asked the Minister for Local Government if he will introduce legislation to amend the electoral law to provide for a postal vote in general and Presidential elections for Irish citizens serving in Irish embassies abroad.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Postal Vote Legislation.
23.
I would refer the Deputy to my replies to Questions Nos. 41 and 42 on the 15th July last regarding extension of postal voting facilities.
Would the Minister not agree that it is now some years since the report on electoral law reform was made available to his Department and, further, would he not also agree that public servants serving abroad in an official capacity for this country should not be unfairly discriminated against and that any self-respecting government, as is the custom in Europe, would provide the franchise in elections for public servants serving abroad? Perhaps the more sensitive conscience of the Minister for External Affairs may be stirred on this matter.
Prior to the advent of that section of the Labour Party to which the Deputy belongs, a joint committee of all the parties of this House sat to consider desirable amendments to the electoral law and they decided unanimously to recommend against any extension of postal facilities beyond the categories of those serving in the Army and in the Garda Síochána.
Is the Minister not aware that the statement he has made is not correct?
I shall have to quote from the report of the joint committee. Paragraph 37 reads:
In its first interim report the Joint Committee recommended that all members of the Defence Forces and of the Garda Síochána should be entered on the postal voters lists. These are the only electors who can vote by post. The Committee has given much thought to the representations it has received that those in civilian employment whose occupation requires them to be away from home during the greater part of the week or for longer periods should also be registered as postal voters. The Committee recognises that absence from home in such cases may, in practice, deprive the person concerned of his vote.
Paragraph 38 reads:
However, the extension of postal voting facilities to such persons would not necessarily remedy this, especially where the address of the person concerned changes from day to day. Further, if postal voting facilities were extended to one class of persons it could be argued that it should be extended to all classes similarly circumstanced, including those who move their residence from the address at which they are registered, and possibly even persons on holidays on polling day. The numbers involved in such an extension would be very great. The Joint Committee does not consider that the resulting greatly increased risk of abuse would be justified. Accordingly, the Committee does not recommend any further extension of these facilities. Neither does it see any merit in a suggestion put to it that prisoners should be allowed to vote by post or that special facilities for voting should be provided in prisons.
Is the Minister not aware that when we brought in a Private Members' Bill seeking to have the postal vote extended to approximately 500 commercial travellers the Minister's predecessor said that he was holding this up for approximately one year to investigate whether or not people at sea, particularly, should also be included or at least whether a wider group of people should be included? Now, nothing is being done.
I am aware that the Deputy's party changes its mind from day to day.
It is not the Deputy's party; it is the party opposite.
I was not referring specifically to commercial travellers but to public servants in the diplomatic service of this State who have not parity of electoral franchise which every self-respecting European country gives its diplomatic staff, the right to elect you and me. I submit that the Minister is frivolous and not giving elementary regard to such staffs and I suggest that he should indicate a change of heart in this respect.
Apart from anything else, this might not be feasible in the case of all personnel serving abroad because of the short time between the latest day for the issue of ballot papers and polling day. The joint committee took all this into consideration and appreciated that to extend postal voting facilities to one section would inevitably lead to probably equally justifiable demands from other sections with a consequent increase in the risk of abuse.
Is it a fact that the people referred to in Deputy Desmond's question are not referred to in that report——
Not specifically.
You wait until I am finished now. They are not referred to at all. Will the Minister not also agree that the section of the report to which he refers and other sections of the report were not even considered and that the only thing that was considered was an attempt to gerrymander constituencies and that he stopped the whole lot when he found the committee did not do that?
Deputy Tully seems to be dealing with a different matter altogether. He is dealing with the informal committee which studied the Constitution but I agree that the report of the joint committee did not go through all the possible categories that could make a claim for postal voting.
They did not mention them at all.
That is what I said. It did consider the various claims that were made for postal voting facilities and decided to recommend that there should not be any extension of postal voting.
And is each ambassador to make an application himself before the Minister will consider it? It is just stupid but it is typical.