I move amendment No. 5:
In page 4, to delete lines 1 and 2.
SECTION 3.
Amendment agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Amendment No. 8 is an alternative to amendments Nos. 6 and 9 and are related. Amendments Nos. 7 and 25 are related. Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 8 9 and 25 may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 4, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
"3.—The Electoral Act, 1992, is hereby amended by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (1) of section 28:
‘(1A) Each local authority shall, in making a scheme under this section, endeavour to appoint as polling places only such areas as shall allow the returning officer to provide at each polling place at least one polling station which is accessible to wheelchair users.'.".
Amendment No. 6 provides for the substitution of a revised section 3 for that set out in the Bill. I cannot support the proposal in section 3(a) that a local authority be required to make a new polling scheme at least once every five years. A reduction in the period under existing law which requires a scheme to be made every ten years, is one we must reflect on. The making of a polling scheme is a major exercise.
The principal change made in the Electoral Act in relation to polling schemes was that each local authority is now required to make a polling scheme as soon as possible after the commencement of the Act and at least once every ten years thereafter. I know problems have arisen in relation to the making of polling schemes and I assure the Deputy that the Department will ensure a polling scheme is made expeditiously after the next election.
We were trying to ensure that every local authority would review their polling scheme as a matter of urgency. Under the 1992 Act local authorities were supposed to immediately draft and submit a new scheme but only two have so done. In my discussions with the Minister he gave me an undertaking that after the next election — not later than the end of 1998 — local authorities would have to review the accessibility of polling stations. If we are given that commitment we will be happy to agree to the amendment.
I give the Deputy a firm undertaking that immediately after the next election — I do not want too much disruption this side of the election — local authorities will be required to make such a scheme.
Amendment No. 7 reads:
In page 4, line 16, after "considered." to insert "The Minister shall publish standards for assessing the accessibility of polling stations.".
The amendments would oblige the Minister to publish standards by which the accessibility of polling stations and count centres could be assessed. Returning officers will need guidance if they are to deal with the large number of inaccessible stations. At present the Department publishes a book on this matter but this provision should be on a statutory basis and the Minister should publish standards to ensure they are met.
Amendment No. 7 provides for the addition of a sentence to require the Minister to publish standards for assessing the accessibility of polling stations and count centres. The Bill already makes provision for a requirement that polling stations and count centres should, as far as practicable, be accessible to wheelchair users. This would put the responsibility of deciding whether a premises is suitable for use in relation to an election or a referendum on the returning officer in each case. Taking account of all the circumstances, this meets the Deputy's requirement and I ask her to withdraw her amendment.
Does the Minister not consider it important to have standards? A large number of stations are inaccessible and, given that the issue is being addressed in the Bill, it is a small matter to ask the Department to draw up standards for local authorities.
The interior of polling stations is already designated by regulations and guidelines have been issued regarding outside stations. The responsibility for ensuring the guidelines are met should be placed on the presiding officer. This will happen and I will maintain the pressure on them. I should not place the responsibility on myself to do that.
As the Minister is aware, that does not happen everywhere at present. I am anxious a provision is included to ensure there is a standard to be met.
It is not the case that it does not happen. There are polling stations which are not accessible and questions are raised on each occasion. In some locations it is not possible in the timeframe available to find suitable premises within the geographical vicinity. We must work harder to ensure that becomes the exception and ultimately disappears. That is my determination and I will put pressure and the responsibility on presiding officers to ensure that is the case.
It would be a small matter for the Department to draw up standards. Many people who are not familiar with this matter have different ideas about what accessible means. For example, some people think it is just a case of pushing wheelchairs to a certain point. A standard set by the Department would be helpful.
That already exists. The Department issues guidance to returning officers in connection with the selection of buildings. The guidelines state that all polling stations should, in all cases, be located on the ground floor to provide easy access by electors with physical disabilities. If a polling station cannot be reached without negotiating steps, a suitable ramp should be provided — the gradient is also specified — where this can be done safely and at a reasonable cost. They also state that a list of ramp suppliers is available and mention other requirements. The guidelines are available to returning officers well in advance of the determination of locations for polling.
Is the Minister satisfied that is enough?
Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
Acceptance of this amendment involves the deletion of section 3 of the Bill.
With regard to amendment No. 8——
Amendment No. 8 was discussed with amendment No. 6. It was an alternative to amendment No. 6, which was agreed, so amendment No. 8 automatically falls. The issue cannot be reopened. That is a firm ruling.
Is it not possible to amend section 3, although it is being changed?
Amendment No. 6 involved the deletion of section 3. Having deleted the section, it is not possible to amend it and amendments Nos. 7 and 8 fall automatically.
Amendment Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.
Section 3 deleted.