Amendments Nos. 5, 14, 21 and 22 are related to amendment No. 1 and, by agreement, may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 1.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, to delete lines 9 and 10.
I am happy we have made such progress on this Private Members' Bill. It will be important in reforming the polling process. I commend Deputy Wallace for her initiative in introducing it and the persistence she has shown in getting it to this Stage. There are only one or two issues to be resolved on Committee Stage, although there are many amendments. I hope we will move expeditiously. As a result of dialogue between the sponsors of the Bill and my officials most of the issues have been agreed.
As drafted the Bill consists of 14 sections. It is divided into five Parts dealing, respectively, with general provisions, accessibility of polling stations, extension of postal voting, breaches of secrecy and miscellaneous matters. The effect of my amendments is to delete two entire Parts consisting of six sections and two further sections from other Parts. The Bill will eventually consist of only six sections. Deletion of a Bill of that size in its amended form is not warranted.
Amendments Nos. 1, 5, 14, 21, and 22 are purely technical. They provide for the deletion of the titles of Parts I to V. I ask the committee to accept the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 2, 3, and 4 are consequential on the proposals to delete sections 5, 6, and 7, respectively, and will be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, lines 13 to 15, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:
"(2) The Electoral Acts, 1992 and 1995, and this Act may be cited together as the Electoral Acts, 1992 to 1996, and shall be construed together as one Act."
This is a technical drafting amendment to reflect the existing collective citation and construction of electoral Acts in section 1.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 3, lines 16 to 19, to delete subsection (3).
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 relate to section 1(3) and (4) and would remove the collective citations relating to the Presidential Election Act, 1993, and the Referendum Act, 1994. At present sections, 5, 6, and 7 would amend the Electoral Act, 1992, and rewrite them where they relate to voting at alternative polling stations by reducing the closing date for applications from seven days before polling to five days. One of the most important points of this Bill is an attempt to ensure all voters who cannot vote at their local station have an opportunity to use their existing right to vote at another station. At present a voter must apply to use this procedure no later than seven days before polling but the polling card which tells them where they are to vote does not have to be delivered until three days before polling. This gives them no opportunity to use that procedure and means they cannot vote. This will have to change.
Fianna Fáil proposes that the last day for applying to vote elsewhere be reduced to five days before polling, that the polling card be delivered seven days before polling and that it states whether the polling station to which they are assigned is accessible. The Department previously stated that this does not leave enough time to send out the card. We do not agree because, assuming a minority of stations will be inaccessible, on the passage of this Bill it has to be assumed that the vast majority of stations will be accessible. For example, a returning officer may only have the problem with one station and he can post the cards for that station. Local authorities have computer technology. It has been suggested that the cards might not be big enough but we examined the cards recently before the referendum and there was substantial space on the cards for this information. Without the changes the Bill proposes, the right to vote at another station would continue to be a dead letter legislatively. The Minister agreed to look at these issues and we hope he will accept our amendments.
This is one of two issues which are interrelated. I have given careful consideration to and taken advice on the Deputy's suggestion which I would be delighted to accept if it was practical. The difficulty is that seven days includes weekends and can be five working days. Having checked the practicality of the suggestion I am convinced it would not be possible to guarantee the level of delivery in the Deputy's proposal. If people do not get the polling card in time they might not be able to make alternative arrangements. We have to be practical in terms of an election and not put pressures on presiding officers and returning officers. Having considered the issues I hope the Deputy will accept that we are going as far as is practicable to accept the general thrust of what she wants.
We have a problem because, in essence, people are being told they will get their polling card three days before polling day but the deadline for changing to another station has passed by four days. That is not of any value to them if, four days before that, they should have applied to go to another station. We cannot accept that.
There is no point telling people they must have to have a card seven days before polling if I am advised it is not possible to guarantee that. The requirement under the current law is not later than the third day before polling. I will encourage the early issue of cards but we have to allow for practicalities. It is not practicable to set in law seven days before polling. There is no point in determining a legal imperative that cannot be delivered. There are other ways of achieving one's objectives. I will ask returning officers to advertise specific polling stations in the local media to give people an idea of their accessibility in sufficient time to apply for the special list if they so choose.
I would accept the amendment if it was practicable. From her dialogue with my Department, the Deputy knows how far she can go to meet her laudable objectives. I hope she will accept the logic of my position on this matter.
Given that the vast bulk of stations should be accessible, we are only concerned with a maximum of one station in each person's area. In the case of the rare station that is not accessible, cards should be sent on time to the people concerned to enable them apply to another station. The Department is covered in that a person does not necessarily need a card.
Who are we trying to suit, the public or the officials? In the past 18 months, computerisation has fundamentally altered the way business is done. In drafting this legislation it is wrong to allow officials to tell us that it is not possible to do something. A change of attitude and approach can deliver on this. Since delivering options and providing facilities for as many people as possible are fundamental when it comes to voting, the Minister should consider the valid points made by my colleague because the public expects us to address matters in this way.
Would it be possible to include the following insertion on Report Stage: ". . . or such short a time as the Minister may, by regulation, prescribe"? This would allow for the possibility of a shorter period to be prescribed.
I am open to that suggestion. I have given the matter careful consideration. There is a procedure involved. It is not simply a matter of punching a few names into a computer. The seven days we have now prescribed for the making of an application to change polling station includes weekends; effectively, therefore, it could be five days. Queries must be issued in time for posting, two presiding officers must be notified and the register of electors for both polling stations must be amended. In addition, the procedure requiring the returning officer to be satisfied as to the bona fides of the applications must be at least considered.
All this would occur within days of an election. There is no point putting impracticable pressures on people in such circumstances. While I would like to proceed on this basis if I thought it was practicable to do so, I will consider the Chairman's proposed wording and will submit an amendment on Report Stage.
It means that a future Minister would be able to prescribe a shorter period.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 3, lines 20 to 22, to delete subsection (4).
Amendment agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.