Before we adjourned I had been referring to special voters and welcoming the changes in the registration process for them. It was most unsatisfactory that disabled voters were required to be certified annually to be sound of mind. In fact, many people who were on the special voters register had not realised they were required to produce a medical certificate annually and as a result missed exercising their franchise in recent elections. They assumed it was sufficient to register once. I am pleased that the Minister proposes this important change in the case of special voters. Indeed the removal of those former provisions will take us to the stage at which special voters will be recognised as normal participants in our electoral process.
I should like to refer to the nomination process. The objective of legislation in this area should be to ensure that all who wish to make a serious attempt to be elected public representatives are given that opportunity. Our electoral tradition has been to ensure that candidates are genuine in their intentions by the imposition of a deposit which is forfeited in the case of a candidate not receiving a level of support deemed to be indicative of their being serious candidates.
Under the provisions of the Bill before us it is proposed to increase the requisite deposit to £500 in order to restore the deterrent to frivolous candidates. We should closely examine this aspect in the future ascertaining how effective it will prove to be in practice. Probably only time will tell but I have examined some figures in respect of previous elections.
Examination of such evidence demonstrates that, thankfully, we have not experienced enormous problems in general elections with too many candidates or with their numbers tending to confuse the electorate. Even though the relative value of the requisite deposit has been reduced to 3 per cent of its original level, there has been remarkable consistency in the number of candidates standing in general elections. For example, in 1932 there were 1.8 candidates for every seat available whereas, at the last election, that figure was 2.2 candidates per seat; in the two elections held in 1982, the figure was also 2.2 candidates per seat. It must be remembered that there are smaller constituencies which would affect the balance vis-à-vis the number of candidates per seat.
When one endeavours to ascertain what takes place in other European countries one finds that in most there is no deposit at all required. Instead there is a requirement for nomination to be signed by between 20 and 2,000 constituents. For example, in France, Greece and Holland deposits are required but are quite small. The deposit required to be paid in the United Kingdom probably is that which most closely resembles ours, not surprising since we inherited our system from a British statute. Five years ago the British took the same move proposed in this Bill, that of increasing the deposit and lowering the forfeiture threshold. In 1987 the British increased their electoral deposit from £150 to £1,000, reducing the forfeiture threshold from 12.5 per cent to 5 per cent of the total poll. However, a recent study demonstrates that the number of candidates standing in by-elections increased since they raised their deposit to £1,000. Provisional figures for their most recent general election showed a slight decrease only. That leads me to wonder whether, if we experienced a problem in this area, this would be the best method of dealing with it.
At some stage in the future we should break away from the British notion of requiring candidates to pay a deposit, instead linking such to the tangible rights of a candidate whenever he or she stands for election. When a candidate is officially declared to be standing in an election he or she has three rights. The first is that they receive a free copy of the electoral register of the constituency in which they are standing for election. In some constituencies that cost can amount to £70. They also receive the right to free postage worth approximately £20,000. Their third right is the one the Minister is proposing to abolish under the provisions of this Bill because it has not been exercised, that is, the right to a room in a primary school. Clearly it will be seen that the first two cost the State and they would be of concern if there were too many candidates. In regard to the free postage which could amount to £20,00 per candidate, perhaps in the future we should consider a deposit of, say, £100 in the case of candidates who do not ava of that facility and a deposit of £500 for those who do.
I would be concerned that we might pitch the deposit too high. If we take the example of the major parties represented in this House and examine what happened at the last general election we discover that 47 candidates standing for the major parties lost their deposits. I might add that, in the last election, a candidate had to receive an average of 2,000 vote in order to secure his or her deposit. In the last election also one outgoing Deputy lost his deposit. In the 1989 election two outgoing Deputies lost their deposits. All these matters will have to be taken into consideration when we propose raising the level of the requisite deposit.
Another relevant case is that of Deputy Roger Garland who, in 1987, lost his deposit and in 1989 was elected to this House. We should be aware of such examples. In that respect it would not be fair to say that Deputy Garland was less serious in his intent to be elected in 1987 than he was when elected in 1989. He could not have been described as a firvolous candidate in the 1987 election. While welcoming the Minister's proposal in this Bill to reduce the number of vote required to secure a candidate's deposit I question whether that number should not be further reduced, perhaps to 10 per cent of the quota. As we raise the level of the deposit in monetary terms simultaneously it will be important to ensure that genuine candidates are not placed in the position of losing their deposits.
I compliment the Minister on the provisions of the section dealing with canvassing outside polling stations, a proposal which I predict will be enormously welcomed by the public at large who will be familiar with such practices. I believe that canvassing outside polling stations does not contribute to the electoral process and most people would have that view. It intimidates voters who would rather be left in peace to exercise their franchise. This provision will be welcomed also by those people throughout Ireland in all parties who had the onerous task of standing outside the polling stations and campaigning on behalf of candidates and their political parties. In the past if one party manned the polling station other parties had to do likewise and the value of this had to be questioned. That provision of the Bill will be warmly welcomed by everyone.
There may, however, be a problem with the provision in the Bill relating to posters displayed outside polling stations. The Bill states that not only must new posters not be put up during polling, but posters on display before polling commences must be removed. I welcome the fact that people will not be allowed to put up new posters on polling day because this work provided them with an opportunity to canvass. However, I question the requirement that posters on display before polling commences must be removed. This would be more relevant to urban areas. There would be many hoardings and large advertisement boards within 50 metres of the polling stations displaying posters for many weeks before election day and I wonder if it is practicable to expect that these will be removed on the day before polling day. I know this is not an issue in rural areas. I represent many village areas in my constituency and there are no large advertising boards. In the urban areas it is not practical to expect that this requirement will be fully implemented because there are many large hoardings within 50 metres of the polling stations. The provision which prevents people from putting up posters within 50 metres of the polling stations on polling day is important and its inclusion in the Bill is very welcome. Canvassers, as distinct from political parties' posters, create problems for voters. Difficulties would arise in a small number of cases and this provision covers such difficulties.
Finally, I would like to make the point that one of the key contributions of the Bill lies not in its innovation but in the bringing together into one Bill the bulk of electoral legislation. This point was made earlier by speakers from other parties. It is important that this is recognised and that the Minister is complimented for it because consolidation measures like this do much to improve the accessibility of the law to non-experts. People can look through this consolidated legislation and take note of the various provisions included in it.
I strongly support the Bill before us taking into account provision for the issues I raised. In regard to 18 year olds whose birthdays fall on 2 December, it would be 16 months before they could join the supplementary register and this is a matter we will have to consider in the future. The concept of the supplementary register is positive. It will bring on board the people who failed to get on to the register due to technical errors and I welcome it. We should try to include the 18 year olds and the second group I mentioned, the people who move house after 1 September; they should be able to go on to the supplementary register in their new constituency. The changes in the Bill are very welcome.