Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 14 Oct 1992

Vol. 423 No. 5

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

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

As I was speaking for just a few minutes last evening I had the opportunity only to outline the substantial areas of the Bill with which I agree and to list the few issues with which I disagree. It is my opinion that the Bill will be of immense benefit, first, because it brings together all of the electoral practices and Electoral Bills in a fairly simple measure which includes all provisions concerning elections. Several proposals, arising from experience in other elections, have also been brought together in the Bill and that will be very helpful.

Last night I referred to the matter of polling booths and polling day. In regard to most polling stations there is not much real problem but outside some polling booths there is very vigorous activity. At least one polling station in my constituency is notorious in that it attracts huge crowds compared with other polling booths and voters have quite a struggle trying to get through the crowds both when going to the gate of the polling booth and when coming away from it. Because of the experience of that particular polling booth, I believe that the proposed 50 metre limit is not at all sufficient. The polling booth to which I refer is situated on a very short road — I suppose that the length of the road is about 100 metres each side of the polling station. On polling day the whole of that road is clogged with people handing out leaflets, shouting and encouraging voters. Large crowds of children gather also and they run up and down, creating mayhem. In order that voters may be able to move peacefully into a polling booth without hassle or pressure from anybody it is essential to impose a greater limit. I suggest that a distance of half a mile from a polling station should be the minimum limit set to ensure that there is no harassment of voters going to the polls.

Deputy Cosgrave suggested that all electoral activity should cease on polling day. I do not agree with that suggestion. It is acceptable in countries where voting is compulsory but where it is not compulsory voters need some encouragement to come out and vote. If there is no political activity on polling day it would be very quiet and there would be a low poll. It is essential that it be known that an election is taking place on the day by having some political activity, but it should be kept away from polling stations and possibly should be confined to a number of areas in constituencies such as shopping centres and whatever. I do not think it would be a good thing to have all political activity banned on polling day. It would not encourage people to come out and vote, which is what is required in Ireland. Where voting is compulsory in a number of continental countries then it is acceptable to ban all political activity on polling day but I do not think it should happen here.

The Bill provides that all political activity must be at least 50 metres away from the polling station. I consider 50 metres to be unreasonable because the polling station can still be clogged up at that distance. I can give the Minister examples in my own constituency where that can happen.

I welcome the provisions for changing the compilation of the register. Many people have problems with the register on polling day. On the occasion of the last election in my own constituency a whole section of voters who had been on the register for 20 to 25 years were dropped because apparently a page slipped out during compilation of the register. The proposal to have a supplement is an excellent one. The register of electors must be complied and completed by 5 April; that is the register for the following 12 months. The vast majority of people do not check the register. If they are on it this year they expect to be on it next year and the year after or until such time as they move from that particular place. That does not always happen. It frequently happens that people who have been on the register for many years are omitted because of some error.

The idea of producing a supplement of people who have been omitted from the register is an excellent one because people have an entitlement to vote and have a constitutional right to do so. If for some reason they are deleted from the register, through no fault of their own, I am sure they would have a case if they took it to court. I welcome the idea of the supplement and also the idea of having a list of additions and deletions to the existing register. That should be the way forward for compiling a register but I suggest that in the beginning both methods be used. At present officials are going around attempting to compile the new register. When the whole area is computerised the supplement for deletions and additions is the way forward; it is the fastest and most efficient way of compiling a register.

I am pleased to see the requirement whereby special voters had to be certified as being of sound mind is being deleted. That was a dreadful insult and was a terrible hindrance to special voters whereby they alone had to be certified as being of sound mind whereas everybody else on the register could be stone mad.

I come now to the one point on which I have a major difference with this Bill: that is the raising of the deposit from £100 to £500, an increase of five times the current deposit. The reason given for the proposed increase is to prevent frivolous candidates from contesting elections. Who is a frivolous candidate? We do not have experience of frivolous candidates in this country. We may read of them in other countries but it is not a factor in Ireland. There may be raving loony parties in Great Britain — I presume that is what is meant by frivolous candidates. Even if such frivolous candidates contest an election surely it would not seriously upset or disrupt the whole electoral process. That is not a justifiable reason for increasing the deposit from £100 to £500. At present what we need is more democracy and more participation. The last thing in the world we need — this is a very bad time for this move — is to turn this Dáil into a more elite or exclusive club. Any idea of that nature should be nipped in the bud. This is the worst possible time for that idea to be pushed in this Dáil. A frivolous candidate is anybody who does not belong to a certain type of politics.

It is much more difficult for people today to find £500 than it was at the time of the last election, three years ago. Deputy Dukes gave an excellent example of temporary interest groups who may wish to draw the attention of the electorate to their problem and who use the electoral process for furthering their campaign. That is quite legitimate. That is part of the democratic process. He gave the example of spouses of members of the Army who contested elections to raise an issue which has since been resolved. They will no longer be contesting elections. It was a particular issue at a particular time and was dealt with democratically and very well at that time. Nobody could say they were frivolous candidates. They did not all expect to win seats but they expected to draw the attention of the electorate to a particular matter and succeeded in getting a substantial number of votes. Who is to say they were frivolous candidates? Certainly they were not frivolous candidates. They, or a similar group, would have had great difficulty in raising £500 for each of their candidates. Similarly, a group of unemployed people contested elections over 40 years ago. They campaigned during the fifties and managed to put up a candidate. They had great problems in collecting the £100 necessary for the deposit but their candidate was elected. That was a great boost to the unemployed. It showed that if unemployed people stood together they could get their candidate elected. Unfortunately, their candidate eventually went to Canada, probably to take up a job.

The unemployed may wish to contest an election in the future. They are the big issue in this country; the Taoiseach, the Government and everyone else in this House has said that they are the big issue. Do we really want to stop these people from contesting elections? They may regard the proposal to increase the deposit from £100 to £500 as an attempt to prevent them contesting an election. It would be very wrong if that impression went abroad. I believe it would be perfectly legitimate for the INOU, the National Organisation for the Unemployed, or any local group of unemployed people to put up a candidate in their area. This is part of the democratic process. They are entitled to make their point about the failure of the Government and all of us here to provide jobs for them and to put up a candidate who will speak for them in this House. They might wish to put up a candidate in every constituency, giving a total of 38 candidates who would have to pay £500 each. Where would they get the money to pay their deposits? Even if they wished to put up a candidate in each of ten constituencies, the would have great difficulty in collecting £5,000.

No good reason has yet been put forward as to why the deposit should be increased to £500; there has been no disaster which would impel us to increase the deposit. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this proposal, as it is the worst possible time to increase the deposit. The Government will get a very bad image if they push through the proposal to increase the deposit from £100 to £500; it will be seen as an attempt to exclude certain people who might be regarded as frivolous.

I welcome this Bill which deals mainly with the election of Members to the Oireachtas. I wish to refer to some of the provisions in the Bill.

I believe most of us recognise that our electoral register is of the utmost importance. The proposed changes in regard to preparation and the new timetable are welcome. I believe we would all put down the marker that such changes are welcome as long as they work and the electorate can be registered and exercise their right to vote. In this regard I welcome section 15 and Part II of the Second Schedule which deal with a situation with which many of us are familiar. We all know people who have gone to the trouble of taking a half day off work, altering their hours at work, arranging a babysitter or arranging care for a relative at home in order that they can cast their vote at the polling station where they voted at the last election, only to be told they are not on the register and are not entitled to vote. If the election — a referendum, local election, general election or presidential election — is of particular concern to them they will wish to exercise their right to vote. Unfortunately, when they present themselves at their normal polling station they are advised that they are not on the register, can not be accommodated and are not entitled to vote, even if someone in the polling station or a member of a political party knows who they are and knows they are entitled to vote at that polling station. I hope the provisions in section 15 and Part II of the Second Schedule will ensure that such individuals are facilitated and will prevent such incidents from occurring in the future. I know there is a deadline and everybody cannot be facilitated at the 12th hour or on the day of polling. Nevertheless I welcome the supplement to the register of electors.

I recognise that the Department of the Environment use the media to advise people of their right to vote. Perhaps most of us take our right to vote for granted. It is very important that some programme is undertaken to ensure that the general public are made aware of the importance of the register and the need to check on an annual basis that they are registered to vote. I am very pleased to note the Minister has accepted that a medical certificate is only required in the case of a first application under the special arrangements for voters. This is a very welcome move. Previous speakers have already referred to this issue.

There has been much talk both in this Chamber and the Seanad Chamber about the proposed increase in the deposit from £100 to £500. I have to say in all seriousness that I do not think a £500 deposit for a Dáil election, which is refundable if the individual is elected, is too much in this day and age. As the Minister said, if the deposit had been index-linked from the time it was first introduced it would now be £3,000. I think most people would agree that £3,000 would be somewhat over the top. I know the Minister is under pressure and calls have been made not to increase the deposit. I note that these calls have been made mainly by Independent Members of this House. I am in the happy position — I say this openly — to have had my deposit paid by my party. I think Members of most of the other large political parties are in the same position.

Not really.

Not on this side of the House.

Obviously the Members on this side of the House are fortunate in this regard. I do not think a deposit of £500 is too much to ask of people who put themselves forward as candidates for election to this House and who are serious about their business. As the previous speaker said, we do not wish to be seen as an élite or exclusive club; no-one wants this House to be tagged in this way. Even if the deposit is increased to £500 I do not believe this House will be regarded as élite.

One could make many comparisons in regard to membership of elite clubs, for example, some elite golf, rugby or football clubs in some parts of this city and one would be talking of a membership fee of double the £500 deposit stipulated in this Bill. We must remember that we are talking about a refundable deposit. It is important that that be borne in mind. I should like the Minister to adhere to the figure specified in the Bill. While recognising that many members have asked the Minister to reconsider this matter and reduce the deposit I would advise him not to reduce it, to stick to his guns; £500 is not too much to ask. Indeed, I would ask other Members contributing to this debate to support me, giving the Minister the courage and confidence to adhere to his proposals as specified in the Bill before us.

With regard to section 147, which deals with obstruction of or interference with electors, perhaps the Minister would clarify this provision when replying. I hesitate to use the verb "enjoy" but, on occasions, it has to be said we have all participated in political activity at polling stations.

Vincent is gone now; the Deputy will not need to.

Perhaps the Deputy could carry a placard saying: "I did not shoot Vincent".

We have all engaged in some political activity in regard to various political issues on polling day when tension can be raised; there is no doubt about that. We have all experienced the heightening tension as we approached the eleventh and twelfth hours. In the course of one of the first election campaigns in which I participated — I was not a candidate at the time — I took it on myself to arrange to have three ugly black litter bins located about ten feet behind the spot where I stood canvassing handing out excellent Fianna Fáil election literature only to see it disposed of ten feet behind me. Electors, as they passed me, said they had already made up their minds, knew which way they would vote and contended such literature was being forced on them. Of course I took the literature from the bins which mean that, in the best environmentally friendly fashion, I was recycling it.

Our electorate have been seen to be intelligent, knowing well in advance of their arrival at the polling station how they intend voting. If anything, it may annoy them when a number of political parties, Independents and so, perhaps a multiple of political parties — because of our multi-seat system — canvassing for individuals at polling stations adopt stances on various issues. We all know this has taken place.

In all fairness, one must welcome the provisions of section 147 which constitute a necessary move in the right direction. I question the prohibition on canvassing to within 50 metres — 50 metres from where? Perhaps the Minister would clarify that. One must also question if 50 metres is sufficient? I do not believe it is. When proposing to prohibit this type of activity we should not merely move the marker from the gate or door of the polling station to 50 metres down the road because that is what we will be doing if we adhere to the 50 metres prohibition. Rather we should specify a prohibition within, say, half a mile or a quarter of a mile of a polling station, dependent on the rural-urban divide. I should be grateful if the Minister would say whether he would be prepared to adjust his proposal vis-á-vis the 50 metres marker.

The provisions of the Bill specify that electors, having marked their ballot papers, must present them to a presiding officer before dropping them into the ballot boxes. It is my understanding that that is the case under the law as it stands, that we are merely copperfastening that proposal in this Bill. I question whether this requirement is correct. When I vote I know I do not present my ballot paper to the presiding officer at the polling station or, if the clerk at the table from which I have obtained my ballot paper is busy, I normally tend to return to the same table and drop my ballot paper in the box located beside that polling clerk. Therefore I question whether it would create something of an upheaval were we to implement all the provisions of the Bill to the letter, in other words, requesting all electors to present their ballot papers to the relevant presiding officers before putting them in the ballot boxes. If such is to be the case may I ask the Minister whether he is considering appointing a presiding officer over each table, which I predict would be necessary. From experience, we will all be familiar with peak voting hours, whether immediately after ten o'clock Mass in the morning, during lunch time, the hours during which children are collected from school or as people drive home from work. There are peak voting hours in all polling stations nationwide. If there were to be a cluster of people queuing up to present their ballot papers, duly marked, stamped and folded, to a presiding officer, it would cause unnecessary confusion and delay. While acknowledging that that requirement is specified in the law as it stands, I acknowledge that it is not carried out to the letter. Therefore, I question its inclusion in this Bill.

Another facility I would recommend is that people who act as presiding officers, polling and personation officers be given a right to vote even though their vote may not be cast at the polling station at which they are performing those duties. I will not touch on the emigrant vote as that is an issue for another day. I raised this question some six months ago prior to the last referendum as I recognised that a number of people were prohibited from voting at the polling station at which they are registered because of their duties.

On occasion, when working as a sales representative, I had to travel many miles to exercise my right to vote. Sometimes I had to travel the length of the country to return to my polling station to exercise my franchise and then returning to Cork, Donegal or wherever I happened to be working to continue my duties in that area. I do not want to recite a long list but we are all aware that many such people are prohibited from returning to the polling stations at which they are registered in order to cast their vote on polling day. Some special arrangement should be made for such people which could be easily implemented if the will was there to do so. I welcome the Bill and look forward to the Minister clarifying these matters when replying.

I might refer initially to the second sentence of the Minister's introductory remarks which reads:

The purpose of the Bill is to consolidate, with amendments, the law relating to the election of Members to Dáil Éireann.

Perhaps the Minister would clarify whether the remaining 11 pages of his introductory remarks refer to Dáil elections only or whether to local elections, European elections and referenda.

In that case, the provisions of this Bill deal only with part of the problem, whether in regard to the compilation of the register or activities outside polling booths. In the past nine years we have had two Dáil elections, two local elections, two European elections and at least three referenda. The Dáil elections constitute less than 25 per cent of elections in general. On certain occasions the European elections and local elections or general elections coincide, but that is not very frequent. The scope of the Bill should be broadened to cover general elections, local elections and referenda. Let the practice apply to all of them. The Minister might bring in an amendment to implement this practical suggestion.

I will respond to that.

This legislation is certainly necessary and welcome. It is probably a little tentative in places but it is a desirable attempt to do what needs to be done. Probably it does not go far enough but initial legislation introducing change hardly ever does. People have to be cautious. If I seem to be nit picking at times, I am not in any way being disparaging. I am encouraging the Minister to reassess the legislation.

The compilation of registers is a very significant element in the Bill. The way the register has been compiled in the past leaves much to be desired. If a candidate were defeated by two or three or perhaps 50 or 60 votes in an election he or she might have reason to feel aggrieved. There may be up to 1,000 errors in the register of a constituency. Under the old system, rate collectors compiled the register and we were dependent on the conscientiousness of the person in question. If he did a good job there were very few mistakes, but even the best compiler made mistakes. The best of clerks make mistakes. If an indifferent rate collector was supposed to be compiling a register, then there could be 100 or 150 mistakes in a register of 500 people. In recent times with the elimination of rates, other than on business premises, the compilation has been done by officials of the council or corporation. They do a better job because they can easily be removed if they do not compile the register efficiently. It was not so easy to remove a rate collector; it was seldom or never done.

While the compilation is probably somewhat better, there are still mistakes. The ratio of mistakes varies considerably from the city and town to the country. In country places the element of mistakes is quite small because everybody knows everybody else, but in city areas where there are lots of flats, such as Rathmines or Rathgar, the element of mistakes is enormous. There is a wide variation. If I were defeated in an election by a few dozen votes, I would feel aggrieved. The system outlined here is definitely an improvement, particularly the idea of having a list of deletions and additions. A person can see at a glance whether he or she is on the list.

While there is an onus on the voter to ensure that he or she is on the register, people tend to leave it to the politicians and political parties to do it for them. The unfortunate politician who encounters a would-be voter leaving a polling station because he or she is not on the register will be roundly abused, no matter which party he or she represents. People of 50 or 60 years of age who have been voting since they were 21 may discover that they have been omitted from the register because of a printing error. The system of listing deletions and additions is to be commended. It is also an excellent idea that people can be restored to the register up to 12 days before polling day. It is a very generous concession that this can be done at such short notice.

The issue of postal votes is a vexed question. The present system is an improvement whereby people who are certified by a doctor as being physically incapable of going to the polling booth can have the ballot box brought to them. It is a very cumbersome method. A very lax system was introduced at the local elections in 1974. In that election people were allowed for the most frivolous reasons to use a postal vote. The concession was abused to an enormous extent and it obviously cannot be repeated. It is reliably stated that a councillor, who is still serving in a county in the north which I will not name for the sake of prudence, got 400 postal votes. If you had the organisation you could get yourself elected by postal votes alone. We all know individual cases where there was abuse of the system.

The recommendation in this Bill that a disabled person should have to produce only one certificate is a considerable improvement. People do not want to ask a doctor year after year for a certificate stating that they are physically incapacitated. There might be further streamlining of the system to allow people who are away from home, such as commercial travellers, sailors and others with a genuine reason for being away, to use the postal vote. The Minister should not let the bad experience of 1974 put him off. We should reach a happy medium. There might be a panel of medical practitioners in each electoral area who could draw up a panel of people who are physically disabled.

People will not register themselves. They will have to be helped. The returning officer in conjunction with medical people dealing with these cases might draw up a panel of disabled voters who should be added to the register without having to go through the process of getting medical certificates or getting politicians to invoke a favour by going along and getting them to sign a form and then bringing it to the GP. That type of canvassing should be eliminated as far as possible. We should be more objective in drawing up the list.

I have a distinct bias against the way names are put on the ballot paper. Deputy Richie Ryan was right some years ago when he suggested that there should be a lottery to determine where one's name would appear on the ballot paper.

The Deputy is at the top of the poll and that is even better than being at the top of the ballot paper.

Although the former Deputy Abbot's name started with an "A" he did not get elected. It has been suggested that the army wives were responsible for that.

What about Doctor John O'Connell who changed his name?

There is invariably a number of people ahead of me on the ballot paper. People whose names start with later letters in the alphabet are at a disadvantage. That has been proved statistically.

What about George Bush?

There is a point to be made for having a lottery to decide position on the ballot paper. If I could continue without interruption I might be able to make some valid points.

It is mainly from your own side.

Chief Whips are supposed to organise the business of the House, not heckle.

There is fairly unanimous agreement that canvassing near the polling station is not being adequately addressed in this Bill. The 50 metre restriction will just mean that the crowd will move a little further away. Canvassing in the general vicinity should be banned completely.

We should have information on the type of operation that takes place in other countries. I understand that in Sweden the only type of electioneering allowed is through radio, television and the written media and that canvassing and electioneering as we know it is completely banned. Policy documents can be distributed through the post but other types of pressure on voters is banned. If we had a model of each system used in Europe we could draw conclusions which might be much better at the end of the day. Here we are trying to modify a very imperfect system. It might be better to start from scratch and it might be a good idea if canvassing in general was banned. It would eliminate the risk of blood pressure problems, heart attacks, anquish, insults, abuse and threats of assault at election time.

The present system of voting means that polling booths are open for 12 or 13 hours. Polling booths should be closed, for instance, between 10 a.m. and 12 noon and between 3 p.m. and 5 p.m. which are times when few people vote, in order to give presiding officers and polling clerks a break. It is inhuman to incarcerate them in polling stations for 12 or 13 hours. If people want to vote they will make it their business to vote in the hours during which the station is open.

Are personating agents and sub-agents barred from inside and outside of polling stations under this legislation? The sub-agent can still canvass for votes under the present law. Is there anything to say that the sub-agent can no longer operate, because if there is not it will defeat the purpose of the Bill?

People will get around the postering ban by floating printed baloons over stations.

(Interruptions.)

There will be devices to get around the ban. This Bill does not cover Seanad elections. Canvassing for Seanad elections should definitely be banned. We all have to run the gauntlet in voting in a general election but the gauntlet for Seanad elections is far worse. Will the Minister consider banning canvassing for Seanad elections? The election process would be simplified if the Minister banned canvassing after Mass, meetings and public meetings as well. When sending out a polling card we should sent out a list of candidates for each area and that would eliminate the necessity for parties to send out sheafs of election literature. I hope the Minister will take on board some of the proposals I have made with regard to general and other elections.

I would like to share my time with my colleague, Deputy Fitzpatrick.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome the Bill and I intend making only a few brief comments on it.

I am concerned particularly about patients in geriatric homes who are not on the postal voters list. I have sympathy for patients from such places as St. John's Hospital, Sligo, when I see the efforts they have to make to get to the polling station at the time of an election. I submit that every patient in a long-stay institution, such as a geriatric home, should be automatically entitled to a postal vote. Patients who are hospitalised for longer than, say, six months should be entitled to a postal vote in any event because on many occasions such people are taken to polling stations by car on a journey of perhaps 20 miles and that can be an ordeal for an elderly person who may be unwell. I am asking the Minister to allow all health boards to register voters who are patients in geriatric homes to ensure that these people are allowed a postal vote on the day of an election.

A number of Deputies have suggested that polling take place at a weekend. My preference would be to have polling on a Friday, rather than a Thursday. This would give young people who are away from home attending third level institutions an opportunity to vote. Many of them would have to travel long distances, 140 miles or more in some instances, to vote but with polling on a Friday, and polling stations open until ten o'clock at night such people would make it home in time to vote. I am asking the Minister, therefore, to ensure that in future people be given the opportunity to vote on a Friday, a Saturday or a Sunday, but preferably a Friday.

Some speakers referred to the possible imposition of a 50 metre exclusion zone in terms of political activity around polling stations. In many rural areas if one were 50 metres away from a polling station, one would be so far down the road as to be looking, perhaps, for the shelter of a tree. A 50 metre limit in a town or city would probably be workable but in rural areas such distance would be impractical.

I welcome the provision in the Bill whereby a person's name may be added to the register 12 days before polling day. That is a step in the right direction. Up to now names have been omitted from the register due to clerical errors or for some other reason and it was only when people arrived at a polling station that they realised their name was not on the register. This provision will give everyone an opportunity, as late as 12 days before an election, to ensure that their names are included on the register.

I would like to see also the names of our emigrants retained on the register for at least two to three years after they emigrate because these people often return on holidays from the United States, Britain and so on and would like the opportunity of voting.

They are allowed 18 months.

I am glad to hear that but I would like to see their names being left on the register for an even longer period.

You are thinking of Mr. MacSharry.

In conclusion, I hope the Minister will allow people in geriatric homes to vote with dignity, in other words, by postal vote and that there will not be a polling station in any institution.

With regard to the cutoff point for late registration I wonder if the 12 days timescale is too short? In constituencies where the balance of votes is very tight, this provision could allow some sharp individual to tilt the balance by registering people right up to the 12 day time limit. I ask the Minister to consider this aspect on Committee Stage.

I welcome the provision concerning postal voters and special voters. I think it was Deputy Deasy who suggested that there be a panel of general practitioners in each polling area who would advise the appropriate persons as to who would be eligible for postal votes. An easier way would be for the appropriate person, the sheriff or whoever, to consult the directors of community care in each area since they have lists of people in receipt of disabled persons maintenance allowance. It should be quite easy to refer to such list and to arrange postal voting without those concerned being put to the expense of obtaining a medical certificate. Perhaps the Minister might consider this suggestion for Committee Stage.

Almost every Deputy in the House has spoken against the practice of canvassing outside polling stations. While a distance of 50 metres from a rural polling station may be significant, in urban areas a distance of 200 metres may represent only, as in my case, the distance from the gate of the polling station to the polling booth. Therefore, there could be no objection to canvassers standing at the gates because they would still be within the law. However, I regard canvassing on the day of an election a waste of time. Members have spoken about the heat rather than the light that can be generated outside the gates of polling stations. I would like to see each political party putting up one poster with the names of their candidates which would be left in place without there being any necessity to guard it or to canvass people going into the polling station. In addition to the other points that have been raised, this is another issue which will have to be addressed at Committee Stage.

This is a good Bill but it could be improved by way of amendment. I welcome the Bill because I regard it is a measure of the agreement among all Deputies and parties in this House as to how we should deal with this area.

There have been good contributions to this debate. Those of us who have been involved in various campaigns have experiences to relate concerning general elections, local elections and referenda. Some of our experiences have been pleasant, others painful and unhappy but we are all speaking from first hand knowledge. That is the reason so many Deputies have contributed to this debate. They have spoken from the heart and from their experiences of having been on the various campaign trails going back a number of years.

There is a saying among politicians that polling day is the longest day. One is up very early in the morning ensuring that the election workers are out, that posters are up and that all the polling stations are manned by election workers. These election workers sometimes stand at polling stations for 12 or 13 hours in all kinds of weather. That is why we have spoken so much about activities outside polling stations.

Those activities should be ended for all time. There should be no canvassing whatsoever outside polling stations. Indeed I would end all canvassing from 10 o'clock the evening before. I would also ban all posters, all loudspeakers and other activities of that nature. It brings democracy into disrepute to have a tunnel of election workers outside polling stations and people running the gauntlet through that tunnel being cajoled, heckled and sometimes pulled and dragged and asked to vote for a candidate or a party. It is most uncivilised and it is time it was ended. It was different in the last century when elections were fought on a different basis but let us not forget that we now have universal democracy and people have the right to vote. We also have television, radio, the local press as well as three national newspapers, so there is no reason for people not to know who is standing for election and who to vote for at an election. Local radio especially has been able to put across the message to all voters. No one should have to run the gauntlet of election workers outside polling stations. That is not an unfair description of what happens. Indeed many old people are nervous about going out to vote, because they know they will be pulled and dragged and harassed on their way in. It is no way to do business in this day and age. It is also a bad example to young people, especially school children. It is no way to introduce children to democracy. By-elections are especially bad when there is a lot of excitement and tension and people sometimes get carried away and get het up about the whole issue. I hope this will be ended for all time and that we will have no more of these activities outside polling booths, no more loudspeakers and no more posters.

There is some dispute about posters. Some people say that each party should have just one poster but I think that would be no good. I would banish posters altogether. The limit of 50 metres is not satisfactory either. I would allow no election canvassers near a polling booth on election day. The limit of 50 metres would be open to abuse. If one were to use a measuring tape from the polling station, what part of the polling station would one measure from? It is too ambiguous, too vague, too arbitrary. We should do away with canvassing altogether on that day.

Money can distort the democratic process. Democracy is most important and it is essential to preserve that. Sometimes, however, it can be distorted through excessive spending of money at election time. I would like to see accountability by parties and candidates for what they spend.

I would also extend postal voting to students, presiding officers, seamen, commercial travellers and people like that, also with built-in safeguards. I would also try to end the personation that has gone on in the past that has disgraced our electoral system in Ireland. In the past election workers have often gone around flatland collecting notifications to vote and passed them out to people and told them that they can vote accordingly. Some people have been known to vote many times. One well known director of elections in Limerick was a past master of this. The days of personation should go for all time.

There are also abuses at hospitals which Deputy Brennan referred to. We have a large geriatric hospital in Limerick, St. Camillus' Hospital, also in the city, and the savagery that has taken place there on polling day would have to be seen to be believed. Old people who never get a visitor from one end of the year to the other are descended upon by people with big rosettes in their coats from all over the country and some of these patients are frogmarched down to vote. Some of them are senile; others are in wheelchairs and many cannot understand what is going on. It is a gross abuse of democracy when that happens. I am no plaster saint, but I have never once put election workers into that hospital. I would rather forego all the votes than get involved in that savagery and malpractice. That should be ended. There should be no votes in that hospital. No election workers should be allowed in there. It is a terrible abuse of democracy. It is also a terrible insult to the old people to be frogmarched out and brought down to vote and have people vote for them because they are incapable of voting themselves. It is a cynical disregard for democracy and an abuse of our electoral system. I would end that. I would banish all those people not only outside the polling station but also from within the walls of that hospital. I would banish them from the streets entirely on that day because I have seen too much abuse.

There has been a big discussion about the proposal to raise the deposit from £100 to £500. Let us not forget that it costs only £10 to stand in a local election. It is therefore quite a big jump from £100 to £500. Perhaps £200 or £300 would be more reasonable. It has been mentioned also that we have had no abuses in that regard here. There have been no frivolous or eccentric candidates as in Britain. There is no incidence of "rent-a-candidate" with candidates going around like a travelling circus from by-election to by-election. That has never happened here. Broadly speaking, all our candidates are serious candidates so there is no need to increase the deposit by so much.

This is a good Bill. A few amendments would improve it. I hope those amendments will be made on Committee and Report Stages. I hope the Minister will take note of everything we have said because it is spoken from the heart. We have been down the road of elections and we know what we are speaking about. That is why so many of us on all sides of the House agree on those points. Canvassing outside polling stations on polling day is a useless exercise and should be ended for all time. I would favour a more civilised approach to voting. That is something people are entitled to. We are entitled to it also as candidates. It is a step forward, but let us not lose the opportunity — because we might not get one again — to have a good Bill. I will give only two cheers for the Bill in its present form, but I will give three cheers for it if it is amended along the lines I have suggested. It will be a good day for democracy in the electoral and political history of Ireland and of this House. I will support it if the Minister will take on board the points that I and some of the other speakers have made.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Jimmy Deenihan.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I have been listening to this debate over the last few days. Not for the first time I find myself out of line with some of my colleagues on both sides of the House who, in some cases, rode every strand of popular opinion in relation to many issues. I want to commend the Minister for bringing this Bill to the House. It is long overdue. I share many of the sentiments expressed by fellow Deputies in calling for the curtailment of the circus that presents itself outside every polling station in this country on election days. Deputy Kemmy referred to the intimidation, aggression and truculent attitudes that many people have to face at election times. Many members of the public regard this as an affront. In my short time in politics I have witnessed many unsavoury scenes and I believe that many a vote has been lost due to over-zealous pushing by party representatives on behalf of candidates. This activity should be restricted.

I share Deputy Kemmy's view that the use of posters should also be severely restricted in view of the fact that each party have failed to remove posters after an election and have been guilty of despoiling the environment for many months afterwards. The public should be protected from the over-zealous selling of various candidates at election time.

I would now like to comment briefly on the question of voting rights for emigrants. Unlike most of my colleagues, I do not believe that people who leave this country and are now residing in another country should have a vote. I do believe, however, that non-nationals who have been living in this country for over three years should have a vote. People who have left this country for one reason or another should not have a vote because it would be both unwieldy and costly to do this. However, they should have a vote in the country in which they are living.

I applaud the Minister for introducing proposals that will make it easier for handicapped people and people in hospitals to vote. However, I would ask him to look at the position in which students find themselves, because undoubtedly many young students, many of whom will have an interest in voting in the upcoming abortion referendum, cannot vote on either a Wednesday or Thursday because they are at college.

I would also like to avail of this opportunity to ask the Minister to look at the question of funding for political parties. If the people of Ireland want a democracy then the Oireachtas should pay. This would lead to the removal of the spectacle of political parties asking for funds and currying favour with industrialists and large farmers. This certainly gives rise to cynicism. I should say that it is both humiliating and demeaning that we have to collect outside church gates and I resent it. The people who come out of the churches and see us standing outside the gates also resent it. The people want to give their money to charitable organisations, such as Concern, who are raising funds for Somalia, and not to political parties. Recent events which unveiled large scale funding of political parties, including my own, have not helped in eliminating the cynicism to which I have referred.

Many of my fellow Deputies across every strand of political opinion, including my handsome young colleague from Leitrim, Deputy Reynolds, appealed to the Minister to give people every opportunity to vote but, not for the first time, I would like to express the other view. People tell us daily that they have rights but I would like to tell them that they, too, have their duties. They have a duty to vote and it is not enough to sing "Kevin Barry" in a pub through an alcoholic haze and feel that they are being patriotic.

I do not think it is too much to ask people to give five minutes of their time every four to five years to vote, be it for Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil or the loony-Left. In Australia people are fined if they do not vote. I am not suggesting that people should be fined but I am suggesting that there should be some deterrent and that people who, for no valid reason, do not give five minutes of their time to their country every four to five years should lose their vote. That is the only way by which they can be made to appreciate it. I do not believe we should pander to the public because if there was a free fiver for everyone in the audience on a certain Thursday everyone would want it. People have a duty to give five minutes of their time to vote and this should be enforced.

I am glad to have the opportunity to address some aspects of this Bill. I should say at the outset that I disagree with my colleague as regards voting rights for our emigrants. I firmly believe our emigrants should have a vote and a say in how the country is run. One of the flaws in the Bill is that an effort has not been made to address this question of voting rights for emigrants, be it in Dáil or Seanad elections. I will refer to this matter later in my contribution.

I am glad at the number of contributions, as I am sure the Minister is, that have been made on the Bill in this House and in the Seanad. There is considerable interest in it. Given that it is the mechanism by which we are elected to this House it is important that we have a streamlined electoral system. This Bill attempts to avoid the mayhem which can occur at election time at polling stations and when canvassing for votes. I am sure the Minister will accept that the Bill is not all-inclusive. Consequently, I hope he will accept some amendments at a later stage to improve the Bill and to make it more effective.

I welcome the provision which will enable a supplement to the register of electors to be issued because we have all witnessed major injustices. Many speakers instanced cases where people who had been on the register since the foundation of the State suddenly discovered for no apparent reason that they had been struck off. In allowing a supplement to the register of electors to be issued we will ensure that those who are entitled to vote can do so. If the Bill succeeds in doing nothing else, it must be welcomed for this.

Section 32 (3) in Part V of the Bill states:

The Minister for Finance may, if he thinks fit, before payment of a returning officer's charges under this section apply to a judge of the Circuit Court having jurisdiction in any part of the constituency concerned for the taxation of the account submitted by the returning officer and such judge shall tax the account and determine the amount payable thereunder.

This is an outrageous provision and I fail to see how it is relevant. I would like the Minister to explain to the House the reason this subsection has been included in the Bill. As I said, I fail to see how this provision is relevant and I ask the Minister — perhaps there is a good reason for including it — to satisfy my curiosity and let us know the reason it has been included.

I would like the Minister to clarify the provision under which a registered voter may be alleged by a companion to be suffering from mental incapacity. Does that mean that anybody may accompany a person into a polling booth and declare, without proof, that the person is incapable of voting because of mental incapacity? Will the Minister clarify section 103 which deals with this matter. That provision could be abused. The Minister should clarify "companion" and also "mental incapacity". He should explain what proof that the person is suffering from mental incapacity is required.

The 50 metre distance from the polling station provision is absolutely irrelevant. In several locations canvassing is banned up to 100 metres from the polling station. This provision will disimprove matters in these cases because canvassers will move even closer to the polling station, thereby causing mayhem and putting pressure on people. I suggest that canvassing be banned altogether on election day. If people want to be active on polling day they could drive others to the polling station. The practice of obstructing people on their way to polling stations is unfair and must be discontinued. The only way to solve this problem is to totally ban canvassing on election day. This matter was mentioned by some of the Minister's colleagues and I believe it would be welcomed by most parties. The Minister should give serious consideration to this suggestion. It would be welcomed by canvassers and members of our families who feel under pressure in having to compete with the families of other candidates. Clarification of that matter would be welcome.

As regards the special voters list, I welcome the abolition of the requirement to submit a medical certificate each year, which was a major obstacle to voters. People registered on the special voting list one year in the following year may have had to request a doctor to sign a form, but, because of the inconvenience of visiting a doctor they may forget about it only to discover on voting day that they had no vote. It is pathetic to see people who are suffering from various illnesses and incapacity having to be lifted into polling booths. It reduces politics to a low level and demonstrates a very uncaring attitude on the part of candidates. All of us put pressure on our supporters to bring people to vote for us. I welcome this provision and I would encourage more people to re-register on the special voting list.

In regard to postal voting I am a little disappointed that people working away from home — students and others — are not facilitated in this Bill. I know that it would be difficult to control postal voting, but nevertheless this facility should be available to those living away from home. I agree with Deputy McGahon that there should be a penalty for not voting unless the person has a very good excuse. For example, in Australia if people fail to vote they lose their vote. Commercial travellers and students who may not be in their constitutency on polling day should be facilitated in so far as possible. Sunday voting would be very welcome and would solve many problems.

I would like to refer briefly to emigrant voting. It is unfortunate that there is no provision in this Bill for emigrant voting. The citizens of Spain, France, Germany, Luxembourg and the UK who are living abroad may vote in different ways in elections. Greek and Italian citizens living abroad must return home to vote but they are compensated for doing so. Portuguese citizens living abroad may vote by post or people who specifically represent them may vote for them. For example, there are four representatives for Portuguese emigrants in the Portuguese Parliament. In Denmark, and particularly, Belgium there are more restrictive voting practices in parliamentary elections but nevertheless they make provision for emigrant voting.

I was amazed at Deputy Molloy's criticism of the absence of a provision in the Bill for emigrant voting. I would make a strong case to the Minister to consider this whole matter.

The Deputy is in error in referring to Deputy Molloy.

I have an article which states: "Minister Molloy angry at no emigrant vote".

From what is the Deputy quoting?

I am not quoting the Minister.

He was not speaking on this Bill.

He was speaking outside the House. I am sorry if I upset the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

The order requires that where a Deputy refers to comment made by a Member of the House ordinarily he quotes the source of that comment.

It was an article in The Irish Press of 7 June 1991. I am glad of the opportunity of speaking on this Bill and I did not intend to speak for so long. I welcome the Bill as a good initiative but there is more that can be done to improve the democratic process as regards voting.

I welcome the opportunity of speaking on this Bill. I would like to emphasise, as some of my colleagues have done, the importance of Sunday voting. Sunday voting should be seriously considered because it would enable commercial travellers and people working away from home during the week to vote. Students in university, regional colleges and other education institutions find it extremely difficult to vote on weekdays. If we want to preserve democracy we should not take a slap-dash, half-hearted approach to this matter. We should take every opportunity to ensure that people, especially young people are allowed to vote. That is why I strongly advocate Sunday voting. Many young people cannot vote because they are attending a regional college far from home. We should facilitate everyone to vote, that is the purpose of democracy. In Eastern European countries new democracies have been set up and all voting takes place on a Sunday; they realise how important it is.

As some of my colleagues said earlier, there is nothing worse on polling day than to meet someone — perhaps an elderly person who has voted in every election — whose name is not included on the register. The attitude is that it is just too bad and that a mistake has been made somewhere. However, the county registrar should ensure that if a person's name is taken off the register there should be a check to make sure that the person has been notified. This would enable the person to call attention to the error; democracy is about everyone having the chance to vote. In this regard in the past, too much emphasis was placed on politicians and party supporters and people felt they had to consult a politician or party supporter to have their names included on the register. That attitude should be scrapped, everyone who is entitled to vote should be on the register.

There has been strong lobbying from emigrants in relation to casting their vote. It will not be easy to put a process in place whereby this will happen but if the will is there there are various ways to ensure that they can. For a start, emigrants could vote in presidential elections because there would not be the complication of different constituencies. As Deputy Deenihan pointed out, we are one of the few countries in Europe whose emigrants are denied a vote.

The provision relating to cavassing 50 metres from the polling booth recognises that there is a reason for keeping people away from the entrance to a polling booth. However, this provision will not really help. When individuals arrive at a polling booth it is very annoying for them to be approached by a group of people handing out leaflets and posters. That is not the way it should work. People should be allowed to enter a polling station without any interference from party supporters. The Minister should further examine this provision because, as it stands, it will cause even more confusion. I am in favour of a ban on lobbying people entering polling stations. Generally, I welcome the Bill as it is a step in the right direction.

First, I congratulate Deputy Dukes on making his maiden speech as the Fine Gael spokesman on the environment. I warmly welcome the new time limits which, I hope, will be applied to all Second Stage debates. This will represent a considerable improvement in the way we deal with our affairs and will, in particular, facilitiate me and the other Independent Deputies in contributing to all Second Stage debates. Incidentally, I notice that Deputy Dukes disagrees with this, which is a pity.

I must also mention another rather alarming example of what seems to be the policy of the Labour Party on these long and complicated Bills. I note that Deputy Kavanagh requested that Committee Stage of this Bill be sent to a special committee. I have a great deal of sympathy for the arguments he made; however, he was not correct in saying "full representation is given to all sides of the House" in this regard. That does not apply to a special committee; certainly no representation is given to me or other Independent Deputies. Accordingly, unless provision can be made for representation of the Independent Deputies, I will strongly recommend to the Minister to allow Committee Stage to be taken in the House.

Section 47 provides for an increase in the candidate's deposit from £100 to £500; in a long and complicated Bill this is the nub of the issue. This is an absolutely scandalous increase and is not justified. It is clearly an attack on small parties, such as the Green Party and on Independent Deputies. In fact, it is an attack on democracy. While I accept the Minister's comment that £100 indexed back to 1923 would amount to perhaps £3,000, that is not the point.

No financial obstacle should be put in the way of any bona fide candidate seeking election to Dáil Éireann. The Minister has made the point that there has to be some mechanism to provide a deterrent to those he describes as “non-serious candidates”. I agree that in theory the present system, with provision for a small deposit, leaves itself open to such candidates but we should examine what really happens. For the 1989 elections there were 49 Independent candidates standing in 41 constitutencies; that is only a little more than one Independent candidate per constituency. Surely the Minister would recognise that that is not a great burden for us to bear. Surely that is not a grave inconvenience for us to put up with in order to ensure the democratic rights of small parties and Independent candidates to nominate themselves for election. There is no question of the ballot paper being cluttered up with the names of ten, 20 or 30 Independent candidates. If that were the case I should be the first to admit that something would have to be done about it, but it is clear that that is not so. Does the Minister suggest that by merely increasing the deposit by £400 he would eliminate the “joke candidates” and the odd person who is on a massive ego trip? It would still be good value for money for a rich, eccentric person without any pretentions to a serious political platform.

If the Minister is convinced of the need for change in that area, he should consider the implementation of a signature system which would provide for perhaps 0.5 per cent of the electorate in a constituency having to vouch that in their view the candidate was a serious candidate. It is obvious that considerable safeguards would have to be built into such a system but I have little doubt that that could be done relatively easily. There are many precedents for such a system in the United States and in some European countries.

I would argue that a registered political party should have the right to nominate at least one candidate in each constituency. I remind Members that it is quite difficult to become a registered political party, and I speak from experience as someone who was involved in the registration of the Green Party. I am sure that everyone would agree that registered political parties have a serious political platform. On Committee Stage I shall table amendments on this matter.

The fact that there is no public funding available for political parties with fewer than seven members elected to the Dáil exacerbates the position and gives a built-in advantage to the major parties. Certainly the Green Party — and I am sure I speak for all the small parties and all the Independent Members in the House when I say this — receive very little resource funding from big business, big farmers or trade unions. I am surprised that the Labour Party do not appear to be opposed to the proposed deposit increase. The slight reduction in the percentage of the quota required to redeem one's deposit, while welcome, is a very small step. In a three seat constituency one would still need to obtain 6 per cent of the vote to get back one's deposit.

The next most important provisions in the Bill undoubtedly deal with canvassing at polling stations. Almost every Deputy who has contributed to this debate has made a comment — mostly unfavourable, and rightly so — on what goes on outside polling stations. I should certainly like to add my voice to what has been said. I am glad the Minister at least recognises that there is a problem. He speaks of electors having to run the gauntlet, and that is the position. At a personal level, I have always been very uncomfortable outside polling stations. Having admitted the existence of the problem, I am most disappointed at the Minister's inadequate response.

As previous speakers have said, the proposed 50 metre limit is of little use. It would affect only those living within 50 metres of a polling station, which would be a very small percentage of the electorate. I have no doubt that the barricades would go up 50 metres from the polling stations and it would be business as usual. Perhaps it would be difficult legally to ban canvassing on polling day altogether. However, in the spirit of what the Minister is trying to achieve, it would seem reasonable to increase the limit to a distance of 200 metres.

What is needed is the provision of a public notice board outside polling stations. The public notice board would contain one poster for each candidate standing in the election. It is my understanding that that system is available in France. It is a very good system and it would also eliminate posters around polling stations. Indeed, it is my opinion that a strong case could be made for the elimination of posters everywhere. Posters are a rather mindless form of advertisement; they do not really convey information, unlike an election leaflet or a person canvassing from door to door. At least in canvassing some effort goes into communication, an election poster does not communicate at all.

If they are good looking they are all right.

I am glad that the use of loudspeakers outside polling stations is to be banned. We could go further and ban them completely. They are a most obnoxious intrusion into privacy. Loudspeakers are even worse than canvassers, and that is saying a lot.

I should like to refer to some of the more detailed provisions of the Bill. A very important area is that of voting rights. We always have to consider who does or does not have a right to vote. Islanders are one group who have to be considered in this regard. Their voting rights are covered under sections 85 and 86. I suspect that those sections have not been revised. They should have been revised. Every Member in the House cherishes the inhabitants of our offshore islands. Their isolation creates many difficulties in their lives. At election times they suffer the great disadvantage of having to poll sometimes up to five days before polling day. If there are any late developments in a campaign — as frequently happens — the islanders are very much at a disadvantage. That problem could be solved in many ways. Islanders, like everyone else, should be able to vote on polling day. There are air links to many of the islands, there are helicopters, boats are now much faster than they used to be and, if all else failed, perhaps some system of electronic voting could be introduced. I ask the Minister to re-examine that area.

I should now like to refer to postal voting. While there are special provisions — and rightly so — for members of the Defence Forces and the Garda Síochána, there is nevertheless a substantial number of civilians who, because of the nature of their work, are invariably away from home on polling day. In this regard, I think particularly of merchant seamen, commercial travellers, oil rig workers and so on. While I recognise that there are certain dangers of the voting procedures being abused, I feel that the Minister has made insufficient effort to meet the needs of those people.

There are two other categories of people who need special consideration, the travelling community and our emigrants. Surely there is some way in which those people could be accommodated. If travellers who are not on semi-permanent housing halting sites can be accommodated for social welfare purposes, surely they could also be accommodated for voting purposes. Our emigrants pose a more difficult problem and I do not think there is any consensus in the House as to the best way of dealing with it. However, I feel the balance of advantage lies with a limited franchise, perhaps for a period of four or five years. In particular, I would ask the Minister to study the arguments put forward during the debate on the Labour Party Private Members' Bill earlier this year.

Another problem area not addressed is that of third level students, many of whom live away from home. Surely it should be possible to provide that students register at their colleges and at home and exercise their preference when the election is called.

A problem arises also in regard to voters who are house-bound due to physical incapacity. Many of these people — who are usually elderly — are intimidated when the special registrar and a member of the Garda Síochána knock on the door for them to vote. Surely there is a better way. If the requirement to have a member of the Garda Síochána present were lifted some of the undoubted pressure these people feel would be alleviated. I am sure it is irrational but that is how people feel about it and they have mentioned it to me. I am aware that many people have opted out of the special voters' list for this very reason. Even though the number of people involved is small we should make more of an effort in this area.

Disqualification for membership of the Dáil is another issue. The minimum age for membership still remains at 21, which was the same as the voting age until that was reduced to 18 some years ago. This is an anomaly and it should be addressed. There is no reason people of 18 years and upwards should not be allowed to be nominated for Dáil elections. I appreciate this would require a change in our Constitution but this could easily be made in conjunction with the forthcoming referenda. There is a reference also to the disqualification of people of unsound mind. Anybody who is nominated to the Dáil is, by definition, of unsound mind, but that is an aside. There are disqualification provisions for people who are undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for any term exceeding six months. This is an area that should be examined. There may be good reasons for it of which I am not aware.

In regard to independent candidates, the current situation is that all they can have printed on the ballot paper is "non-party". I see no reason why they cannot have whatever they wish on the ballot paper, provided it is not so close to the names of registered parties as to confuse the electorate. For example, a person should be able to put "socialist", "environmentalist" or, indeed, "raving loony party" beside their name. This is done in the UK and in some other countries.

Another simple improvement would be the provision of a list of candidates, showing their party affiliations, to be distributed with polling cards — the names being in the same order as on the ballot paper because there is no official provision to notify the public of those people standing in an election. There have always been accusations of personation, especially in urban areas, where there is a highly volatile population. The time has come to give serious consideration to a mandatory form of identification, such as a driving licence, a passport, bank statement, ESB bill and so on. Such a system operates in public libraries.

I am disappointed the Bill does nothing about the unsatisfactory situation in regard to the order of names on the ballot paper. If this matter is not tackled the House will eventually end up with people whose surnames begin with A, B or C. Clearly names should be drawn out of the hat.

The arrangements for the counting of transfers should be examined because it is not satisfactory and should be computerised.

In conclusion, I should like to deal with the question of funding of political parties. In a number of countries parties are funded on the number of votes gained in the previous election. This would mean that political parties would be less dependent on large private donations which are often, unofficially, linked to certain policies. One thing which is absolutely clear from the proceedings of the tribunal of inquiry into the beef processing industry is that certain companies in the industry have given substantial donations to major political parties. That in itself is bad enough but what compounds the problem is that this information would not have been made available to the public were it not for this tribunal. That is not good enough. It would make sense to restrict the expenditure of candidates at election time or if there was some type of expenditure control at national level. There is no doubt that a large amount of money is wasted at election time. I refer in particular to large advertisements in the national press which. I am sure, do not attract a single extra vote. Unfortunately, at present there would be public opposition to the funding of political parties because of the perception of the way they squander their money. However, the Green Party is small. Our budget for general purposes and for election purposes is extremely modest. We do not wish for substantial public funding. We have no intention of spending hundreds of thousands of pounds in an election campaign but we, along with the other small parties and independent Deputies require some funding to enable us to carry out work during the year and to have something over and above to cover our minimal election expenditure.

I would be grateful if the Deputy would now please bring his speech to a close.

I can put my hand on my heart and say that I am beholden to no one and no organisation. I would like to think every Deputy in the House could say the same.

Good man.

In a modern democracy it is obvious that this Bill is long overdue. Politics today, in many ways, has become the instant response to the circumstance of the day. While there does not appear to be much interest in the Bill this evening either from the press or representatives, when the bell tolls sooner or later, the effect of this Bill will be of acute interest to a great number of people.

I have listened with interest to the contributions made by Deputies from all sides. They have ranged over a wide area in terms of elections, political canvassing and campaigns to represent the people of the country from this Chamber. Most of the discussion has centred on the provision of posters, polling stations, registers, disabled persons' registers, the right of people to vote and their general reaction to previous campaigns.

Elections in the modern day are becoming prohibitively expensive for registered political parties. The amount of energy put into paying off interest debts by representatives of the major parties in this House from year to year is incredible. Every single elected representative in this Chamber spends a substantial amount of their time annually trying to involve themselves in the hated job of trying to raise money from people who are constantly persecuted by fund-raising events. It does not do the principal House of the Oireachtas any good that this amount of effort has to be put into it instead of dealing with legislation and the problems of the people.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn