Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 7 Oct 1992

Vol. 423 No. 1

Electoral (No. 2) Bill, 1991 [Seanad]: Second Stage.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. D. Wallace)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." The purpose of the Bill is to consolidate, with amendments, the law relating to the election of members to Dáil Éireann. If the Oireachtas sees fit to enact the measure it will mean that, for the first time, the entire law in relation to Dáil elections will be contained in a single statute.

The existing law on the conduct of Dáil elections is contained in 14 different pieces of legislation, the earliest of which dates back to 1923. In addition, legislation relating to the questioning of a Dáil election is contained in a number of British enactments, the earliest of which is dated 1852. The law relating to electoral offences is contained mainly in the Prevention of Electoral Abuses Act, 1923. The Act has been extensively amended over the years.

The sheer number of statutes relating to Dáil elections and the extensive amendment of the principal enactments have left the law in a very fragmented state. This is particularly inappropriate in the case of the electoral code which is of direct and immediate relevance to all citizens.

It will be of benefit to everybody to have the basic law relating to the election of our national Parliament set out in a single comprehensive piece of legislation which is accessible and meaningful. This Bill will bring that about. The Bill is essentially a Dáil electoral measure. While it contains certain references to the codes relating to Presidential, Seanad, European and local elections and referenda, the Bill does not purport to consolidate those other codes or to amend them in any comprehensive way. This, in so far as it may be necessary, will be a matter for another occasion.

I would like to refer to the changes in substance proposed in the Bill and, where they are not self-evident, to indicate the reasons for the proposals.

The provisions in relation to the registration of electors are contained in Part II and the Second Schedule. In this area, quite extensive changes are proposed, changes which arise from experience in the operation of the system over many years, and include suggestions for improvement made by Members of the Oireachtas, local authorities and others.

In regard to the accuracy of the register, I would like to put it on record that the standard is by no means as deficient as is sometimes suggested. However, there is no room for complacency and we must seek ways of securing substantial improvement. The changes I am proposing will provide the framework for significant advance.

A new and shorter time-scale for preparing the register will be introduced. Under existing law, work on the draft register commences in mid-September, the draft register is published on 1 December and the period from 1 December to 15 January is allowed for the display of the draft and the submission of claims for correction. The revision court sittings have to be completed by 28 February. The register of electors is published on 1 April and comes into force on 15 April. One of the problems with this timetable is that some of the information in the register is already seven months out of date by the time the final register is published. Another is that the time for scrutiny of the draft register by public representatives and the public generally spans the Christmas holidays.

The proposed new timetable, which is set out in the Second Schedule addresses both these aspects and will, I hope, set the scene for significant improvement in the accuracy of the register.

Provision is made in the Bill for the publication of a supplement containing the names of qualified electors omitted from the register. Unfortunately we are all too familiar with instances where persons who may have been on the register for decades find themselves omitted for no apparent reason. We can understand and sympathise with the anger and frustration of people who find themselves in this position, particularly as there is no means of restoring them to the register.

Section 15 of the Bill and Part II of the Second Schedule set out a procedure under which a person incorrectly excluded from the register can have his or her name added by means of a supplement. On discovering the omission, the person concerned can apply to the local authority which will carry out the necessary inquiries and rule on the application. The applicant will be notified and, on the occurrence of an election or referendum, a supplement to the register containing the names of successful applicants will be published. Where an application is turned down the person concerned will have the right of appeal to the county registrar and subsequently to the Circuit Court.

The test in every case will be that the person must have been eligible for inclusion in the register for the area in question on the appropriate qualifying date.

Because of the necessity to ensure that every application is fully checked out and to prevent the status of the register proper being undermined, it is necessary to have a cut-off point for applications. This is set at the 12th day before the polling day. This is really the latest date practicable.

Registration in respect of more than one address will be specifically prohibited by the Bill and it is made clear that inquiries by the registration authority and county registrar for this purpose may extend beyond their functional area.

While the Constitution and the electoral law make it clear that a person may vote only once at an election, the existing law in relation to the registration of electors does not specifically provide that a person may be registered only once. In a Supreme Court judgment on a case taken by students at Waterford Regional Technical College, it was held that existing law does not prohibit plural registration Prior to this judgment, electors were registered on the basis that a person was entitled to be registered once only at the place at which he or she was ordinarily resident.

The Supreme Court ruling is an authoritative statement of existing law. It is not, however, an interpretation of a constitutional provision, or a statement of any constitutional or other fundamental right. The court has simply clarified the meaning of the existing provision in the law. It does not preclude amendment of the law. Under the Constitution, this is a matter for the Oireachtas.

With their practical experience of elections, I am sure Deputies will agree that multiple registration would leave the way open for serious electoral malpractice.

Section 11 makes it clear that a person may be registered once only as an elector. Where a person may have a claim to be registered in respect of more than one address he or she may exercise an option. In effect, the Bill will restore the position to what it was generally assumed to be before the Supreme Court ruling.

Gardaí will have the option of registering as postal voters or as ordinary electors. Under existing law, a member of the Garda Síochána who is registered as an elector is entered in the postal voters list and may vote only by post. Following requests by the Garda representative associations, section 14 provides that each garda will have the right to opt for registration as a postal voter, in which case he may vote by post only, or for registration as an ordinary elector, in which case he may vote in person at the polling station for his locality.

Tomás Mac Giolla

What about the banghardaí? There are no "shes" in the Minister's statement.

Mr. D. Wallace

The possibility of publishing a list of additions and deletions rather than a full draft register is provided for.

It has been represented that there would be advantages in publishing a list of proposed additions and proposed deletions rather than a full draft register each year. This would make it possible to see proposed changes at a glance and it should also help cut down the cost of handling and printing. Section 16 enables the arrangement to be introduced on an experimental basis in selected areas. It successful, the arrangement could then be extended generally. It may well be that the electors lists arrangement will prove beneficial in some areas while the draft register may be more suitable in others.

The Exchequer may, in future, meet three-quarters of the cost of preparing the register rather than one-half as at present.

Under existing law, the cost of preparing and publishing the register of electors is borne equally by registration authorities and the Exchequer. This principle of shared costs will continue, but under section 20, the proportion of costs borne by the Exchequer will be increased from 50 per cent to 75 per cent. Provision is also included in this section to allow the Minister to impose penalties on registration authorities for inaccuracies in the register or for delays in the preparation and publication where these are attributable to the registration authority. The section is so worded as to permit the State contribution, at some time in the future, to be incorporated into a block grant rather than continue as an ad hoc grant.

The Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1986, introduced a system which enables disabled electors to vote in their own home. Under the special voting arrangement, a presiding officer accompanied by a member of the Garda Síochána conveys a ballot paper to the elector at his or her home. While the system is expensive and cumbersome to operate, it is an important and welcome facility for housebound electors and will be continued in force by section 17.

Existing law requires an applicant for entry on the special voters list to produce a medical certificate each year certifying the nature and extent of his or her physical illness or disability and indicating that the applicant is of sound mind and capable of comprehending the act of voting.

The requirement in relation to "sound mind" may give offence to some disabled persons and the requirement of an annual medical certificate could cause inconvenience and, possibly, expense to the electors concerned. The opportunity is, therefore, being taken to remove the "sound mind" requirement altogether and to provide that a medical certificate will be required only in the case of first application. Registration authorities will be empowered to require a fresh certificate, where they consider it necessary to do so, for example if the special voter goes to live in a different registration area. The Bill also extends the period for application for inclusion in the special voters list from one month to almost three months.

The Bill restates, with some amendments, the law relating to the registration of political parties which was first introduced in the Electoral Act, 1963. The wording of the provision has been improved to give greater clarity and, in particular, the role of the appeal board has been clarified.

Under the Bill, the Registrar, who is the Clerk of the Dáil, will publish in Iris Oifigiúil his proposed ruling on any application made to him and any person aggrieved by the proposed ruling may appeal to the appeal board. Each appeal must be accompanied by a deposit of £500 which will normally be refunded but may be forfeited if the appeal board considers the appeal frivolous or vexatious.

Specific power is given to the Registrar to terminate the registration of a party if it has ceased to operate as such or is no longer entitled to be registered. There is provision for appeal to the appeal board against a decision of the Registrar in this regard.

Certain changes are proposed affecting the position of the candidate at a Dáil election. Of these, the most important is the proposal that the deposit be increased from £100 to £500. As the House is aware, the figure of £100 was fixed in 1923 and has remained unaltered. I understand that today's equivalent of £100 in 1923 would be over £3,000. The threshold for refund of a deposit will be reduced from one third to one quarter of the quota.

From the practical point of view, I think there can be no question about the necessity for a deposit, fixed at a reasonable level, or some other mechanism to provide a deterrent to non-serious candidates at an election. In a parliamentary democracy, a general election represents the most fundamental exercise of the democratic power of the people. In an ideal situation, every candidate should be genuinely seeking election, prepared to undertake the obligations which a parliamentary mandate will confer, and prepared to play a full part in the business of parliament, should that question arise. The electors should be allowed to make their decisions without the distraction of non-relevant candidates.

Our arrangements for nomination of candidates are probably the most open of any electoral system. Quite literally, any Irish citizen, irrespective of place of birth or residence, irrespective of any contact whatsoever with the constituency or the country, can nominate himself or herself as a candidate or be nominated by just one elector. It does not require a very fertile imagination to picture the confusion which could be caused at an election by swamping the ballot paper with the names of large numbers of irrelevant candidates. Prudence requires that sensible arrangements should be in force.

Requiring a deposit as an earnest of serious intent is of long standing, is well known and understood and, of course, the deposit is refunded if the candidate attracts a certain minimum level of support. That minimum is being reduced from one third to a quarter of the quota. This approach seems to be the most sensible way of dealing with the matter.

The free postage arrangement for the election address of candidates is retained under section 57. There is some dissatisfaction at the way the arrangement works at present and there have been suggestions for change. To enable these to be fully developed, the Minister will have power to modify the existing arrangements, following consultation with interested parties and with the approval of both Houses. I understand that consultation in this regard has begun.

Under section 165, a candidate who contests two polls on the same day, at each of which the free postage arrangement applies, will be entitled to include material in relation to each such poll in a single election letter. A candidate who contests more than one constituency at a Dáil election will be allowed free postage in one constituency only. Having regard to the high cost of the free postage facility, this seems a very reasonable restriction.

Some relatively minor changes are proposed in the requirements in relation to ballot papers. It is the general practice nowadays to give each candidate exactly the same amount of space on the ballot paper. The Bill will make this a mandatory requirement. The candidate's first name and surname will be printed in capitals, rather than in ordinary type. The requirement that the surname and party name, or the expression "Non-Party" where appropriate, should be in large block capitals will be retained.

The practice has grown up in some areas, of stationing large groups of canvassers outside polling stations in a last minute effort to influence voters. For some people, this is part of the colour and excitement of the election process and is accepted as such. For other electors having to run the gauntlet in this way is a cause of some anxiety. From the point of view of candidates and parties, this last minute canvassing makes no sense. Far from influencing people, it is quite likely to antagonise them and to damage rather than improve a candidate's prospects.

Section 147 will prohibit all political activity in the vicinity of a polling station for the duration of the poll and for half an hour before and after. The prohibition will apply to congregating, canvassing in any form, display of posters and use of loudspeakers.

The prohibition will apply to any place within 50 metres of any of the entrances to the grounds of a polling station. Having regard to the different kinds of location in which polling stations are situated, this seems to be a reasonable distance.

In regard to procedures in the polling station itself, no change of substance is proposed. However, the opportunity has been taken to amend the Presidential Elections Act, 1937 to provide that an elector employed by the local returning officer in connection with a presidential election may be authorised to vote at an alternative polling station. This will make good an omission in the presidential elections law which, unlike the other electoral codes, has no such provision at present.

Parts XVIII and XIX restate existing law on arrangements for the counting of the votes and restate the counting rules under the single transferable vote system. Two technical amendments in the counting rules will be of interest. The returning officer will be empowered to note on the ballot paper concerned his ruling on any doubtful ballot paper which is allowed as valid. This will ensure that the same papers will not come up for adjudication again at a later stage in the count, or on a recount. Their validity will be dealt with, once and for all, at the commencement of the count. The provision will complement the provision in existing law which allows the returning officer to mark "rejected" on any ballot paper he rules to be invalid.

In section 122 the rule on the exclusion of two or more candidates together is clarified. The present rule in this regard is very restrictive. It creates the situation where the returning officer may have to eliminate, possibly, three or four candidates individually even though they may have only a handful of votes between them. The new provision is less restrictive and will make it possible to eliminate a number of candidates together if it is clear that none of them can secure enough transfers to save their deposit.

Existing law on election petitions, which dates from the latter half of the last century, provides for two separate procedures — one involving investigation by election commissioners and the other a petition tried by two judges of the High Court. Both procedures are archaic and cumbersome and not really suitable for our proportional representation system.

The Bill sets out a new procedure under which Dáil election petitions will be tried by the High Court. The new procedure is modelled on that which applies in relation to European Parliament elections and which worked satisfactorily in the petition relating to the constituency of Leinster at the 1989 European elections. Under the new procedure, a petition may be presented by any elector on any grounds likely to have affected the result of the election in the constituency. A deposit of £5,000 must be lodged as security for costs. The petition will be tried by the High Court with right of appeal to the Supreme Court on a point of law.

Litigation to question the result of a Dáil election is, fortunately, quite rare. There has been only one such petition since the foundation of the State. Even though petitions are rare events it is appropriate that there should be an effective and efficient statutory procedure for dealing with them.

Section 168 provides that a petition questioning the result of a referendum may only be presented with the leave of the High Court. This is to ensure that changes in the Constitution, which have been approved by the people and may be urgent, cannot be delayed by a person presenting a frivolous petition. Before giving leave to present a petition the High Court must be satisfied that there are good prima facie grounds. Such leave has to be sought within ten days after publication of the provisional results of the referendum.

Section 172 provides that a review of the European Parliament constituencies must be carried out before 1 December 1993. This will mean that the review will be related to the population figures ascertained at the census taken in April 1991 and that any changes decided on can be in place in good time for the next European elections which will be held in June 1994. Future revisions will be carried out at ten yearly intervals, that is, in the interval between the publication of census figures and the holding of a European election.

I believe that, in this introductory statement, I have touched on all the proposed substantive changes which will be of special interest to Members of the House. I would like to draw attention to the explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill which sets out in some detail the contents of the different Parts of the Bill and its Schedules. Should Deputies wish me to expand on any particular aspect of the Bill, I will be happy to do so in replying to Second Stage.

In my view, this is a good, constructive, worthwhile and timely Bill. Its provisions are entirely non-controversial and I look forward to a useful and positive debate. I believe the Bill is worthy of support.

At this stage I would like to welcome Deputy Dukes who has been appointed to the Front Bench. I look forward to working both with him and Deputy McCartan who has been appointed as his party's spokesperson. I hope we can have a good debate on this issue and I commend the Bill to the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Fáiltím anois roimh an Teachta Alan Dukes a bheidh ag caint ón Bhinse Tosaigh.

Mr. Dukes

I thank the Minister of State for his kind comments and look forward to working with him and his colleagues on these issues. I suppose, Sir, that it might be something of a malapropism to say that I find the placing of this Electoral Bill at the top of our agenda for this autumn session to be rather pregnant with meaning. In today's circumstances it might be going a bit far to say that but it is significant. I wonder if the Government are telling us that they have a hidden agenda or perhaps the Taoiseach is trying to tell his colleagues in the Progressive Democrats something in a slightly more tactful way than he has on previous occasions up to now.

In general I welcome the Bill and most of the amendments that it proposes in the law relating to the holding of elections of Members to this House. I believe the Bill will help to clarify some aspects of existing law. I think we would all agree that clarity in the law is desirable for everybody concerned. The House should give a general welcome to Bills which bring forward consolidation legislation. Indeed, I have often thought that it might be useful if the House were to set aside a certain period each year for legislation to consolidate existing legislation. I am not one who believes that the performance, usefulness and productivity of this House should be measured only in terms of the number of pieces of legislation that we pass in a given year. Indeed, I should say that I am personally very suspicious of the kind of mania that requires us to pass new legislation for every conceivable problem.

I should say also that I find a great deal of the comment in the media, who sit in judgment upon us, about the amount of legislation that we pass in this House every year to be utterly disingenuous; it is a kind of word count or Act count measure of performance which has very little to do with content, whereas a Bill of this kind where the content is extremely important is probably more significant in its own way than a number of other measures. Consolidation legislation is very much in the interest of the efficient working of our administration and therefore in the interest of the citizen.

This Bill is a very good example: it sets out to repeal 12 Acts and parts of 11 others. It sets out also to repeal three sets of regulations and parts of three others. I have no doubt that that will be of service to Members of this House, to future candidates for election, to returning officers and, above all, to the electorate.

I am happy to note that this Bill proposes to continue in operation a number of very enlightened provisions. It continues, for example, the extension of the Dáil franchise to British citizens which was initiated by the Government of which I had the honour to be a member in 1985 and it also extends the provisions relating to the granting of the postal vote to servants of the State stationed abroad and the provisions in relation to the registration of disabled electors as special voters. Both of those measures were introduced by that same Government in 1986 and I am delighted to see that provisions of that kind are being continued in this Bill with, in one case in relation to the question of British citizens, a very useful, if somewhat detailed, addition to the provisions that are already in place.

Before going on to comment further on the provisions of this Bill I would like to commend and congratulate most sincerely the Members of Seanad Éireann who succeeded in persuading the Government to drop this asinine proposal for the banning of the taking of opinion polls in the seven days immediately preceding an election. That formed part of the Bill as it originated in the Seanad. The reasons given for that proposal by the then Minister for the Environment, Deputy Rory O'Hanlon, were incredibly stupid and paternalistic. It might be no harm to look back on them because they give an indication of the view on the part of the Government which we should be aware of. He said and I quote from column 361 of the Seanad Official Report of 6 February last:

It is now generally recognised that polls have a significant effect on the manner in which electors vote and this was, in fact, confirmed by a poll published last June. Polls can and do produce a bandwagon effect. They provide the necessary information for tactical voting and vote management, practices which could be held to distort the genuine expression of the people's choice.

Even the Minister of State is smiling at that. One would have to go a long way before they would find anything more idiotic than that. To say that polls, by encouraging people to indulge in tactical voting and vote management, in some way distort the result of an election is most insulting to the intelligence of a great many voters who have, whatever political parties may say to them, from time immemorial in the context of our electoral system a very developed view of the advantages of tactical voting and the advantages to their own areas of tactical voting in order to secure representation for their areas. For a Government to come along and say that polls, because they help people to do this, must in some way be mischievous is absolutely daft.

Let me quote again from the same column:

It is important, too, that the elector's choice should represent genuine conviction and not represent a second guess based on what the polls are saying or the interpretation of them by sophisticated party managers.

I wonder if Deputy O'Hanlon really believes that people are not able to make up their minds and I wonder will he be taking the same view in debates that will be held between now and 3 December. Will Deputy O'Hanlon be eschewing any attempts to influence people in making up their minds in that interval of time? I do not think he will. I think he will seize on any poll or other evidence he can get to support the point of view he wishes to put forward.

Statements such as that are interesting. We have to remember that that proposal was originally contained in the Bill. The Government went through the solemn procedure of bringing a Bill into this House. A policy statement was made to Government by the Minister for the Environment, there were heads of a Bill, there was a draft Bill and the Government, including Fianna Fáil and Progressive Democrats Ministers, solemnly passed this proposal which resulted in a Bill being brought before the House. That such a draft provision could be produced totally demolishes the reputation Fianna Fáil Ministers are supposed to have of being hard-headed political realists. It also demolishes the reputation of Progressive Democrats Ministers as being enlightened thinkers and mould breakers because they conspired in the production of a daft provision of that kind. In securing the deletion of this nonsensical provision — the Progressive Democrates should bear this in mind — Seanad Éireann has again amply vindicated itself.

The Bill contains a number of important provisions about the preparation of the electoral register — the Minister mentioned these today. The importance of accuracy in the register was also mentioned. The Minister of State today, and Deputy O'Hanlon in the Seanad last February, spoke about this matter. The reflections of Deputy O'Hanlon on the accuracy of the register were repeated by the Minister of State today. The ESRI published a report entitled "A Statistical Analysis of the Irish Electoral Register and its use for Population Estimation and Sample Serveys in 1986". Deputy O'Hanlon stated last February that the report shows that our register compares not unfavourably with the standard elsewhere — a curious use of words. He said that the report concluded that it has certain deficiencies which we have documented but for most research purposes these are neither as serious nor as widespread as anecdotal evidence might suggest. Deputy O'Hanlon, who was never a man to pass up a good platitude, and the more pious the better, went on to say: "However, there is no room for complacency and we must seek ways of securing substantial improvement."

I am not interested in the value of our electoral register for population estimation and sample surveys. My interest in it is: does it ensure that the citizen has the right to vote to which he or she is entitled. No amount of congratulation about the usefulness of our register for sample surveying and population estimation will be of the slightest value to the citizen who finds that he or she has been denied a vote by some deficiency in the preparation of the register. For that reason I generally welcome the measures contained in this Bill to improve the preparation of the register and, indeed, to bring forward the process for its preparation.

There may well be a good deal to be said for excluding from the Christmas holiday season the period during which parties and their activists consider the draft register, but the fact remains that the period for the preparation of the register as set out in the Bill, which commences on 1 September, still spans the Christmas period. That would complete the process in a shorter period than is currently the case. Questions of detail can be teased out on Committee Stage but I would ask the Minister to consider whether it would be worthwhile to start the process earlier so that it could be completed by Christmas, before the interruption in normal activities. I see no compelling reason to have the new register come into effect on any particular date, either 15 April as is the case at present or 15 February as proposed in the Bill. If we are looking for a date I would ask why not 1 January of any year, and let us begin the procedure for revision of the register accordingly at an earlier date than is proposed?

I can understand that the question of giving publicity to the preparation of the register might not be an appropriate one for inclusion in a Bill of this kind but it is nevertheless a matter that needs to be addressed very seriously. Despite our best efforts as Members of this House, the best efforts of party activists, local authority staff and all the people involved, we all come across cases in every election of people who are indignant because having slipped through the net they find, on polling day they are not included on the register and cannot vote. That is the case in spite of what I acknowledge to be extensive advertising by the Department of the Environment in the mass media at the material times. I welcome the fact that a much greater accent has been put on television advertising in this connection in recent years, and the campaigns have been quite eye catching but there still remain indignant citizens. I would ask the Minister to consider the campaigns and whether they are having the impact they should have. I am sure the Minister, and Deputy Kavanagh, would agree that many people never see the advertisements and are unaware that there is a procedure that will ensure their entitlement to vote.

I welcome the provision that allows electors to make their case for inclusion in the register up to 12 days before polling day. I commend the Seanad and the Minister who responded to this point and reduced the period from the 21 days originally proposed to 12 days, as is in the Bill. I also welcome the proposal to produce supplements to the electoral register, but only on the condition that they are simply what that word implies and do not replace the publication of a full and complete register. A provision that concerns me is in section 16 which suggests that consideration might be given to the publication of a list of additions and a list of deletions to the draft register. This provision, and the suggestion that it might be generalised if the Minister found it worked reasonably well in given areas, should be dropped.

We are talking here about consolidation legislation, and the same idea of consolidation and up-dating applies by analogy to the preparation of the register. There is no substitute for a complete and up-to-date register. The whole electoral process would become a nightmare if instead of having a full and up-to-date register we had an out-of-date register with a whole series of electors' lists constituting additions to or deletions from a register that might be several years old. I hate to think what the position would be if candidates and canvassers were going around with a register several years old and attached to it a sheaf of lists of additions and deletions. I shudder to think what the job of personation agents on polling day might be if that kind of register existed. I ask the Minister to delete that provision and give up any idea of conducting pilot surveys as to whether this procedure might be better than the production every year of a complete and up-dated register.

I welcome the clarification in this Bill that an elector can be registered only once and in only one constituency or polling area. Where a question of option arises as in the case of the Garda Síochána, members of the Defence Forces and, indeed students, persons who have more than one residence, the voter should be given the choice as to where to register but should then have to stick with that choice during the currency of the register in question.

I am a bit puzzled by the provisions in section 20 for the application of penalties to registration authorities which, in the Minister's view, do not carry out their jobs properly. On Committee Stage there should be a clearer definition of how the Minister will decide whether they are carrying out their job properly. It seems to be unfair to penalise a registration authority if they are seen to have a higher proportion than normal of people who did not bother to be included on the register.

I am delighted that the Bill proposes to remove the requirement that an applicant for entry on the special voters' list must produce a medical certificate each year for continued inclusion on the register. It was an insulting requirement and, if possible, should be dropped even in relation to the first application. However, I am still worried that the Bill provides that a registration authority — the Minister said it again this morning — would be entitled to require such a certificate in relation to any subsequent application where the registration authority considered this necessary. The Minister gave the example of a voter who moves from one constituency or electoral area to another. If a person has been included in the list of special electors anywhere in the country that person should retain the same right if he or she moves to any other part of the country and it is perfectly in keeping with the logic of the provision that deletes the requirement for an annual certificate. If we pass such a law in this House I cannot see any reason for allowing registration authorities to second guess our decision.

I am glad that the issue of the entitlement of polling station staff to vote is dealt with in the Bill and I should like an assurance that the Bill will entitle every person employed in the polling stations on polling day to exercise the franchise. That seems to be the case in relation to poll clerks but I am not sure it applies to presiding officers. That issue should be addressed as presiding officers, people in whom we place a great deal of trust on election day, should not be deprived of the right to vote. Will the Minister consider this matter before proceeding further with the Bill?

Having mentioned the entitlement of polling station staff to vote, I should also like to touch on the matter of their appointment. Section 95 of the Bill provides that the returning officer shall, on request, permit either candidates or their agents to inspect the list of persons who are appointed — or whom it is proposed to appoint — to carry out functions in the polling stations. I am not sure of the intention of this provision because it simply allows the returning officer to show them the list. Does it mean that candidates, prospective candidates or their agents are entitled to offer suggestions to the returning officer as to who might be appointed? If so, why does the provision not explicitly say so? Again, if that is the case, does the returning officer have to act on any such suggestion?

I am sure that other Members of the House have found, as I have, that there is a certain amount of annoyance at every election in relation to the appointment of officers — or to be more accurate, the non-appointment as officers — of persons who are otherwise unemployed and suitable for appointment. I do not mean any disrespect to any of the people who carry out those jobs on election day at election after election but the fact remains that people find it galling to see employed neighbours working in this capacity on election day while they remain unemployed. If the purpose of the provision in the Bill is to help us to deal with that, it should be clarified because it is not evident from a reading of the Bill that that is its intention.

The Bill proposes that the deposit to be lodged by or on behalf of a candidate should be increased from £100 to £500, which was a matter of considerable debate in the Seanad. I am sure that, as long as there is a requirement for a deposit — as I believe there should be — there will be an argument about the appropriate level. The Minister pointed out that a sum of £100 in 1923 would be worth a sum of £3,000 in today's money. He said, in that context, to increase the deposit to £500 seems very reasonable. I do not think so because a lot has changed in the intervening period of 69 years. For example, a proposal today to fix the deposit at £3,000 would be rightly condemned. It is obvious that we have a very different view today of the ease of access which people should have to our election system from the view which obtained in 1923. I am in favour of securing the greatest possible access for every citizen to the electoral process. I accept the need for a deposit but I do not think it should be a figure which would deter anybody from running.

It is all very well for the Minister and other people to say that any worthwhile candidate will be able to get enough people together to raise £500. However, that is a bit disingenuous. When you compare the cases of a number of candidates — they may even be party candidates in an election — if £400 is provided for transporting the candidate to different areas, it means that if this Bill is passed the money will have to go towards the deposit, even if it is refundable, and it could be a material factor in helping that candidate to run a decent campaign. The sum of £400 could be sorely missed.

Mr. McCartan

In the Seanad the Deputy's leader argued for a deposit of £1,000.

Mr. Dukes

Indeed, but we are debating the Bill here. When members of the Deputy's party are elected to the Seanad we can have an entertaining argument with them. However, I will not hold my breath in that regard.

Mr. McCartan

I support the Deputy's views.

Mr. Dukes

I can understand the Minister being concerned about the possibility of frivolous candidates emerging. However, we should place more trust in the electorate and in their ability to detect such frivolity. While there have been rare cases of frivolous candidates — the Minister would remember a rather successful one not too many years ago — their incidence outside the party system in our electoral history has been very small indeed. Using a device like this very substantial hike in the deposit to get around it is not using the proper procedure. I do not think that these cases of frivolity have been frequent enough to justify such a large deposit.

However, I can think of very recent cases where a deposit might have made it difficult for a legitimate interest to be expressed. In the 1989 election, for example, the National Army Spouses' Association ran four candidates on a very small budget. They were perfectly entitled to do so and a deposit of £500 would have created quite a problem for a legitimate political interest to be expressed.

Mr. Kavanagh

There was also a potholes candidate.

Mr. Dukes

A sum of £400 would fill a good few potholes but there is no indication that the money will be used for matters of that kind. It appears that any such money, if it were forfeited, would disappear into that gigantic pothole, the bottomless pit of the Department of Finance, a maw over which I had the honour to preside.

Mr. D. Wallace

The Deputy knows more about it than I do.

Mr. Dukes

I know all about it. The provisions in section 147 of the Bill are intended to prevent obstruction of electors at polling stations on polling day and such provisions are long overdue. I hope I will not offend any Member when I say that probably most of us from time to time have been guilty of that kind of conduct. I suppose it is understandable, after three weeks of a fairly fraught election campaign, that in the emotion, tiredness and enthusiasm of the closing hours of the campaign, we tend to let our enthusiasm get the better of our judgment and we forget our manners in relation to people coming to vote. It is at moments like this when we have the tranquillity of spirit to think about such matters, that we can make sensible decisions about them. Harassment of voters at polling stations should be brought to an end.

I am glad the Minister made it clear both in the Seanad and here today that the 50 metre limit he refers to is to be counted from the outer boundary of the premises in which a polling station is situated. If that is so, that is fine.

Mr. Kavanagh

It is not so.

Mr. Dukes

The Minister said that in the Seanad, and I hope he will repeat it at the end of this debate. Perhaps the Minister would consider the extension of such a limit to 100 metres. All of us can think of instances where a 50 metre ban would simply move the congregation, as the Minister calls it, down the street. In rural areas, a 50 metre ban might move the crowed past the nearest pub, in which case the problem would be solved. However, in some urban areas 50 metres might not be sufficient to achieve the effect that the Minister, rightly, has in mind.

I question only one part of that provision, the ban on the display of posters. There would be a case to provide that at every polling station a large enough space be made available to permit the display of a poster for each candidate in the election, without the attendant multitudes the Minister has in mind. In the interests of information to the voter, a case could be made for the display of posters rather than have the hassle that goes on at the moment.

The Bill produces, for no good reason I can discern, a very curious requirement that each voter should have to display to the presiding officer at the polling station the completed ballot paper folded so that the presiding officer is able to see the official mark on the paper before it is put into the ballot box. People will now be required to walk from the polling booth carrying a folded ballot paper and present themselves in front of the presiding officer, with the paper folded so that the officer can see the official mark, before putting their ballot paper into the ballot box. Why has it been found necessary to have a proposal of that kind in the Bill? Such a provision may well cause great congestion and annoyance to voters, and in this regard I think particularly of the numbers of voters from 7 o'clock in the evening onwards in polling stations situated in populous urban districts and in polling stations in rural areas during the summer time, when people are kept busy with silage, hay and so on. I do not understand why it was felt necessary to introduce a provision of that kind.

The Bill makes clear the entitlement of candidates and their agents to be present at the counting of votes. So far as I can tell, however, they are the only people who under the provisions of the Bill have a right to be present. It seems that the admission of those we know as "tally persons" and spouses and friends of candidates is a matter to be left to the discretion of the returning officer, as is the provision of facilities so that they can actually see the papers as they are sorted and then counted. I object to that matter being left solely to the discretion of the returning officer who may be under pressure because of the kind of premises available. It is necessary to have a more formal indication that that particular and hallowed part of our electoral tradition should be allowed to continue. One could argue that we should all contain our souls in patience and wait until the returning officer, in the company of the candidates and their agents, has announced the result. Indeed, that is the argument that would be made by a clinical, detached observer. To be quite honest, however, flesh and blood would not be able to put up with that. In any event, the information our activists get from looking at the results of boxes is information that is legitimately required in the political process.

I note that these iniquitous provisions limiting time for debate on these Bills, that I am unhappy to say are becoming more prevalent, leave me only two minutes more.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is correct.

Mr. Dukes

I object to my time being so limited. I have a few more points I want to make.

Although I may be wrong, it seems that there are only two sections in the Bill that provide for orders to be made by the Minister under the provisions of this Bill to be required to come before the House and be the subject of a positive decision by the House before they can be passed. In quite a few other instances regulations to be made by the Minister are given effect unless they are subsequently overturned by the Houses of the Oireachtas. For matters such as this, that is a completely inappropriate way of making regulations that have an important effect on our electoral procedure and in other areas. That is a hobbyhorse of mine and I shall come back to this issue on Committee Stage. I invite the Minister to take a more enlightened view and bring matters before this House for decision, even if that means the adoption of a fairly summary procedure for considering them. A positive decision by the House, one way or the other, is much preferable to a potentially negative decision.

There are many other issues that might arise but there is one question I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister. I ask him to consider this matter for the convenience of people who carry out an important function at elections, namely, the personation agents, those inside the polling stations who act on behalf of the candidates. We now intend to ban canvassing outside the polling stations and we should therefore liberate quite a number of party activists, who will not now spend their day outside. On the other hand, there are those who under the present regulations, except by special grace and favour of the returning officer, are obliged to spend the whole day inside the polling station acting as personation agents. It is provided under the Bill that they be allowed to leave the polling station only with the consent of the returning officer. Now that we are releasing all those persons from the arduous task of canvassing outside, perhaps we should consider allowing the relief of personation agents inside the polling stations. I know there are some people for whom that role is the breath of life — people who have acted as personation agents in every election since they were 15 years of age and who could not conceive of an election without doing that but there are others for whom the job represents quite a burden. Perhaps we should build into the system a little leeway to help those people to make their contribution at less inconvenience to themselves.

In general, I welcome the provisions of the Bill. I am opposed to the provision which proposes to increase the deposit, which I consider to be wrong. It is my belief also that provisions in relation to the registration of electors could be further improved. I hope some of those measures will be discussed on Committee Stage.

Mr. Kavanagh

A great deal of the detailed work has already been done on this Bill in the Seanad. It is appropriate, therefore, that I confine my main observations on the Bill at this stage to the principles behind it.

The first point I would have to make is that this debate takes place in the shadow of a reasonably imminent general election. It is obvious to anyone who has eyes to see it that the Government are in the grip of an internal paralysis. It seems impossible for the Government parties to agree even on the time of day in some instances. Inevitably, that state of paralysis will lead to a period of increasing instability and volatility, which will result in an election at any time. If that election takes place in the near future — as seems likely — it will be carried out on the basis of constituency boundaries that were settled by the Boundary Commission and based on the 1986 census of population. That is despite the fact that a substantial amount of information already available from the 1991 census shows that between 1986 and 1991 there was sufficient change in population trends to warrant the establishment of a new Boundary Commission. For example, in that time the population of Finglas, Dublin, has increased by 10.3 per cent, the population of Kildare has increased by 5.4 per cent and the population of Wicklow has increased by 3 per cent. The population of Leinster as a whole has, therefore, increased slightly.

Mr. Dukes

Is the Deputy going to give back to me the strip of Kildare he took from me?

Mr. Kavanagh

It is not for me to give anything, and that is why I am making the case that another Boundary Commission should be established. I feel the people of Kildare and the people of Wicklow would prefer the boundary to be as it was, even if Kildare had to be split into two constituencies — something I am sure the Deputy would not really like. In any event, it is right because of the changes in population trends that a general election should not be held unless the arguments I make, on the basis of the 1986 census, are carried through. In Munster there has been an overall decrease of 1.2 per cent, in Connacht the decrease is 2 per cent and in the three counties of Ulster there has been a decrease of almost 2 per cent as well. It is clear that there have been decreases in Cork city and Limerick city but in Galway city there has been a significant increase.

The information is not yet available on the detailed breakdown on a constituency by constituency basis but it is reasonable to assume that some constituency changes at least will be warranted by the publication of that information — which should be available in a few weeks. In turn, that raises the constitutional issue of whether an election can be validly held on the basis of out of date constituency boundaries. In my view, there is an onus on the Government to announce clearly — and in the context of this debate it is appropriate that they should do so — the moment the census figures become available that a boundary commission will be established with the view to making any necessary changes in constituency boundaries.

I should also point out that there is a clear commitment in the review of the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Programme for Government that this will be done and that the new boundary commission will have the same terms of reference as the previous one. The same review of the Programme for Government promised a comprehensive paper on the issue of voting rights for emigrants together with a decision by the Government before Christmas of 1991.

It is worth noting, when commenting on the absence of any progress in relation to this issue, that the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment is already on record on that issue. Speaking in November 1991 she said: "Surely for the sake of those people forced to leave this country and to ensure their continuing input into Ireland's development we should now commit ourselves to tackling the problems of extending the franchise and to following the example of the United Kingdom, France, Portugal, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain and shortly Italy, and extend the vote to our emigrant population. It is the least we could do for them and something we should do for ourselves."

I am sure I could not express a more eloquent view in support of the right of emigrants to maintain their link for a reasonable period in the democratic process of the land of their birth. Of course, eloquence is not enough because the same Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, together with the rest of her party, combined with Fianna Fáil to vote down the Labour Party Bill on that issue. That Bill was a reasoned and considered attempt to deal with the issue. The Labour Party expressed themselves then, as we still do, as being willing to make whatever reasonable compromises are necessary to ensure a franchise for emigrants that would be supported at home and which would not have an undesirable distorting effect on the outcome of an election. There are many different models that can be considered. The pity is that so far this Government have turned their face against the principle.

One wonders sometimes what principle means to senior Fianna Fáil figures. It seems they can say one thing at home and quite a different thing when they are talking to emigrants abroad. For example, on 18 March 1992, speaking in Washington, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, said that at the end of the day it is not an unreasonable expectation that emigrants recently left the country should hope for a vote. The same Minister in a letter to Irish Emigrant Vote Campaign on 31 October 1991 — when he was not Minister for Foreign Affairs — said: "I enclose the up-to-date Programme for Government between the Coalition partners and I am glad to note it will be the intention to grant the vote to the Irish emigrants." The same view has been expressed in writing by the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications, but at that time when she was not a member of the Government.

Why is it always the case that Fianna Fáil are capable of saying one thing when they are not in a position to deliver but take a different view when they are in a position of power? The Bill before the House will continue to be defective unless it deals with this issue in a reasoned and considered way.

There are, of course, a number of other important issues in the Bill but many opportunities have been missed. I would like to refer to a point made previously which deals with the consideration given in the Bill to the increase in the deposit for Dáil candidates from £100 to £500. While I fully recognise the purpose of this provision is to reduce the number of frivolous candidates taking part in Irish elections, we have been very lucky in this respect in Ireland. We have only to look at the elections in the United Kingdom where candidates of varying shades of eccentricity take part in every election to recognise that in the main Irish elections are fought by parties and individuals with serious agendas. It ought to be the democratic right of every citizen to contest an election, as an Independent, if they wish or through the party system. Democratic norms suggest that unreasonable obstacles should not be placed in the way of such candidacy. Many candidates will be seriously inhibited by a £500 deposit. I believe that consideration ought to be given to reducing that sum and I hope we will get an opportunity to do that on Committee Stage.

In addition, the Bill contains provisions that would inhibit political activity outside polling stations on election day. This is welcome as far as it goes. It has long been an undesirable feature of Irish elections, from the point of view of the electorate in particular, that voters are forced to run the gauntlet of competing political parties who are determined to advertise themselves outside the polling station. All political parties feel obliged to do this and, therefore, all political parties will continue to hear the refrain from voters that their minds are already made up.

This is an opportunity for us to consider seriously whether we ought to follow the example of a number of other countries and establish a moratorium period for 24 hours only before polling in respect of all political activity. I include the taking of polls in that 24 hour period. The idea of producing an opinion poll on the morning of the election — before people go to vote telling them the result of the election — can be dangerous as I know from my colleagues in the British Labour Party. It can give a false impression as to the level of the electoral support which one can have.

Mr. Dukes

They brought that on themselves by a premature election.

Mr. Kavanagh

I can assure the Deputy I am not going to make any argument for the British Labour Party.

Mr. McCartan

They are putting it down to an opinion poll.

Mr. Kavanagh

I make the point that, while opinion polls can give an overall impression of the strength of the parties, it is wrong they should come out on the morning of an election saying what the result is; mine is often very different, I am glad to say. In the past we had a distorted version of what the election result would be. In any event, since opinion polls cannot determine the transfers between candidates at later counts, they cannot be accurate about the total polls for individual parties. As we all know — and some of us are very glad to know — we can get votes from other parties when they are badly needed. I can recall two occasions when I was very happy to receive a reasonable transfer of votes and I was able to continue my term in the House.

Mr. McCartan

I will pass on the Deputy's kind remarks to Councillor McManus.

Mr. Kavanagh

I could mention several who were very helpful on that occasion but I do not think it was their will that I should get them. We may be able to return the compliment at some stage.

Mr. Dukes

That was in the days before Councillor McManus.

Mr. Kavanagh

It is reasonable that there should be a moratorium for a short period, rather than for a 24 hour period as happened in the French election. There is a lot of useful work that tired candidates and workers can do in the last 24 hours before the poll takes place but there always seems to be that last minute letter push, or something like that. A weary electorate can become very annoyed with continuous stroke politics to catch the eye at the last minute. It seems to me the Irish electorate are one of the most sophisticated electorates in the world; they are capable on every occasion of making very difficult and elaborate decisions. Our legislation should reflect that fact.

I wish to deal with a few points which struck me as I looked through the Bill. I very much welcome the proposal to update the register of electors to the latest possible date. It is one of the great faults and weaknesses of our system that people for one reason or another — perhaps they are tardy in indicating they have reached the voting age or that they have moved to another area — are unable to vote. On election day they become very annoyed with politicians who, strictly speaking, do not have responsibility for this task. Politicians do their best to see that the register is kept up to date and the changes in this regard being proposed in the Bill are very welcome.

I cannot say I welcome the proposed changes in relation to postal voting because they do not go far enough. There are three seaports in my constituency. Sailors and officers who work on board ships have been continuously denied a postal vote. I hope an appropriate provision will be included in the Bill which will allow commercial travellers and other people who for one reason or another may not be in their constituencies on election day to vote. I should like that latitude to be given to such people and not merely confined to gardaí and members of the Civil Service who are posted abroad.

The approach adopted towards students is far more sinister. It is estimated that 35,000 students live away from home. Under this Bill they will have to give one address only. Most of the students from my constituency, the area I know best, attend universities and colleges in Dublin or as far away as Waterford and Carlow. One would question whether students should be able to block vote in a particular area or whether they should be forced into making a decision between the area in which the college is located or the area where they live. I believe they should be given a postal vote and be entitled to make a choice between the two areas. As we know, certain constituencies have returned more liberal Members due to the fact that colleges are located there. I do not think the Government should be afraid of that fact. Students should be given this choice rather than continuing the nonsensical system whereby cars and buses have to cross the mountains in Wicklow to get to the Carlow Regional College so that a few students, who may or may not be interested, can be brought home to vote. It is a nonsense to expect young boys and girls who are studying for examinations to be dragged back home during the middle of the week and thereby lose some of their study time when they could be given a postal vote.

Changes have been suggested in relation to the method of election. I believe my party are happy with the PR system; we hope that suggestions about a single non-transferrable vote and the like are merely figments of someone's imagination. As can be seen, it is not always necessary for one party to have an overall majority; some parties in coalitions have worked very well. The PR system has worked well not only in Ireland but in many countries in the European Community. Parties can work well together in Government. The PR system ensures that no party holds a hugely dominant position. I hope proposals in regard to the single non-transferrable vote and multi-seat constituencies will not be put forward during the course of the debate on this Bill.

I am always amazed that in spite of all the new technology and the new products which have come on the market that we still use the same old ballot boxes. One needs to have some dexterity when applying sealing wax to these old rusty tin boxes. As far as I know, sealing wax is used only in old solicitors' offices. Can we not follow the example of other democracies and use transparent boxes with new locking mechanisms? The chief superintendent or county registrar could have a key to the box so that once it is closed no one can interfere with it. It is time we moved on from using these old tin boxes with locks which can be opened with a bent pin. These boxes are left lying around in trucks and halls all night — I know that gardaí are assigned to look after them. Surely it is time we modernised the type of box we use. Instead of requiring people to hold up their ballot papers to show they are stamped properly, they could drop them into a perspex box so that one could see the number of votes cast. This is the type of box used in many progressive countries. I hope we are a progressive country and that we take that system on board. Some of the boxes we use go back to the time of the foundation of the State or maybe even before it. I hope we can replace them. Perhaps the Minister of State will think about that suggestion.

It is proposed in the Bill that a poll may continue for up to 14½ hours — I think the maximum time is between 8 a.m. and 10.30 p.m. I hope we keep the 12 hours limit. I have found that someone will always be late casting their vote and there will always be a last minute rush. Even if another hour was given at the end of the day I do not think it would make any difference to the turnout. In some cases only 5 per cent of the electorate may vote in five hours and there is suddenly a big rush at the end of the day. I do not think an extra hour at the end of the day will increase the percentage from 72 per cent or 73 per cent to 80 per cent. We should accept that the closing time of 9 p.m. is reasonable. As I said earlier, those who cannot make it to the polling station should be accommodated under the postal voting system.

An organisation has been pushing for a number of years for ballot papers to carry pictures of the candidates. Some years ago I thought that idea was something of a nonsense. However, many people who attend reading and writing classes do not want it to be known at election time that they are illiterate. They may spoil a ballot paper rather than ask a friend, relation or the presiding officer to help them fill it in. Having pictures of the candidates on ballot papers would be of help to such people, particularly if, by coincidence, two candidates have the same name. This proposal should be given some consideration and perhaps it can be referred to on Committee Stage.

I wonder when we will settle on a time limit for local elections. It is appropriate that this point should be mentioned now. We still have not heard from the Minister — he had the opportunity to tell us today — whether elections to urban district councils and town commissioners will be held next year. They have been promised but I do not know whether they will take place. It is crazy to have a seven year period between the holding of local elections; the maximum period between the holding of local elections should be five years. The electorate in local elections is small and it should not be a great problem to hold them. Of course, there is a question mark over the approach of the Government to local democracy in that respect. The Minister will probably tell us whether he is going to leave the boundaries as they were on the last occasion or whether they will be changed. I hope he will avail of the opportunity to clear up any doubts in that regard. Many people believe democracy loses its effect if the same people are let run our towns over a long period. I hope a date will be given for the holding of the local elections.

I agree with the points made by Deputy Dukes about the 50 metres limit outside polling stations. As I have said, some improvements had to be made in this regard. However, I envisage that before polling stations open we will need a measuring tape to find out where we can move to and get a definition of where the polling station starts. My own polling station is the Dominican Convent in Wicklow. One has to drive about 40 yards to the polling station from where I live, so I would like to know if the polling station is the Dominican Convent or the polling station itself. If it is the convent, that comprises at least 50 acres of land which would mean that one could find oneself as far out as Brittas Bay on one end of the polling station or perhaps one hundred yards away from it in another direction.

Mr. Dukes

You would be better employed going for a swim than hassling the voters.

Mr. Kavanagh

Not in a winter election which we probably will have. I find it cold enough in Brittas Bay in the summer. We must address that particular proposal so that before the next general election we can decide exactly how we should operate. There is only one argument that I would make concerning attendances outside polling stations. I believe that if people, while voting, did not see canvassers outside the polling station, they might feel that there was a lack of interest. In British general elections the polling stations appear to be very quiet, which might imply a very dull election, but on the other hand what I have seen happening in Bray, where people are actually jostled while trying to enter the polling stations, is not useful either. There is a need for this problem to be addressed and we should give it more consideration at the time of the Estimates.

Finally, I make a very strong plea that we set up a special committee of the House to deal with the Committee Stage of this Bill. It is a very large Bill, comprising approximately 118 pages and over 170 sections. My experience of the recent Housing Bill was that, having dealt with approximately one-third of that Bill, it was guillotined, with the result that many important sections were overlooked during the cut and thrust of Committee Stage. We are now dealing with an Electoral Bill and it is fair to say that almost everybody in this House is an expert and has an opinion and, therefore, I feel this Bill could be greatly improved by allowing it to be fully debated in a special committee of the House. There was an outcry because of what happened to the Housing Bill and, subsequently, the Roads Bill was dealt with in committee. Some constituents thought we were on holidays during the summer but in fact we spent a couple of weeks working on that Bill which proved to be very worthwhile. Regarding this Bill, I would make a strong appeal that it be dealt with in a special committee and that the usual procedures are adopted to give full representation to all sides of the House. If that is allowed to take place the result will be a much better Bill. Obviously, following Committee Stage the Bill will be returned to this House and any points of principle that cannot be agreed can be dealt with on Report Stage. I hope the Bill will be dealt with by a special committee, and I believe we can, with generosity, improve the Bill a great deal.

Mr. McCartan

I wish to thank the Minister of State for his kind remarks in welcoming me to this specific duty in the Dáil. I look forward to working closely and constructively with him and also to have the honour of joining such eminent people in the arena as Deputy Dukes and Deputy Kavanagh.

By and large, Democratic Left welcome the Bill that is before the House but, unfortunately, it has a number of shortcomings that I believe could be addressed. I know from reading the Seanad debate that the Minister of State and the Minister who moved the Bill there and who has now moved on from that portfolio, indicated that he would be receptive to suggestions that might be made on many aspects of the legislation. I hope that will be the attitude of the Minister of State, as I am sure it will, when considering amendments on Committee Stage.

The legislation, by and large, is very good and for that reason I hope that we can make such progress as will facilitate the passing of this legislation into law before the holding of the forthcoming referendum that is proposed by the Government on the issues relating to travel, information and abortion which is scheduled for the first week in December. That cuts a little across Deputy Kavanagh's hope that this Bill would be dealt with in Special Committee from here. It is very substantial legislation but, as he pointed out in his opening remarks, much work has been done in the Seanad in terms of improving and tidying up its provisions. I would certainly like to see this legislation in place to regulate and control the way in which the referendum and the campaign leading up to the referendum in December is conducted because it seems to me, having regard to the activities up to now of certain elements and groups on one particular side of the debate, who seem to think that the private homes and private lives of Deputies are open to attack, to bully into and, from what I understood of Deputy Fennell's position, to very intimidating attitudes towards her at her home, that we can expect a very tough campaign indeed, particularly those of us who would campaign for some form of legislation to facilitate abortion in limited circumstances in this country.

In particular, the provisions in this legislation that would regulate the conduct of people outside polling stations would be very helpful indeed. Whatever about general election days and people running the gauntlet, I believe there could be much more very unsavoury activity outside our polling stations on the referendum on these issues but this legislation will help the position. I hope, therefore, that we can agree a speedy passage of this legislation through the House. Much of its work has been done in the Seanad and I hope it will be in place in time to regulate the forthcoming referendum.

This legislation is very welcome in itself. It must be almost unique in terms of the type of work that is undertaken by this House by combining in one aspect of legislation all of the law relating to an aspect of our civil society. It has managed to draw together the basic principles that can be found in 19 legislative measures going back as far as 1850 or thereabouts. It would have been very helpful — and perhaps the Minister of State would be able to inform the House — to have a little more of the work that was necessary to put this together. In particular, the officials in the Department of the Environment and the Minister have to be congratulated for the work they did and I hope the views of this House will be conveyed to those who worked on this legislation in compiling and drafting it. For years many of us have been arguing in the general area of law reform itself and, in particular, the area of criminal law that we should have the law streamlined, codified and worked into one basic item of legislation but time and again we have been told that it is much too cumbersome an undertaking, that resources are not available and that it would require too much effort to do this work. Here is a classic example of what we have been talking about and would advocate, and so perhaps the Minister of State would advise the House on when the work first began, whose idea it was to initiate the project, when did it begin, and how long did it take to put together this codifying legislation. It is very welcome in that respect.

The Minister of State, on behalf of the Government, should have availed of the opportunity today to reaffirm Government belief in and support for the proportional representation voting system based on multi-seat constituencies, which has obtained here since the foundation of the State. Such a statement is expected of Government because that system has proved to be extremely fair and a good working one.

Going through some Press cuttings on this issue I noted that in November 1991 the then Taoiseach, Deputy Charles J. Haughey, called publicly on people to seriously address the question of single seat constituencies. I am particularly concerned about a Fianna Fáil/Progressive Democrats Coalition being led by a Taoiseach who has made a clear statement that his task as Taoiseach is to lead Fianna Fáil back to single party Government. If that is his serious intent then the Taoiseach must have some regard to the electoral system. It is fair to say that the system of proportional representation which has obtained since the foundation of the State will never again provide a single party majority Government here. Deputy Haughey was motivated in that direction and the Taoiseach, who apparently is motivated in the same direction, will I believe again tinker with the concept of single seat constituencies or with doing away with the proportional representation system, as Fianna Fáil endeavoured to do twice in the past.

I would challenge the Minister of State, when replying on behalf of the Government, to indicate where the Government stand in regard to a system which is recognised internationally to be a fair, workable and tested one.

The concept built into other provisions of this Bill — with which I will deal in time — of endeavouring to obliterate minority of small parties, such as the one of which I am a member, is not healthy for our democracy. It is vital that all shades of public opinion within our community be heard and represented on the Floor of this House. Indeed, in investigating our overall electoral system, the Minister must realise — as no doubt he does — that on average up to 30 per cent of the electorate do not vote in general elections. A sizable proportion of the electorate entitled to exercise their democratic right to vote opt out when it comes to decide who will govern this country, in what way, or what should be the electoral programme to be followed for the ensuing five years. Indeed, the proportion of the electorate is less when it comes to local and European elections. For example, there are some constituencies, and wards within them, where the voting numbers will be as low as 50 per cent of the electorate. I know of one polling station in my constituency where the percentage who voted was as low as 30 per cent in the local elections in 1985.

In a Bill of this kind we should not only encourage people to participate in the voting system but also engender within that system a sense of confidence and integrity leading people to believe there is a place for them within it. Any plans for exclusion simply for sectoral gain ultimately will mean that in the long run all of us will lose out.

Working on the general principle of the need to encourage participation in the electoral system I contend a number of basic issues must be addressed, the first, on which Deputy Kavanagh touched, being the position of our emigrants. It is totally unacceptable that those who, through no fault of theirs — because of poor economic performance and Government policy at home — are obliged to go abroad to work should be automatically disadvantaged, not entitled to vote in local, general or European elections. In the case of the latter it is beyond comprehension, especially in the case of those who move within the EC — particularly bearing in mind this great union now being built within Europe — that an Irish national working in another European country is not given a say in which Irish representatives should be elected to the European Parliament.

That is just one example of the incomprehensible attitude of Government of refusing to address the voting position of our emigrants. I contend their position could be built on to an even greater extent if one were seriously interested in ensuring that people involve themselves in the electoral process. For example, I contend that anybody who has been forced to go abroad out of economic necessity for a period of five years or less must be given the right to address and comment on the performance of the political party or parties in Government who fail, within their political and/or economic programme, to ensure jobs for them at home. Such people must be given an opportunity to cast their vote in at least one election subsequent to their departure from these shores.

The question of postal votes generally has not been addressed in the Bill. As I understand it, the Bill allows for members of the Garda Síochána to opt for being an ordinary voter on the register or, alternatively, to use the postal vote. The same facility is afforded members of the Defence Forces, the basic principle being recognised that they are rendering a service to the State and, in so doing, should not be disadvantaged through the location in which they may find themselves on polling day or by other demands being made of them by someone in higher authority. Clearly a member of the Garda Síochána or a soldier given an order by a superior officer could not respond or refuse to carry out that order because he wished to vote.

As others have said, there are a large number of non-security personnel working, directly or indirectly for the good of the State, who, as a class, find themselves severely disadvantaged when it comes to exercising their franchise. For example, fishermen in Howth in my constituency frequently approach me before or after polling day claiming that they will be or have been out on the high seas at their employer's command, weather conditions being such that fish were there to be caught. The same would apply to sailors on ships travelling abroad. That may not be as relevant today since the demise of Irish Shipping but, when people worked for a national shipping company they were not facilitated in casting their votes, which they should have been. The same applies to nurses working unsocial hours in hospitals, who may be on night duty and would not find it easy to cast their vote within their non-working hours. The same applies to travelling sales people who, in the course of their work, are taken from their constituencies.

If we can devise rules for members of the Garda, Defence Force and sailors why cannot we devise the same rules for others who find themselves in a similar position on polling day? I think, for example, of workers transferred to other locations as a result of Government decentralisation programmes who may travel backwards and forwards from their place of work to their abode. For example, there are now many workers who travel daily from Dublin to Cork and other places and workers who travel from locations outside of Dublin to the city centre and back.

There is a case to be made for more flexible usage of the postal voting system. I do not accept the proposition that, because of the nature of their work, one can trust one group of workers but not another since all serve the State directly or indirectly. Nobody should be discommoded or denied a vote simply because they may have been absent at work on polling day.

That takes me to the question of disabled voters. I do not understand why the Bill retains the cumbersome system of requiring a member of the Garda and a returning officer to go to a disabled person's home with a ballot paper. It is an excessively cumbersome system representing a significant intrusion into such a person's home. Why cannot disabled persons be given the facility of a postal vote once it has been certified that they are unable to travel beyond their home with ease? I should like to hear the Minister's views on this. In particular I would ask him to examine his introductory remarks with regard to disabled voters.

I welcome the removal of the obnoxious provision which required people with a physical or other disability to produce a certificate showing that they were of sound mind. That was preposterous, whoever thought of it. It shows an incredible nervousness within the Department or on the part of the Minister, which is reflected in this legislation, in regard to being more flexible, drawing people in and making it more easy for them to participate in the electoral system.

The Minister said in his speech that the requirement in relation to sound mind may give offence to some disabled persons and that the requirement of an annual medical certificate could cause inconvenience and possible expense. The Minister suggested that such provision may give offence; it absolutely did so. It offended and insulted all disabled persons. That is why the Minister is removing the requirement in this legislation. I would ask him to go further and to investigate the possibility of securing Government approval to accommodate the use of the postal vote in this area. It is far more straightforward and casts no reflection on the integrity of the disabled voter. It certainly would save the Government a considerable amount of expense in paying for the time of gardaí and other personnel. I should like to hear from the Minister, if he proposes to allow the legislation as drafted to stand, any facts and figures with regard to the number of personnel employed, the number who seek to use the disabled vote and the expense incurred on the day of an election in trying to accommodate the provisions of the legislation which exists.

I welcome the provision whereby the voter must opt for one address, if that voter has the right of address in more than one constituency.

I particularly welcome the views of Deputy Dukes with regard to the deposit provision. I interjected when he was speaking because I was concerned that the spokesperson for Fine Gael in the Seanad had argued for the deposit of £1,000 and had not advanced any reason. I would hope that the Government would take into account the attitude shown by the three parties in this House on this issue.

Participation is what it is all about. The unemployed came from all 32 counties to march in Dublin yesterday and to express their dissatisfaction. The message must not be lost that politicians who turned up to participate were not allowed at the front of the march and were not invited to address the rally when it assembled in O'Connell Street. The unemployed feel let down by politicians and that the electoral system as represented by the two Houses of the Oireachtas has little to offer in any meaningful way. There is a lesson to be learned. That section of the community are substantially represented in the 30 per cent who do not vote in elections. If we say we are about to impose a further restriction on their participating in the system, in the long run we will be the losers.

The simple proposition put forward to justify the increase is that £100 in 1923 would be equivalent to £3,000 today, but that is proof of nothing. We legislate for conditions that apply at a given time. The argument is now being advanced that the device of increasing the deposit to £500 is to allow the Government to weed out irrelevant candidates. There is a degree of arrogance involved in that concept which is not healthy in people who are in pursuit of a democratic system that works. Who is to say that any other person is irrelevant? Who is to tell the thousands who marched in Dublin yesterday that they are irrelevant simply because they see no role for themselves within the electoral system directly? It is argued that the voter must be entitled to make a decision without the distraction of non-relevant candidates. That is arrogant in concept and gives little or no benefit to the voter.

We must work to encourage people into the system and to see that election to the Dáil or Seanad is a worthwhile objective in pursuit of a particular viewpoint or end. I do not want to single out a Deputy but one could argue that Deputy Foxe is in some way irrelevant because he was presented at the last general election as a single issue candidate. He is not a member of a political party and he is pursuing a specific item. Perhaps he is an irrelevancy in the cosy party political system we seem to want in this institution, which is perceived outside to be no more than a club. We must be extremely careful about that. Every Irish citizen who is prepared to put up a reasonable deposit of £100 should be entitled to come forward. Public opinion would police the system and the reaction which people meet campaigning on doorsteps.

The British phenomenon of people coming forward with crazy names and crazy manifestoes is a direct product of the single seat constituency organisation which substantially alienates large sections of opinion from the electoral system. I would have great difficulty in knowing where to fit into the electoral system in Britain when the choice is between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party. Nobody else would seem to be a possible parliamentary force. I feel for the 15 per cent or 20 per cent of people who voted Green and did not manage to secure one seat in parliament.

We must be careful not to be seen to alienate and disenfranchise people unwittingly. The notion that we can describe people as irrelevant and scratch their names off the ballot paper so that voters will not be distracted is very dangerous. If it is the motivation behind the increase in the deposit from £100 to £500, I would ask the Minister to change his mind and to leave the deposit as it stands. It has been at that level since 1923 and we have never had a rash of irrelevant or distracting candidates on the ballot paper. Why change it when it has worked so well for so long?

I welcome any effort to eradicate difficulties outside polling stations. In 1977 I watched two warring factions of the same political party literally fight it out, poster for poster, foot for foot and inch for inch, over who should represent the party — not the Minister's party — outside that polling station. It was outrageous. The way to deal with this problem is to ban all canvassing and electioneering on polling day and, perhaps, the day before. There should be a respite at the end of a campaign for voters to reflect on the issues and arguments put forward over the previous two to four weeks before making their measured judgment.

I had the honour, with two other Deputies and a Senator, to travel to Chile in 1988 to see off the great and obnoxious dictator, Pinochet, in a constitutional referendum. It was remarkable to see the way in which that country, which had been deprived of the democratic process for many years, appreciated the return to normality and the right to vote. There was no electioneering on the day before polling or on polling day. A public holiday was declared to enable people to go to the polling stations to vote and this was done in a very ordered and dignified manner. There is a great deal to be learned from that. We should declare polling day a public holiday in order to allow people to vote in a general election. A general election is held approximately every four years and it would not be a big concession to give people the day off work to allow them move with ease to a polling station free from all distractions of people shouting names and shoving literature at them. That is the way to go forward and I ask the Minister to adhere to the existing provisions in the legislation. I suggest that he increase the distance in which canvassers may operate to at least 100 metres from the polling stations. There should be no placing of posters on polling day although the suggestion has been made that we allow some. If we provide an exception to the limit of the distance people will argue their right to put up posters and attend to them.

I should like to mention one other aspect of the election process which has not been addressed. The Minister of State said that the surname and Christian name will be on the ballot paper. I am sure the Minister is aware of deed polls being lodged in the High Court some days before an election as a mechanism to work party political or campaign issues into a surname. That issue should be dealt with in the legislation.

The legislation proposes to maintain the age at which a candidate may be elected at 21 years. However, we allow people of 18 years to participate in the electoral process and consider them adults for all other aspects of the law. Therefore, people of 18 years of age should be entitled to stand as candidates for Dáil Éireann. It is about time we had younger people putting forward the views of their contemporaries in this Chamber.

The Minister, when moving the Bill in the Seanad, said it was important to streamline the legislation to ensure it would not be controlled by experts and lawyers. In my first election to Dáil Éireann I was the victim — if I might say so — of an overnight recount because a son of a certain esteemed Deputy had run a close second to me. I arrived at the polling station the following day to meet three learned members of the Law Library who had many books with them, to act on his behalf. That brought home to me for the first time just how hairs can be split and how legal arguments run in this whole area. To the extent that the Bill helps to streamline and bring the electoral process within the understanding and control of people generally, it is very welcome and I commend the Minister for introducing it.

Miss M. Wallace

I welcome the Bill. Though largely a consolidation measure, this Bill contains a number of significant improvements to our electoral law and does much to simplify and improve access to the electoral process. Basically, this is what we are all trying to achieve.

At its base, we should view electoral law as enabling the exercise of a fundamental right, the right of members of society to make a contribution to decisions affecting that society. In considering legislation such as this, it is easy for professional representatives to fall into the trap of looking at the whole issue purely in terms of trying to make our lives easier. In fairness the Bill does not fall into that trap as it sets as its objective unhindered access to the polling process. However, many areas of the Bill can be improved and a different perspective might make its intentions clearer. I would like to devote most of my time to what I see as the three principles of the Bill, first, the registration of electors; second, the candidates' deposits and, third, canvassing in the vicinity of polling stations.

In relation to the register of electors, the registration process, when working properly, should ensure as far as possible that every person over 18 years who is not specifically disqualified due to criminality, is in a position to exercise their right to vote. At present our system is quite restrictive and in comparison to some other countries is somewhat inflexible. Therefore, I am glad the Bill provides some element of flexibility in allowing as many qualified persons as possible to cast their vote on election day. In the United States people are still registering to vote in the Presidential election although the election is only one month away. In North Dakota there is no register and voters have only to turn up on 5 November to prove their right to vote. I am not recommending that we should have such a system here, but it shows the flexibility that exists in other countries. For a number of reasons that would be impracticable here, we do not have fixed dates for elections and the principle of enabling each candidate to reach a qualified voter through the postal system is one of the rights of candidates in elections here.

I am sure all Deputies welcome the introduction of a supplementary register. It will make a significant contribution towards correcting errors. I am sure every Deputy can refer to many instances of people complaining to him or her on or after polling day about being left off the register. People who might have been on the register for years find on polling day they are not on it. The supplementary register is an excellent idea as it will include those people who have been on the register for many years and through some error were left off at the time of registration.

I should like to refer to those who reach 18 years of age after the qualifying date of 1 September. If a person is 18 years on 2 September it may mean that he or she may have to wait 16 months before they are entitled to vote. Perhaps, in future reform, we can include in the supplementary register not just people who are left off the register but also those coming up to the age of 18 years. There are a number of ways in which this could be done. They could simply be included in the supplementary register or the date that a person reaches the age of 18 years could be written beside their name on the register. From that day they would be entitled to vote.

A third suggestion — while this might be the least satisfactory of the three it might solve the problem — is that people who reach the age of 18 years between 1 September and 15 February, which is the date the new register comes into force, could be allowed to put their name on the register. This is happening but it is not legal. If people reach the age of 18 between 1 September and 15 February they should be able to register. This is something that could be covered. It is a pity that people could be 18 years of age and not have an opportunity to become involved in the democratic process for 16 months.

Place of residence is very important. In South County Meath many people move house and this phenomenon is particularly relevant in the Dublin area. It is relevant also in many urban areas and in areas where there is an increase in population. Houses change hands frequently and the people on the move are not catered for in the supplementary register. They should be catered for. People who move, for instance, from Donegal to Dublin should not have to return to Donegal to register but should be able to use a supplementary register. A register should be established each year and people should be able to add their names to it throughout the year. With computerisation it should be possible to produce a full register within three days of the calling of an election.

Other speakers referred to special voters. I warmly welcome the change in the registration process for special voters. It was outrageous that special voters had to be certified as being sound of mind and produce a medical certificate every year confirming their disability.

Debate adjourned.