The proposal to delete section 2, amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 18 and the proposal to delete the Schedule form a composite proposal, and amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 27 are related. It is proposed to discuss the proposal to delete section 2, amendments Nos. 12, 13, 15, 16, 18 and 27 and the proposal to delete the Schedule together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 be deleted."
This section provides for the repeal of the provisions of existing electoral law relating to special voting. This is not necessary because special voting is maintained in the amended Bill.
The wording of amendments Nos. 15 and 18 use medical terminology for people with disability as being patients who are suffering. This is unacceptable. They must be reworded. The recent report of the Commission for the Status of People with Disabilities preaches against the medicalising of this issue.
I understand the Deputy's point but the difficulty is finding a more appropriate wording. The problem is that everybody has a constitutional individual right that cannot be expressed in a collective way. The form of words proposed in the Bill is standard and has stood the test of time for 70 years. Unless the Deputy has a form of words that meets the requirements, specifies the entitlement and are specific to an individual, it is not possible for me to change the definition in the way she seeks. I understand the thought process that wishes to use modern parlance and employ modern understanding of disability and not to have a title that stigmatises anybody. The definition of residence is required to be tight in terms of understanding the provisions of the Bill and in ensuring that people get their constitutional right to vote.
The section as drafted is fairer and simpler. While the Minister is anxious to amend the Bill to protect against the potential abuse of the system in institutions, the use of medical terminology is unacceptable. To refer to people with disability as being patients who are suffering is not good wording. In accepting the Bill the Minster has indicated that such an amendment be made. However, while agreeing in principle, we cannot accept the wording of his proposed amendment.
I see the Deputy's point. I invited a different form of words but did not obtain one that will meet requirements. Would she agree to an amendment on Report Stage to delete from amendment No. 18 paragraph (d) (a) the words "as a patient" and substitute the words "with a" for "suffering from"?
Yes; I do not want such persons described as patients who are suffering.
With the Deputy's agreement I will introduce such an amendment on Report Stage.
The net effect of these amendments will apply to those on the special voter list. What changes are being made and what greater flexibility now exists? A person on the special voter list is, by definition, disabled or home bound and has to vote at home in the presence of a presiding officer. There has been no flexibility, for example, for those who found on election day that they were not registered.
The net effect will be to do away with the archaic idea of an entourage turning up at someone's house to enable them to vote because they are not trusted with a postal vote and to give them access to a station, or a postal vote for the home bound. The Minister is concerned about possible abuses of that provision in institutions where there are more than three special voters and he is endeavouring to retain the special voter provision in those cases.
Under previous electoral legislation, after an election is called an elector has three weeks to get their name on the register. At one time the final date for registration could have been up to a year before the election. Can elderly or infirm people now appeal for inclusion on the register for three weeks after an election is called? They often have to produce medical evidence.
The Deputy is referring to the supplementary list which is unaffected — there is no appeal in relation to the special voting list in this provision. The mechanism was succinctly described by Deputy Wallace. Some time ago everybody could vote by post in one local election. Subsequent to that election Deputies in all parties expressed concern at the degree of personation which occurred, particularly in institutions. That was scrapped by popular agreement immediately afterwards. We are now working our way back to a postal voting system for as many people as can reliably do it without risk of personation and we have an agreed, very good and structured basis for doing it in this Bill.
An infirm person who cannot vote in an election might have had that infirmity when the register was compiled. However, a person could be home bound after an accident a month before an election which would mean they could not travel to their local polling station. There should be a provision for such a person to apply, within three weeks of polling, for example, for a postal vote or to cast their vote in the method currently used for the supplementary list.
We are straying from the amendment.
I agree; I apologise.
I am getting indications that other Members wish to do likewise.
I was going to raise this point under section 8 but as Deputy Connor has raised it now we might as well dispose of it. Those most likely to be disenfranchised are those who had a disabled person's vote but did not reapply. Permanently disabled people——
Who were on the register?
Yes. Why is it necessary for permanently incapacitated people, such as someone who had a stroke and is confined to bed, to reapply each year? I know they only have to submit a medical certificate the first time but, surely there is a case to made for them being left permanently on the register.
I think there is. Deputy O'Hanlon and I are former Ministers for Health and the same issue arose in relation to annual certification for people suffering from illness which would not be cured in the space of a year. There is a crudeness about the requirement to ensure that someone is still there. I am happy to reflect further on that.
I sent a list of suggestions on the reform of electoral law to this committee which includes the points made by Deputy Connor and the issues of photographs on ballot papers and days and times of voting. I would welcome a comprehensive analysis of that list. It would be useful to have a consolidating Electoral (Amendment) Act to bring together all the points we have learned about.
I take it that the Minister will look at that point before Report Stage because there is a valid case to be made for these people; we want everyone to have a vote. A permanently disabled voter will be visited by a presiding officer and a garda so there is no question of them defrauding the system. Those who are permanently incapacitated should not have to reapply every year.
I caution the Minister that we must be careful not to introduce another form of discrimination. Ordinary people who are not on the register have an opportunity to apply for the supplementary register but special voters do not have that opportunity. We will build in another discrimination against special voters if we allow that to go through. Perhaps we can overcome that under section 8.
Question put and agreed to.