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.