When I spoke before the adjournment of the debate on Friday, I said I regretted that this legislation did not tighten the anti-personation measures in view of the increased activity in this jurisdiction of people who, north of the Border, frequently abuse the democratic system. I specifically referred to the threat coming from a disciplined organisation. One of its members gave the game away during the election in West Tyrone when he said that it was carried out with military precision. The word "volunteer" has different meanings for that organisation. I urge strongly that something be done to improve identification measures at polling stations. The current list of identification documents is not good enough as, north of the Border and possibly in this jurisdiction also, there is an organisation that is good at forging these documents, as court cases established. Identification should include a photograph.
There is a case to be made for an identity card though many across the spectrum object to this. I no longer share that reservation. There is a strong argument for a photographic identity card to protect the democratic process. People who object would do so even more strongly if they discovered that their votes were cast by someone else in a way of which they disapproved. The right of objection should not be confined to personation officers. The presiding officer, clerks and gardaí present should also have that right if they have good reason to believe that a person is not the person named on the register.
There is no provision to extend postal voting and I welcome that. I am sorry to say that because this system is convenient for the elderly, those working away from home, students and others. I hope that, in future, for convenience's sake and to increase the number voting, the system will be extended. My reservations are based on my experience of how postal voting was fiddled and abused in the North. Applications and medical documents were forged. Intimidation was practised, especially on the elderly. They were threatened in their homes to get their postal votes. Postmen were followed and similarly intimidated.
Some examples of personation caused laughter. I know of some light-hearted, humorous occurrences such as the application on behalf of a 89 year old so-called student claiming to be studying archaeology and history, and there are other examples. However, when it is done systematically by those with contempt for democracy it must be stamped out. It is indicative of a situation in some areas of Northern Ireland where from the electoral cradle to the electoral grave, and on occasions beyond the grave, sections of a certain political party organised people's vote. That is total abuse of democracy and something we should ensure will not happen here. We should make provision to ensure it does not because that day is coming fast.
On the issue of opinion polls, I am not in favour of them being published in the week leading up to an election. An opinion poll is coming out tomorrow on the by-election in Tipperary South and I do not fear the result but in a presidential election where there are only two or three candidates or in a by-election, such as the one this week where there are four candidates, opinion polls should not be published in the preceding week. It is a different matter if it concerns all 41 national constituencies. The result of an opinion poll can dictate and push matters in a particular direction in terms of strategic voting. That should not be allowed to happen in the week before an election.
A person who reaches the age of 18 years on or before polling day is eligible for entry on the supplement. I welcome this. It does not mean that the actual date of birth appears on the electoral register as in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland where the person concerned is entitled to vote on that day or on any election day after that date. Did the Minister consider this and, if so, why did he decide against it? I welcome section 28 which provides that ballot boxes with 50 ballot papers or less should be opened in view of the public. Why is it restricted to 50 rather than 100?
A central part and essential element of this legislation is limitation of expenditure and enforcement of those limitations. There is no point in receiving big donations if the money cannot be spent. That limitation on expenditure is the essential element of the legislation and I regret the Minister has seen fit to increase the limits. Much expenditure in elections is unnecessary and often a result of panic decisions reacting to other candidates, including candidates of one's own party. A new run of posters at the last minute is one such unnecessary expenditure. This essential limit on expenditure should curtail such waste.
The placing of candidates' names in alphabetical order on the ballot sheet is an advantage to those high on the alphabet. That is not referred to but perhaps it should be as it is a fact that research has proved correct. My name begins with C and in all the elections I have fought over a period of almost 40 years I have never been top of the ballot paper, even in a situation where there were only two names on it. It gives people an advantage to be top of the ballot paper. Perhaps we should consider some form of rota to ensure the advantage is spread around.
There are a number of other matters I would like to raise but there is not enough time. I am totally in favour of the limitation of election expenses. I regret that the expenditure limits have been increased and wonder if the consequences of exceeding them have been sufficiently spelt out and are sufficiently strong. Where someone or some party has clearly exceeded election expenditure limits a fine is not enough. In those circumstances the ultimate sanction – the loss of the seat – should be the major deterrent to those who abuse the regulations.
