that identity documents should be requested in about 5% of cases. This advice is under consideration. In the next guidance to presiding officers, that percentage may be increased substantially. There is a danger, however, that this would make the process at the polling station more cumbersome and may slow it down. The counter argument is that there has already been a drop in the number turning up to vote and one does not want to make it more complicated or onerous. One must, therefore, seek a balance. At the same time, there is no point in having a system where one allows impersonation to take place because one is not strict enough in trying to rule it out. The Minister has indicated that he will revise the guidelines for the presiding officers and the instructions he will issue to them under section 18.
I accept that there is a procedure in place to challenge electors. On a number of occasions I have witnessed people being challenged, being asked the three questions listed and taking the oath and, because they answered the three questions and were willing to take the oath, they were allowed to vote. I have never witnessed anybody being prevented from voting. Certainly in one of the cases I was absolutely 100% certain that the person was not who he purported to be. There does not seem to be a procedure to deal with a case where a person is willing to swear that he or she is a certain person when that is not so. What happens then? There is a huge lack of clarity in such circumstances and that is why one finds presiding officers in polling stations unwilling to challenge people. They do not know how far they can go at that point. There is a need to tighten this up, whether in this Bill or later, even at the risk of making the process slightly more cumbersome and difficult. There is no point in having a certain outcome of an election if it is completely askew or in getting people to turn out if they are not who they purport to be. It is important to protect the integrity of the system.
To have identification documentation which is verifiable would be the ideal. That area is being looked at and new instructions will be issued. I have witnessed somebody refusing to take the oath, strangely enough not because he was not the person on the register but because he wanted to shout his vote and a personation agent from another party challenged him. He would not take the oath because this person was asking him to take it. One would never know what reasons are inside people's heads. The person was the person on the register and a well known person locally, but wanted to shout his vote, which was a tradition in Connemara and which has now practically died out. I arrived on the scene and got him to go in and vote.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 14, before section 11, to insert the following new section:
11.-Section 21 of the Principal act is hereby amended by the addition of the following subsection:
'(6) No order for costs may be made against an applicant in an application pursuant to this section.'.".
This amendment proposes that no order for costs may be made against an applicant in relation to proceedings under section 21 of the Electoral Act, 1992. Section 21 provides for the right to appeal to the Circuit Court against any decision of a county registrar on a claim regarding the register of electors.
Provision is made for an appeal to the Supreme Court against a decision of the Circuit Court on a point of law. It is a normal part of the process of legal proceedings through the courts that a person initiating an action or lodging an appeal against a court decision may be awarded costs or have costs awarded against him or her. I do not see why an exception should be made in the case of appeals made to the Circuit Court or the Supreme Court regarding revision of a court decision.
A claimant for entry on the registry who decides to appeal to the Circuit Court or possibly the Supreme Court should, if his claim succeeds, be eligible to have his or her costs paid by the respondents to the proceedings. Similarly it is reasonable that a person who, having gone through the full procedure laid down in the Electoral Act for the registration of electors, fails to establish his entitlement to be registered should be liable to have the costs incurred by other parties to the proceedings awarded against him or her. This should apply particularly where the original claim may have been frivolous.
It is, of course, a matter for the courts to decide in any case whether an order for costs should be made and it is reasonable to assume that the courts would have regard to all relevant facts in considering this question in each case. This is a matter which should be left to the courts.
The same applies to other parties to the proceedings. The courts are always anxious to ensure that a person who has a genuine case will not be deterred from bringing it on account of costs. Where a private citizen takes an action to establish a constitutional or other right and the case has some reasonable base, the court will often allow the person's costs even if the judgment goes against the person. I am unable, therefore, to accept the amendment.
This is not something which is comparable with a normal civil action, for example. This is somebody trying to establish his or her democratic right to vote. There are unlikely to be too many cases of this kind anyway. It should be clear in the legislation that in cases like this costs are not awarded against the applicant. I appreciate that the courts use their good judgment in these types of cases anyway but there is an issue of democratic principle involved here.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 15, to delete lines 32 to 52, and in page 16, to delete lines 1 to 14.
This amendment seeks to delete subsection (4)(b) on pages 15 and 16 which provides for a number of new requirements regarding the registration of political parties. The current legislation provides that a political party shall be registered by the Registrar of Political Parties. If, in his opinion, the party is a genuine political party and it is organised in the State or a part of the State to contest a Dáil election, a European election or a local election, the revised section 25 of the Electoral Act, 1992, proposed in section 11 of the Bill provides that a party can apply for registration if it is organised in the State or part of the State to contest Dáil, European, local and Údarás na Gaeltachta elections and meets the following requirements: it has not fewer than 300 members in the case of Dáil election and not fewer than 100 members in the case of local and Údarás na Gaeltachta elections and they are over 18 years of age, and 50% are registered in the register of electors; at the time of application the party has a member who is a member of the Dáil or the European Parliament; at the time of application the party has at least three members in the case of an application for local elections; and at the time of application the party has at least one member in the case of an application to contest an election to Údarás na Gaeltachta. The organisation and direction of the party must be governed by a constitutional document, a memorandum of association or other such document which provides for an annual or other such periodic meetings of the party and for the conduct of the business of the party by an executive committee or similar body elected by the party.
The criteria regarding the number of members are based on the requirements of an approved body under the Referendum Act, 1998. The criteria about organisation and direction are based on section 8 of the Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) Act, 1947, in relation to the criteria for registration of organisations comprised in the various panels.
The proposal provides that in lieu of the membership requirement, a party may have an elected member or members. This requirement is accepted on the assumption that the elected person would normally have received more than 300 votes at an election and that a proportion of voters would be members of the party or at least support it.
These requirements are not unduly onerous given the central role political parties play in our democracy and the important benefits and responsibilities which arise. They also conform to the statement in the appeal board finding in 1995 that a genuine political party would be adjudged as such if it is bound together by the cohesion of common political beliefs or aims and by being organised for electoral purposes to such an extent and with such distinctiveness as to justify its claim to be truly a political party in its own right. I regret, therefore, that I cannot accept the amendment.
This is also an issue of democratic principle. The Bill proposes to raise the threshold for registration of a political party. The qualification, on the one hand, that there must be a minimum of one Member of the Oireachtas or a Member of the European Parliament or three members of a local authority to establish a party is not unduly onerous in so far as it applies to elected representation. The alternative, however, is unduly onerous. The requirement, for example, that a local party must have more than 100 members is excessive. We are not talking here about 100 voters but 100 registered members. In the context of the Údarás na Gaeltachta elections, for example, that is an excessive requirement. It is also excessive that there must be 300 registered members in a national party. I do not even know if there were 300 people in La Scala when Fianna Fáil was founded.
At the beginning of a political party, the threshold of 300 registered members is a high one to reach. Most parties will reach that threshold anyway in the course of their life but it is too high a threshold to set for the stage when they are being formed and registered. The effect of the proposals in this Bill is to discourage and prevent the formation of new political parties, and that is undemocratic.
Amendment No. 9 is in the name of Deputy Gilmore. Amendments Nos. 10 to 14, inclusive, are consequential and all may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 20, line 16, to delete "Clerk of the Seanad" and substitute "Chairman of the appeal board".
At present the Clerk of the Dáil, when acting as registrar for political parties, receives applications for registration of a political party. In the event of a refusal a party can appeal the decision to a board consisting of a High Court judge, as chairperson, and the chairmen of both Houses, as ordinary members of the board. The registrar receives the appeal application. Both sides of the Seanad agreed last week that a person other than the registrar should be the recipient of the appeal application. The Clerk of the Seanad, as the second highest official of the Houses of the Oireachtas, is now named as the recipient of such an application. In normal circumstances one might expect the appeal to be received by the Clerk Assistant of the Dáil, but this would not be appropriate as the Clerk Assistant acts for the registrar in his or her absence and in particular cases may be the person who made the original decision.
It is as an official of the Houses of the Oireachtas that the Clerk of the Seanad will receive an appeal application. This will not interfere with his or her functions as Clerk of the Seanad. The Clerk of the Seanad has other functions, such as being a member of the referendum and constituency commissions. Nobody has suggested that these functions interfere with his or her work as Clerk of the Seanad. It is important to emphasise that this is not an onerous undertaking. There have been only three cases in the last ten years. The actions required, when an appeal arises, are straightforward. A notice is published in Iris Oifigiúil, a copy is sent to the registrar of political parties, a deposit of £500 is accepted and lodged in a bank and the relevant documentation is made available for inspection.
For the first time the revised section 25 provides that any service, including the services of staff, that may reasonably be required by the appeal board for the purposes of an appeal shall be made available to it by the Chairman of the Dáil from the joint staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas. While it is not for me to determine the allocation of staff in the Houses of the Oireachtas, it is plain from the new provision that the appeal board will be allocated staff to enable it to perform its functions once established. It is not a full-time body and will not be convened until after an appeal is received. The chairman of the appeal board would not be an appropriate person to receive the appeal application because the board will not be in existence at the time of receipt of the application.
There is a precedent for this proposal. Since 1947 the Clerk of the Dáil has been nominated to receive appeal applications against a refusal of the Clerk of the Seanad to consider applications for registration on the panels for Seanad elections. I cannot accept the amendment, which was also tabled in the Seanad.
Amendment No. 15, in the name of Deputy Gilmore, is related to amendments Nos. 17 to 19, inclusive, and all may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 26, lines 1 and 2, to delete "by the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph (b):” and substitute the following:
"by-
(a) the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph (b):”.
This amendment would remove two disqualifying criteria from the criteria for membership of Dáil Éireann, namely, those pertaining to prisoners undergoing a sentence exceeding six months and undischarged bankrupts. These amendments were tabled twice in the Seanad where I undertook to give them further consideration following a Committee Stage debate. As I indicated in the Seanad, having considered them, I do not propose to accept them.
These amendments address an issue that we debated during the course of the debate on the Local Government Bill. They pertain to the disqualification of people from standing for election. We should have as few disqualifications as possible. It is a matter for the people to decide if a person is suitable for election to represent them in parliament.
For example, the disqualification regarding service of those who have spent time in prison could concern an offence relative to political activity. It could, for example, involve somebody involved in a campaign against refuse charges. This week there was a case of a mother of three children in Cork arrested and imprisoned for an offence concerning the collection of refuse charges. Admittedly, the period of imprisonment will not disqualify her from standing for election. In cases where one is declared bankrupt, the eligibility of the person concerned to stand for election should be a matter for the people, not legislation.
We should minimise the disqualifications that apply to standing for election. Disqualification should only apply in respect of the commission of offences in connection with the election concerned. For example, if somebody managed to get elected by fraud, he or she should be disqualified. Otherwise, we should regard the view of the people as sovereign and they should exercise their own judgment. We are attempting to create, through legislation, a regime that attempts to fireproof the public against those convicted of crimes, who have been declared bankrupt or failed to make certain declarations. The people should decide who will represent them.
I support Deputy Gilmore's presentation. The Minister heard us speak on this issue last week. Disqualification on the grounds of an imposition of a sentence greater than six months in duration and the need to continue for five years before being allowed to become actively involved in the democratic process is senseless. We burden ourselves with reasons for exclusion when the focus should be on inclusion, empowerment and encouragement, the words employed in the absence of the Minister in recent weeks. We want to include marginalised and excluded people. I know of instances concerning people from the Minister of State's former party who held very strong views after the 1985 local government elections on the commitment to abolish water charges in the Fianna Fáil manifesto. They canvassed very strongly to advocate their personal beliefs regarding that commitment. Subsequently, it was the people in the larger parties - not those in smaller parties or the more vociferous Independent politicians - who stuck to the commitments in manifestos and found themselves involved court cases. I can think of one person to whom this happened who stoically refused, despite a court appearance, to pay the imposition as directed by the justice. It was a matter of principle, but that person, because of the non-payment clause, will not be able to participate in the local or national electoral processes. This is patently wrong. The person concerned would bring a great deal of energy to politics and would make a significant contribution.
With regard to bankruptcy, we fail to recognise that it does not always pertain to those who seek an easy release. It is a very painful experience for the individual and family concerned to be ostracised.
The exclusion of the bankrupt is unacceptable. I am sure the Minister of State, from his political experience, knows of people who have been through the tragedy of bankruptcy. To add to this a further imposition of isolation from the electoral process, to the point of labelling them as unclean, is wrong. The inclusion of such a provision belongs to a different age. In a time of enlightenment, one would hope to see substantive change requiring the deletion of such exclusion clauses. I strongly support the case made by Deputy Gilmore in that regard.
We have discussed these relevant issues with regard to this Bill and the Local Government Bill. I gave my reasons when discussing the latter Bill why I could not accept the amendments. I cannot accept the amendments today.
I mentioned, when dealing with the other Bill, that the matter can be revisited when the All-Party Committee on the Constitution publishes its report on the institutions of the State. A case could be made regarding bankruptcy because modern business activities differ from those that obtained when the clause was initially adopted into law.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 26, line 3, to delete "21" and substitute "18".
This amendment seeks to alter the first line of section 15(b), which states that a candidate standing for election “will not reach the age of 21 years on polling day . . . . ”. The figure of 21 should be substituted with 18. The amendment is necessary because it demonstrates an acceptance on the part of the State of the maturity and energy that young people, from the age of 18 and upwards, can bring to political life. It is incredible, in this new millennium, that we wish to impose a bar on people between the ages of 18 and 21 from presenting themselves for election. We should not countenance that.
Young people from the age of 18 are permitted to vote. If they are given this responsibility and we acknowledge that they have the necessary maturity to make a choice of candidate at an election, by extension, logic ordains that they should be fit to stand for election themselves.
Young people emerging from our second level educational system are highly educated, able and articulate. They have a keen sense of what is happening in society. It is important that, as a result of the CSP education programme in our second level colleges, there is a finely tuned interest on the part of young people. No political party can say it has satisfactorily attracted the younger sector. My party has done better in recent years, but there is a need to empower young people, give them the respect they deserve and allow them the opportunity to stand for election.
I am happy to state that, in the 1999 local authority elections, a young male colleague of mine, whom I had interested in the electoral process, was successfully elected as the youngest councillor in the country that year. He is a member of a local authority in my native county, Monaghan. He has grown in that role. He would have been no less interested in the process up to three years before his acceptance as a candidate. It would have been a travesty if he had been excluded because of the age bar.
I appeal to the Minister of State to demonstrate to the youth the confidence of the Government in their ability to take part in politics by accepting this amendment.
As I understand it, the age at which somebody is eligible to stand for election is a matter for the Constitution. I have tabled a Private Members' Bill, which is on the Dáil Order Paper, seeking a constitutional change to allow a person to be nominated as an election candidate at the age of 18 years. I see no case for having a different age limit for nomination for election from the age at which a person is entitled to join the Army and die for his or her country, if called upon to do so. One of the first political campaigns in which I was involved was to get the vote for people at 18 years of age. It is regrettable that many of those entitled to vote at 18 years because of the change made to the Constitution in 1973 are not exercising that right as they should because it was hard to attain.
The clause that dictates when one is entitled to stand for election dates from the time when the entitlement to vote was afforded at 21 years of age. It was not changed when the voting age was lowered to 18 years. It should be, but to do so would require a constitutional amendment. As I said, I have proposed a Private Members' Bill to this effect and hope the Government will respond positively to it. Once entitled to vote, a person should be entitled to stand for whatever office he or she is entitled to vote for.
It is interesting to listen to this debate. I was a member of the committee which reviewed the Constitution in 1966 when I argued strongly that the voting age should be reduced from 21 years to 18 but this was opposed by some eminent Labour Party Deputies on the committee. Their sole argument was that as young people would not vote anyway, there was no point in giving them a vote. However, my view prevailed, which was recommended by the committee, subsequent to which there was a referendum that the people supported. Hence, the right to vote was granted at the age of 18 years.
It is now being suggested that the age limit for membership of the Dáil should be reduced to 18 years also but this cannot be done by way of amendment to the Bill. The Constitution can only be changed by the people. It is currently being reviewed by an Oireachtas committee. The matter we are discussing would be suitable for its consideration, on which it can make a recommendation to the Dáil.
Given that explanation, and no less passionately supporting the objective, I withdraw the amendment.
Does this section deal with the inclusion of photographs on ballot papers?
It does not.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 27, before section 21, to insert the following new section:
21.-Section 82(1) of the Principal Act is amended by the deletion of ', in the presence of a member of the Garda Síochána'.".
This amendment proposes that a special presiding officer need not be accompanied by a member of the Garda Síochána when visiting nursing homes, hospitals or similar institutions to enable residents therein to vote. The presence of a garda has two purposes: to provide security for the special presiding officer, who is required to transport ballot papers, votes and other polling materials; and to act as a witness in case allegations are made against the presiding officer. To allay fears of fraud the garda signs the seal on the covering envelope given to the returning officer. The current system is working well and no complaints have been received by the Department. I cannot accept the amendment.
It should be sufficient for the special presiding officer to visit a person with a ballot paper. Some people do not like gardaí calling to their houses. The fact that a garda must accompany the special presiding officer is a discouragement to those applying for special voting arrangements.
I was referring to the visiting of institutions, hospitals etc.
Even so, people do not like it. One way to deal with the problem might be to arrange for the garda in question to be out of uniform. For some the presence of a uniform can have an unsettling effect, particularly for those who are ill. Sensitivity is required. Will the Minister of State examine the matter before Report Stage?
There is no evidence to support the Deputy's view that the presence of a garda intimidates voters. His argument was discussed at length in the Seanad and there are no grounds for changing the system. The garda fulfils a very important function as the ballot box has to be carried around. Everybody wants to be confident that the procedures in place to facilitate those who are ill or confined to institutions are secure and that the secrecy of the ballot will be maintained. It is necessary to have a garda present. He or she is respected by all sections of the community and would appear to be the appropriate person. Anybody else would not be seen to be as independent as a garda in uniform.
I withdraw the amendment to facilitate progress on Committee Stage.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 27, before section 21, to insert the following new section:
21.-Part XV (sections 85 and 86) of the Principal Act is repealed.".
This amendment proposes to repeal the special voting arrangements which apply to offshore islands. Electoral law provides that where a returning officer is of the opinion, because of weather conditions and transport difficulties, that it would be impracticable to take the poll on the polling day appointed by the Minister or, if the poll were taken on the appointed day, to deliver the ballot boxes to the place for counting of the votes by 9 a.m. on the day after polling day, he or she may arrange instead to take the poll on one of the five days preceding the polling day appointed by the Minister. Where a local returning officer so decides to take the poll on a day other than the appointed day, he or she is required to give public notice in the relevant polling district of the day on which it is proposed to take the poll.
While one can understand the argument that today, with modern transport and telecommunications, advance voting should not be necessary, I refer the Deputy to the unfortunate experience we had in the presidential election in 1997 when the count was held up in front of the public and the national and international media because a ballot box from the Aran Islands was delayed due to fog. As polls are taken at all times of the year and because of the need for ballot papers to be received before a first count can be commenced, I am not in favour of the amendment and I respectfully suggest that it be withdrawn.
As the Deputy is aware, from my experience of having at one time six inhabited islands in my constituency, I believe it would be more appropriate to have the ballot on the same day as everybody else in the country. I witnessed the extraordinary concern that arose during the presidential election. All the counts had to be brought to one central location to be finally determined, but the count could not proceed in Galway because the box was not available. The whole focus of the country was on Galway in terms of what had gone wrong. That was an attempt to have polling on the same day, but they had to revert to holding it slightly ahead of time. We cannot rely on the weather. If it is very fine it could be foggy, so the helicopters will not fly and the boats will not travel. I would like to accept the amendment because it would be the ideal situation, but in view of the circumstances that arose, and my experience, it is not possible to accept it. It is an option that should remain with the returning officer.
This is hilarious. One of the purposes of the Bill is to introduce electronic voting. We heard a great deal on Second Stage about the fact that this was such a modern system and that the entire world would see that Ireland's electoral system was 21st century, hi-tech and so on, but the ballot boxes will have to be brought out on the currach five days ahead of polling so that the islands can vote. If we are providing for electronic voting, surely one of the things we ought to be capable of doing is catering for times when there is fog around the Aran Islands or any other island where there might be difficulty in getting the ballot box on or off the island.
That is exactly what we are proposing to do. When electronic voting comes in, it will be possible to transmit the votes electronically to the count. The Deputy has put down an amendment opposing the introduction of electronic voting.
It is not real electronic voting because what the Minister of State is proposing in the Bill will not solve the problem. A man will still have to be sent out in a boat to pick up the disk.
No, it will be possible to transmit the results down the line.
That is not my understanding. However, we will deal with that when we reach those sections.
That is not what is contained in the Bill.
As long as we have the current system of balloting, this is an option that has to remain for the returning officer.
It is a little anomalous that we are still physically bringing ballot boxes on and off islands several days in advance. I do not agree with the Minister of State's view on this matter.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 27, line 14, after "emblem" to insert "(including the name)".
This amendment is merely to clarify a matter and if the Minister of State clarifies it for me, it will not be necessary for me to pursue it by way of amendment. The Bill provides for the inclusion of party emblems on ballot papers. For some parties, either the initials of the party or, in some cases, the name of the party written in small letters forms an integral part of the emblem. I am seeking to establish - perhaps the Minister of State will clarify this - whether the definition of "emblem" is capable of comprehending the name of the party, in whatever way it appears, as part of the emblem.
In the case of Fianna Fáil, the two "Fs" appear in some form in the emblem. As far as I can remember, the words "Fine Gael" appear on the Fine Gael emblem now. I am aware that the initials of Deputy Ó Caoláin's party appear on the emblem. My party's emblem contains the name of the party written in small letters under a stylised rose and the Green Party has its name written under a flower. We need to be clear about whether the emblems include the name or the initials of the party.
Section 21 provides for the inclusion of photographs and political party emblems on ballot papers. The amendment seeks to insert "including the name" after "emblem". Each party has its own emblem. If it contains a name, that would be included but space on the ballot paper is small and the text of the name may not be legible. In any event, the name of any political party registered in the register of political parties would be on the ballot paper with the candidate's name. When the Bill is enacted, my Department will be contacting each party to inform them of the new provisions and the technical requirements for furnishing an emblem for registration and for use on the ballot papers. It will be a matter for each party to decide if any change is needed in their emblem or logo. I do not consider, therefore, that this amendment is necessary.
Will the Minister of State answer the question?
I have a sample of the type of ballot paper if the Deputy wants to see it.
I think he is saying "Yes".
I can pass it to the Deputy, as long as there is no comment about the fake names——
I appreciate that.
——and the fact that my party does not appear on it.
That answers the question. I withdraw the amendment.
We are top of the list. I approve.
Do we have photographs?
Did we have this system for the European election? Is this the first time we are allowing photographs? The photographs are obviously in colour. What is the procedure? Does a person bring a photograph with him or her when registering or does the returning officer or the sheriff have a cameraman present? Do people choose their own photographs? What do the regulations indicate?
The person must supply his or her own photograph.
Has somebody the power to say to someone that it is a long time since the photograph was taken or that their hair looks different today? Is a photograph acceptable once it bears a reasonable resemblance and was taken within the past five or six years?
I canvassed in Galway in the 1961 election for my predecessor, the late Gerald Bartley. The photograph on his election literature showed him dressed in his volunteer's uniform from the war of independence. Many people asked the reason he was photographed in this uniform in his 1961 election literature. I think it was to jog people's memory to the effect that he had done his bit for Ireland as a young man. The regulations stipulate that the photograph should be fairly recent.
Is the Minister of State suggesting that a photograph is acceptable once it has been taken fairly recently?
Yes.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 27, line 32, after "polling station" to insert "and where practicable a map of the location thereof".
This amendment proposes that the text and, where practicable, a map of the location thereof, be inserted on the polling information card. On Committee Stage in the Seanad I accepted an amendment including the address of the polling station. While I agree with the sentiment of this amendment, I am not in favour of making it a statutory requirement as this would delay the issue of polling information cards in the event of premises being unavailable. Section 92 of the principal Act will now permit additional information to be included on the polling information card which could, if possible, include the location map of the polling station. There is, therefore, no need for the amendment.
After the Bill is enacted, I will consider how the polling information card can best be designed to include useful information for the voter. I agreed that because people will be moved back by 100 metres at polling stations, some people might have difficulty identifying the location of the polling station. Returning officers did not seem to place large notices outside polling stations indicating that the station was the relevant polling station for the area. We have taken this issue on board and returning offices will erect larger signs outside polling stations. This can be done under the amendment, but it is not a statutory requirement.
I do not have the principal Act available to me so I am not sure of the exact position. I think on Committee Stage in the Seanad reference was made to the approach road to a polling station. I am not sure if this referred to the principal Act. This provision is unclear as most polling stations have two approaches. This reference has been deleted from the final version, but it may refer to the principal Act. Will a poster have to be on both sides of a road?
So long as it is inside the stated allowable distance.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 27, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) Section 96(1) of the Principal Act is further amended by the insertion after 'constituencies' of ', and subject to the requirement that the hours of polling shall in every case include the period from 7 a.m. to10 p.m.'.".
This amendment is a repeat of a similar amendment tabled twice in the Seanad. The amendment would provide that polling shall include the period from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., namely, 15 hours. The present legal requirement is that polling shall be open not less than 12 hours between 8 a.m. and 10.30 p.m. The Bill provides that polling stations may be opened at 7 a.m., but leaves unchanged the provision regarding a period of not less than 12 hours.
I do not agree with the amendment as some elections are held in winter. It will be for the Government of the day to decide, if it so wishes, to extend polling over 15 hours. I ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendment.
This is an important issue as the hours of polling should not be at the discretion of the Government. A Government might decide, for example, that it may be to its electoral advantage to vary the length of polling between different types of elections. This issue should be dealt with in legislation. It is difficult for some people to get to polling stations. Polls open at 9 a.m. and close at 9 p.m. However, this only provides a short window during which people who are working can vote. This fact contributes to low turnout and makes it impossible for people who are away from base to vote.
There is a case for running polling over two days to avoid situations in which people are unable to vote. We should take an approach which is as wide as possible. If the hours of voting are to be extended, the period should be set down in law. We should not leave the hours of polling to the discretion of a Minister who might decide on 12 hours if he or she felt it was to his or her Government's electoral advantage and 15 hours if circumstances are different. We need to be clear about this matter.
We have dark winters and long, bright summer days with early morning sunshine. There is a big difference between summer and winter. It would be a little severe to adopt fixed hours which require people tobe at polling stations at 7 a.m. on a winter'smorning. The Deputy is suggesting that polling should last for 15 hours which would bean extraordinary term of duty. Returningofficers must also be on the job the following morning.
There are people on the Stillorgan Road going to work at 7 a.m. on a winter's morning.
Yes, but they go home at 4 p.m. or 5 p.m.
That is not so, some people do not go home until very late. The Minister of State seems to be marooned in a fog, but we have electric lights and people can go around at 7 a.m. or 10 p.m., even in winter.
My colleagues have a point, but it depends on the time of year and in which part of the country one lives. Polling in many elections takes place on Thursdays when many shops in urban areas remain open until 8.30 p.m. or 9 p.m. in summer and winter. People who work in such shops would require polling stations to remain open until 10 p.m., however, the situation might be different in rural areas. Do polling stations have to open and close at the same time in all areas? Can we not stipulate opening hours for winter and summer, or which allow people to take account of local practices? Many people in Dublin work long hours and do not get home until 9 p.m. in the summer and winter.
I agree with Deputy Gilmore. This has nothing to do with the time of year or the type of weather, but we should reflect people's changing lifestyles. People leave home earlier, travel longer distances and work longer hours. We have to make it easy for people to vote. I received complaints from people who could not make time available in their normal day to vote on the Nice treaty. It is incredible that people work such hours, but people now travel longer distances to get to work.
Deputy Gilmore referred to the change in polling hours between elections. Voting on the Nice treaty started at 8 a.m. and these changes are confusing. Some people thought polling stations would remain open until 10 p.m., as was the case in other elections. The public, unfortunately, does not take the same avid interest in these matters. In this particular matter, clarity is essential. It is the price of accommodating people. I realise it is a long day for the staff but we do not have many elections.
There is a certain degree of confusion with regard to the opening times. It would be beneficial to the electoral process if times were the same for all elections. However, to accept the amendment would mean requiring under statute that polling stations would remain open 15 hours a day, from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. I am sure the Minister would be pleased to implement a consensus, if there was one, to open polling stations for 15 hours. If that is the agreed wisdom of the political parties, it would certainly be a major change from the past. As the position stands, it is possible to do that. Discretion should rest with the Minister who, I imagine, would consult with parties on the suggested and agreed times. If there could be an agreement on that issue it would be beneficial to everybody. Changing the times is not helpful and causes confusion. When that view was expressed in the Seanad I agreed with it. It is an area where more definite arrangements would be acceptable to everybody. I do not think the legislation should provide for 15 hours polling.
There is a need for this to be definite. Could we have some consultation on it prior to Report Stage and perhaps agree to fix the time? It does not necessarily have to be 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., there are other variations.
Yes, I have no problem with that, but I am not making any commitments because the same difficulties arise. I would like to consult on it more widely. There is not much time left before Report Stage but if we are all going to be here on 6 July we can certainly discuss it.
If the Minister is willing to consider the matter for Report Stage I will withdraw the amendment.
Under Standing Order 114 I propose that the select committee now consider sections 49 and 50 and relevant amendments. If we could deal with these two sections, on which there are critical political differences, we might be able to make good progress on the remainder of the Bill. I do not want to find, approaching 10 p.m. tonight, that we are trying to debate these sections and calling for divisions or running out of time without having debated them.
Is that acceptable to the Minister of State?
Will other sections be taken with them?
We want to discuss sections 49 and 50 and relevant amendments.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 49.
Amendments Nos. 49 to 51, inclusive, 56, 57 and 65 are related and may be discussed together. Amendment No. 50 is an alternative to amendment No. 51.
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 50, line 3, to delete "£2,000" and substitute "£1,000".
This is the section of the Bill which deals with the proposed limits on the amounts which may be contributed to individual politicians or political parties. The Bill proposes that the amounts which may be contributed should be limited to £5,000 in the case of a political party and £2,000 in the case of an individual politician. I sought a complete ban on corporate donations in a previous amendment but that proposal was defeated. I now propose that the limits should be reduced. The limits proposed would still represent considerable contributions. They are greater than the contributions most Members of the House would ever have received, either from an individual or a company. The limits proposed in the Bill are too high and should be reduced.
My amendment, No. 51, is similar to Deputy Gilmore's. The arguments are also similar to those made earlier about the source of donations, on which we are now discussing the limits. While I realise that one could argue endlessly about what is an appropriate limit, I appreciate that the Government has taken cognisance of the concerns of the Opposition parties and members of the public and made considerable concessions in this regard. The limits have decreased considerably since the original proposal from the Government. Nonetheless, £1,000 would still be a considerable sum, and the limit the average supporter or well-wisher would give in normal circumstances to a candidate or party at election time. It is not that a greater sum, whether it be £2,000 or £3,000, is necessarily compromising, but, like the source of the donation, it is potentially and seen to be so. It is in all our interests, therefore, to limit the amount one can receive by way of donations, both for an individual and a party.
I merely wish to record my support for the case made by my colleagues.
These amendments seek to reduce the donation limits proposed by the Government from £2,000 to £1,000 in the case of an individual and £5,000 to £2,000 in the case of a political party. Amendment No. 51 seeks to reduce the party limit from £5,000 to £1,000. We discussed political donations when we discussed amendments Nos. 2 and 3 and there is not much more that I can add to what I said then. This is a political call. Previously there were no limits. The introduction now of such limits is a dramatic change. The Government has given due consideration to this matter and considers the proposals it has brought forward to be the most reasonable in the circumstances.
I am pleased that Deputy Mitchell and others have commented that the Government did seek to meet the points raised about reasonable limits. From my party's point of view we were also anxious to meet those points. As distinct from what was originally proposed by the Government, this is a very substantial reduction. What we have proposed is seen to be reasonable by most members of the public.
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 50, line 6, to delete "£5,000" and substitute "£2,000".
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 50, line 6, to delete "£5,000" and substitute "£1,000".
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 50, to delete lines 7 to 21.
I move amendment No. 53:
In page 51, line 2, to delete "the donation," and substitute "a monetary donation and 28 days where the donation was other than monetary,".
I have tabled this amendment because I am a little concerned about the range of responsibilities that fall on candidates in elections and the lack of clarity surrounding them. I voiced my concerns before we started discussing the amendments. I am anxious that candidates are given every opportunity to comply with the rules given the gravity, wittingly or unwittingly, knowingly or unknowingly, for transgressing any one of the rules and the implications that would have on the candidate's good name or reputation. I am open to persuasion if the Minister feels otherwise.
A person who receives a donation which exceeds the limit - £2,000 for an individual - has 14 days within which to return it. A donation may come in kind, by way of service or goods and so on. A person, for example, in the business of hanging posters may do something for another person, the value of which may not be clear. Such an occurrence would not matter in the normal course of events but if it takes place at the time of an election when people are busy campaigning it may not always be easy to establish the value of what has been received and to inform the commission of it within 14 days. We should incorporate a little leeway here.
I realise that a problem arises in that if the provision of that service influenced the outcome of an election it is too late to do something about it following the election. Nevertheless, candidates have to be given reasonable time to establish the value of a donation and to take steps to deal with it. It is easy to comply with the provision in relation to monetary donations. I am anxious to hear what the Minister has to say in this regard and whether he will consider the point I am making.
People who are members of the Members interests committee are frequently asked questions by colleagues regarding the requirements of the various donation statements and interest register. Members have made the point very strongly that they should only have to fill out one form in this regard. The current situation of having to fill out two forms creates difficulties because they relate to different periods. One of the difficulties is that the statement requirements arise under electoral law and some others under the ethics legislation. Members of the committee feel very strongly that there should be no difficulty in having one form containing all the sections, especially during non-election years. I suspect there is a turf war between the various offices dealing with these forms. Some of them are dealt with in this House and others are dealt with by the Public Offices Commission. There is, with every good reason, a great deal of confusion among Members. It would help if the dates were brought together.
We should issue only one form for electoral statements and interest statements, with the possible exception of an election year when things might be somewhat different. I know a suitable amendment has not been tabled but I would ask that the Minister take a look at that idea before Report Stage.
This is more or less the same point I was making this morning. We now have a mesh, we have mired ourselves in a system of form filling.
Perhaps I will be able to clear up that issue. This is relevant to the amendment before us. I understand that this issue is the subject of discussion and will be provided for under the Standards in Public Office Bill. It is proposed to have one form which will cover all requirements and the dates will coincide. The points being made have been taken into account in the drawing up of new forms under that Bill.
That is where the confusion lies.
Such confusion should not exist in the future if this proposal works. The amendment seeks to insert alternative text in line 2, page 51 to provide that action on a monetary donation, the acceptance of which is prohibited shall occur within 14 days and in the case of other donations, 28 days. The action required is to return the prohibited donation to the donor or the Public Offices Commission. I find it difficult to see why a person would require two more weeks in the case of something that was not received in monetary form. If, as the Deputy seems to suggest, something was being done on a candidate's behalf of which the candidate was not aware, he or she would not be required to report the donation.
That is not clear in the Bill.
I cannot see how a person could get into difficulties if he or she was not aware of the donation.
That is the law.
A person would only bring it to the attention of the Public Offices Commission if he or she was aware of the matter.
I do not think that is what the law states. Establishing the value of something in the normal course of events may not be that difficult. It is in the heat of an election that this problem could arise. I am not entirely convinced that the Minister is right in saying that ignorance would be acceptable. Given the gravity of getting it wrong, in the context of an election——
When one receives a cheque, one knows what it is, it is quantifiable and clear. The instant the person sees it he or she can decide it is over the limit, may not accept it and must pass it to the Public Offices Commission. In the other cases mentioned by the Deputy, if it subsequently happens that a service, which had a value in excess of the permitted amount, is provided and if that is reported to the Public Offices Commission as soon as possible no problem should arise.
My point is that the legislation does not state that. It does not say "who knowingly receives a donation", it states, "who receives a donation".
It states that when a person receives and accepts cash, he must take action within 14 days.
A person might, for instance, accept the use of a car without knowing its value. That may not be a very good example.
If one knows that a car has been made available for a particular period one should be able to calculate its value.
I am merely using that by way of example. There are other situations that could arise which would be less clear. I would be happy if the Minister could clarify that point for Report Stage.
We will try to do that.
The Bill states ". . . a question of knowingly receiving . . ."
We will seek an opinion on the point the Deputy is making. I do not see how a person could get into difficulties over something about which he or she knew nothing. Once the person makes the situation known to the Public Offices Commission when it comes to notice, he or she should not run into difficulty.
Can I quote the Minister on that? Can candidates, in the future, quote him?
We will discuss the matter in more detail on Report Stage. Obviously, it will not be me or the Minister who will be adjudicating on the matter, it will be the commission.
That is why I feel the legislation should be absolutely clear.
I move amendment No. 54:
In page 51, line 33, after "account." to insert "Money which is not a donation but which is to be used for political purposes may be lodged to the account which is required under this section.".
This amendment also deals with creating ease for candidates and politicians in general. I welcome this provision. The opening of a donation account is a very good idea although I do not have one - I do not have any kind of political account. This will force a little more organisation on all of us. It is a good idea because it will clarify what is received and spent in the course of our political careers.
I know many people have political accounts which are not necessarily entirely funded by donations. People often lodge their own funds to these accounts and subsequently lodge donations should they receive them. They then make various payments out of those accounts. It is primarily in election years that candidates receive donations. Most other years they have expenditure. It would be an overkill to have two political accounts, one for expenditure to be paid by the candidate and the other for donations received and subsequently used for expenditure.
If, next week, we all have to open donation accounts and receive no donations but wish to use that account for all our political expenditure we should be permitted to lodge our own money to that account. I am not sure if I am making myself clear.
In some of our earlier discussions we attempted to clear up areas where confusion might arise. This amendment would cause more confusion than anything we have discussed so far. The purpose of the account is for political donations. If such donations exceed a certain figure, the person must submit a report of the donors. If one puts other moneys into this account it will make the whole exercise meaningless. I am surprised the Deputy would seek to introduce this proposal having welcomed the idea of a donations account.
This section also requires that this money is used only for political purposes.
Yes, but it relates to donations.
It would also mean people would have to have two political accounts.
So?
There is an expense involved. Local authority members are also required to comply with this provision. I thought, for simplicity, it would be easier if all political expenditure was dealt with from the same account.
That would defeat the purpose of the provision. It is a special account. All one has to do is present one's bank statement at the end of the year which will contain a record of all donations received. If one lodges other money to that account one would have to explain various lodgements and so on. Such a provision would complicate the whole matter.
Is that not what the money is for? I presume one can use this account? It can be a current account out of which a person may make payments. That is what the section implies.
It is an account into which all donations received are lodged. Obviously one can draw from that account; that is another day's work.
I do not see the problem with this.
The Deputy is adding another duty. It would entail the account holder having to give full details of every transaction in that account.
I was not anticipating one lodging money every day. I can understand the point the Minister is making regarding clarity.
All donations must be lodged.
I move amendment No. 55:
55. In page 53, after line 54, to insert the following:
"(e) in section 24, by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (4)-
'(4) the specified amount for the purposes of this section shall be, as respects a political party, £1,000 and, as respects any other person, £250.'.".
This amendment seeks to reduce the limits on the amounts required to be declared. The current requirement is that political contributions of more than £4,000 to a political party and more than £500 in the case of an individual are required to be declared. I am proposing that those declaration limits be reduced to £1,000 and £250, respectively.
There is probably a case here for the declaration of all contributions. Given the direction that legislation is taking and given the requirement to maintain separate political accounts which show donations and where presumably those accounts are available for examination, we are moving in the direction of all contributions being declared. We should move in that direction. I am proposing that all contributions over £1,000 for a party and £250 in respect of an individual should be declared.
The amendment seeks to reduce the limit for disclosure of political donations to the Public Offices Commission from £4,000 to £1,000 in the case of a political party and from £500 to £250 in the case of an individual. Since their introduction, these figures, because of inflation, have been reduced in real value terms to £3,500 and £440 respectively. They were fixed some time ago and the Government has decided not to increase them. The real value is reducing in any event due to inflation. I do not propose to accept the amendment.
I am disappointed to hear that. We know there is an easy and a hard way of doing this. The hard way is through the tribunal process which we are witnessing on a daily and weekly basis. Even contributions made in the past which at that time were held to be private and confidential are now being declared through a very hard and expensive process. The limits, when initially introduced, were a major departure. There was no requirement for declaration of donations prior to that. The whole area of funding political parties and politicians was a well kept secret. We should move in the direction of complete disclosure. My amendment reflects that. I am disappointed the Government is not prepared to accept this and I would like the matter to be put to the committee.
The amendment states "page 53, after line 54 . . .". It does not coincide with the document I have. I am merely seeking clarification on that point, if I may.
The original references may have been to the Bill as initiated.
The sequencing is out.
Amendment No. 56 has already been discussed with amendment No. 49. Is the amendment being pressed?
Yes. I move amendment No. 56:
In page 56, line 45, to delete "£2,000" and substitute "£1,000".
Amendment No. 57 has already been discussed with amendment No. 49.
May I make a quick point?
Technically speaking we should not. We have already discussed this amendment.
I move amendment No. 57:
In page 57, line 2, to delete "£5,000" and substitute "£2,000".
Will the Minister consider incorporating in his amendments on Report Stage, a provision for an increase in the limit, or to provide that an open-ended situation apply to Deputies and elected representatives who are members of political parties. This is to draw the limit in relation to donations to political parties.
In my case, and that of certain other smaller parties, the net effect of this will be that contributions we make to the overall running of our political parties will be restricted as against the pattern of provision to the party which we have made over the past four years since our election in 1997. I know it applies in Deputy Higgins's case, as a member of the Socialist Party. There are others, the detail of which I am not privy to. The pattern of contribution which I have made to my party since my election would, by law, be curtailed if the Minister introduced an amendment that would allow for an increased level of contribution where an elected representative of a political party would so choose. That is a very important point. I hope the Minister is in a position to respond briefly to my point. I appreciate the Chair's indulgence.
Is the Deputy saying the maximum amount he may give to his party is £5,000?
A contribution to a political party under subsection (d) is set at £5,000. I make an annual contribution which far exceeds that amount, as does Deputy Higgins in the case of his party. There are other Deputies who may also be in that position. Some may welcome this curtailment but, as the first of the team, I would like to set the highest standard. I am sure others following me will wonder why I did so. I have a very strong view on this issue. I know other Deputies support my view that we should have the flexibility of making contributions of our own determination from our salaries as Members of this and the other House or any other elected office. The net effect of the adoption of this provision will be to restrict that practice and that would have a very serious financial impact on smaller parties which depend in great measure on those contributions.
I do not want to come between Deputy Ó Caoláin and his party but we are passing legislation that will apply to everybody. Members of the Oireachtas and of local authorities may be very wealthy business people and we are introducing a limit on the amount which they can contribute to a political party. A Taoiseach, for example, might appoint a very well-off business person to the Seanad. Are we saying that by virtue of their membership of the Oireachtas they will have special status which would enable them to make much larger contributions to their parties than is allowable under the legislation? I understand the point Deputy Ó Caoláin is making. I do not wish us to create a loophole which could be exploited.
I understand Deputy Ó Caoláin's point which applies to all of us. We should not make a distinction between donations given by members of the public or politicians. The position of smaller parties, upon whom this provision may impact to a greater extent, is taken care of under measures in the Bill which increase the State contribution to political parties. Anything lost to smaller parties as a result of this provision will be gained in great measure under that provision.
I asked if the Minister would incorporate in his amendments for Report Stage an increase in the limit or provide for an open-ended situation. I take on board Deputy Gilmore's point - it had not occurred to me that that situation might arise. It might not, but I take on board that we have to try to introduce certain exactitudes. There is an opportunity for us to introduce an increase in the limit in this instance and it would eliminate the type of situation of which Deputy Gilmore speaks.
We talked about previous legislation and Deputy Mitchell referred to the provision whereby parties will receive State funding. While Sinn Féin is a beneficiary because of the collective vote achieved by our party representatives at the appropriate electoral outings, the reality in Deputy Higgins's case is that he does not receive such funding because the Independents have not reached the 2% threshold. They have a very small number of candidates and are not beneficiaries under the funding arrangements that apply.
He gets an allowance to the benefit of £25,000 per year.
His party has not reached the 2% threshold to qualify, is that not the case?
Independents get a straight allowance.
Proportionately, it gets the biggest payment.
Dare I argue Deputy Higgins's case. There is merit in the position I have articulated. I speak from personal experience and I ask the Minister to consider the case I have put to him. He has the opportunity to provide for same. I am indicating my welcome for such a move.
I was involved in Government discussions on this matter. Independents were in receipt of £15,000 and that has been increased to £21,000 under the new arrangements. Their situation has been well catered for.
I am in the unusual position in that amendments have been put down to reduce and increase limits. Perhaps we should return to the £20,000 limit originally proposed. Perhaps I may be facetious and suggest Deputies do as I did on one occasion. I gave my pension over to the State through the Department of Finance. If Deputies wish to dispose of some of their money, they could go likewise.
The Minister for Finance would be very proud of Deputy Molloy.
We have agreed to introduce a maximum contribution of £5,000.
I move amendment No. 58:
In page 57, lines 11 to 15, to delete all words from and including "which" in line 11, down to and including "directed" in line 15.
Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 are related and may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 59:
In page 65, lines 34 to 37, to delete paragraph (k).
This Bill came into existence in a rather unusual way. It was not promised in the House and appeared on the legislative list last autumn. It shot to number one on the list of priorities at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, far ahead of housing, road safety, waste management, local government and all the other matters for which the Department has responsibility and on which there is legislation waiting. When questioned as to its contents, the Taoiseach gave me, at various times, innocuous, innocent answers about putting photographs on ballot papers and electronic voting.
I requested a briefing. Normally, when an Opposition spokesperson asks for a briefing on a Bill an arrangement is made by the Minister responsible whereby the Opposition spokesperson concerned will be spoken to by the departmental officials responsible for the Bill's preparation and an explanation given as to what is being prepared but that did not happen on this occasion. I received a memorandum from the Minister, one and three quarter pages in length. While it listed many of the matters provided for in the Bill such as photographs, emblems and electronic voting, it made no specific mention of an increase in the limits on election spending. We did not find out that this would be provided for in the Bill until it was published.
It is quite clear that section 58 is about enabling the largest party in the State, Fianna Fáil, to spend the big war chest which has been built up. It is the party with the largest fund-raising capacity and has been the beneficiary of large amounts of corporate funds in advance of the coming into being of this legislation. It has been able to fund-raise without the operation of the limits proposed in the legislation regarding the acceptance of donations because those limits will not come into effect until the Bill is enacted.
The 1997 legislation introduced by Deputy Howlin during the term of office of the rainbow coalition set the limits at £14,000 for a three seat constituency, £17,000 for a four seat constituency and £20,000 for a five seat constituency. It provided that the normal rate of inflation would apply to these amounts on an annual basis. They will now be pushed back with the introduction of limits of £20,000 for a three seat constituency, £25,000 for a four seat constituency and £30,000 for a five seat constituency. The net effect will be to allow Fianna Fáil to spend an additional £1 million at the next general election. This money has already been committed because it has been able to fund-raise under the old regime and is now changing the goalposts in relation to its collection.
To put it mildly, this is about buying the next general election and the response has been that the same limits will apply to everybody. That is a nonsensical response because there is no point telling someone they can spend a lot of money unless they have that money to spend. Telling candidates or parties which will never raise £30,000 that they can spend this sum in a five seat constituency is meaningless. I contest elections in a five seat constituency and have never spent anything remotely like it. I have never spent anything like the £20,000 limit provided for in the existing legislation. That is the case for most candidates. This allows the opening up of spending to benefit one political party and I regret that the Minister who altered the Bill is not with us today. I understand the reason he is not present and wish him well in his recovery. It is significant and highly questionable, however, that the Minister who altered the Bill and brought it before the House is also the treasurer of the largest political party in the State, the party which will be the biggest beneficiary of the proposed change in the law. My amendment proposes to delete the provision in question and leave the limits as they are. They are perfectly adequate and no serious case has been made by anybody that they need to be extended. They have not yet been tested in a general election. This is an attempt by Fianna Fáil to take crude political advantage of the majority it currently enjoys in the House.
I am disappointed that the Minister of State's party appears to have gone along with this measure. I do not know what behind-the-scenes deals were made to enable the Progressive Democrats to swallow it. I regret it was done and I am surprised the four Independent Deputies who support the Government and will be the victims of this arrangement have agreed that it should go through. It is the Fianna Fáil Party which most directly threatens their seats. I cannot understand how they have agreed to this measure allowing the party targeting their seats to spend extra money to do so. None of them will be able to spend anything like these levels in their respective election campaigns, yet they are agreeing to allow their Fianna Fáil opponents to spend extra money to take them out at the next general election. In the interests of fairness and maintaining the integrity of the legislation put in place by Deputy Howlin to provide a level playing field in the contesting of elections, I propose the deletion of this provision and that the spending limits be left as they are.
This amendment is also in my name. I concur with the views expressed by Deputy Gilmore. It strikes me as strange that the Minister of State's party, one of the smaller parties in the House, would embrace such a proposition. The Independent Deputies referred to must not realise the import of what is entailed in the proposition put forward by the Minister. Unquestionably in the public mind this is the purpose and intent of what is described loosely as the Electoral (Amendment) Bill. We have shown cause for concern that the amendment does not reform. It is a deficient exercise but at its heart is one of the most negative propositions put before us for quite some time. The increase provided for on the basis of constituency size is clearly geared towards the interests of the major players, particularly the major party. I, too, represent a five seat constituency.
The Bill runs contrary to the suggested spirit that lies at the heart of Government's reform of local government and the electoral process that feeds into it. There is grave alarm and, certainly, much public disquiet at the proposition to increase spending limits up to £30,000. When one looks at the multiplicity of candidates Fianna Fáil will put forward in a number of constituencies, particularly in those with five seats, one sees the scale of what is proposed in terms of an overall spend. It is unacceptable and flies in the face of everything said by the Minister and the colleagues who have represented him during this engagement in recent weeks. There is an imperative to proceed with the limits already set to allow, as Deputy Gilmore has said, for a more level playing field and ensure everyone has the chance to put his or her case in this already very expensive arena in which the smaller parties and Independents are greatly disadvantaged. It runs contrary to everything we have heard and I join Deputy Gilmore in seeking the deletion of paragraph (k) on page 65.
To clarify, Deputy Gilmore mentioned that the four Independent candidates run the risk of losing their seats to Fianna Fáil candidates. In the Donegal north-east constituency of one Independent, there are only two Fianna Fáil candidates so the party cannot win three seats. In another of those constituencies, the Fianna Fáil Party does not aspire to winning a third seat. I do not know if the Labour Party still aspires to winning a second seat in that constituency.
Heretofore Deputy Gilmore had enjoyed the luxury of being the only candidate of his party in his five seat constituency and the change introduced for the forthcoming election will do little to make matters more difficult for him. It will be a different kind of experience. Candidates of the bigger parties in the constituencies will not take up the increased spending limits. On the off chance that anyone is watching, there is no intention on the part of the vast majority of candidates of my party to spend as much as envisaged by the new spending limits.
It needs to be borne in mind that a proportion of the cost of the national election campaign will be set against the spending limit of each candidate, most of whom will view that money as badly spent. The local organisation also incurs expenditure over which candidates have no control and about which they are frequently not impressed. Therefore, the increase in the expenditure limit for the candidate is modest relative to the amounts mentioned here. If one third of that amount were made available to me or many other candidates, it is highly unlikely I would spend it.
I wish to address my amendment, which is slightly different from the one tabled by Deputies Gilmore and Ó Caoláin. My party recognises that the base spending permitted under the previous legislation may need to rise in line with inflation. This amendment and the amendment submitted by Deputies Gilmore and Ó Caoláin are fundamental not just to this Bill, but also to the principal issue which we, the politicians, the public, the media and the tribunals in Dublin Castle, have been collectively discussing for the past four years, namely, the fundraising treadmill for election campaigns.
If we are making changes in terms of donations, restrictions, rules, transparency and other matters, surely the engine driving fundraising for spending at election time must also be changed. The Minster said on Second Stage that the value of the spending limit, which was set in 1997, had fallen by 50% in real terms in the intervening period. I am amazed to hear that inflation has risen by 50% over the term of this Government and, if true, my amendment should be acceptable.
These limits were set for the next election, which, as the Taoiseach has said on many occasions, is not due until 2002. The issue at stake is not simply that the value of money has been eroded, but that these limits were set for the forthcoming election. They were not set for by-elections or referenda which might take place in the interim, but rather an election which is not due until 2002.
Deputy Gilmore said this provision favours larger parties. It definitely favours those who run the most candidates at election time and those who can raise the most funds which, if history tells us anything, is the Fianna Fáil Party. This ups the ante for all parties, but to what effect? It does not benefit any of us. There is no demand from the public to spend more. Why do we need to be slicker in our advertising?
As we have seen in recent elections, posters go up, one party comes up with its biggest and best poster and suddenly all the other posters come down and are replaced by bigger and better posters. It is a treadmill which can go on indefinitely without benefiting anyone. It mires us in a huge and onerous task of endless fundraising. That is not what politics should be about. Spending at election time does nothing to communicate party policy or give additional information to the electorate. I can understand that a certain degree of publicity is needed to inform the electorate of the candidates standing for the various parties, but that can be done within existing limits. My understanding is that certain difficulties at by-elections are being used to increase the limits. By-elections are unique, hothouse occasions during which demands on spending are much greater than they need be at general election time.
Other criticisms aside, the timing of this change is fundamentally wrong. It is being introduced prior to a general election for which all the other parties accepted the spending limits provided for in the legislation passed in 1997 and carried out their fundraising accordingly. One or possibly two parties, namely, the Government parties, knew these limits did not really apply. This meant that, while the other silly little parties which were not in the know raised a certain amount, these two parties were able to raise a greater amount. Now, just before the election is called and with full treasure chests, they proceed to change the rules.
I suggest that if the rules are to be changed, they should be changed immediately after and not before an election. That would ensure a level playing field and give all parties the same opportunity to raise funds for an election planned for four or five years later. The funding limits in the Bill were put in directly after the last general election. We all felt we knew the rules and what was required of us in terms of fundraising. Two of the parties have now changed the rules. Apart from being unfair, that is fundamentally wrong and, I suspect, unconstitutional. If the Minister wants to change the limits, a proposition with which I disagree, it should only be done in the aftermath of a general election.
Many of us are being very insincere on this issue. I am glad the figures have been increased to bring them close to what is needed and make them slightly realistic. I am not well informed of how campaigns are conducted in rural constituencies. There does not seem to be as much spent as in urban areas such as Dublin where large sums of money are spent in all the constituencies by all parties and candidates. It is not necessarily the bigger parties which spend the most money. We are falling over ourselves being politically correct. I stand back in admiration of other parties which have raised money. I am not aware of any which has raised a pot of money. Any money I will spend in the next general election will be my own. I have not had money raised and do not want to get it from anyone, be it my party or anybody else. The money spent by head office is raised by selling tickets and this and that - it takes half our lives to do it. The money I will spend locally will be my own and the local organisation will not spend much either. If the figures had stayed as they were in the legislation, we would all be in severe trouble. We all spent more the last time - I spent more and was only in the halfpenny place when compared with my colleagues from other parties in my constituency.
By changing the game.
This time we will not have the option of getting work done on the cheap by back lane printers. It will all have to be properly invoiced with VAT included. Otherwise, we will all be in trouble.
We are worrying about the turnout. The fuss and hype we create help to get some out to vote. If we had to try and live within the limits passed a few years ago, nobody would know there was an election taking place unless they happened to turn on the television. It is all part and parcel of the system. Perhaps down the country it can be substituted by having hundreds of members, but in city areas we need money to create a buzz. We put weeks of work into it and are flabbergasted when only 58% or 60% of the electorate come out to vote. If we did not spend money, the position would be far worse.
I am glad the figures have been changed. They will help to keep some of us on the straight and narrow. While I am not looking for money from anywhere, the new figures are the minimum required to run a campaign in anything like the style they have been run up to now.
Amendment No. 59 proposes to delete the paragraph which provides for increased expenditure limits while amendment No. 60 seeks to replace the expenditure limits proposed in the Bill with the present limits rounded up. As the arguments concerning expenditure limits were extensively debated on Second Stage, it is unnecessary to repeat them. There is a strong case for increased expenditure limits. The amounts proposed are in line with the limits proposed by the Minister in 1997 when the original Bill was being debated and he was a member of the Opposition. When adjusted for inflation, the two lower limits are lower than what the Minister proposed in 1997. He never hid the fact that he did not agree with the limits when originally introduced. There is no truth in the allegation that they are suddenly being brought forward before the general election.
I have to question that.
They were announced last December and as there will not be a general election until next year, I do not know if the Deputy's statement has validity. About what election is the Deputy talking?
There is no need for the Minister of State to be disingenuous - it is a valid point.
On the cost of printing and advertising, does the Deputy know the cost per page in the newspapers nowadays? Their charges have increased in the last three years, as have the costs of canvassing, petrol, food and so on. I consider that the proposed increases are reasonable and will permit a candidate to run a campaign without having to watch every penny spent. I do not want each candidate to have to establish a mini bureaucracy to watch every penny - that was not the intention of the legislation. The only experience so far of the operation of expenditure limits has been in by-elections when the parties which got into trouble were those in opposition - the Labour Party twice and Fine Gael once. They were not able to live within the limits that they themselves set in 1998 and 1999 when by-elections were held.
While I cannot claim to be a neutral observer and I am not a member of the party, I object to the attack made on Fianna Fáil by Deputy Gilmore in particular regarding the notion that it would get £90,000 from the State if it ran three candidates in a constituency. The impression was given that it would have a bag of money, but the limits will apply to everybody - to any party which puts up one candidate or more. I had another candidate running with me in the 1987 general election.
It is common sense
It is important that expenditure is controlled at national and local level. As outlined by Deputy Killeen, the amounts referred to will not be available to candidates. The original Bill indicated that 50% of the money would be hived off at national level. The amount available to a candidate to promote his or her campaign locally will be far less than the figures mentioned. There has been a huge increase in costs since they were brought forward and it was clear at the time that parties would run into trouble with them. People would find themselves in serious difficulty if we were to stick to the current limits. Those who are elected will subsequently lose their seats if investigations into expenditure incurred prove they exceeded the limits.
Why allow this extra pressure? It is hard enough to win a seat without having to watch every halfpenny spent but that would have to be done. Unrealistic limits imply immediate difficulties. I could envisage a state of affairs whereby it would be very hard to get anybody to act as director of elections if they had to be responsible for verifying expenditure. This would be a huge imposition and has already presented major difficulties for parties where there was only one election to contend with such as a by-election. The commission will chase every aspect of the way in which the money is calculated. Even the Minister who brought forward the Bill was shocked at some of the interpretations put on it. There is panic among Fine Gael, the Labour Party and others with regard to what has developed. Fine Gael exceeded its limits during the Limerick East by-election while the Labour Party exceeded its limits in the Dublin North by-election in 1998 and the Dublin South Central by-election in 1999.
The original limits were not based on the findings of any research - it was a question of trial and error which resulted in major inhibitions in the few elections held. When one has a plethora of elections in every constituency it will not be as easy to monitor expenditure and many individuals would find themselves in difficulty which may lead to them being driven out of being active at that level in political parties. I agree with the new regime and the theory behind limits, but if one introduces unrealistic limits, one is inviting problems. I cannot accept the amendments.
As a single candidate in my constituency, I will be faced by three candidates from the largest party in government. They have collective, shared documentation for delivery. Advertising carries each of the candidates in turn. Posters make reference to each one, seeking people to vote in the order of their choice. It is difficult enough to compete with this, but if there is to be a triplication in terms of the limits imposed on people, I could not reach £30,000. However, I am in competition with an organisation that will have the collective potential to field its candidates with the backing of up to £90,000. The imbalance is significant. It not only relates to individual candidates, but to team presentation. This is replicated and reflected in similar-sized constituencies and smaller ones throughout the State.
With respect to the Minister of State, the figures concerned are beyond what the majority of candidates could reach or justifiably spend in any election campaign. We need to reflect on this and on people's sense of what is acceptable and wasteful in such circumstances. It is not just a question of creating the hype. There is nothing to compensate for canvassing during the time allotted for a campaign period. Ultimately, the greatest motivation will be the intervening years of service.
There is a bias for larger political parities, those with multiple candidates, and that is the reason the proposal is unfair. Therefore, I support amendment No. 59.
First, I want to correct a statement by the Minister of State that the Labour Party was in breach of the limits in two by-elections. That is not accurate. Declarations were made by the Labour Party in both by-elections which were marginally over the limit. In both cases, the Public Office Commission found that the party was not in breach of the limits.
In one of the cases, a declaration was made of items that did not have to be declared at all. This must be clarified in case it is used as a justification——
The party did run into difficulties.
There were no difficulties. The Public Office Commission was satisfied.
I am referring to two separate occasions.
The Public Office Commission makes such decisions. That is its function. It has not pursued any case pertaining to breaches of the limits.
I accept that it did not pursue matters any further, but the issue was raised.
If there is an argument to be made, it is whether the same limits should apply to by-elections as to general elections, but that is a debate for another day.
In relation to general elections, the Minster of State said that if there are three candidates in a five-seat constituency, under the new arrangement they are entitled to spend £30,000 each, a total of £90,000. That will not happen as most candidates will not be in a position to spend that amount of money. If one takes a constituency of three candidates and allows each candidate to spend £10,000, which is a lot of money for an individual to spend on his or her campaign as opposed to that of the party, that leaves £60,000 to be spent by the political party. One can spend the money only if one has it.
I am disappointed the Minister of State is defending his position. The Minster, Deputy Dempsey, did not want these limits when he was in Opposition, nor did Fianna Fáil. Fianna Fáil wanted to spend large amounts of money on elections. Prior to the Howlin legislation, there were no limits. Contests at election time were unequal, particularly concerning Fianna Fáil, who had the most money. I am referring not only to recent times, but to when large amounts of money were available to it to spend on elections and effectively distort electoral politics. Those who had the most money were better able to communicate their message by having larger advertisements in newspapers, the highest quantities of literature, the biggest and best posters, tours etc. I recall seeing an aeroplane, carrying the Fianna Fáil message, flying over a football pitch during a football match. One does not do that with the fund-raising capacity of Deputy Noel Ahern, who seems to be worn out from selling raffle tickets, does not know anything about corporate donations to Fianna Fáil, never got any money from the party and seems to be in a badly afflicted state. He is - no pun intended - the poor relation in that party.
Fianna Fáil will have the money. If there is £90,000 to be spent between three candidates, irrespective of what is spent in the constituency, the balance will go on large advertisements in the newspapers and so on. The Minister, Deputy Dempsey, from the beginning, never wanted a level playing pitch for elections, which is the reason for spending limits. The provision I am seeking to amend generates inequality. The amendment seeks some degree of equality in the amounts that can be spent.
Another argument for imposing limits is that there is a degree of unnecessary expenditure. Deputy Killeen spoke of moneys spent by party head offices and constituency organisations on advertising and so on. There is much truth in what he said. A lot of the advertising that takes place during election campaigns - including newspaper advertising and much of the more expensive forms - is unnecessary and wasteful. However, it does have an impact. For example, during the last week of an election campaign, candidates who are in a position to buy the full-page advertisements and engage in the kind of negative campaigning that is now entering politics are more effective.
It is not a case of trying to catch some unwitting candidate who does not fill out the declaration form properly and gets caught for £100 or £200 by the Public Office Commission and has to forfeit the seat. It is about bringing equality into the system so that Fianna Fáil cannot spend what it has collected and have an advantage over other candidates at the next election, which is unfair and wrong. I appeal to the Minster of State to accept the amendment, withdraw the provision and fight the next election according to the rules that were written in 1997 in advance of the election that year.
As Deputy Olivia Mitchell said, these rules were to apply to everyone except, it would appear, to the authors of the legislation. The Minister said the Bill was published in December, but it was notified in September. I know from questions that I have asked, and from freedom of information documents that were given to Magill, that the Minister Deputy Dempsey’s personal direction on this was given as far back as February 2000. Presumably that direction was under discussion in Fianna Fáil quarters for some time prior to that, probably as far back as 1999. The other parties have been working on the assumption that the election will be run under one set of rules, but the party in Government has been plotting - apparently since 1999 - to change the rules and could make its preparations and plans in the knowledge that there would be different spending limits. That is wrong.
If the Government pushes this issue through, we will take it to the people at the next election because there is public concern over the tribunals and the links between business and politics. With all the provisions in this Bill, such as the retention of corporate donations, the unsatisfactory limits and arrangements for declarations and now the opening of the door in relation to spending, if the Minister of State insists on pushing through this legislation we will take our case to the people.
The Minister of State gave away his position on previous amendments relating to an extension of time for non-monetary donations. He made the point that we were amazed at the interpretation the Ethics in Public Office Commission gave of legislation where people unwittingly overspent. The point that I made about non-monetary donations is that they could unknowingly be accepted but they are nonetheless an offence under this legislation. That is something to which I would like to return.
I have some sympathy with the point Deputy Ó Caoláin made about single candidates not being treated fairly under these proposals or the previous ones. There are economies of scale in election expenditure which apply to two or three seat constituencies. There should be a sliding scale in that candidates whose party is running the most candidates should get less. That would not be anti-Fianna Fáil and it should apply in the interests of fairness.
The Minister makes the point that we will all find ourselves in difficulties. That is probably true, but we will all find it difficult to stay within whatever limits are set. We are all competing with one another and will continue to do so to the point where it becomes utterly ridiculous. We may all hire aeroplanes to fly around sports pitches or wherever people congregate. If we do not move to a different election operating paradigm we will have talking posters. We are all wastefully spending on the slickest gimmicks and the glossiest literature. It may have impressed the public in the past but it is failing now because they are much too sophisticated. I have had this opinion reinforced when the Irish public watch American elections. People laughed at some of the gimmicks used there. The people are not fooled by these kinds of gimmicks anymore, they resent the wasteful expenditure involved. We are not benefiting ourselves or the political process by spending large amounts in this way. If we continue to raise the amounts that parties can spend, we are simply putting ourselves on a fund-raising treadmill. I will press this amendment.
I disagree with the other Deputies. I may be coming at this from a different point of view, but I think the single candidate is being treated too well. I am looking at this from a local perspective. If an independent candidate runs against me in a three seat constituency the spending limit is £20,000. It may be a party rule, but I could not spend that amount locally. The independent can because he or she does not have to put anything aside for a national campaign. My party will allow me to spend only £10,000 locally, the independents can outspend me or any Fianna Fáil candidate.
All parties and independents spend as much as they can on by-elections. There is no national campaign so all the money is spent locally. Some people may say Fianna Fáil has got by in the past couple of years, but we have got by only because we spent money on local campaigns and not on national ones. If the director of elections from all of the parties were asked to spend half the money on the Tipperary South by-election there would be very different campaigns.
My concern is that people will find ways around this. I see signs of that already and have mentioned this on Second Stage. Perhaps we have too much campaigning. If we have spending limits, I foresee a growth in the numbers of unregistered groups, residents associations, free sheets etc. They will not register because a lot of them will not exist. I can see a huge growth in negative campaigning by groups who were previously unheard of and who will disappear after an election. Whether it is Foxrock, Sallynoggin or Ballinteer, there will be leaflets distributed criticising someone. There is no point in the Department seeking out these organisations to have them register because they will not exist even though they will have done the damage. I have seen people involved in politics developing this on an ongoing basis. While the parties may produce too much literature, it helps keep a lid on it. I am concerned that this negative campaigning will take over. I welcome the figures proposed in the Bill. A number of Deputies across party lines will still be in trouble because those amounts of money are needed to run the types of campaigns we have run in recent years. While one must draw a line, what Members say in here and what they do on the ground are in total conflict.
The Minister, Deputy Dempsey, when in Opposition, made it clear during the debate on the 1997 Bill that he accepted the principle of these limits on expenditure at election time. It is, therefore, not correct for Deputy Gilmore to say otherwise. The principles applied here were laid down by Deputy Howlin when he was Minister under the rainbow Government. The amounts of £14,000, £17,000 and £20,000 for three, four and five seat constituencies, respectively, were laid down in the 1997 Bill by the then Minister. He made that distinction. That was four years ago. If the original amounts were increased at the end of January 2000 in accordance with increases in the CPI, the amounts would now be £15,000, £18,000 and £22,000, respectively. What we are talking about here are real increases of 23%, 25% and 27%, respectively. Some Opposition spokespersons have talked about a 50% increase, but the reality is that at the higher end there is a difference of £8,000 between £22,000 and £30,000 and prices are increasing all the time. There is a lot of hypocrisy, or perhaps political posturing, in the debate. The amounts proposed are not excessive, they are reasonable and I do not propose to accept the amendment.
Amendment No. 60 has already been discussed with amendment No. 59.
I move amendment No. 60:
In page 65, lines 34 to 37, to delete paragraph (k) and substitute the following:
"(k) in section 32 by the substitution of ’£14,460’ for the sum mentioned in subparagraph (i), ’£17,600’ for the sum mentioned in subparagraph (ii) and ’£20,700’ for the sum mentioned in subparagraph (iii) of subsection (1)(a), (these figures shall increase or decrease annually to remain in line with increases or decreases in the consumer price index),”.
I move amendment No. 61:
In page 67, paragraph (t), line 35, after “by” to insert “the insertion in subsection (1) after ’employment’ of ’or the elector’s personal circumstances’ and by”.
This amendment seeks to extend postal voting, provided in section 63 of the Electoral Act, 1997, for electors whose occupation, service or employment render it unlikely that they will be able to go to a polling station on polling day, to electors to include personal circumstances of an elector. This would effectively mean that postal voting would be available on demand as registration authorities would not be able to decide on what personal circumstances should be allowed. Extending postal voting to all electors would require serious consideration. While there might be a case for extending it to electors going on holidays or going into hospital, the matter requires serious consideration having regard to maintaining the secrecy and integrity of the ballot paper. It would also be interesting to see an evaluation of the experience in the United Kingdom where universal postal voting arrangements were available at the recent elections. Some adverse comment appeared in the media about it and the chairman of the electoral commission is quoted as saying the new postal voting arrangements may have increased the possibility of vote rigging. Concerns have also been expressed about extended postal voting arrangements to the USA, that liberal postal voting does not increase turnout. In view of the remarks that I have made, I want to make it clear that I cannot accept the amendment.
I wish to inform the select committee that the Minister is considering moving an amendment on Report Stage to amend section 18 of the Electoral Act, 1997, which deals with the application by qualified parties of payments under Part 3 of the Act. I understand the amendment being considered is to clarify the text of the section on the use of State funds for the normal operation of the party. This is necessary arising from the extra State funds in place of the reduction in private donations arising from the new limits.
Is that a new provision?
I am required to give notice at this stage about any amendment that may be brought forward on Report Stage.
Is that under section 18?
Under section 50.
There will be ample time to debate it in the House.
There will not be time to debate it in the House next week. I am objecting to this, a Chathaoirligh. According to next week's schedule, Report Stage of the Bill is scheduled for debate on Thursday after 4.30 p.m. There is another Bill to conclude at 4.30 p.m. and, of course, if there is a vote on that it will continue to 4.45 p.m. The Report Stage debate is to conclude at 7 p.m. There will not be time. We will not even get to section 50 on Report Stage with a guillotined arrangement of that kind.
It depends on the number of amendments. That is the only amendment the Minister is proposing on Report Stage.
Will the Minister of State give us a written copy of exactly what he has just said about the amendment? I did not hear what he said. I thought he said section 18.
I do not have the terms of the amendment. I have to give notice that something is being considered and may be introduced. I cannot give details.
I did not even catch exactly what is being considered. I am seeking clarification.
I am just informing the select committee that the Minister is considering moving an amendment on Report Stage to amend section 18 of the Electoral Act, 1997, which deals with the application by qualified parties of payments under Part 3 of the Act.
I do not know what the amendment is about, or how technical or innocuous it is. The Bill was published last December and we are now on Committee Stage. If there is a Government amendment to the Bill I would have expected that we would have seen it before now. It is not acceptable for the Government to introduce an amendment to the Bill on Report Stage which the Government itself is insisting on guillotining. In practice, the effect of that guillotine will be that we will not get to debate section 50 on Report Stage. This is not an acceptable procedure. If the Minister proposes to introduce an amendment on Report Stage, I will seek to have the Bill recommitted to the select committee.
Given that there may be an amendment, I am required to notify the select committee at this stage.
It is a bit much. The Bill has been through all Stages in the Seanad. Here were are, virtually on the eve of Report and Final Stages, and we hear that yet another amendment is to be introduced. Will the Chairman clarify when the text of this amendment will be available?
It is up to the Minister to decide when it is submitted.
Are the Deputies suggesting that the Government is not allowed to introduce amendments on Report Stage, or are they saying they will not be introducing any amendments on Report Stage? Are they saying that only the Opposition is entitled to table amendments on Report Stage? That is not correct.
If the Government was setting the timetable for the Bill, it would be in order to introduce amendments and to discuss them endlessly. The point is, however, that there will be no time for discussion on any of the amendments because all discussion will be guillotined. We have facilitated the Government up to a point, but it is wrong to introduce amendments of which there has been no notice.
I do not have notice of any amendments which Opposition Deputies propose to introduce on Report Stage. They have the right to do that.
The Minister of State will reject them anyway.
Will the Minister of State clarify a matter for me? The explanatory memorandum states that persons should act in accordance with guidelines issued by the Public Offices Commission. Does that mean the POC will issue guidelines concerning behaviour at election time?
It is normal that it would issue guidelines.
Will it be in accordance with the Act?
It will be helpful to Members and will give them guidance.
Will all the guidelines be in accordance with the Act? There was a feeling that the POC was stretching legislation in a way that people could not appreciate its source.
It is aimed at assisting Members and candidates in understanding and interpreting the law in regard to the requirements with which they must comply.
What is the position if someone believes the guidelines are not in accordance with the law, as is the case with this legislation? Will the Minister act as the source of appeal?
The POC cannot give guidance to do something which is not provided for under legislation.
It has been doing so for the past number of years. It put interpretations on matters, or at least threatened to do so, despite the fact that the Minister of State's predecessor had indicated a contrary view.
Yes, but I do not believe anyone stated its interpretation was not correct in terms of the legislation that had been adopted. Those that brought forward the legislation may have intended otherwise but, as I understand the position, it was open to the interpretation that was made. As already stated, however, I cannot adjudicate on a hypothetical matter.
If a dispute arises, will the interpretation of the POC or the Minister be the correct one?
The Minister does not adjudicate on those matters. If someone is aggrieved and believes the legislation has not been complied with he or she has recourse elsewhere. The courts will adjudicate.
It is the collective view of the Opposition spokespersons that we should take a ten minute break.
Would Members agree to a 15 minute break?
Yes. We could shorten the teatime break to make up for the time we will lose now.
As amendment No. 25 is consequential on amendments Nos. 26 and 27, all three may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 28, lines 35 to 37, to delete all words from and including "by" in line 35, down to and including "incapacitated'." in line 37 and substitute the following:
"by-
(a) the insertion in subsection (3) of ’or that he is unable to read or write to such an extent’ after ’physically incapacitated’.”.
This section proposes to extend the companion arrangement for voters. At present voters with physical or sight disabilities can have a companion accompany them to a polling station to assist them and, effectively, vote on their behalf. The Bill proposes to extend this arrangement to persons unable to read or write.
Those with literacy problems should have every facility available to them to enable them exercise their vote. One of the purposes of including photographs and party logos on ballot papers was to provide some assistance for them. Given this and the fact that there will be electronic voting at some point, is it necessary to include this provision?
My main concern is the scope this extension will open up for abuse. The number of people who are physically disabled or have a sight disability is limited. On presenting themselves at a polling station it is obvious that they have a disability and that it is necessary for them to have a companion in the polling station. We are told the numbers leaving primary school with literacy problems are as high as 25%. The latest OECD figures suggest 25% of the population have literacy problems.
I do not suggest those with literacy problems should have obstacles placed in their way when voting and, instead, should be facilitated in every way. However, I can envisage a situation where, if people were reluctant to vote, there are others who might organise them to turn up at the polling station and insist on accompanying them into the polling booth. I can see situations where potential voters might end up being intimidated to present themselves at a polling station, state that they have literacy problems and have a companion vote on their behalf.
I appreciate it would give rise to problems with the secrecy of the ballot but I propose that a presiding officer should carry out this function rather than persons who might be political activists, for example, and could turn up with voters they claim have difficulties reading and writing and presenting themselves as the companion who will cast the vote in the polling station. We need to take another look at this and consider the potential it opens up for any group which might be sufficiently well organised to abuse it.
Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 propose that the facility for a person whose sight is so impaired or that he or she is otherwise so physically incapacitated or he or she is unable to read or write that he or she is unable to vote without assistance to have the assistance of a companion be repealed and that the presiding officer mark the ballot paper without any witness. This would put the presiding officer in an invidious position in the case of an allegation. I find it difficult to understand the motivation behind the amendment which appears to be very regressive. We are constantly being criticised for lack of facilities to enable people with disabilities to vote. The facility to have a companion has been available for years and I am not aware of any abuse of it.
Amendment No. 27 proposes that the Garda Síochána should accompany a presiding officer instead of a personating agent at the marking of a ballot paper for an elector who is unable to read or write or when requested by the elector. The purpose of the personating agent is to prevent personation and, in this case, witness the elector's instructions and ensure they are carried out. It would not be appropriate in this case to involve a member of the Garda Síochána. It is not comparable to the special voter circumstances because, if one agent was selected, other parties would be entitled to appoint agents and one could have a group arriving at a nursing home. Given what I have said, I cannot accept the amendments.
Has the Minister of State considered the potential for abuse in this area? While I accept what he says and I am not aware of any abuses or allegations of such about the existing provisions, I am concerned that the widening of the provisions opens them up to a much wider potential population and one where the need for the companion may not be as obvious as in the case of people with physical or sight disabilities.
The companion facility has been available for other categories for some time. As I said and the Deputy agreed, it does not appear to have given rise to any great difficulty. The companion facility is only available to a companion on two occasions. He or she cannot accompany more than two people to vote. In that sense it is limited. If there is any doubt about an elector who claims to have literacy problems and wants a companion to vote for him or her, the presiding officer can, under section 111 of the Principal Act, ask for identification or he or she can require the elector to take an oath. It is the presiding officer's judgment and he or she can go as far as asking the elector to take an oath if he or she has doubts about the matter. The widening of the scheme is an advance and has been requested for some time by all sides.
I will withdraw the amendment but it is an area that might need review.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 28, between lines 46 and 47, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) Section 111 of the Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following subsection:
'(5) Regulations pursuant to subsection (2)(b)(ii) shall not be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas and a resolution has been passed by each such House approving the draft.’.”.
This amendment proposes that the regulations specifying the identity documents be approved in draft by both Houses of the Oireachtas. The current regulations were made in 1992 and are subject to the standard provision of annulment if a resolution is passed by either House of the Oireachtas within 21 days of which that House has sat after the regulation is laid before it. I am unaware of any problems with this procedure which is applied generally in legislation.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 28, lines 47 and 48, to delete "by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (1):" and substitute the following:
"by-
(a) the deletion of subsection (1)(a) and (b) (as substituted by section 79(1)(c) of the Electoral Act, 1997) and the substitution of ’(a) The counting of the votes shall commence as soon as practicable after the close of poll’, and
(b) the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (1):”.
This amendment proposes that the counting of votes should commence as soon as practicable after the close of poll. This is very vague. What does "as soon as practicable" mean? One could argue that 9 a.m. the following day is as soon as practicable. The size of many constituencies means that all the ballot papers do not reach the count centre until near or after midnight. At that stage the returning officer would have been on duty for perhaps 17 or 18 hours and, therefore, it would not be practicable to request him or her to then take charge of the count. Given the importance of the count, it is necessary for the returning officer to be present. In addition, if the count started after the poll closed it would mean counting through the night, which is not considered practicable. The provision under Part 3 of the Bill, which the Labour Party opposes and which will speed up the count is practicable.
Earlier we discussed the issue of fixing the times of opening. In view of what the Minister said about the commitments it would impose on returning officers, I will withdraw the amendment pending what happens on Report Stage on the issue of the hours of polling.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 29, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
"(a) in subsection (3), the deletion of ’the papers contained in the sub-parcel last received’ and the substitution therefor of ’all of the papers received’,
(b) the deletion of subsection (7),”.
Paragraph (a) of the amendment refers to the transfer of a surplus where the candidate who is deemed to be elected has votes consisting of original votes and transferred votes. The amendment proposes to move from the present position where only the votes in the last parcel of votes received are examined to having all the votes of the elected candidate examined. This is not practicable at present due to the manual counting procedures and the length of counts. I do not want a situation where those counted electronically in pilot projects are subject to different rules from those counted manually in the rest of the country. However, when electronic counting is used countrywide, the subject matter of the amendment will be considered.
Paragraph (b) of the amendment proposes to delete the present rule of determining which ballot papers from the sub-parcel of the next available preference for a candidate are actually transferred to that candidate. It does not propose to substitute any other rule. There must be a common rule for deciding which ballot paper should transfer in the surplus distribution, otherwise each returning officer would have to apply his or her rules which would mean a complete lack of consistency countrywide in a significant part of the count process. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment. Further legislation will be required to change the count rules when the electronic system operates countrywide so that there is an even application throughout the country.
It is precisely to provide for some degree of consistency that I tabled the amendment. What we are providing for in this legislation is an arrangement whereby there will be electronic voting in some constituencies. The Minister will designate certain constituencies in which electronic voting will take place. Consequently, electronic counting will take place in those constituencies. I understand that the method of distributing surpluses and the sub-parcels will be different in an electronically counted arrangement from a manually counted arrangement. If, for example, there is a surplus in an electronically counted arrangement, the surplus will be distributed on a strictly proportionate basis. In a manually counted arrangement, surpluses are distributed on the basis of sub-parcels. If a candidate is elected on the sixth count as a result of transfers which have come to him or her in the course of either earlier counts or eliminations and the candidate has a surplus, the surplus which is counted is the surplus which is generated as a result of the parcels of votes previously distributed. In other words, it is effectively the first preference votes of the candidate whose elimination has caused this particular candidate to go over the top. That is different from what will happen in an electronically voting system.
As I read it, the Bill provides for a situation where the actual method by which votes are counted will be different in manual counts from electronic counts. Therefore, there is a need for a principle of consistency to apply to all counts. One cannot have in one constituency surpluses counted in one way and in another constituency surpluses counted in another way because, conceivably, the different way in which surpluses are counted could give a different result.
The Deputy is correct that different rules cannot apply, which is why I cannot accept the amendment. Electronically the machine will select on the same basis as the last parcel procedure in regard to manual counting. When electronic voting machines only are used throughout the country, the machine will be capable of counting every vote in the distribution of surpluses and so on.
Let us take a constituency where electronic voting will operate. If a candidate is elected on the fourth or fifth count and there is a surplus to be distributed, currently that surplus will be the surplus as determined from the parcels of votes the candidate has accumulated as a result of previous counts. In that case the arrangement is that the top ballot paper is taken off each of those sub-parcels and that process continues until the required number is arrived at. That gives one result. These are the rules of the game which apply across all constituencies.
As I understand the electronic arrangement, there is no electronic method of separating the sub-parcel from the remainder of the vote and then identifying within that sub-parcel on the same random basis what would be the top ballot papers. In an electronic count there will be a different way of arriving at the vote which is to be transferred from that in a manual count. I do not think there should be two different types of count in two different constituencies in the same election. I sat through much of the famous marathon count in Dublin South Central between Deputy Briscoe and my party colleague, Eric Byrne. It switched and swayed each day, and what switched and swayed was the way in which votes arrived at the top of the pile of sub-parcels. Eventually four votes separated the candidates but it swayed within a margin of a dozen votes over ten days. Each candidate was deemed to be elected on two or three different occasions with different results. In such a situation one will end up with a result because the rules are clear.
What will happen now is that defeated candidates will challenge election results on the basis that what is produced from the electronic count is different from what would have been produced from the manual count. We will end up with demands in regard to what would happen if there were a manual count. There will have to be a paper record of what the ballot papers would have been so that there can be a manual recount where the outcome is very tight.
I made the point that we cannot allow two different counting rules to apply. We must apply the rules that currently apply for manual counting to electronic voting systems. The machine can meet the manual rule requirements as we will show in a demonstration. When the system becomes electronic across the country the rules will have to be changed in order that the new procedures will apply because the machine is able to count all the votes and calculate the percentage. We are arguing the same point, except that the Deputy says that the machine is incapable of doing this. We are using the machine because it is able to do so and must do so because it would be unconstitutional to have different counting methods in different constituencies.
This is a technical area which we could debate for a long time.
As I said in the Seanad——
One very experienced returning officer advised me that the proposed method of electronic counting will be different from the manual method. On the sub-parcels——
The machine can handle the sub-parcels. The current rules must continue to apply. We cannot authorise an election that does not comply with the rules.
The machine will establish the proportions of next preferences within sub-parcels, but will not be able to recreate the actual parcels, or bundles. At present there is a physical distribution of individual ballot papers which are taken from bundles and put into the boxes of particular candidates.
We could argue about this all day. I agree with the Deputy that the same rules must apply everywhere, but the machine is capable of performing this task. There will be a demonstration in September to which representatives will be invited in order to acquaint themselves with how it works. As I stated in the Seanad, we will not proceed with any scheme until we are completely satisfied that the software, machinery and everything else involved are capable of handling single transferable voting and that there is general confidence in the scheme. There will be many tests before the Government makes the decision to proceed. The Minister indicated that he considered initiating a pilot project in the next general election, but that is unlikely to occur because time is passing and there is much work to be done. Checking and cross-checking will be done by independent assessors and advisers from the countries where the machine is used. We want to be completely certain that it will work. Opposition representatives can view the system in operation in the Department or else special demonstrations will be organised.
I am happy that it will be the same counting system. I will wait until I see the machines——
If that were not the case, we would not buy them. The election would be void otherwise.
That is the point. I understood the Bill was being rushed in time for the next general election. As the Minister of States said there will not be trials during it, why is it being rushed?
I do not think we are.
We are.
Where is all this? It is not in my Bill on page 27 between lines seven and eight. Is it in the Bill as passed by Seanad Éireann?
Yes.
That is the one I have.
Was it an earlier version? Perhaps that will be clarified.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 30, before section 32, to insert the following new section:
32.-Section 125(3) of the Principal Act is amended by the deletion of paragraphs (c) and (d).”.
The amendment seeks to delete provisions relating to a recount, of which the first is that the returning officer shall not be obliged to recount the same parcel of papers more than once unless errors are found in the first recount, and the second is the discretion of a returning officer not to comply with a candidate's request, or that of his or her election agent, for a recount which, in the returning officer's opinion is frivolous or vexatious. I do not agree with this amendment. The returning officer must be able to proceed after one recount of a parcel of papers where no errors are found, otherwise a count could go on forever, and he or she must have discretion not to comply with frivolous or vexatious demands. These may not arise frequently, but the power to refuse to comply with wasteful recount requests must be retained to ensure counts can be completed in a reasonable time. When there is electronic counting there will be no need for recounts.
I do not know of any frivolous or vexatious requests for a recount. At an election someone seeking a recount is entitled to one. As Members are aware, even after a recount, there may still be a dispute over the ballot papers. Recently there were such cases, mostly in European elections, one of which went to court. It is better to allow candidates to call for other recounts in such circumstances than to have a complete recount or for the case to go to court.
In the recent Údurás election my candidate was deemed to be one vote behind another for the last seat. We had the original count followed by a recount. Then another candidate assisted by asking for another recount, but there was still only one vote in it. Some were convinced that if counted again there would have been a different result, but another recount was refused by the returning officer. Whether it is considered frivolous or vexatious, someone must say that enough recounts have taken place. It happened to be a sad day for us.
I attended a count which resulted in a draw. It was a student election and that was the outcome after a recount. The election had to be rerun.
Ours had a sad ending also because both the father and son were beaten in elections by one vote after recounts.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 31 line 11, after "subsection (2)", to insert "and by the deletion of subsection (2)(c)”.
The amendment seeks to repeal the provision in section 147 on displaying or distributing any notice, sign or poster other than a notice, sign or poster displayed by the returning officer, or card, circular or other document relating to the election within 100 metres of a polling station. This is wider than the proposal in section 33 to reduce the distance for election activity from 100 metres to 50 from the curtilage of a polling station. There is a demand for some sign of political activity at a polling station. The proposal in the Bill will allow it closer, but keep it at a distance in order that electors will not be subject to canvassing as they enter. I do not accept the amendment.
I wish to raise an issue in relation to this which has to do with the use of posters.
That has been dropped. Parties can erect posters as before but not within 50 metres.
The original idea that one poster could be put at the polling station is also gone.
Yes.
Then I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 31, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:
"(c) the insertion in Rule 5 of the following:
'(7) Where a registration authority proposes to publish a draft register which omits the name of a person whose name was contained on the previous register, for any reason other than the death of such person, the authority shall take reasonable steps to give written notice to the person of the proposed omission.',".
Amendment No. 33 seeks to make it a statutory obligation on a registering authority to notify a person on the register when it is proposed to delete that person's name from the new draft register or register unless that person has died. There is an existing statutory provision for this matter. The Minister has power under section 18 of the Electoral Act, 1992, to issue instructions to registration authorities in relation to the arrangements for the registration of electors so as to ensure uniformity and efficiency in the procedures to be followed by the various registration authorities. In September 1997 the Minister issued an instruction to all registration authorities requiring that where it is proposed not to include on the next year's draft register a person's name which is on the existing register a notice should issue to the person concerned informing him or her that as the registration authorities' normal inquiries failed to establish that he or she is still resident at the address he or she is currently registered at it is proposed to omit his or her name from the next year's draft register unless he or she notifies the registration authority within ten days that he or she is still residing at the address. As this statutory provision covers the content of the amendment I do not consider that the amendment is necessary. In case the instruction is not being fully complied with I will have a reminder issued to registration authorities.
Amendment No. 34 would make it mandatory on a registration authority annually to send a letter to each house or building showing the names of those currently registered at that house or building or to notify the occupier that no names were registered. As part of the process of compiling the draft register of electors the field staff of local authorities carry out inquiries, either by way of house to house calls or by making general inquiries in the locality to establish the names of persons who are eligible for inclusion in the register. Many of these inquiries are carried out after normal working hours to ensure the maximum levels of contact may be made with the occupiers of premises. Where, through these inquiries it is not possible to make personal contact or to obtain the necessary information it is usual for the enumerator to leave a voter registration application form at the premises for completion, to be sent back by free post to the local authority by the householder.
Following completion of these inquiries the draft register is published on 1 November and goes on display in various local centres until 25 November and people are encouraged to check it to see whether they have been correctly registered. A national publicity campaign is undertaken by the Department at this time to promote the draft register which is complemented by publicity by local authorities. It is questionable what benefit this amendment would bring to compiling the register, leaving aside the additional administrative work it would place on local authorities to implement. Experience suggests that the number of registration forms returned to registration authorities is but a fraction of the number given out by field staff. It is unlikely that a communication of the type suggested by the Deputy would achieve a better result.
I do not entirely agree with the Minister. I support the proposed changes in the system of registration. They will result in a more accurate register and give people easier access to registration through this sort of rolling list rather than a restrictive cut-off point at the same time every year. Nevertheless, as anybody who has ever canvassed knows, if even in the evening time one in five doors is opened one is doing very well. What really gives rise to problems is the 'general inquiries made in the locality'. There hangs a tale whereby people are taken off the register - the Fine Gael Party wants the Fianna Fáil people taken off and the Fianna Fáil Party wants the Fine Gael people off, and everybody wants the Labour people taken off. That aspect is wide open to abuse and is abused. This happens every time.
There is a public information campaign coming up to elections and to registration time encouraging people to check the register. The reality is that the vast majority of people do not do so. They assume if they were on it last year that they will be on it again. In many cases it does not matter, but when there is an election and they turn up to vote and find they are not on the register they are disenfranchised, very annoyed and always suspect that somebody removed them deliberately.
An Post will possibly be used under this new system of registration as the body responsible for the physical work of compiling the register. It has very good information regarding addresses and who lives at them etc. and is much more up to date than the local authority. An Post is well positioned to send to every home and building in the country a list of those who are registered at an address and, if there is nobody registered, to send a card to that effect. That leaves the onus on people to notify the authorities if they are not on the register or if somebody is on it who should not be on it. This would not involve any more administration than the current system which seems to be hugely inefficient and time consuming. It is outdated to have somebody wandering around trying to gain access to every house in the country and this method does not produce an accurate result. If the onus is on the household, as with the census, it would be better. This is a better system than the one that currently applies. It is one thing to tell people they are on the register but it is another thing to tell them they are not on it. It is important and essential to inform them of that.
I am certain there is an instruction to local authorities to send out a notice to people.
There is a statutory provision and instructions have been issued.
They do not seem to comply with them.
We will issue them again.
Local authorities do not appear to comply with the instruction to notify people when it is proposed to take them off the register.
If the Deputy has information in that area we will follow it up with the local authority concerned.
The instruction should be issued again and on that basis I will withdraw the amendment.
In regard to something mentioned previously there is no decision to have An Post undertake the compilation of the register. There was a general reference to options but there is a procurement procedure and there are public tenderings that have to be gone through if and when it is decided to change from the present system.
The Minister said it was an administrative nightmare to change to this kind of system but that is not the case. The technology is there and certainly An Post has it. Other bodies may have it also but the local authorities certainly do not.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 32, paragraph (f), between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:
"14C. The registration authority shall, each year at the time of updating the list of electors send to, or cause to be sent to, each house or building the names of those currently registered at that house or building or notify that no names are registered if that be the case.',".
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 32, line 35, to delete paragraph (g).
This amendment seeks to delete a small technical amendment to the Second Schedule in section 34 of the Bill concerning the receipt of applications for entry in the supplement to the register of electors. The proposed amendment in section 34 is to ensure consistency between the wording of section 15 and rule 18 which are directly linked. Section 15 provides that an application received on or after the 14th day, excluding Sundays and public holidays, before polling day is not eligible for inclusion in the supplement while the wording in rule 18 provides that an application received on or before the 14th day, excluding Sundays and public holidays, before polling is eligible for inclusion in the supplement. The section will remove the uncertainty as to the latest day for receipt of applications by registration authorities for inclusion in the supplement by making the wording in rule 18 consistent with the wording in section 15. The effect of the official amendment is that an application must be received not later than the 15th day, excluding Sundays and public holidays, before polling day in order to be eligible for inclusion in a supplement to be published for that particular poll. Effectively, it does not change the present position.
Is the Minister of State accepting the amendment?
No.
I will take his word.
Amendments Nos. 36 and 62 may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 32, before section 35, but in Part 2, to insert the following new section:
35.-After each Dáil election, after the commencement of this Act and until the next election the marked copies of the register of Dáil electors in each constituency shall be made available for public inspection in the local authority offices and public libraries within the constituency to which the register relates and subsequently maintained in the national archives.".
This amendment deals with the treatment of the marked register after an election. I understand the current situation is that marked registers are available for inspection up to six months after a general election and presume it is the same after local elections. I have been a public representative for many years and did not know that a marked register was available. Likewise I am sure many members of the public are unaware that such a register is available and may be inspected by them. In the interests of openness and transparency I am suggesting that it should be available for public inspection in the offices of the local authority and public libraries within the constituency in the case of Dáil elections and electoral areas in the case of local elections.
In this era of openness and transparency as much information as possible about the electoral process should be available. The media, academics and the public are far more interested in the electoral process than in the policy content which precedes an election. It is a little like the Eurovision Song Contest where viewers watch the voting, but not the performances. Certainly, it is much more interesting for politicians. The voting process is of intense interest in Ireland. From a practical point of view, this would be a wonderful deterrent to anyone attempting personation if they knew that subsequently the rightful owner of the vote could be made aware of who was using it. It would be a wonderful incentive to exercise one's franchise.
I hope the Minister of State will consider the amendment. It would not do any damage and has nothing to do with the secrecy of the ballot.
The availability of the marked register raises some data protection issues. The register of electors, as published, is outside the scope of section 1(4) of the Data Protection Act, 1998. The question arises as to whether the status of the register changes when marked at a poll. Is the drawing of a line through the elector's name equivalent to adding information of a personal nature to the register, that is, that the person voted at the poll or, indirectly, has not voted? If so, does the holder of the marked register become a data controller and are there any restrictions on him or her supplying a copy to any person seeking it?
The Department is awaiting the observations of the Data Protection Commissioner on this matter. If the Data Protection Act, 1998, does not apply to the marked copy of the register because it is a paper document, the new Data Protection Bill which will implement EU Directive 95/46/EC, may apply to it as Article 7 provides that personal data may only be processed if the data's subject has unambiguously given his or her consent. Article 12 provides that where data are collected from a data subject, the data subject must be informed of the purpose for which that data will be used.
The question will have to be considered whether the voter should be informed that the marked register will be made public and whether he or she should be entitled to have his or her name excluded from such a marked register that is made public. As I am aware, the public is generally unaware that public representatives and others inspect the marked register and thus it is a matter to which it may object. It might encourage a further reduction in turn-out.
The concern is the use of the marked register and a tally at the count centre could possibly lead indirectly to a person surmising or discovering a voter's marked preference on a ballot paper, especially where the number of ballot papers in a ballot box or the number of electors is low. As a consequence, the provision in section 28 provides that a ballot box with 50 ballot papers or less must be opened in the presence of, but away from, agents in order that the preference on the ballot papers cannot be read. The concern is minimised at present by the statutory prohibition on access to counting of ballot papers as provided for in section 129 of the Electoral Act, 1992.
Many Members will appreciate that the use of the marked register and information from each voting matching in the context of electronic voting raises serious questions about the secrecy of the ballot. The matter is under consideration by the Attorney General and pending his advice, I ask that the amendments not be pressed as I cannot accept them at this stage. Perhaps the Deputy would wish to withdraw and resubmit them on Report Stage.
I will be more than willing to do so. Is the Minister of State saying that even without the amendment this is a problem - a problem about the current availability of the marked register - as a result of the Data Protection Act?
Yes.
Quite apart from the amendment?
That has been considered
I withdraw that.
How does the Data Protection Act apply to this? Registers were compiled long before there were computerised records.
It is a different document when it is marked. That is the point.
It is not marked——
There is personal information on it.
It is not personal and that is the issue.
That is what the Attorney General thought.
It is the citizens' exercise of what is essentially a public function. People go to a public place to vote.
It is part of the overall question of the secrecy of the ballot.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 32, before section 35, but in Part 2, to insert the following new section:
"35.-No opinion poll shall be taken or published in the 7 day period prior to any election or referendum and no opinion poll whatsoever shall be published in the 7 day period prior to any election or referendum.".
This is about public opinion polling. I thought my amendment stated "no public opinion poll". It should read "no public opinion poll", which is slightly different from "no opinion poll".
You submitted the word "public", did you?
Yes, it should read: "No public opinion poll shall be taken or published in the 7 day period prior to any election or referendum and no opinion poll whatsoever shall be published in the 7 day period prior to any election or referendum." I am allowing for the fact that candidates or parties may wish to take private opinion polls but they should not be in a position to publish them. They can take them for their own use.
The practice of publishing opinion polls very close to an election undermines the whole voting process by seeking to second-guess what the public will do. There is no doubt that predictions can be self-fulfilling and to that extent they may distort the process of an election. Even if the people are subject to several opinion polls, there has to be some point in the run-up to an election when they are left to make up their own minds and to decide for themselves without the benefit of being told how other people are voting. That is critical.
For instance, if I was voting for Deputy Gilmore and somebody else was voting for Deputy Ó Caoláin, to be told that everyone was voting for Deputy Gilmore would make me think that he must be the best and that I will vote for him. That is not the way people should be led. They may be far too sophisticated to be led in that direction but I do not think it is a good idea to second-guess and we should leave it to the people at some point to make up their own minds.
We have all seen the impact opinion polls can have on public opinion and elections and referenda are too important to manipulate by way of opinion polls.
I support Deputy Mitchell's amendment on this issue. I recall some years ago there was a Government proposal to have a moratorium on opinion polls seven days prior to an election or a referendum. I recall supporting that proposal at the time and being subjected to a rather critical editorial in a newspaper as a result. Newspapers of course have a vested interest in having opinion polls. They are good copy and sell papers. To be fair the opinion polling service that is being provided through the newspapers and the polling agencies is a very valuable one in our political system. However, the problem is that when such a poll is published very close to an election, it has an influence on the outcome of the election, and nothing in my time in politics has changed my view on this.
An opinion poll was published yesterday on the Tipperary South by-election. It would be interesting to see to what extent that opinion poll influences the outcome of the election. It would be interesting to see how close the outcome will be to the opinion poll. Publication of that poll will have an impact on the outcome for different candidates for different reasons, but I do not want to go into that now.
As an example of the kind of thing that can be influenced by an opinion poll, in the latter stages of the last general election campaign, it seemed that some voters had not made up their minds how to vote but were going to vote for what they perceived as a stable Government. What they did not want was a Government supported by Independents, which was what they got. They wanted one of the two options on offer at the time, the outgoing rainbow Government or the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats arrangement, and they wanted it to be definitive. An opinion poll was published in one of the newspapers about three days before the election, which claimed that the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats option would win, even though I do not believe we ever saw the raw data for that claim. I think that influenced some voters before the last election. It was not a huge number, but it does not need to be a huge number to affect marginal results.
In the last critical week of an election, the opinion pollsters should stay out of the ring and leave it to the contestants and the electorate. I support the proposal made by Deputy Olivia Mitchell. There will be screams of anguish, particularly from sections of the media, which undertake opinion polling, but this needs to be viewed as protecting the independence and integrity of the electoral process rather than providing an opportunity for good copy, which of course opinion polls are.
I accept the arguments I have heard from the Opposition Deputies and I assume they are speaking for their parties, Fine Gael and Labour. As a matter of clarification, did Deputy Mitchell say 14 days when she submitted the amendment originally?
I changed it several times. On reflection, I realised that 14 days was too long. I have the final copy here and I can read it if the Minister wishes.
I have it here
I am distinguishing between public opinion polls and private opinion polls. I am excluding the publication of any kind of opinion poll, but I am not stopping private parties taking them in the last week if they want to, so long as they are not published.
Are we back to what is corporate and what is not corporate?
No, an individual candidate could take one too. I can simplify it to say: "No opinion poll whatsoever shall be published." Perhaps that would be easier.
If they are taken there is a danger that they will appear somewhere even if it is only in some minor publication.
Yes, but they do not have the same force as a headline in a newspaper that Joe Soap took a poll in his constituency and found he was going to win. That does not have the same force as MRBI taking a poll.
Obviously, the wording must be in compliance with the wishes of the parliamentary office. I accept the principle behind the proposal and I will bring forward an amendment on Report Stage along the lines which appear to be generally agreed here.
I thank the Minister of State for that commitment.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 32, before section 35, but in Part 2, to insert the following new section:
35.-Each polling station on the day of a Dáil or local election shall make available for inspection a copy of the register of electors for the entire constituency in the case of a Dáil election or for the entire local authority area in the case of a local election.".
This amendment is intended to assist voters. People often turn up at a polling station and find they are not registered there, although they may have lived in the constituency, and have no way of checking if they are registered elsewhere in the constituency. In Dublin, people tend to move within the constituency when they move house or apartment. I have had the experience of people inquiring if there is any way of finding out if they are on the register in, for instance, Rathfarnham rather than Ballinteer. It would not be a great burden on the presiding officer to have a copy of the register for the entire constituency available for inspection at each polling station. In the case of local elections, the register for the relevant local electoral area should be available for inspection, rather than just the list for the individual polling station.
Presumably, if this was accepted, the presiding officer or poll clerk would be expected to handle queries about this register from electors and others on the premises. This work would distract election staff from their duties and could adversely impact on their ability to take the poll in accordance with the law. It is important that the staff are not distracted so they can concentrate on the possibility of personation. Presiding officers are instructed that, where there are queries concerning registration, the person should contact the local authority. I am not aware of any demand or interest on the part of voters to inspect the register for the whole constituency or local electoral area when they attend at a polling station to vote. At each polling station, a poster giving the range of electoral numbers appearing on the register of electors who are entitled to vote at that station is on display. If it is intended to be of benefit to candidates, they are entitled, under electoral law, to receive from the registration authority a copy of the register for the constituency or local electoral area, as the case may be, free of charge. The register of electors for any locality is available for inspection at various local centres, such as post offices, public libraries, Garda stations and courthouses, as well as local authority offices. Personating agents present on behalf of candidates can have a copy of the register with them. At a distance of 50 metres from the entrance to the polling stations, there are usually people with the register in their possession. We should not distract the presiding officer or poll clerk from their important work.
There are not always people on duty at the 50 metre limit. I am not making a strong issue of this but I am aware of many instances of people turning up at the wrong polling station.
Anybody trained by the late Deputy Neil Blaney would have each polling station manned, at the appropriate legal distance, by people equipped with the full list pasted on cardboard and ready for any inquiries.
My point is that those people are no longer available at polling stations.
The political parties can arrange that. Personating agents can be present inside the polling stations.
The Minister of State is very fortunate if his party can cover all polling stations in that way. Not all parties find it easy to do so.
I regret I am unable to accept the Deputy's amendment. It would be far too onerous an imposition on the presiding officer or the poll clerk. Is the Deputy suggesting that a third official be employed?
Perhaps a member of the Gárda Síochána? No, I withdraw the amendment.
What I have to say on this section will apply to a number of other sections which I am also opposing. I already raised this on Second Stage. The introduction of electronic voting, in the form proposed in this Bill, is premature. While I agree with moving to electronic voting, we should do so at a time when it widens the opportunities for people to vote such as, for example, enabling people to vote at locations other than the conventional polling stations we now have, enabling people to vote while they are away from home or, indeed, enabling people to vote from home. In the context of developing technology, I believe we are not very far from those possibilities. It is a mistake to proceed with what is really "a bit of both worlds" - a system which is partly manual and partly electronic voting somehow married together. I do not see the point of this. If, as will be the case, we still require people to attend at polling stations, require fixed opening times for polling stations and if all the apparatus associated with manual voting is still in place, what is the added advantage of putting electronic machines into polling stations? It will simply add a degree of confusion to the voting process. It will not necessarily speed up anything, although it may ultimately speed up counts. As the Minister of State has acknowledged, even the trial runs will not be in position for the next general election. There is also a possible issue as to whether it is constitutional to have electronic voting in one constituency and not in another.
I am not making a case against electronic voting, of which I am in favour. My concern is that what is being proposed here is a sort of electronic add-on to what will, essentially, remain a manual voting system. If we still have polling stations, with people going in and names being checked off the register as it has always been done, the only change is that people will be directed to a booth in which there is a machine. If that is the only change as far as the voting process is concerned, people may as well get the ballot paper and mark it as heretofore, rather than marking it on a screen. We are creating a system which, with the best will in the world, will be open to error. It is not yet refined. First, we have to get the machinery. That has to be tested. Then we have to have trials, which will not be in time for the next general election. At the earliest, the system might be in place for an election by about the middle of this decade. By that stage, I believe the technology will have moved on to the point where people may have a wider range of secure options available as to where they actually vote. We would do better to hold fire on the introduction of electronic voting until we can go the full distance, until we can use electronic voting methods to liberate people - and liberate the electoral system - from the handicaps which are part and parcel of the current physically fixed voting arrangements.
On this section, I have outlined my opposition to various sections, which I do not propose to repeat on each following section. I wish to make my argument while we are discussing the first of these sections. By indicating my opposition to this section, I am demonstrating my opposition to the introduction of this measure before we are ready to fully accept electronic voting.
My initial reaction to the Deputy's comments is confusion regarding the behaviour of the Labour Party. When I was in the Seanad, the Labour Party opposed the introduction of electronic voting and direct vote recording. Senators explained that we should not make any change as it would be too confusing and older people would not be able to handle it. Deputy Gilmore is against direct vote recording as proposed as he thinks we are not moving far enough technologically and that we should wait for something much more advanced, for example, something people could pull out of their pocket to cast a vote. The Deputy suggests there should be no new procedures whatever.
I cannot afford to wait for the Labour Party to make up its mind regarding the Government's firm proposal. At an acceptable cost, an electronic system will be put in place to replace manual voting and counting procedures. The new system will be simple to use and experience has shown that the elderly have not had great difficulty with it. Am I correct in believing that Deputy Gilmore has seen the equipment and tried it out?
I have seen it, but I am not impressed.
The Deputy had an opportunity to use this system, which is as simple as an ATM and easy for electoral staff to use. The integrity of the electoral process will be assured for both the electorate and candidates. The count software can correctly apply the single transferable vote system and will provide improved efficiency in electoral administration. It is a reliable and robust form of technology, suitable for Irish electoral conditions. A minimum level of maintenance will be required before, during and after elections. Results will emerge soon after the conclusion of polling, which will eliminate the tortuous counting of votes we have experienced, with counts lasting two or three days and sometimes up to a week. To use such a system will send the positive image the Government is anxious to promote in relation to the development and use of technology.
My Department has conducted extensive research into available technologies, including holding an international tender competition. A Dutch and British company, Nedap-Powervote, was chosen in December 2000 to deliver anelectronic system for Ireland, subject to success-ful testing and satisfactory contractual arrangements. The company will provide a large screen machine that has been used in the Netherlands and in Cologne and Du1sseldorf in Germany. Election preparation and completion of the count will be carried out on a standard PC and programming unit. The Government's proposal, as outlined in this Bill, is the best way forward for the introduction of electronic voting. It is a major step forward. I do not think we should wait for more advanced technology to emerge, as in such an event there would still be people incapable of operating it and polling stations would still be required. I stand by the case I have made.
The Minister made the same information available to the House on Second Stage. I am greatly alarmed by the Government's identification of a supplier of equipment for electronic voting before the legislation permitting electronic voting has been enacted by the Oireachtas. Have any contractual arrangements been entered into or any costs incurred? If so, on what authority was this done as no legislation allowing electronic voting has been passed? I do not see why officials should be sent to speak to companies about the supply of equipment to facilitate a measure that has not yet been approved.
There is nothing inconsistent about the Labour Party's position on this matter. We opposed these sections of the Bill in the Seanad and we oppose them now. It is possible in both Houses to elaborate on arguments that are made and to make additional arguments. I believe that many elderly people, and some who are not elderly, will be uncomfortable with the use of voting machines, particularly those experienced in using a ballot paper. This will phase out over time as people become more comfortable with the use of electronic equipment in a range of areas. I will not labour the point, except to say that the measures in these sections of the Bill are unnecessary, represent a waste of money and will be overtaken in time.
There is great potential for the use of the electronic media in the political process, including at elections and for plebiscites and other methods of direct consultation. It will not be long before Internet connections are universally available, particularly with the onset of digital television and the increasing inter-connection between the Internet, television and telephones. It is only a matter of time before people are electronically connected. There is great potential for consultation and for information being provided on a public service basis. We should look at electronic voting in such terms so that a system can be established based on an anticipation of where technology is going.
We are hearing a pretence as the same old system is being left in place. As always, there will be 18 or 20 polling stations and a voter will be sent a card telling him or her to go to a school to cast a vote within defined hours. Voters have to present themselves at the polling station to have their name scratched off the register. They are pointed in the direction of a wooden box at which they can vote. The only thing that will be different will be that instead of being given a ballot paper on which preferences can be marked, it will be done on a machine. The rigmarole of discs being removed from the voting machine and taken to the count will follow. We will not have same-day polling on the islands, despite this marvellous new age about which we are so anxious to impress everyone. This provision is premature and I would like the Minister to respond to my questions regarding commitments in relation to equipment that have been entered into. The presumption that underlies the tendering process is that the Oireachtas will rubber-stamp this legislation.
The only contract that has been entered into is a contract for the purchase of six voting machines, including hardware and software for the counting of votes. It is proposed to proceed with electronic voting in four phases, the first of which is the purchase of the machines and software. Testing will begin in late 2001 and is expected to take six to nine months.
In phase two, subject to satisfactory testing of the voting machines and count software, and Government approval for the use of the equipment at an actual election, 300 voting machines with software will be purchased. These will be used for a Dáil election in 2002 or at a referendum, if any, from 2002 onwards. If a general election is held prior to 2002 the pilot use of the system will be during the European and local elections in 2004 for which an additional 1,200 voting units will be purchase. Quantities of units purchased may increase or decrease. A review will take place after each phase.
If there is a poll at the presidential election in October 2004, phase three will mean the purchase of a further 300 voting units. The quantities may increase or decrease. Phase four will be a review at the end of 2004 for the post-2004 period. If it is decided to extend the system to the entire country the total requirements would be approximately 8,000 voting units - including phases one to three - and including the necessary count software. Again, quantities may increase or decrease. There will be a review after each projected phase and any adjustments or changes deemed necessary will be put into effect.
By the middle of the decade we will have 8,000 of these machines. By that stage they will be out of date. What will we have spent on this system?
The Deputy makes sweeping statements as though they were facts. It is not factual to say they will be out of date. The Deputy does not know that.
How low can the cost be for 8,000 machines?
The estimated cost is £25 million.
We will spend £25 million of taxpayers money to buy machines, which I predict will be out of date by the time the purchase is completed. People will look back and ask why on earth we spent £25 million on machines that will have to be thrown out because we will be in an age when one can use one's swipecard to log on to election 2006. Happily, by then we will have a different Government and I predict it will undo all of that.
The commitment made so far is for the purchase of six machines with the hardware and software. It will be reviewed as we proceed. No foolish decisions will be made.
Amendments Nos. 39, 40 and 48 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 33, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) No equipment may be approved for the purposes of subsection (1) unless a full technical description of the said equipment (including all source code and information regarding independent testing and verification relating thereto) has been laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas and a resolution approving a draft of the order approving the said equipment has been passed by each such House.".
Having lost the——
Is that the amendment we were discussing?
No, we were discussing the section. We were discussing section 35 and are now at section 36.
We are now onto the fallback position.
Having lost the question of whether this should proceed, I propose that no equipment should be approved until a full technical description of that equipment, and all information relating to it and to independent testing, is laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas and a resolution approving the order is passed. It seems that in principle we are going ahead with electronic voting and the Minister kindly outlined the different phases and stages proposed. It should be applied only with the approval of the Houses of the Oireachtas. The introduction of this in individual constituencies or generally should not be left to ministerial order. We are talking here about major changes in the practice of voting and the Houses of the Oireachtas should give the approval.
Are we discussing them all again, not just amendment No. 39?
We are also discussing your amendments, amendments Nos. 40 and 48.
I support electronic voting and, like Deputy Gilmore I think it a pitythat a country which likes to see itself as thee-commerce hub of the universe cannot make that extra leap to the next generation of technology. There seems to be an inordinate amount of manual lifting, carrying and fetching involved when the technology is already there to allow us to cut out all of that. I still support it because it provides for this future step. I am not sure how much it costs to carry out a count but we should introduce this promptly or not at all.
There is an inaccuracy in the typing in amendment 40(2)(a) where the first word of the second last line states “at which candidates where elected or eliminated”. What I submitted was “at which candidates were elected or eliminated”.
The thrust of both amendments, deduced from what the Bill proposes, is my worry. This move to better technology will result in the availability of less information about the voting process. That would be very regrettable. Earlier, I cited the old Eurovision Song Contest syndrome where what is of interest to the public is the voting. It is valuable to researchers, academics, politicians and to the public generally. All the information that can be gathered about the voting process and the deductions that can be made from it is an important part of our electoral process. We are losing much of the excitement and the interest in elections. That is the result of various changes, both good and bad, from the people outside the polling stations - who added a certain buzz and interest - to the different method of voting. Now the voting will be over in half an hour. All these things are happening for various reasons but it would be a pity to accept a lower level of information.
With amendment No. 48 I may be going a step to far. It is a pity the information from the tallies will no longer be available. Under the system, once all the disks are in the machine instead of doing a first count vote, box by box or even polling station by polling station, all the votes will be mixed. It will be no longer possible to tell what percentage of the vote anybody gets in a particular polling station. That might not be of riveting importance to the public, but it is of riveting importance to candidates, political parties and academics. I could live with that, but amendment No. 40 is important because it is not at all clear that this kind of information will be available. It is absolutely vital. I recognise that the mixing of votes is fairer because when one gets to the distribution of surpluses after the first count one gets a mix.
However, it is not clear if the information available about the result of every count, including the way in which that result came about as a consequence of distribution and eliminations, will be made available to the public. It is possible that it will be available, but that remains unclear. This amendment will ensure that no system is introduced which would provide us with less information than we can currently deduce from the manual system of voting. The thrust of the amendment is that such information should be made available to candidates and the public in the normal way as soon as practicable.
Amendment No. 39 proposes a new subsection to section 36 to provide that the Minister would not be able to approve of voting system equipment under subsection (1) until a draft ministerial order is passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, including the laying before both Houses of technical documentation. To elaborate on my earlier comments, before the end of July 2001 my Department will finalise two documents, one on the function and specification for the voting machines to be used in this country, the other on requirements for voting machines for use in Ireland. Both will be public documents and will be sent to the Library. The specifications for the software of the election management system to be used for the voting machine will also be made available.
The voting machine will be tested by two internationally recognised institutes in Holland and Germany and their reports will be made public. These institutes are being engaged because both are familiar with the machine, having tested other versions of it used in Holland and Germany. The software used in the voting system equipment and for the PRSTV count rules will be reviewed by an independent software firm. Only after the receipt of such reports will the Minister seek Government approval for the use of the new systems at elections.
All reports will be available and will be lodged in the Library. It is not necessary to bring a draft ministerial order before both Houses as the voting machine is not a new development. The machine chosen has been used successfully for many years in Holland and for a few years in Germany. It has a successful track record. The modifications, including the software, will be certified by two international test institutes. The PR single transferable vote software will implement existing counting rules and its architectural structure will be reviewed by an independent third party. During the autumn, when testing of the machine and its software will be conducted, the Minister will invite representatives of the political parties and party spokespersons to be represented on the group carrying out such tests. In view of this, the procedure will be an open one and I suggest the Deputy withdraws the amendment.
On amendment No. 48, the information referred to will be provided at the end of each count. I will provide for the issue of a full set of tables for each count under instructions to be issued under section 36(4). There will be much more information available than under the current manual system.
Amendment No. 40 refers to the tallyman count. Electoral law is silent on the tallyman's count which is a by-product of the oversight role conferred on candidates' agents at elections. Section 113(3) of the Electoral Act, 1992, provides that the returning officer must give candidates' agents reasonable facilities for overseeing proceedings at the count, particularly in ensuring that ballot papers are correctly sorted, and must give them all information about the proceedings that is consistent with the orderly conduct of the count and the performance of his or her functions. Section 114(2) provides that the returning officer must, on request, allow candidates' agents to copy the reconciliation of ballot paper accounts, that is, the comparison between the presiding officer's figure of the number of ballot papers placed in each ballot box during the poll and the number of ballot papers found in each box at the count centre. Accordingly, as the returning officer's staff count the number of ballot papers found in each box, tallymen can quickly scan each ballot paper for its preference as they are sorted into bundles.
Co-operation between political parties enables a broadly accurate figure to be tallied to the number of first preferences cast for each candidate in each box, and thus in each district, before the ballot papers are mixed and the count proper starts. The tallyman's count gives political parties valuable information on voting trends in each district form one election to the next. However, it is often criticised for its potential to subvert the secrecy of the ballot, a principle enshrined in the constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1971 case of McMahon versus the Attorney General.
The threat to the secrecy of the ballot is more marked in districts with small numbers of electors, including islands, and in cases of low turnout. As with the existing law, the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 2000, which provides in Part III for the introduction of direct vote recording and electronic vote counting, is silent on the tallyman's count in the context of electronic voting and counting. The current proposals envisage the electronic reconciliation of ballot paper accounts with votes in ballot cartridges. Essentially, the count software will extract the total number of votes recorded in each ballot cartridge and insert it in a reconciliation table on the PC. A statement would be made available on the reconciliation, the same as at present under section 114(2) of the Electoral Act, 1992.
Part III of the Electoral (Amendment) Act, 2000, prohibits access to the cartridges containing the record of preferences of the votes in the same manner as the current prohibition of access to ballot papers. The amendment seeks that the electronic counting system provides comparable information to that obtained by the tallymen at a manual count, that is, first preference votes cast on the ballot paper, displayed on a voting machine from each voting machine.
The big difference between the electronic system and the tallyman is that the information will be factual and 100% accurate in contrast to the tallyman's information which, while generally reasonably accurate for the first preferences, is still an estimate with no statutory backing. If the amendment was inserted in Part III of the Bill, it would be the first time that making such information available publicly would have a statutory basis. A statutory provision that information on voter preferences on ballot papers be publicly available would be a new and radical measure. The possession by a third party of a marked copy of the register of electors together with the data on vote preferences in electronic format, especially with the availability of sophisticated software, could present a substantial risk to the inviolable secrecy of the ballot.
As I indicated when discussing amendmentNo. 36, committee members will appreciate that the use of the marked register and information from each voting machine raises serious questions about the secrecy of the ballot. However, the matter is under consideration by the Attorney General and, pending his advice, I ask that the amendments will not be pressed as I cannot accept them at this stage. I suggest Deputies resubmit them on Report Stage when that advice is available. This issue was raised in the Seanad.
I did not realise that. I anticipated the Minister's response to amendmentNo. 48. It is a pity we end up having less information than previously as a result of an improvement in technology. While I realise the information was unofficial, it added to the political process. Is the Minister saying that amendment No. 40 can be accommodated somewhere in this four stage process?
It is possible to get the information from the machine.
Does the Minister accept the amendment?
The Attorney General has been asked to give an opinion on the matter with regard to the secrecy of the ballot and constitutional requirements.
I will withdraw my amendment and resubmit it on Report Stage. I will also withdraw amendment No. 48.
I move amendment No. 41.
In page 33, lines 16 to 19, to delete subsection (2).
I feel quite strongly about this amendment. Provisionally the Bill provides that the Minister may, by order, designate a constituency or constituencies in which voting machines and electronic voting systems will be used in elections to the Dáil. In circumstances in which electronic voting will be used in some constituencies and manual voting in others, the decision on the selection of constituencies should not be at the discretion of the Minister.
I question the constitutionality of any election in which one system of voting is used in some constituencies and a different one in others. There should be a consistent system of voting in all constituencies. It would be unconstitutional to have an election with electronic methods in one area while there is a manual system in others. Even if it is constitutional, it is inherently unfair and the fact that the selection of constituencies where electronic voting will take place will be done by the Minister has huge potential for electoral bias. The selection of constituencies should be done by an independent process. I propose that subsection (2) of this section be deleted.
The subsection is essential so that this can be introduced on a gradual basis. Somebody has to decide where it will be first used and I see no difficulty with the Minister making the decision. His order will be laid before the Oireachtas and if a Member does not agree he can raise the matter.
If it comes before the Oireachtas, the only option open to Members will be to seek to have it reversed within 21 days. Is there advice available to the Minister in regard to the constitutionality of having manual voting in some constituencies and electronic voting in others?
The Bill has been through the Attorney General's office.
I appreciate that, but has the Attorney General been asked this specific question?
The Attorney General is familiar with the contents of the Bill and has not raised any question of constitutional difficulties arising from the point the Deputy is making.
I believe this provision is unconstitutional.
We will ask the Attorney General.
I do not believe it is constitutional to have machines in one constituency and manual voting in others, and it makes matters worse if it is the Minister who decides on the constituencies.
I will refer the matter and get an opinion for Report Stage.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 33, subsection (4), line 27, after "Part" to insert "including arrangements for alternative means of voting and of counting of votes in the event of failure of voting machines or constituency vote counting machines where either failure would hinder the casting or counting of an elector's vote".
I feel like a troglodyte putting this amendment on the assumption that there will be machine failure. I put it down as a fail-safe measure. I assume that such a provision will be made and will render this amendment redundant. I would welcome assurance from the Minister on this issue. There may be circumstances where there are electrical storms, power failures and so on.
This amendments seeks to provide an alternative arrangement in the event of failure of the electronic voting system. If a voting machine breaks down, the procedure will be to replace it from a stock of spare machines that will be strategically located throughout the constituency.
I hope it is not an island.
Where there are two or more machines in a polling station there will be no difficulty in waiting for a replacement.
Barring fog.
Do the Deputies want the answer? The Deputies appear to be very amused about the islands. If there is only one machine in a polling station, a short interval may occur while a new machine is delivered. The incidence of voting machine breakdown is extremely rare. The location of the spare machine will have to be considered by the returning officer. The votes on a machine which has broken down are safe and cannot be deleted from the cartridge in the machine. Alternative arrangements will be made in the event of computer failure at a count centre. In the case of power failure there will be a battery operated system to fall back on.
The Minister has all sides covered.
It is beginning to sound more like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. If the electricity fails, there will be a back-up battery - there could even be a generator. No provision has been made for generators.
I am surprised the Deputy has a difficulty with modern technology or the information technology area.
The Minister described what happens if the machine breaks down - a garda will be sent to find a spare machine - but what happens to the people who have turned up to vote. If the machine failed at 6.30 p.m. in Shankill and there was a spare machine in Sallynoggin, what happens to the people who are waiting to vote? Are they told to go home and come back later or do they queue up outside?
The aim is to provide a quality service and these matters have been taken into consideration. There is more planning to be done before the system is in use for an election. The intention is that the machines would be available in 15 minutes - that is the standard to be laid down. The machines are not expensive and there will be a substantial number of spare machines available in each district. We could be here all day ridiculing the system - there would never have been a moon landing if everyone persisted in saying what about this and that. It is necessary to provide for all eventualities at the planning stage.
My amendment seeks to provide a back-up plan.
That is part of the system.
Amendments Nos. 43, 45 and 47 are related and they may be taken together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 40, lines 47 and 48 and in page 41, lines 1 and 2, to delete subsection (2).
These amendments seek to delete subsection (2), which states that an election shall not be questioned on the grounds that the statements to be produced at the opening and closing of the poll are not produced due to a malfunction of the printer in the machine. If there is a malfunction of the voting machine printer, the information on the printed statement will be read from the machine display unit and entered on a blank form by the presiding officer. The Minister will cover this matter under instruction to be issued under section 36(4). This provision permits the Minister to issue instructions in relation to voting and vote counting as he or she considers necessary or expedient to ensure efficient voting and vote counting and to secure a uniformity of procedures under part 3 of the Bill.
My concern arises out of my general lack of confidence in the system proposed. It is almost impossible to anticipate all the things that can go wrong with this process. I will not press amendment No. 43. The Minister of State has indicated a number of issues to which he will return on Report Stage. Report Stage is proposed to be very short so the debate will have to take place elsewhere. On the matters to be returned to on Report Stage, will the Minister of State provide us with the information pertaining to them in advance? I fear we will not complete the Bill on Report Stage.
I will consider that.
With regard to my concerns about printer malfunctions etc., the Minister is saying they will be covered by way of instruction or guidance from the Minster of State. Will those instructions be laid before the House or put on public record when they are issued or proposed to be issued?
I expect that to happen. Under section 36, the Minster has authority to ensure there are instructions concerning the efficient operation of the system. I do not foresee circumstances in which it would be necessary to keep the instructions secret, if requested.
I withdraw the amendment.
There will be a lot of cross-party discussion on the issue before it reaches the stage at which it will be brought into effect.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 41, lines 28 and 29, to delete subsection (5).
Did we not discuss this amendment?
No. We discussed amendments Nos. 45 and 47.
The Bill provides that a voter will indicate his preference for candidates on the machine and press a vote button. Subsection (4) states: "Where an elector fails to cast his or her vote by pressing the vote button on the machine, the presiding officer shall de-activate the voting machine without approaching the voting machine." If a voter exercises his or her preference but does not press the vote button on the machine, the presiding officer automatically cancels the vote and the voter cannot re-apply for a vote under subsection (5). The voter will have no opportunity to say that he or she did not understand the process and request another chance. In such cases, the vote is not recorded anyway. Therefore, there is no question of the voter getting a second vote. That voter should be allowed to vote if he or she got confused on the first opportunity.
Subsection (5) expressly states "an elector shall not be entitled to re-apply to vote". That is unfair and it will cause a lot of frustration. People will feel they are being prevented from voting. The provision should be deleted. The voter should be able to tell the presiding officer that he or she was not able to operate the machine and requires another chance.
This amendment proposes to delete subsection (5), which provides that if an elector leaves a polling station without pressing the vote confirm button, he or she will not be permitted to re-apply to vote as the voting machine will be deactivated. The key phrase is "leaves a polling station". The operator at the control unit for the voting machine will be alerted when a voter casts the vote cast button by a bleep from the machine and a counter on the unit will increase by one. Publicity for the voter and instructions at the polling station and on the machine will include the necessity to press the vote cast button. At present, if a voter leaves a polling station without putting his or her paper in the ballot box, for whatever reason, he or she would not be entitled to re-apply for another ballot paper. If he or she walks out of the polling station——
If a ballot paper is spoiled by an elector, he or she is entitled to another ballot paper.
The same provision applies in the case of electronic voting. If a person spoils a vote, he or she can cancel it and start again.
Deputy Gilmore thinks he cannot cancel it.
Not after he or she presses the vote button.
Before the vote button is pressed, if the elector wants to change his decision, he can cancel and begin again.
This is where he or she does not——
This is where he or she leaves the polling station.
That is not the way I read it. Section 41(3) states that to cast one's vote one must make an on-screen selection and then press the vote button on the machine in the booth. It states, "He or she shall vote without undue delay and shall leave the polling station as soon as he or she has voted." That is fine as far as the person who votes is concerned. I am most concerned about section 41(5) which is governed by 41(4) which reads, "Where an elector fails to cast his or her vote by pressing the vote button on the machine, the presiding officer shall de-activate the voting machine without approaching the voting machine." If the voter does not press the vote button, the presiding officer, without approaching the voting machine to see what is wrong, can deactivate it. That is the end of that person's vote as under section 41(5) he or she cannot apply to vote again. The amendment deals with voters who are still at the machine in the polling station, but have not pressed the vote button.
If the voter walks away from the machine——
That is not what it states.
——without having pressed the vote button, the presiding officer will see that the vote has not been registered - the bleep will not sound - and can tell the person concerned. If he or she leaves the polling station and returns saying he or she not pressed the vote button, the presiding officer has to deactivate the machine.
There will be many bleeps of the non-electronic kind at polling stations if this provision remains in place. There will be voters in the polling station who will have failed to press vote button and the presiding officer will have cancelled their vote. There will be presiding officers who will be over enthusiastic in carrying out their duties. There should be an entitlement to reapply where the voter is still in the polling station. I accept what the Minister of State says, that if someone leaves the polling station without voting, he or she has little recourse. If, however, a person is still at the machine in the polling station, particularly at the point where it is deactivated, he or she should be entitled to reapply for his or her vote.
Is the Minister of State giving us a full and absolute assurance that the person who has not pressed the vote button and not left the polling station, can start the process again?
The presiding officer will not deactivate the machine until the person concerned has left the premises. He can inform him or her that his or her vote has not been registered because the bleep will not sound, or if he or she comes to the presiding officer and says that he or she cannot handle the process or has done something wrong——
According to the subsection, if he or she has not pressed the vote button, the presiding officer will automatically cancel the vote.
If the person concerned is still in the building and the presiding officer is not made so aware, he or she will see that the vote has not been registered. If the person has left the building, the presiding officer cannot bring him or her back and give him or her his or her vote. If he or she is still in the building, the presiding officer can draw his or her attention to the matter and he or she can go back and vote because the machine will not have been deactivated. The presiding officer will not allow a queue to form at the machine. Voters go to the presiding officer before they go to the polling booth and he or she will be able to tell if a person did or did not vote. He or she can tell the person concerned that he or she has not voted. If he or she walks outs of the building, he or she cannot come back in and say he or she did not vote.
In such a case is there an obligation on the presiding officer to alert the person concerned? What will happens if the presiding officer does not alert him or her that he or she has not voted? What training will presiding officers receive for this new system? Will they be specially trained compared to those trained under the old system?
Initially, responsibility will lie with the voter. The instructions in the polling booth will be very clear regarding the necessity to press the vote button - that they will have voted only when they have done that.
Will responsibility lie with the voter rather than the presiding officer?
It is the voter's responsibility to exercise his or her rights. If someone goes to a voting booth, reads the names on the ballot paper, decides that he or she does not want to vote for any of them, folds the ballot paper and puts it in the ballot box, it is not the presiding officer's job to make sure he or she has written on the ballot paper.
There is a distinct difference with a ballot paper. If a vote is spoiled, the voter can go to the presiding officer and tell himor her that he or she has spoiled the ballot paper. He or she can then be issued with a new ballot paper.
That can also be done with the machine. If the person concerned does not want to proceed with his or her preferences, he or she can cancel and start again.
I move amendment No. 63:
In page 82, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
"(c) in section 52:
(i) by the deletion of 'five' in paragraph (a) and the substitution therefor of ’8’,
(ii) by the deletion of 'eleven' in paragraph (b) and the substitution therefor of ’9’,
(iii) by the deletion of 'eleven' in paragraph (c) and the substitution therefor of ’9’,
(iv) by the deletion of 'seven' in paragraph (e) and the substitution therefor of ’8’;”.
This amendment proposes to equalise the number of seats on the various panels for Seanad elections. The electorate for Seanad elections is the same for all panels, that is, members of city and county councils and Members of the Oireachtas. The number of seats vary for different panels. I do not know the history of that, but there is no justification for it anymore. There are five seats on the cultural and educational panel, 11 on the agricultural panel and the labour panel, nine on the industrial and commercial panel and seven on the administrative panel. Why should cultural and educational interests be entitled to elect only five members to the Seanad as opposed to the agricultural panel or the labour panel which are entitled to elect 11. The proposal is that we should equalise the position as far as possible. I propose that the number of seats elected by the cultural and educational panel and the administrative panel should be increased to eight and the number of seats elected by the labour panel and agricultural panel should be nine which is the same number as applies to the industrial and commercial panel.
This amendment seeks to amend a section of the Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) Acts, 1947, which deals with the number of Senators to be elected by various panels and the filling of panel vacancies by nomination rather than by an election. I am sure members would agree these are major changes which will require consideration when the All-Party Committee on the Constitution publishes its report on the institutions of the State. I do not propose to accept the amendment at this time.
I do not agree with that. This proposal does not require consideration by the All-Party Committee on the Constitution because this is not a constitutional issue. The sizes of the panels are provided for in legislation.
They are institutions of the State.
Will the Minister explain why, in theory, cultural and educational interests are entitled to elect only five Senators whereas other panels are entitled to elect 11? What is the justification for that big gap? I presume in the 1930s and 1940s the panels reflected some degree of proportionality of the number of people engaged in the various occupations, but it is a different story now. Without having researched it, I imagine the number of people who earn their living from education is greater than the number who earn their living directly from agriculture.
I could ask the same question of the proposer. What is the basis for changing the figures from five to eight, 11 to nine and seven to eight?
The principle of equality.
These are long-standing provisions for election to the Seanad. I do not propose to accept this amendment. If one were to start reviewing the Seanad, it would be more appropriate to do so in an overall way where all aspects of its work and legislation could be considered rather than to select aspects of it such as this in a piecemeal way. It is not the Government's intention to accept this amendment at this time. I indicated there is an all-party committee examining issues and it has chosen to examine institutions of the State. This is a primary institution of the State and it could warrant consideration by that committee and further consideration following publication of its report, but it is not practical to suggest we should make a fundamental change to the procedures for election of Senators under the different panels in a vacuum. I am not accepting the amendment.
That is a very disappointing and conservative reply from the Minister of State.
I do not think the Deputy expected me to accept it. The Minister does not have conservative views about the Seanad.
He has strong views aboutit.
That is right and they have not changed.
If we are not even able to introduce minor changes regarding the Seanad at this stage, there is no possibility of our being able to introduce any major changes in the long-term. Deputy Gilmore's proposal seems reasonable, but it would entail introducing changes regarding the different nominating bodies as there are a considerable number of nominating bodies, particularly on the agricultural panel. Some of those bodies do not exercise their right to nominate candidates to the Seanad while on other panels only a small number of bodies nominate candidates. The Minister responsible for this area should consider this proposal to balance the position regarding the panels.
I agree with the Deputies that the Seanad, as a primary institution of the State, should be the subject of a major review. It is not appropriate to fiddle around with bits of the legislation, particularly regarding the number of candidates that may be elected by the panels. I understand the Deputies' concern. I have made it clear I am not accepting the amendment.
It would show evidence of the Minister of State's commitment to seriously examine the position regarding nominations to the Seanad if he were willing to concede on introducing some changes regarding the Seanad.
Is the amendment being pressed?
Yes.
I move amendment No. 64:
In page 82, before section 58, to insert the following new section:
58.-In lieu of the provisions set out in Part V of the Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) Act, 1947, casual vacancies in Seanad Éireann shall be filled by the nomination of such person or body as is specified for the purpose by the member in question at the time of his or her candidacy or as soon as may be thereafter, but where no such person stands so specified the provisions of the said Part V shall have effect.".
This amendment deals with the situation where casual vacancies arise in the Seanad. When a casual vacancy currently arises in the Seanad there is a by-election and the electorate for the by-election is composed of Members of the Oireachtas, which means that the Government will always win a by-election for the Seanad irrespective of which party held the seat. That happened on two occasions in the lifetime of the Seanad. Casual vacancies arose as a result of the election of Deputy Sean Ryan to the Dáil and on the resignation of the former Senator Pat Gallagher. The Government side, Fianna Fáil, won the two by-elections. That has automatically reduced the composition of my party in the Seanad.
There should be an arrangement whereby casual vacancies arising in the Seanad should be filled by way of a list or a nominating panel similar to the European elections. We agreed during the debate on the Local Government Bill to write into the legislation a provision that a casual vacancy arising in a local authority would be filled by the party from which the casual vacancy had arisen or in the case of an Independent a list or nominating arrangement would apply to enable Independents to exercise an option to nominate their potential successors. A similar arrangement should apply to the Seanad. This is a reasonable proposal, acceptance of which would not shake the institutions of the State, as the Minister of State seemed to think acceptance of the previous amendment would. I ask that he accepts this amendment.
It is the only outstanding situation where a different electorate fills a Seanad vacancy than the electorate which originally elected the Member. That system is now outdated. As it applies currently, there is no justification for having Oireachtas Members as the electorate. There might even be some sense if one went back to the original electorate as it would then be a proper by-election. There should be no need for a by-election, however, because, as with the European Parliament, one could have a list system. In that way the last person eliminated on the panel from the party losing the seat should automatically have the option of taking the seat. It would be quite easy to insert that provision in the legislation and we now have an opportunity to do so.
As it stands, it is an unfair system. If a Senator is elected to the Dáil, there might be a reluctance on the part of a party to move a by-election writ because it knows well that it may - if its candidate is successful in the Dáil election - lose that Seanad seat because the Government has an in-built majority. That in-built majority may not necessarily be in the Dáil, but in the Oireachtas because of the Taoiseach's 11 Seanad nominees. This automatically gives the Government of the day not a democratic in-built majority, but a contrived in-built majority which gives it the power to take a Seanad seat from somebody who has been legitimately elected. If, however, the writ is not moved, it is depriving the electorate of a Deputy in that constituency. It is time to examine that situation.
Article 18.5 of the Constitution states:
Every election of the elected Members of Seanad Éireann shall be held on the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote, and by secret postal ballot.
Therefore, it cannot be done by nomination. It has to be done by election.
Is the Minister of State saying it is part of the Constitution?
The amendment states that casual vacancies in Seanad Éireann should be filled by the nomination of such persons. The Constitution states that "Every election of the elected Members of Seanad Éireann shall be held on the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote".
The election would be held at the time of the Seanad election. One does not necessarily need to have an election at all. There is no constitutional issue if one does not have an election. One could fill the vacancy from the list. The list from which the vacancy would be filled would be determined at the time of the election.
The advice I have is that it has to be done by election.
Is the amendment being pressed?
I will withdraw it but will take some advice of my own before Report Stage.
I move amendment No. 65:
In page 86, line 41, to delete "£2,000" and substitute "£1,000".
That concludes our consideration of the Bill. I thank sincerely the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, and his officials, for their input into the Bill. I also thank the members of the select committee, the Chairman, Deputy Healy-Rae, and Opposition spokespersons, Deputies Gilmore, Ó Caoláin and Olivia Mitchell, for their input. I also thank the clerk of the select committee, Mr. Eoin Faherty, the staff of the Bill's Office, support staff and the staff of the committee secretariat for their assistance.
I wish to be associated with the compliments paid by the Acting Chairman to the Minister of State and his staff, but particularly the two main spokespersons for the Opposition, Deputies Gilmore and Olivia Mitchell, who have been here continuously since 2.30 p.m. without a break. However, nobody from the outside world has been watching the affairs of the select committee at all. Little recognition is given to this part of committee work by the media. I advise the Acting Chairman to highlight this fact.
I express my appreciation to the Opposition spokespersons and my staff. I thank you, Acting Chairman, for the manner in which you and the Chairman, Deputy Healy-Rae, who is not present, have conducted Committee Stage, the very competent staff, and the lady and gentleman who have kept the electronics going, for which we are grateful. It has been a long day and I am grateful for everyone's patience and consideration, in particular the principal Opposition spokespersons, Deputies Ó Caoláin, Olivia Mitchell and Gilmore. They took great care in studying the Bill, and the amendments they tabled have helped to improve the Bill somewhat since it was introduced quite some time ago.
Not everyone will agree with everything that is contained in the Bill but it heralds a major new development in our political system with regard to donations, limitations, accountability and openness. This will help greatly to preserve the integrity of the political system which is badly needed, as we know from recent events at tribunals and elsewhere.
I echo what has been said. I thank you, Acting Chairman, the Minister of State and staff who have put in the same long, hard, gruelling day that we all have. It has been a long, hard, gruelling week and a long, hard, gruelling year. I thank everybody for their courtesy and co-operation. I wish to excuse myself if, at any stage, I was ratty or flippant. Certainly, I did not intend to be.
I join in the thanks to the Acting Chairman and the Chairman, Deputy Healy-Rae, for the fair way in which the proceedings have been chaired. I also thank the clerk of the select committee and the staff of the committee secretariat who helped us in preparing for today's sitting and during the debate. They have borne with us as we extended the normal time allowed for dealing with the Bill. I thank the Minister of State for the courtesy he has shown in responding to the amendments we tabled and for the assistance and clarifications he provided throughout the debate. I also thank his officials. In addition, I thank Deputy Olivia Mitchell for the level of willingness she showed in co-operating with her fellow Opposition spokespersons.
This Bill is a bad piece of work. We have dealt with it section by section on Committee Stage, which is our function. As Deputy McCormack stated, that function is critically important to the legislative process but it does not garner a great deal of attention. We have done our job and scrutinised each section of the Bill, but I am no more impressed with it than I was when we commenced proceedings this morning. The motivation behind the Bill is to boost Fianna Fáil's fortunes at the next election. We were informed that it would be the answer to the Labour Party's Private Members' Bill on the banning of corporate donations. However, such donations can still be made and the only thing the Bill does is to introduce some new limits.
I am not sure the reforms outlined in the Bill will help to improve the electoral system. I wish, therefore, to give notice that I will seek a proper debate on this legislation on Report Stage. There are a number of matters to which the Minister of State must return at that point and I do not want a guillotine to apply to the Report Stage debate. There are a number of issues upon which all Members of the House will be obliged to make a decision on Report Stage and, ultimately, they will have do decide whether to pass the Bill. Unless the Minister of State and the Government have a dramatic change of heart in respect of the Bill before Report Stage, my party will not be supporting its passage because it is bad legislation.
Having said that, however, I believe we have done our job today as best we could. I do not believe the Minister of State accepted an amendment from us today.
He accepted the amendment relating to opinion polls.
It has not been a terribly productive day, but it has been a workmanlike one and I thank everyone involved for that.
The Deputy should give some recognition to the fact that a number of important parts of the Bill have been substantially altered since the Bill was originally published.
I understand that the Waste Management (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill has been referred to the Committee. Consideration of Committee Stage of this Bill will commence on Tuesday, 3 July 2001 at 4.45 p.m. We will now adjourn until that date.
I wish to place on record my objection to those arrangements. The schedule of business for next week indicates that the Minister for the Environment and Local Government will be taking Question Time on Tuesday and that a motion relating to the Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters will be taken on the same day; that Report Stage of the Local Government Bill will be taken on Wednesday; that a motion relating to An Bord Pleanála and Report Stage of the Electoral (Amendment) Bill will be taken on Thursday; and that Report Stage of the Waste Management (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill will be taken on Friday. These items of legislation have been awaiting debate for a long period. I will raise this matter in the House on Tuesday, but I wish to state for the record that I will not co-operate with the efforts being made by the Government to ram through all Stages of these items of legislation in the closing days of the current session.
It is not fair that Members are expected to deal with legislation in this way. As matters stand, on Tuesday the committee will be obliged to deal with Committee Stage of a Bill while its members will also have to be present in the House for Question Time and the taking of a motion relating to the tribunal. That is not acceptable and I will be speaking to my trade union about it over the weekend.
On behalf of the Fine Gael Party, I wish to be associated with Deputy Gilmore's comments. I can never understand why every year there is a glut of legislation, etc., with which we must deal in the week leading up to the summer recess. There was an ample number of days on which we had nothing to do and on which we could have dealt with the Waste Management (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill.
