I welcome the Minister to the House and call Senator McMahon.
Electoral (No. 2) Bill 1991: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I, too, welcome the Minister. I congratulate him on his appointment and wish him well in his new position. The last day we discussed this matter I welcomed the Bill. There is a general welcome for the Bill by all political parties and, all public representatives. Any effort that is made to make it easier for us to increase the poll or easier for our constituents to cast their vote in a proper manner will be welcomed by all public representatives.
The voting of officers at polling booths is not adequately dealt with in the Bill. A great effort has been made by the Minister and the Government to ensure that every person who is entitled to vote can do so at his or her ease. However, most returning officers pay scant attention to the voting rights of their officers from one election to another. In the case of a referendum or an election for President, a person appointed polling clerk, no matter where he serves, provided he brings his identification and polling card with him should be able to vote; for example, a person who has a vote in Galway and is a polling clerk in Dublin should be able to cast his vote there. Local authority boundaries, particularly in Dublin, are constantly changing. Of course it is very easy for the returning officer to appoint the same officers to a polling booth each time without taking into account that the boundary has changed, and if the polling clerk is on duty in an area in which he is not entitled to vote, he is denied his vote. This does not happen to any great extent in rural areas, but it happens very often in Dublin because the boundaries are constantly changing.
It is normal practice to appoint the principal or a teacher from a school whose premises is being used as the polling station; that school need not necessarily be in the district in which the polling clerk or the other officers appointed to a polling station live. It is only if they live in that area and if the candidates are those for whom they would vote at their proper polling station that they are permitted to vote. The Minister should deal with this problem and I am sure the same applies to all major cities, although not to the same extent as in Dublin.
At a slack time I have seen officers leaving polling booths and travelling to another polling booth to cast their vote, although I am sure that is strictly not in accordance with the rules. It should not be necessary for a polling clerk or any officer appointed by the returning officer to leave the polling station in which they serve to cast their vote; they should be permitted to vote in the polling station in which they serve.
I acknowledge that this may be a major problem for the Minister but it should be overcome because the Minister has gone to great lengths in this Bill to ensure that every person who is entitled to vote in an election does so with the greatest of ease. There must be a way around the problem; perhaps the returning officers should take note of the problem when making appointments and not be afraid to change people around. In Tallaght, a polling clerk lives on one side of the Main Street and the polling station is on the other side. Yet, he is denied his vote unless he can slip out and cast it. I think this is an irregular procedure.
All election material should carry identification, but this does not happen. We are required to put an election agent's name at the end of the election material being circulated; the source should be identified because material often appears in the last 24 hours of polling and nobody can identify where it comes from. This happened in my own area; the literature was directed against one of my opponents but we should have been able to identify the source. If this literature is circulated a week before the election, somebody usually follows it up but when it happens in the last 12 or 24 hours, then the election is over and nobody is prepared to follow up to see where the material came from. If the literature does not carry a name the Minister should ensure that the Garda are sufficiently alert to follow it up and not wait for a complaint from the offended candidate. If the material appears on the streets or on doors, immediate action should be taken to ensure that it is traced back to its source and followed through. Anybody who puts out material, the source of which is not clearly identified, should be prosecuted.
The next point I want to raise — the Minister used the term running the gauntlet — is in regard to the razzamatazz outside polling stations. There appears to be a consensus of welcome for these provisions in the Bill. I am as anti-litter as anybody in this House and as anxious that people should get into polling stations with the greatest of ease. However, it would not be right to do away with election day razzamatazz.
I had the experience of visiting East Germany in 1980 or 1981. I was drinking in a cafe-cum-pub situated at the gable end of a large block of flats. My colleagues and I got into conversation with some German teacher students. They told us they did not have free movement; in other words, they could not leave Germany. We introduced ourselves and spent a couple of hours in their company. One of them said they would give their right arm to have the same freedom I had — to come and go as they pleased. I discussed this issue with them and on that day there was a rumpus about election literature outside polling stations in Paris and it was reported in their local papers. They said that if they had that freedom they would not complain.
To ban all election activity outside polling stations could be a mistake. I hope we will not regret it because very often voting is a social occasion. People meet their neighbours and have a chat. There are a few locations where it may be difficult for voters to get into the polling booth. People have often said they did not see a certain person at a polling station or did not see anyone distributing election literature. In my opinion, voters like all this razzamatazz.
I have found candidates' representatives to be extremely helpful to voters; this help crosses party lines. I have seen in country areas, during by-elections — it does not happen in Dublin — a group of people outside a polling station were taking a record of those going in to vote. They do not record the way they vote because they do not know, but the candidates point out various supporters. I do not know if that happens in the Minister's area but it happens in neighbouring constituencies to Dublin. They are able to say at 4 o'clock or 6 o'clock in the evening that certain families did not come out to vote. There are efforts made across party lines to get those people out to vote, irrespective of who they vote for, because a genuine effort is made by all parties to ensure that the poll is as high as possible. That is the way it should be in a democracy, otherwise people will avail of other means, some of which we saw on Tuesday. Nobody wants street politics. Every effort should be made to get the voter to the polls and this Bill meets that end.
I take exception to the section in the Bill which bars all activity outside polling booths. In areas where it is abused it should be controlled but it would be foolish to ban it. If it appears that we have made a mistake I hope the Minister will come back and change it. Perhaps each candidate have one or two representatives outside the station. Many voters welcome their presence and seek their guidance. On one occasion I remember a person asking me where the Fianna Fáil representative was, and I directed the person to them. I do not think we should deny the voter that service simply because it has been abused in a small number of areas.
I ask the Minister to consider this before Committee Stage. If the section remains in the Bill I hope he will review the position and after a trial period, permit these people outside polling stations again. I do not know what reaction there will be from people who work for candidates and political parties. Many people come out for that day alone, for all our parties——
Not enough of them come out.
We have a democracy of which we can be proud. The number of people who work for candidates and political parties is small. We all like to bolster our figures because we are in competition with each other, but the number is smaller today than it was in my younger days. We should encourage people to take an active part in politics and one way of doing that is by being present at a polling station, seeing people vote, helping them to vote, and in may instances guiding them towards the candidate for whom they should vote and the candidate the party want. All that goes on outside a polling booth.
Gentle persuasion.
The assimilation of information. It is simply helping the voter. This is a good Bill. The people who assist on polling day have an interest in politics and in what those elected do thereafter. This is one way of keeping democracy alive. Let us not do anything that would kill it, or weaken it. The Government should seriously look at this again and see if it were possible to confine the numbers outside polling stations to a certain figure per candidate or party.
The case has been made that opinion polls influence voters. I am not so sure. The opinion polls in 1983 were wrong. Those who carry them out and want to keep the business going will say the poll was taken on the 18th of the month, but the vote was on the 22nd of the month and opinions changed in the meantime. I am not so sure opinion polls have a great effect on the electorate. They are part of the razzamatazz of an election. People look at them and may study them for a day but those who are interested in politics might study them for longer and give their opinions. It is part of what happens in a democracy. Perhaps the ban should be for a trial period. I do not know how one would ascertain its effectiveness. Many would say that the 1983 poll had the effect of bringing people out to vote. If that is their effect, then they are good. There are those who say that the vote in the 1983 referendum would not have been carried by such a majority if opinion polls had not been conducted. There are two sides to the argument and I do not think anybody has the answer. Maybe we should hold an opinion poll to see what the answer is.
Votes for emigrants was mentioned. The Government should be cautious about this. I am not sure that those who call for votes for emigrants have studied the position. Every emigrant says he or she intends returning home but thousands of them never return to live here, although they visit. I do not think they should have a vote. That is not to say that we should forget about them. They should have some representation, but give them their own representation, in otherwords, give them a constituency of their own. Let them have their own candidates, if that could be arranged, or give them representation in this House. I do not think it would be a good idea to give emigrants a direct vote in local or Dáil elections because it would be unfair to those who remain and are governed by our elected representatives. I would not be opposed to their having representation. As I said for a start, they could have representation in this House and they could be given a constituency of their own rather than giving them a vote in a general election.
The Minister has not dealt in the Bill with the system of election to the Seanad. There should be reform in this area. We are given a limited period in which to travel the county and, may I say, at great expense. That is not the predominant factor, but it is a factor because it excludes some who might otherwise stand in the Seanad election. Two recent Seanad elections were held in the depths of winter. I like travelling the country; I did not do it the last time but I was still elected. However, that only happens once in a while. I like to see other parts of the country but I like to have the time and leisure to do so. One has to travel boreens and alleyways, into towns and villages looking for the voter, and then discover that he or she is in another part of the country, which means one has to come back again. To say the least, this means an unnecessary increase in road traffic. The Minister should ask the Government to consider the system of election to the Seanad.
I am reluctant to say this as I would miss meeting some of my great friends in distant parts of the land, but constituencies could be smaller — some people mentioned the Euro constituencies or dividing the country in half so that there would not be too much travel involved. The Government may say one does not have to travel, but that would not be an adequate way of carrying out an election. As I said, despite the fact I did not travel before the last election — I had good reasons for not doing so — I was re-elected to the House.
It is important that people meet the electorate and that the electorate should meet their representatives. However, travelling from the top of Donegal to the south of Kerry or Cork is a heavy burden to put on candidates. Many who would otherwise stand for the Seanad might be deterred by all this travelling.
My only point of disagreement with the Bill is the one section dealing with helpers outside a polling station. I ask the Minister to look at this point. I have not studied the contributions of all Members, but I understand the majority of them welcome this section. I wonder if they gave it sufficient thought. I would not like to see anything in this Bill weaken democracy. The razzamatazz is part and parcel of polling day. It is very important to have party workers and candidates' representatives assist voters.
I wish the Minister well in office. No doubt he will give consideration to the points we have raised and perhaps on Committee Stage he will bring in amendments to improve it.
I congratulate the Minister on his appointment and wish him well in his new Ministry. I welcome him to the House.
The Electoral (No. 2) Bill, 1991, is the first Bill dealing with Dáil Éireann elections in the history of the State which puts into one comprehensive document various legislation established over a considerable time.
There can be little doubt that the prime function of this Bill has been to put together in one working document a multitude of components designed to meet the requirements of the particular demands arising 100 years and more before at and after the establishment of the State, the Election Act, 1923, being for us the most significant. Crossing the t's, dotting the i's and translating outmoded language into updated articulate legally accepptable language which can be understood by all without recourse to outside assistance has to be a laudable exercise. Indeed, in certain respects it might be argued that greater pruning of some of the old legislation could be useful at this time. However, as we all know, pruning tends to lead to greater and new growth so perhaps, where possible, leaving the true and tried alone is best.
There is little point spending time extolling the benefits of the status quo. It would be better by far to look in depth at the few real changes in the Bill and perhaps to look also at those changes which might have been included.
Part X of the Bill deals with nominations and essentially covers, as far as any changes are concerned both the candidate's deposit and the free distribution of an election communication via An Post. On the face of it, one has to say that an increase in the deposit from £100, set in 1923, to £500 in 1992 is, in every respect, a generous containment way below inflation. The deposit we have always accepted as reasonable and a firm method of weeding out or, should I say, discouraging frivolous candidates on the principle that if one is prepared to put one's money where one's mouth is, then it is reasonable to expect one is, by definition, a serious candidate. I believe this to be a simply inherited and, in today's terms, an ill-conceived deterrent.
One does not need to be a public or press relations expert to calculate that for many business people £500 plus the costs of some back up promotional material is money extremely well spent in climbing on the bandwagon afforded to an election by the media for the purpose of achieving a higher personal profile. I contend that whether the deposit is £100 or £500 makes no difference to the incredible value for money on offer. I do not believe there is any safe method of legislation against such an abuse. My concern is not for those who would abuse the system but for those who could contribute a vast store of wealth in public representation but find themselves prohibited by the cost.
A deposit of £100 may seem a lot of money to put down as a recoverable deposit to allow one to stand for election, it is a small price to pay if one should lose it, and if one can afford it. Indeed, the new deposit of £500 is a small sum for the potential privilege, again, if one can afford it.
In the past, particularly in the early days of this State, concerned people got together and pooled their resources to make the necessary deposit available to see their candidate through. They had to tighten their belts for a little time but it was worth it to have someone in a position to speak on their behalf and make their points of view known. As a good example of the persons I speak of, I take this opportunity to present a case for the women in our society, particularly mothers of young families who voluntarily involve themselves in all aspects of society's activities and social works. A deposit of £100 might seem attainable at a stretch but, for them £500 is stretching things a little too far. Are we legislating against this type of person? I think we are.
A fairer and more realistic nomination process should and can be found. Must money control everything? Unfortunately, as we all know, this can be the case all too often. Here is an issue where we should look beyond money to the real value of human resources. I suggest that a specified number of registered electors' endorsements of a nomination would more effectively discourage potential candidates with frivolous intentions. Going out to convince, say, 100 individuals of one's suitability for a nomination would do the trick and eliminate frivolous candidates. A simple package of only one endorsement per household could be put together quickly. It is our duty in this House to encourage the best people into the most serious business of running our country. We must remove, not place, obstacles in their way.
I turn now to a small, important point in section 23 of the Bill on the issue of opinion polls which can, without question, greatly influence swings in electoral preferences. It is perfectly right that controls should be legislated for. We are all swayed by popular appeal. "Nothing breeds success like success"; that is a truism. Whether we are talking about politics, sport or entertainment, we are given to being influenced by what we hear about an individual. We do not have the time, inclination or sometimes the chance to find the truth. Our perceptions are real and influence our decisions.
With the best will in the world any opinion poll, or market research as it would be called in the commercial world, can get it wrong, and frequently does. I have nothing but my wholehearted support to give to the control of possible misuse or the inadvertent influence of opinion polls. Unless I am mistaken, it is the publication of opinion polls, not the taking of them, about which we must be concerned. Taking opinion polls for private consumption by a party or by an individual candidate should not be interfered with. If not in the most sophisticated manner, every party, candidate and worker at election time pools the information gained on the doorstep to gauge the mood and aspirations of the electorate. This is a form of opinion poll but it is not for publication. How often do we check when an opinion poll was taken and how it weighs up against other events brought to our attention in the meantime? I would contend rarely, if ever. This is a minor technical area which should be seriously considered before the ratification of this Bill.
There are two other important factors in our electoral system which are not addressed by the Bill, one by its lack of mention and both by the fact that no real opening is included at a later date. I refer, of course, to the votes for emigrants and the thorny subject of multi-seat constituencies.
Dealing briefly first with the emigrants' probable or possible first right, by excluding them from the right to vote we are ostracising our own at a time when they need us as much as we need them. Serious consideration must be given to a broad based system for our emigrants' rights and powers to vote.
Much has been said recently of the important effects of emigration on our economy. I suppose now is not the time to go into the pros and cons, other than to draw from it the fact that Irish citizens working overseas are important to us in several respects, not least in the funds they supply to the State in a number of ways — the traditional money to see the family through difficult times; the vast store of savings in the State for the time the emigrant returns; and the funds which come into the State which are classified as tourist revenue but which is truly Irish citizens' spending at home. Many emigrants are not away from home by choice and want to live here, and could do even more to help this country, which is their country.
The PR and STV system is to most people, including many actively involved in politics, something of a mystery. Understanding that one puts one's first choice as No. 1, one's second choice as No. 2 and perhaps one's third choice as No. 3 and so on, is easy but how these and other surpluses, if any, are distributed and why it is important to number or not number all the candidates, is not clearly understood. A programme of education in the electoral system is again due. In the same vein, a programme of education on the importance of using one's vote is long overdue.
We have an extremely politically aware community in Ireland but given that they have a chance to use the power vested in each individual, the vote, we have a turnout which falls far short of reflecting this awareness. Is this the result of apathy or confusion? Either way, something must be done about it now. Dissatisfaction is always expressed, but nothing seems to change.
The question of multi-seat constituencies as opposed to single seat constituencies is frequently raised and tossed about. It is time to set up a panel to prepare a layman's report on the various options with possible consequences of each, both in elections and the quality of constituency work. Such a panel or study group should be comprised of political scientists and working politicians both at local and national level. We should seek consultation with out European colleagues, not for the purpose of levelling out electoral systems but in order to take advantage of their experience and to share our experience with them in our quest for the best system of systems.
The pros and cons of the various systems and possible variations should be addressed now. The tendency, as we all know, is to leave this until shortly before an election, when nothing can be done to change matters. Then, with the election over and election blues out of the way, we forget about it again. It is important from everyone's point of view that we get the system right, so as to get the fairest and most workable results. That is the target we need to aim for, whether an election is taking place or not.
In the main, the Electoral (No. 2) Bill, 1991, does an extremely good job bearing in mind some of the points I and my colleagues have raised here. I have no doubt we will get a chance to tease these our further on Committee Stage.
I would like to welcome the Minister to the House and congratulate him on his new appointment. I am confident he will do an excellent job.
In general terms, I welcome this legislation. It is always good to see consolidating legislation, which seeks to bring together provisions dating from a time prior to the foundation of the State and legislation passed after the foundation of the State. I note that six Bills from the pre-1922 period and 13 from post-1922 are now being rationalised and brought together to form this legislation, although part of the 1963 Act and later Acts are still in operation.
It is unfortunate that we are constantly dealing with legislation that refers to pre-1922 Bills and Acts when these Acts are not available in this jurisdication. We have to look for them in Northern Ireland or in Britain. They are printed and available there but our Government Publications Office say it is not their responsibility, the Acts are not our legislation and are available elsewhere. It is virtually impossible to find a pre-1922 piece or legislation on the shelves here.
We are still being governed by legislation that is anything from 70 to 150 years old. It was enacted in different times in a different context where an empire ruled the world. Obviously, there were different considerations. From that point of view, I am particularly glad to see a Bill that seeks to bring together the developments that have taken place since the foundation of the State and to eliminate those measures that were the law prior to that. While welcoming the Bill I have some serious reservations about elements of it. I believe it is seriously flawed in certain areas and I will welcome the opportunity of proposing amendments to seek to eliminate those flaws on Committee Stage.
In Part II, sections 6 to 10, where we concern ourselves with the franchise and the registration of electors, there is a breakdown of the various categories of elections, Presidential, Dáil, European and local. A different set of people is entitled to vote in each type of election. For example, in a Presidential election a citizen of this country who is ordinarily resident in the State is entitled to be an elector. In a European election a citizen who is ordinarily resident here, a British citizen, or an EC citizen can vote. For a Dáil election, an Irish citizen ordinarily resident here is eligible to vote. There is no reference whatever to British citizens but there is continued reference to the EC citizen. The provision in relation to local elections does not refer to a citizen of this country, a British citizen or an EC citizen but simply to somebody who is ordinarily resident in this country. I do not see why we cannot rationalise that categorisation.
At this stage, why must we specify British citizens? We have gone a considerable way along the road to political, monetary and economic union in Europe and after Maastricht we will have taken some extra steps. British citizens are also citizens of the European Community so I do not see why we need to identify, distinguish and specify them as a separate category of the electorate. I would like an answer to that.
I wonder why we have four categories of electorate for the Presidential, Dáil, European and local elections in any event. Are British or European citizens likely to influence the outcome of any election to such an extent that we must have these cumbersome distinctions? We could do away with them now, particularly in the likely post-Maastricht situation when we have gone two-thirds of the way towards European union.
In Part II, section 11 states: "A person shall not be registered as an elector more than once in any registration area nor in more than one such area." I have considerable reservation about that section. It is very surprising that such a section should be introduced so soon after the 1990 Supreme Court decision in the case of Quinn et alia v. Waterford Corporation. A student of the Regional Technical College, Mr. Quinn, and other students took the case and won the right to be registered at home and in the college they were attending. At the time the judge, Mr. Justice McCarthy, expressed his congratulations and his compliments to the students for taking this important case which relates to social policy in this country. It seems strange that we should in this short space of time reverse or seek to reverse by legislation a pronouncement of the Supreme Court which stated that they were to be granted the right to be registered in those two places. It is particularly difficult to defend this section when we consider that students spend roughly half of their time in their home abode and the other half at college.
Students have an interest in substantial issues of a political nature for which they have been lobbying and canvassing over a period of time. It is reasonable that third level students should put up candidates, if they so wish, and campaign en bloc where they have specific grievances. That is generally in the context of the place where they are studying. The major issue is accommodation, a chronic issue that concerns students. There is never enough and prices are very high. Students are constantly looking for permanent accommodation. Most campuses in western democracies provide student accommodation but in this country it is the exception. That is one issue where democracy and a democratic right should be extended to students.
Another issue, which arose recently and on which students have marched, is the question of student grants from the European Social Fund, which are now to be taxed, with a detrimental effect on the amount of money available to students for their maintenance. We are taking away the power of students; the idea is to divide and conquer. Where will the students register? They can now register in only one location. Will they register at home and hope an election will take place during the six months when they are living at home, or will they register in the college and hope the election will take place when they are in the vicinity of the college? Many students study in Dublin. A large percentage of them have to travel great distances, from Kerry, Donegal, Cork, Wexford, Waterford and indeed, from Northern Ireland. It is a major inconvenience for them to have to travel hundreds of miles to vote. It is a deterrent and we should not put a deterrent in the way of people seeking to exercise their democratic right and, indeed, their responsibility to vote.
To put it in context, we have roughly 30,000 students at any given time in the colleges of higher education. If we look at all the other special categories of postal voter, for example, the armed forces or the Garda, there are approximately 16,000 in the armed forces, 12,000 gardaí and a couple of thousand special voters. Between them they hardly add up to the number of students who are effectively being disenfranchised here. We should make a special category for students; specifically, we should allow students, and no other category, to be registered in two locations because they spend half of their time in each of two locations, given the college year. I would be worried about the provision in the Bill, especially since the students have worked assiduously to ensure that they have the opportunity of presenting their grievances democratically by the way they vote. I hope we can get some response to that. I will be putting down an amendment to that section.
Section 16 deals with the system of additions and deletions in relation to the draft register. The present manner of preparing the draft is very confusing. I would like to see some action in relation to its compilation. The period during which the draft register is available for inspection is probably the most unsatisfactory time of the year as it extends from the middle of December to the middle of January. People have other things on their minds at that time besides going to their local Garda station or elsewhere to inspect the draft register. It is not the best time. It is not easy to find an optimum time but the Christmas period is probably the worst.
Section 17 relates to special voters. I was involved in seeking to have the postal vote extended to disabled persons, when I was a member of the executive of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties. I was involved in organising the Supreme Court case which opened up this whole issue in 1982. The then Taoiseach, Deputy FitzGerald, made a commitment prior to the election in 1982 that if elected, he would ensure that legislation would be introduced to provide this right to the disabled. The procedure is very cumbersome and demeaning.
I know there are concerns about abuse. There will always be concerns about abuse when it comes to elections but to introduce a rigid system in relation to special voters, the disabled in our society, is singling them out and telling them we have to take certain special precautions to ensure they do not abuse the system. That is undesirable and we should have a fresh look at the matter. Why can we not have a single set of procedures for special voters, the Garda and the armed forces? There is no reason we should have a special returning officer and a Garda checking everything when disabled persons vote. What amounts to supervision and surveillance is used and people are brought into the home of the disabled person.
I welcome the fact that the previous requirement of certification that the person is of sound mind has been removed. I note that in relation to mental patients in institutions, section 11 (6) imposes no such requirement. In fact, you could register everybody in Grangegorman or any other institution but there was a specific requirement that the physically disabled be certified to be of sound mind. A medical certificate was required each time an election took place stating the degree of physical illness or disability. It is good that this is now required only on the first occasion, and that it is a matter of discretion if the requirement arises subsequently. That improves matters and takes some of the pressure off the disabled but nevertheless I would hone in on the regulations requiring the presence of the Garda Síochána. I do not see why another person who would normally be in touch with the voter such as a priest, teacher or social worker should not be acceptable rather than a Garda — this seems to be a heavy handed approach — and the special presiding officer.
Section 100 provides the authorisation for the physically ill or physically disabled elector to vote at a more convenient polling station. Certain voters who are physically ill or disabled, may be allowed to vote at a polling station other than the one where they would normally vote. Very few polling stations are chosen because they are accessible to the disabled. Hardly any polling station in my constituency allows for access by wheelchair. That must be taken into consideration. It is a matter of increasing the convenience. We should always have as a basic principle the idea that democracy and the exercise of democracy, in terms of the right to vote, should be made as convenient and as accessible as possible. The local authority should be obliged to survey all the polling stations in their jurisdiction with a view to ensuring that there is access for the disabled. This would avoid the trauma of the special voters' regulations for quite a number of people. Many people have to apply for special voters' status because they are unable to walk or have difficulty negotiating steps. It should be a priority to establish accessibility for all who wish to vote.
We should seek to improve the regulations for special voters. Perhaps we can use the same regulations for the exercise of the franchise by the armed forces, the Garda and special voters. In that way, we would not seem to be demeaning, or putting undue pressure on this category of voter. They have enough troubles of their own.
Part X, section 46 (1) relates to the nomination of candidates. A person may nominate himself or, with his consent, be nominated by another person. I would like to know what precautions are taken to ensure consent and that the candidate is aware of his or her nomination.
Section 46 (2) says:
The form of nomination paper may include—
(a) a note of the qualifications, disqualifications and incapacities...
(b) a form of declaration, to be signed by the candidate or his proposer, ...
Surely that should be, "must include". There should be an absolute responsibility on the candidate to have attached his or her signature to the nomination paper. I find this strange; perhaps I am misreading this. It should not be possible for anybody to put forward another person to be a candidate in any election without having proof of consent, rather than the possibility of proof of consent as seems to be indicated in section 46 (2). It might happen that a person's name would be put forward without his knowledge if sufficient monitoring is not introduced in the legislation to ensure that the candidate wishes his name to go forward.
Section 47 relates to the increase of the deposit from £100 to £500. The £100 has been the standard deposit since 1923. That may seem a reasonable increase on the surface because there has been no change for almost 70 years. Obviously in 1923 £100 was a huge deposit. We must remember the circumstances in which elections took place and the extent of the franchise at the time. Women got the vote in 1918 and it was not granted in full until 1928. At that time people with property were expected to contest elections and, for that matter, to vote. Remuneration for those elected was very low. We were beginning to get the benefits of universal franchise and attitudes had not adjusted to the fact that the unemployed and independent people would seek to be elected and would have to put down deposits. The fact that we never sought to increase the deposit in 70 years shows that we felt that the £100 deposit set in 1923 was a very high figure.
We have come around to the view that finance should not be a major consideration for anybody standing for election. That principle should be continued. It is wrong to introduce a single criterion for election candidates. It presumes that those standing for election who are rich or well off will not be doing so for frivolous or vexatious reason, while those who are not so well off have a financial penalty imposed on them. That is a wrong perception. I do not think it is desirable to have it as the sole criterion. I would prefer alternative criteria. Is there any good reason a person should not prove he is a serious candidate by getting a certain number of signatures, as is the case in other European countries? If one were to get 500 signatures or 5,000 signatures, or 700 signatures, as in some European countries, that indicates that one has consulted with a certain number of people who have signed a petition or statement in relation to one's candidacy or in relation to the issues one is pursuing. This has been adopted from Britain like many of our legislative ideas and refers to the Representation of the People Act, 1988 where Britain increased its deposit from £150 to £500, the sum being proposed here. Margaret Thatcher's Britain at the time attracted a considerable number of frivolous candidates; Screaming Lord Sutch of the Raving Loony Party, National Front candidates, racist candidates and fascist candidates. Fringe people simply put down their names for the sake of being frivolous and vexatious but we have not had that problem here and we should not legislate in this case for a problem that has not arisen here. Legislation to prevent a hypothetical abuse is bad legislation and Irish non-party candidates have been excellent representatives. In the other House, Deputy Tom Foxe, was elected to the Dáil on a single issue, on the question of the quality of hospital service in a particularly constituency. He was elected in the Leas-Chathaoirleach's constituency and he does excellent work. Yet, here is a man who could be deterred in different circumstances from going forward because he could be regarded as a frivolous candidate according to the legislation or its explanatory memorandum.
We have had Army wives candidates and people going forward on the pothole issue who were judged by the people on their merits. We may make fun of this but these people are not frivolous candidates. However, if they were unemployed, how would they acquire the necessary £500? Unemployment payment is roughly £53 a week at present and £500 would represent almost ten weeks of welfare payments. For an unemployed person that amount of deposit is a penalty. It is unfair to impose conditions which discriminate against those of no property, means, or standard income.
There is no reason we should not have single issue or unemployed candidates. In the past an unemployed person was elected to the Dáil and it may occur again, considering our high level of unemployment. Unemployed candidates would have to pay their deposit out of meagre welfare payments. On grounds of policy and of principle to protect the democratic right to vote, electoral requirements should be made as simple and as accessible as possible to encourage people to become candidates and to vote. Therefore we should change these candidacy requirements and if we do not we may find ourselves in trouble over Article 16 of the Constitution, which states that every citizen shall be eligible to be in membership of Dáil Eireann. It is invidious therefore to place obstacles in the citizen's way in order to regulate elections. I understand that Denmark, Germany and Italy require no deposits but operate instead on the basis of signatures.
Section 48 (1) (e) also provides that the vote required for a return of deposit is to be changed from one-third to one-quarter. I welcome that. One-third was a large amount of votes to stipulate considering that candidates are generally eliminated before they are able to benefit from transfers so if one reaches one-third of the votes one will have been in the running for a considerable length of time. A quarter is preferable; one has already had to prove one is not a frivolous candidate with the £500 deposit. If one gets a quarter of the votes one gets a substantial vote, probably a couple of thousand votes which is not to be sneezed at.
The number could be reduced further and I am worried that the deposit may become a penalty. One is supposed to get one's deposit back but is it a fee for those who do not do so well? Those who do well gain a seat and get their money back; those who do not do well, do not get a seat and get no money back. We should be more reasonable and reduce the amount of votes necessary to about 10 per cent for a return of deposit.
Part XXII relates to electoral offences. Section 147 (2) stipulates that 30 minutes before the opening and 30 minutes after the closing of the booths no canvassing will take place or no material or posters will be displayed. On this matter I share many reservations expressed by Senator MacMahon. It may be unconstitutional to prevent freedom of expression and freedom of movement here under the Irish Constitution and under the European Convention on Human Rights. We covered the question of abuse already in section 147 (1) where it states that a person shall not interfere with or obstruct or impede an elector. That is highly desirable. Nobody should be impeded, obstructed or interfered with. After that the important thing is to ensure that we regulate how canvassing takes place. People can be impeded at 50 metres from the station and a better approach would be to restrict the number of people per party or per candidate in the vicinity. I think we will run into constitutional problems on this issue; a similar case was contested recently in the Supreme Court in Tennessee in Freeman v Burson, 1990 and that constitution is similar to ours. The case there was overthrown and we may find that this provision would also go to the Supreme Court and we may be looking for a constitutional interpretation of its validity.
It is difficult to come down categorically on one side or the other of this proposal because in the past there has been an enormous amount of razzamatazz and hectic activity and some voters have complained about interference. We covered that in section 147 (1). There may also be problems in relation to candidates transporting people to the polling booth. Is a candidate who comes with a car promoting her/his candidacy inside 50 metres? If a candidate brings voters to the polling booth, how does one interpret that? A candidate may not have a permanent presence outside the polling booth but if an occasional presence is maintained outside the polling booth, is one in breach of this stipulation?
I think the majority of people would favour substantial regulation of what happens outside polling booths but I worry that by prohibiting all activity and display in the vicinity of the polling booth we may find ourselves in breach of the Constitution and merely relocate the problem down the road from the polling station. It might be better to limit the number of posters or permit the presence of personnel attached to any candidate or party rather than remove posters and people to another location.
Part XIV, section 88 (2) of the Bill refers to the alphabetical order of candidacy. Everybody whose name starts with "A", like the Aherns of this world, are delighted that we proceed in alphabetical order but those who are closer to Z are of a different view. The matter was very succinctly put by Senator Ó Cuív; his name was Ó Cuív but if he dropped the "Ó" he could be entered under "C" and he felt he was eligible to go forward under "C" or "O" as his wife would be "Uí" and his daughter would be "Ní". This is the order, "N", "O", "U" in which three members of the same family could have been listed. There is a certain ambiguity in the conditions attached to a candidate using the Irish version of their name, which should be resolved. I am sure Senator Ó Foighil would agree with me there.
Research indicates that the position one holds on the ballot paper has a bearing on electoral results so we should consider whether alphabetical order should be replaced by random choice. I would prefer a random choice. It would not suit many people but it would be a fairer system.
Section 88 (2) (c) provides that all candidates have equal space on the ballot paper. That is important but difficult to implement if a candidate has a long name and has added to it in order to be identified with an issue, like "Dublin Bay", for a local election. If a candidate already has a fairly long name and adds "Dublin Bay" to it and then "Rockall" to publicise another issue, and then becomes a member of a political party, like the Christian Democrats perhaps, the name becomes exceedingly long. It is virtually impossible to ensure that each candidate has exactly the same space. Seeing that we have looked into the categorisation of the various elections, could we not restrict the names and additions and addenda that various candidates have formerly been allowed to add? This matter concerns me because a candidate occuping a greater quantity of space because of his-her length of name, poses an unavoidable attraction for the voter scanning the list. If one's name is substantially different from everyone else's on the list, unfairness results. We need to eliminate that possibility by reviewing the way in which candidates have been permitted to add matters which are not part of their ordinary name to the description which appears on the ballot paper.
Part XXIII, section 167, relates to the prohibition on the taking of opinion polls for a period of seven days before elections. I consider it wrong to introduce such a prohibition and I wonder what the rationale behind it might be given that the taking of polls does not step on anybody's toes. Publication of poll results may be a different matter and one can make that distinction, but to insist that no polls be taken for seven days prior to an election is unnecessary. It is wrong also to prevent the publication of opinion polls. I do not see why the electorate should not be granted maximum information as long as it is not propaganda or biased or organised by a vested interest.
National opinion polls are the fairest way of determining what the people think at a particular time about particular issues. They provide information and are a form of free speech which, again, may have constitutional implications. In a democracy we want to ensure that people get the maximum of information.
I do not think opinion polls have a proven impact on voting patterns but even if they did, the elector is entitled to know what other people think and should not be forbidden from knowing that no later than seven days before the election. It is up to the electorate to make up their minds with the information available to them. Private polls will be conducted and the media will engage in speculation and there will be discussions on chat shows as to people's voting intentions, but the only independent source of information on electoral thinking is a national opinion poll. Yet, we propose to prohibit such polls during the critical seven days before the election.
I understand that France is the only other democracy that applies this rule. Albania, South Africa and Cuba enforce it also and we have not had much in common with any of those countries in the past, even though they are approaching a greater degree of democracy. We should not follow France's example in this matter but look for maximum free speech and information; it is ludicrous to impose a two year prison sentence or a £10,000 fine on anybody in breach of what I would regard as a constitutional right to free speech and to freedom of information. A poll was taken in one part of the country to ascertain what people throught about this provision and people indicated resoundingly that they do not agree with it and would be happy to see polls being taken during the seven day period specified here.
The people involved in the taking of opinion polls, the political scientists, are totally opposed to it and feel that their rights as scientific practitioners of their profession are being infringed upon, and no doubt have circularised other Members of the Seanad about their considerations. It should be considered that some people depend partly on polls for their livelihood. Political scientists claim professional status and have standards of integrity and objectivity to maintain and they do not believe they are usurping or interfering with people's right to make up their own minds.
Section 174 deals with the European Assembly elections and states in subsection 2 that "the Minister shall, not later than the first day of December, 1993 and at least once in every ten years thereafter submit to the Oireachtas proposals for a review of the constitutencies for which candidates shall be elected under this Act to be representatives in the Parliament". Why do we need this criterion of time as distinct from a population or a census criterion? Surely it would be better if all constituencies were reviewed on a population shift basis rather than specifying a time period for European elections. There is nothing wrong with reviewing constituencies every ten years but that review should be incorporated into or attached to the census because that indicates the distribution of population; it is probably wrong to introduce a chronological principle when we require a numerical or a population principle; the census should be the basic guideline. Perhaps the Minister would respond to my reservations on this section.
A number of desirable changes are not included in the Bill. This legislation would be an opportunity to place the commission for constituency revision on a statutory footing. In the past we have had allegations of political interference, including allegations of gerrymandering in relation to the redrawing of constituency boundaries and this matter should be taken outside the control of the political party or coalition in power on the day. We should specify statutory conditions and give a statutory basis to a constituency revision commission. The Labour Party introduced a Private Members' Bill, the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1988, to that effect and that provision could be incorporated into this legislation as an amendment.
I would like provision made in this Bill to accord votes to emigrants, a serious matter which will not go away. A strong lobby abroad, particularly in Britain and in the United States, suggests we are out of step with the other western democracies when we deny our emigrant citizens a right to vote in national elections. We have a large number of emigrants, people who were born and raised here and who have gone abroad not always from choice and who still maintain an interest in Irish politics. They live with the desire to return and work in Ireland. We cannot turn our backs on those people and say "No, you can only vote here when we have a job for you or when you come back and live on unemployment benefit". We have to be more positive than that and look at voting regulations in the countries where the majority of our emigrants live.
The United States and Britain allow their citizens abroad a vote. We, too, must make some provision for emigrants. Senator McMahon suggested that we create a new constituency for them to give them representation in this House. I agree that some constituency should be created for those who are at present disenfranchised and who if they were citizens of another country would be enfranchised. We should go a step further and give them full voting rights in this country. I refer the House to the Labour Party's Private Members' Bill on that matter introduced last year.
Another matter I have been concerned about for some time is voting rights for prisoners. The present legislation specifically forbids any prisoner to vote. According to section 11 (i) of the Bill a person must be registered at their home address in order to vote and a prisoner's home is not his place of detention. It has always puzzled me why people who have gone before the courts and a particular sanction having been imposed on them should be treated differently by the State. For example, if somebody is fined £100 they do not lose any rights as a citizen. They pay the money and that is that, but if somebody is imprisoned they lose their right to liberty. Why should we also impose this infringement on their rights? It is wrong to impose an extra sanction on somebody in prison. It is also wrong in terms of policy because if we argue that the function of imprisonment is not just to deter but to rehabilitate, surely these people should have the right to participate in the outside world and retain an interest in the community. One of the most important ways of participation is exercising the franchise, and being allowed to exercise it. People should be encouraged to vote and the right to vote should be made as convenient as possible for all.
I am totally opposed to the restriction imposed on prisoners to vote while serving a sentence. Is there any reason they should not be given a postal vote which could be easily monitored? Why not open a polling booth in the prison grounds? As there are only about 12 prisons in the country, prisoners should be allowed to vote at elections. This would not impose a grave burden on the State and would be very desirable in terms of rehabilitating a person serving a sentence by giving them an interest in what is going on outside the prison.
This would mean that candidates would seek access to the prisons to address constituents and this would enable them to see the dire conditions in the prison system. There are many reasons I feel this would be a desirable development. Perhaps for the reasons I have given the Minister for Justice will not give prisoners the right to vote — he does not want the Official Secrets Act diluted in any sense, nor, does he want people who might raise their voices about prison reform and prison conditions visiting those prisons.
Section 41 (j) states that anybody undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for any term exceeding six months shall not be eligible for election. I wonder about the desirability of that provision. It reflects the British legislation of 1981, the Representation of the People Act, 1981, which was passed with a specific purpose in mind. This was at the time of the H-Block demonstrations in Northern Ireland and when Bobby Sands was elected a Member of Parliament in Britain. It was in that context that the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, introduced legislation denying the right of a prisoner in the British jurisdiction to be a candidate for an election. As, I said, this legislation was introduced for a specific purpose in Britain, but there is no reason we should follow that trend.
Many of our heroes, respected statesmen, of the past were elected while in prison and one of the great slogans of the past was "put him in to get him out". Under this legislation, one could not very well "put him in to get him out". Anybody now reading the Official Report of the First Dáil will see that a substantial percentage of those who were entitled to attend were described by the Clerk as "Fé ghlas ag Gallaibh", they were in prison. In fact, the foundation of the State would not have been possible if this legislation with this disqualification, had been in operation, I am sure Eamon de Valera and his comrades would turn in their graves if they saw their Republican successors implementing a provision arising from a decision on Northern Ireland taken by the British Prime Minister. It is not necessary and I do not see why we should introduce a provision into legislation to cover a hypothetical situation. It may have been a problem in another jurisdiction but it is not a problem here. Let us not be restrictive where a problem has not been shown to exist. That provision should be deleted from the Bill.
There was a reference to Seanad reform. That would be desirable if these reforms could be incorporated into the legislation. I appreciate the difficulties of including a section on Seanad reform because we are discussing the role of the Seanad. There are many problems, including the very vexed question relating to the existing panels. For example, many people now attend third level education colleges which are not universities. They are not granted representation here. In my view, this is an anomaly which should be addressed.
Another anomaly which must be addressed is the limited franchise. If we look at this clearly and honestly there is only one approach, that is, the universal franchise. Let us take it that both Houses have the responsibility of governing. If the Dáil introduces legislation it must come to this House for approval and legislation introduced here must go to the other House for approval. However, both Houses are not directly elected by the people. That is a simple but basic principle which I am sure treads on many political toes, the old one of taxation without representation. The Government must put in place a system of universal representation. In most continental countries Members of the Upper House are elected at the same time as Members of the Lower House and the people opt for one. It causes all sorts of political problems but if we are to be truly democratic then the people have a right to elect us. At present they do not. The electorate is limited to approximately 1,000 people who themselves have been elected. Nevertheless, it is a very controversial issue. We may not necessarily see it in that light but people often criticise the system of election to the Seanad.
I welcome this Bill. It contains many good provisions. It consolidates in detail much of the legislation that has already been passed. However, it is seriously flawed in the areas I referred to, particularly in three areas on which I will recap. First, there is an infringement on freedom of speech and information in relation to the opinion poll. Second, in relation to it being mandatory to register in one place, there is an infringement on the freedom of students; effectively, they are neutralised in their ability to exercise their franchise. Third, the £500 infringes the right of the dispossessed, so to speak, those who are less well off, the poor, the unemployed, the issue candidates and the Independents. This is unnecessary, and should be avoided.
Together, those three issues suggest there is something devious in this legislation resulting in an infringement of democratic rights. If one were of a devious mind and suspected conspiracies, one could see those three issues as geared towards assisting a party who have been denied a majority for so long. I would not go so far as to say those elements have been introduced but it is unusual that a Supreme Court decision made one year ago has not been challenged. It is unusual that we should be so out of line with most other European countries in restricting polls. We must not forget that polls for major political parties always seem to suggest they are doing better early on and they then seem to lose part of the floating vote. That is only a perception, it may not be the case at all. The imposition of a single criterion is literally the equivalent of a penalty on those who might be most dissatisfied with the Government, namely, the unemployed.
Those are undesirable provisions and while they may benefit a party on some occasions they will certainly not benefit them all the time. They are the three major flaws I see in the legislation and I would like to see those addressed on Committee Stage.
I join in the good wishes which have been extended to the Minister of State, Deputy Wallace. I congratulate him on his well deserved promotion and wish him a very successful term of office.
I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to the debate on this Bill and to comment on some of its provisions. This Bill is of particular interest to all elected public representatives. While essentially it is a Dáil electoral measure, some of its provisions, and especially some of its new proposals, will have important consequences for other elections and referenda.
The Bill is very comprehensive; it contains 176 sections and four Schedules. Its purpose is to consolidate, modernise and amend the existing law relating to the election of Members to Dáil Eireann. All aspects of the electoral process are covered by the Bill. As the former Minister indicated in his introductory speech, 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. He also stated that the law relating to Dáil elections is contained in six 19th century Acts, the earliest of which dates back to 1852.
The passing of this Bill will mean that the entire law in relation to Dáil elections will be contained in a single statute and this is welcome. I am pleased to note that the former Minister said he would be receptive to suggestions for improvements in the Bill and I have no doubt the same will apply as far as the new Minister is concerned.
I have reservations about some of the new proposals in the Bill and I will deal with those in due course. However, at the outset I welcome the provisions contained in Part II and the Second Schedule which deal with the registration of electors. While I agree with the Minister that, by and large, the standard of the register is not as deficient as is sometimes suggested, there is considerable room for improvement. This improvement can only be achieved by changing the present system of compiling the register.
I welcome the proposals for change which are contained in the Bill and I especially welcome the provision for the publication of a supplement to the register. Experience has shown that it really does not matter how much care is taken with the preparation of the draft register or how much effort is put into trying to get people to check that their names are included — at the end of the day, names will have been omitted. Up to now there was no mechanism whereby such people could qualify to vote in any election or referendum which might be held during the currency of that register. The supplement to the register will go a long way towards redressing this situation. The new and shorter timescale for the preparation of the register is also a step in the right direction. The fact that the existing timescale spans the Christmas holiday period has proved to be very unsatisfactory. The earlier publication of the draft register and the shorter period during which claims for correction may be made will help to concentrate people's minds and, hopefully, increase the level of scrutiny of the draft.
The Bill provides that a person may not be registered more than once or in respect of more than one address and that he shall be registered in the area in which he is ordinarily resident. In view of the confusion caused last year by the Supreme Court judgement on the case taken by the students at Waterford Regional Technical College it is important that the position in relation to this matter should be clarified. Therefore, I welcome this section of the Bill and also the fact that where a person has a prima facie claim to be registered at two or more addresses he may choose the one at which he wishes to be registered. However, the interpretation of “ordinarily resident” will continue to cause problems unless some clear guidelines are provided in relation to what is meant by this phrase. This is desirable so that there will be uniformity as far as all registration authorities are concerned. I am pleased the Minister has power to issue such guidelines under section 18 of the Bill and he should do so in relation to the phrase “ordinarily resident”. All students, including student nurses, should have the option of being registered at their home addresses. I accept that in the case of student nurses there were some registration difficulties in the past but they should not be discriminated against visa-vis other categories of students.
Some young people migrate weekly from rural Ireland to work in this city, or in some other urban area, from Monday to Friday. Those people live in rented accommodation during the week and return home at the weekend. Home for them is their parents' residence. They have no ties with the area in which they spend the working week and no interest in voting there. Many of those people would prefer to register for voting purposes at what they regard as their home address and they should have the option to do so.
I welcome the provision in the Bill that a person shall be deemed not to have given up ordinary residence if he intends to resume residence within 18 months and that a written statement to this effect from the person in question shall be accepted in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This is an important provision and will ensure that people on short career breaks or training courses will not have their names removed from the register as often happened in the past. Another interesting change provided in the Bill is that gardaí will have the option of registering as postal voters or as ordinary electors. All full-time members of the Defence Forces will, however, continue to be registered as postal voters. In the past all postal voters were indicated by having the letter "P" in brackets after their name on the register. I understand this practice has been discontinued for security reasons so that members of the Defence Forces and the Garda Síochána cannot be easily identified on the register.
However, it would appear that the postal voters' list is also a classified or secret document and is not even available to candidates in an election. This came to my attention during the recent local elections. Consideration should be given to having this changed so that the list of postal voters can be made available to candidates. As ballot papers are issued to persons on this list well in advance of polling day and most candidates would, understandably, wish to contact and canvass such voters before they vote, the fact that the list is not available can make this very difficult. I would have no objection to reasonable safeguards being introduced in the event of such a facility being made available. Any candidate seeking a copy of the postal voter's list should be required to give an undertaking that the list will be returned to the returning officer and not copied, disclosed or made available to any other person.
The Bill also provides for publishing an annual list of additions and deletions instead of a full draft register. This idea has great merit and I am confident it will prove to be an exceptionally efficient and cost effective way of updating the register. Naturally, as a local authority member, I welcome the fact that the Exchequer, in future, will meet 75 per cent of the cost of compiling the register as against 50 per cent at present.
In relation to the special voters list, two important and welcome changes are proposed in the Bill. The requirement that an applicant wishing to be included on this list must be certified as being of sound mind and capable of comprehending the act of voting is removed and, in general, a medical certificate only will be required in the case of a first application. Both changes are welcome.
My main complaint, however, in relation to the special voters is that the last date for receipt of application for inclusion is 30 September, four and a half months before the proposed date on which the register will come into force. This list should be kept open for additions and deletions at least up to the date on which the register comes into force, 15 February, the date proposed in the Bill. I see no reason this cannot be done.
As with the postal voters list, the special voters list should also be made available to candidates who request it, first, so that they are aware of the names of voters on the list and, second, so they can arrange to contact or canvass them if they so wish. It is the democratic right of every candidate to have the opportunity to canvass every voter. Finally it should be one of the duties of every presiding officer at every election to furnish to the returning officer observations on the accuracy, or otherwise, of the register of electors for his or her polling station with particular reference to any names which appear to have been omitted from the register.
Part X of the Bill deals with nominations. The proposal to increase the deposit for Dáil elections has been referred to by a number of speakers but this proposal is long overdue. My view is that the proposed figure is still too low. Part X also deals with the entitlement of candidates to free postage. The relevant section provides that each candidate, or party as the case may be, is entitled to send one postal communication free of charge to each person on the register of electors. This is a continuation of the present system. It would appear, however, from the wording of the section that each "litir um thoghchán" as it is known, must be addressed to an individual elector and, technically, such a communication when addressed to a family or household does not qualify for free postage. This should be changed, whether the "litir um thoghchán" is addressed to an individual elector or to a family is irrelevant as long as the total number of such communications issued by any candidate or party does not exceed the total number of voters on the register in the constituency.
Part XIX of the Bill deals with the rules for counting votes. There are two matters in this Part of the Bill to which I want to refer. A returning officer who adjudicates on a doubtful ballot paper and rules it valid may record his ruling on the paper in question so that that same paper will not come up again for adjudication later in the count or in a recount. The Bill appears to leave this matter to the discretion of the returning officers and, in my view, that should not be the case. The returning officer should be obliged to record his ruling on each paper.
Another matter dealt with in Part XIX and which I have seen cause controversy at counts is the situation which arises when a candidate is elected with a small surplus and, instead of transferring that surplus, the returning officer proceeds to the next elimination. This matter was, in certain circumstances up to now, left to the discretion of the returning officer. I would be much happier if the Bill provided that each surplus be transferred as it arose. As long as the other procedure obtains there will continue to be doubt in the case of a close vote that if a particular surplus had been transferred when it arose the result might have been different. The Minister should look at this matter again.
Sitting suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.
I now come to what I regard as the two most controversial provisions of the Bill, namely, the prohibition on any form of canvassing in the vicinity of polling stations and the prohibition on the taking of opinion polls in the seven days immediately preceding polling day. Section 147 (1) of the Bill provides:
A person shall not interfere with or obstruct or impede an elector going to or coming from or in the vicinity of or in a polling station.
That provision is fair enough and is necessary. Subsection (2), however, is a different matter. Perhaps there is a case for prohibiting all activity in the vicinity of polling stations, but I feel that subsection (2) (c), for instance, will create many problems. It provides that it shall be an offence to:
display or distribute any notice, sign or poster (other than a notice, sign or poster displayed by the returning officer) or card, circular or other document relating to the election;
in the vicinity of a polling station. Therefore, if a candidate arrives at a polling station in his own car on which he has his own poster or one on behalf of the candidates of his party displayed, he is technically in breach of that section if he parks his car adjacent to the polling station and calls into the polling station to greet the presiding officer or the people in the polling station.
There is also a practice in rural areas where transport is provided to bring voters to the polling stations. Sometimes, there are a number of polling booths in a polling station and a number of vehicles may be engaged in transporting voters to the polling stations. It is also the custom to have election posters displayed on such vehicles. Because of the fact that a number of vehicles would be involved throughout polling day in transporting the electorate to the polling station, there would always be one or more vehicles parked adjacent to or in the vicinity of the polling station. Again, technically an offence would be committed if any posters were displayed on such vehicles.
When section 147 (2) was being drafted I contended that sufficient thought was not given to situations which might arise. If that section is passed in the form in which it is set out in the Bill, it will create difficulties for candidates and election workers. It will not be satisfactory if people turn a blind eye to the type of offences that I mentioned. That would make for bad legislation and it would be preferable to remove the section from the Bill altogether rather than to turn a blind eye to breaches of it subsequently. This is a section on which there will be much discussion on Committee Stage and is one which I will deal with in much greater detail then.
On the question of the taking of opinion polls during the seven days immediately preceding polling day, I do not believe the prohibition contained in the Bill will make much difference. I read very carefully the section of the Minister's speech in which he deals with this matter. I accept that polls have some effect on the way people vote and that polls can and do produce a bandwagon effect, but current affairs programmes on radio and television have the same effect. Of course, polls contribute to the hype at election times and put pressure on electors, candidates, parties, and indeed tend to set the agenda for the election, but I also agree with the Minister that they can sometimes divert the debate from the real issues to irrelevant matters. However, unless the Minister can organise a moratorium on current affairs programmes on RTE similar to the one which we had recently, then the ban on the taking of opinion polls will have little or no effect. Besides, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent, during the last seven days before the election, the publication of polls taken during the period of the election campaign, nor is there anything in the Bill to prevent local or national broadcasting stations organising phoneins and presenting the results as if they were the results of authentic sampling done in a scientific manner.
Those are the principal comments I wish to make on the Bill. There will be an opportunity on Committee Stage to go into further detail on these points and other provisions in the Bill which I have not touched on. I welcome the Bill mainly because it tidies up the law in relation to elections and because of the proposal it contains for the publication of a supplement to the electoral register. This is, without question, the most progressive provision in the Bill.
I congratulate the Minister on his recent appointment. It was well deserved and I wish him every success. I hope he will give the question of local government reform, particularly in the Dublin area, his attention.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill before us. The measure was overdue but we are all grateful that it is now before the House. It is a Bill which, in principle, the Members on this side support. Obviously on Committee Stage various amendments will be put down by our spokesman on the Environment. We will tease out various sections of it and I imagine the Minister will probably bring forward some amendments.
We are all concerned with the question of elections, how they are held and the various rules and regulations that govern them. The public are also deeply interested in them. It is quite an extensive Bill and incorporates some 170 sections. I will go through it and hope the Minister will take on board some of my comments.
I and others had advocated for quite some time some of the changes that are introduced in the Bill, for example, in regard to the time of the year the election register is compiled. Up to now it was compiled in the months leading up to December. The draft register came out a week or two before Christmas and any amendments sought had to be made a couple of weeks after Christmas. This was a totally impractical time for checking and amending the register. I hope the compilation of the register can be reviewed from time to time. We heard about people who lived in a house for 50 or 60 years and suddenly, for no reason, they were taken off the register. Other people who went to their great reward years ago are still listed on the election register. Obviously mistakes were made. The question of how it is presented must be looked at.
As regards who votes in a general election, a Presidential election, local election, European election or referenda, there is a case to be made for extending the vote to non-nationals who have been living here over a period of time. If they are resident here for a long time and not just on a short holiday, the reality is that they are probably paying taxes. In such circumstances, they should have a say in how things are done. After much delay we brought in votes for British citizens and I hope that will be extended to cover all non-nationals.
In relation to postal voters, I welcome the fact that from now on members of the Garda Síochána will not be identified on a register. For security reasons, it is a good idea. They will still have the option. It is important that a special register be provided for postal voters. I welcome the deletion of the provision, which was an insult to people, questioning if they were of sound mind. That is a step in the right direction.
The question of how the register is compiled should be looked at to see if it can be improved. In some areas the register is very good but in other areas mistakes are made quite frequently. We all know of cases where people have been omitted from the register for no particular reason. It is important that steps be taken so that they can be put back on the register and so be entitled to vote.
One aspect that must be looked at further is in relation to people being registered in two areas, particularly students who go to Dublin, Cork or Galway or student nurses who are attached to a hospital. I do not think there should be a bar on them having a vote in both places provided they only exercise it in one. If they are at home during holiday time and an election is called they should be able to vote there but if they are in Dublin during term then they should have a vote there. We have often had election around June which is a common time for student examinations and if they are on the register at home it would be impractical for them to make the journey home on polling day. At a time when democracy is being questioned and politicians are criticised we should not put obstacles in the way of people trying to vote.
The Minister when introducing the Bill did not say much about the number of hours polling stations should remain open. The question of holding elections on Sundays should be looked at. We must encourage people to vote and make it easier for them to do so. Perhaps the referendum in relation to the Maastricht Treaty might be held on a Sunday and we might have a higher turnout at the poll as a result. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider the opening hours of polling stations. At the moment, they must be open for not less than 12 hours. The Minister should consider adding a couple of hours to that. The reality is that people who work are usually unable to vote until the evening. The 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. opening times we have become accustomed to could be extended by opening an hour earlier in the morning so that more people could vote before going to work, particularly in winter. People come home after a long day's work and if it is a bad evening they might not feel like going out again. Probably a closing time of 9 p.m. is late enough. As we all know, the number coming to vote tapers off at that time, apart from rural areas during the summer where people cast their vote after hay-making.
On polling day, everybody should have an opportunity to vote. Polling clerks and returning officers sometimes cannot vote in their own area. That is a difficulty. Some effort should be made to afford them either a special vote or a postal vote.
There has been a fair amount of comment about people standing outside polling stations competing for every last vote. I would not go as far as Senator Costello because if what he said happened the Supreme Court would be deciding on this Bill for a good many months, if not years. There is a certain camaraderie between us all standing outside polling stations. We are all trying to do a job, greeting people and encouraging them to vote.
There is a certain razzamatazz on election day with loudspeakers in operation and party caravans parked outside polling stations. I do not think the intention is to do away with all of that but I am not sure how to solve it. Will the local gardaí get out a measuring tape and draw a semicircle outside the polling station and say everybody must go to the 50 metre mark? We must look at this further.
Most people have made up their minds regarding who they will vote for before going to the polling station. In multiseat constituencies where there are perhaps 20 candidates every vote counts and every preference can count. I know that myself, having lost out in an election by what the Cathaoirleach would call a short head, by about a dozen votes. The outcome of elections has been decided on by a few votes. In the Minister's or a neighbouring constituency in an election in the seventies or eighties a couple of votes decided who was in the Dáil and who was not. That is the reality.
Some polling stations are very good. They are easy to get into and directions are well posted inside. Obviously we have to look at this question further. We must look at the question of the theoretical 50 metre line. If a car transporting a handicapped person to the door of a polling station has a poster displayed on it, will that be in breach of the section? This matter must be looked at.
I note that the deposit has been increased quite substantially. Elections are a serious business and it is important that the people going forward are intent on getting elected or doing reasonably well. The reduction in the number of votes required to avoid losing a deposit, from a third of the quota to a quarter, is to be welcomed. There is no mention of an increase in deposits in relation to local elections. Local elections are different from general elections because more independent and individual issue candidates are involved. The deposit is £10 at present but maybe the Minister, in his reply, will indicate his position on that issue.
We will probably oppose the section dealing with opinion polls. Who will be barred from taking them? If one is out on a canvass and doing a random survey, is that an opinion poll? Parties may use information gathered in this way on radio programmes. There has also been mention of tele-polls and radio polls. Will they be banned? In France and in some other countries they are banned for seven to eight days before an election. Obviously such polls can be a factor, and at times they can be misleading and polls can be wrong. This question has to be looked at now. Members on this side will be opposing this section unless it is either clarified or we are given further information. The whole question of how elections are run must be examined, and possible abuses in relation to postal voting and penalties must also be looked at.
There must be sufficient manpower at counts. This must be clearly set out. There is competition between parties and, at times, even keener competition within parties. Obviously, each candidate has equal rights. Is it important that adequate provision be made in relation to how the count is conducted and how candidates and their supporters are treated. The system has worked reasonably well. The infamous tallies that are taken by election workers are all part and parcel of how elections should operate.
We will look at this Bill further on Committee Stage and we will be putting down amendments. This is very extensive legislation and we must try to get it right. This review is long overdue. I would hope the Minister will take on board the issues I have mentioned in relation to how elections are run. However, we will have an opportunity to discuss them further. In principle, I support the Bill, but, as I said, there are issues which will need to be looked at.
First, I congratulate the Minister on his recent promotion. I am delighted for him, and for the people he represents.
We are very fortunate in this country to have a sound, democratic system of native Government elected by one of the fairest electoral systems in the world, proportional representation and it is our duty to ensure that it continues and that all the people have access to it. That is why I wholeheartedly welcome this Bill. I see it as consolidating legislation which is overdue. It brings together legislation for the conduct of all elections, currently contained in four different Acts dating back to 1923, with legislation relating to Dáil elections going back to the middle of the last century. The Electoral Act is the cornerstone of democratic law and for far too long it has been fragmented.
The register of electors is the foundation of democracy. It is the right of all individuals over 18 years to have a vote, which they should use. For that right many people struggled for years. We are all aware of people being left of the register in spite of having lived at the same address for many years. Section 15 of the Bill and Part II of the Second Schedule are to be welcomed for the mechanism where people left off the register can be placed on a supplementary register. I hope this can be amended to allow names to be included within seven days of polling, as omissions are generally only discovered during the canvass in the run up to an election or referendum and this can lead to frustration and a denial of an individual's democratic right.
The timescale in this Bill for preparation of the register is to be welcomed as it will lead to a more up-to-date list of electors. Each year, the Department of the Environment conduct a major publicity campaign in the media to encourage people to check the register. May I suggest that publicity be given to section 15 of this Bill and Part II of the Second Schedule to get people whose names are omitted from the register to apply to the local authorities to carry out the necessary inquiries? Local authorities throughout the country will welcome the increase in the recoupment by the State of three-quarters of the cost of the preparation of the register.
The increase in the deposit for election candidates should have a neutral effect as candidates hopeful of election will have the resources to fight the campaign. The reduction to limit of a quarter of the quota for a deposit refund is important. The electorate of this country are of shrewd ability and will ensure the people best capable for public office will be elected and on merit alone.
The banning of canvassing within 50 metres of a polling station is a good thing. To expect the electorate to run the gauntlet of party personnel at major urban centres is annoying. In rural areas the setting is much different. Less literature is dispensed. I wonder what is the value of that literature as most people will have already made up their minds by the time they arrive to vote.
Random surveys and opinion polls have increased in the past decade. This country is fortunate to have a competent marketing research institution of the highest integrity. Nonetheless, we must be very careful that no interference is caused in the democratic process by creating a bandwagon effect, putting pressure on the candidates or setting an agenda during any campaign which is not of the people's making. This is the danger with opinion polls. It is important that the individual choice represents genuine conviction. Therefore, if there is the slightest indication of this occuring, the Bill's proposals must stand.
The provisions in sections 17 and 100 are to be welcomed for disabled people. The choice for the Garda Siochána in the voting arrangement is very positive.
In my view this is a good, constructive and timely Bill which will further strengthen our democratic system of Government. I suggest to the Government that where opportunity arises to replace outdated legislation with modern and new comprehensive facts, the opportunity should be taken and we in this House should assist. I congratulate the Minister on the Bill.
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit agus tá súil agam nach dtógfaidh sé orm é má labhraím as Gaeilge. Tá deis aige, más maith leis, éisteacht liom ar an cluasáin ansin. Is Bille uafásach tábhachtach é seo, a thugann díreach isteach sinn go dtí croí an toghthóra, go dtí lárionad an daonlathais, is é sin an daonlathas mar is eol dúinne é. Tá an saoránach cinnte go mbeidh sé in ann a chuid ceart bunreachtúil a bhaint amach ó thaobh toghcháin agus chearta toghchánaíochta de. Níl sé i gceist agam an iomarca ama a chaitheamh leis an gceist seo.
Bhí mé ag éisteacht go géar le go leor den méid atá ráite ag na Seanadóirí eile agus táimid uilig beagnach ag caint faoi na rudaí céanna chuile uair, ar bhealach amháin nó ar bhealach eile. Mar sin féin tá cúpla rud beag gur fiú trácht orthu. An chéad phointe atá i gceist agam ná lá an toghcháin féin, agus baineann cuid mhaith sa leabhrán seo le lá an toghcháin. Is é buaic fhorálacha an Bhille seo ná an toghchán, nuair a thagann saoránaigh le chéile lena vótaí a chaitheamh go daonlathach. Ceann de na forálacha sa Bhille a chuirim míle fáilte roimhe ná go mbeidh ar dhaoine atá ar lorg tacaíochta do iarrthóirí agus a bhrúnn billeogaí ort chun a thafant ort do vóta a thabhairt dá n-iarrthóir féin, fanacht siar 50 méadar ón ionad vótála. Más maith an riail nua seo, is mithid.
Tá fhios againn go léir go bhfuil muintir na tíre seo ag éirí ciniciúil faoi go leor de ghníomhartha na bpolaiteoirí. Tá meon níos neamhspleáiche ag daoine an lá atá inniu ann ná mar a bhí acu tamall de bhlianta ó shin. Is masla do dhuine ar bith é plé leis amhail is go raibh sé ag brath ar dhaoine eile maidir leis an gcaoi a gcaithfidh sé a vóta lá an toghcháin. Tá an pobal ag éirí bréan den gheáitsíocht seo.
Is maith an rud go bhfuil an Rialtas ag brath rud éigin a dhéanamh faoin gceist seo. An t-aon locht atá agam féin air seo ná nach bhfuil an t-achar sách fada. Beidh mé ag moladh leasú, nuair a thagaimid go dtí sin, go méadófar an 50 méadar ón ionad vótála go dtí 100 méadar. Is é an aidhm atá leis an mBille seo, de réir mar a thuigimse é, ná go mbeidh na saoránaigh saor ó chur isteach agus dá bhrí sin ba chóir go mbeadh sé scríofa sa chaoi go dtabharfaí iomlán feidhme don aidhm sin. Mar sin, mholfainn don Aire machnamh an-ghéar a dhéanamh air, mar níl aon dabht ná go raibh an iomarca cur isteach ar an saoránach ag an ionad vótála. Maidir leis an mBille seo beidh laghdú ar an gcur isteach seo ach ní shílim gur leor é seo. Sin an fáth go bhfuil sé ar intinn agam leasú a mholadh mar a luaigh mé.
Breis agus bliain ó shin d'éirigh liom díospóireacht ar an Athló a chur ar bun sa Teach seo faoi chlárú toghthóirí. Bhí scanall tar éis tarlú thiar i gConamara, scannal a fuair poiblíocht sna nuachtáin, agus bhí mír nuachta ann a raibh an teideal seo air: "Connemara votes scandal may be probed further. Attempt made to strike 250 off register in one area". Tharla sé seo i gConamara, áit a bhfuil aithne ag chuile dhuine ar chuile dhuine eile, nó, mar a deirtear, tá aithne ag madraí an bhaile ar a chéile, gan trácht ar na daoine féin. Lean an nuachtán ar aghaidh mar seo: "A concerted attempt to strike off the voting register over 250 voters living in a small area in Connemara has been condemned as a scandalous interference with the electoral list by the returning officer of Galway West constituency". Tá mé tar éis an Bille a léamh athuair, agus b'fhéidir go mbeidh an tAire in ann a mhalairt a chur ar mo shúile dom ach ní dóigh liom go bhfuil aon fhorálacha sa Bhille seo faoina bhféadfaí an cineál scannail seo a sheachaint.
Léifidh mé sliocht eile as an nuachtán chun an fhadhb a shoiléiriú: "It emerged at the vote revision court in Clifden at which he presided that in some instances applications were received to disenfranchise over 85 per cent of voters in certain voting boxes in booths in the Carna and Cill Chiaráin area, while many of the people involved were well known and, most significantly, widely known to be living there". Sin sampla beag atá mé ag tabhairt don Seanad. Is Bille mór, tiubh é seo agus tá go leor ráite ann ach mura bhfuilimid in ann leasú cuí a dhéanamh chun deireadh a chur lena leithéid de scannal, ní bheidh seans eile againn go cionn blianta fada. Tá mé ag iarraidh go speisialta ar an Aire aird a thabhairt ar an ghníomh a bhfuil mé ag trácht air, go bhféadfaí iarracht a dhéanamh suas le 300 ainmneacha de dhaoine in áit bheag tuaithe a bhaint de chlár na dtoghthóirí.
Tá oifigeach ag an gcomhairle contae a théann thart chun a chinntiú, chomh maith agus is féidir, go bhfuil chuile vótálaí ar chlár na dtoghthóirí agus nuair a cuireadh an cheist air ag an chúirt athbhreithnithe, nó revision court, cén chaoi ar tharla sé seo ina cheantar féin, is é an freagra a tuairiscítear a thug sé ná, "I don't know why it happened". Leanann an tuairisc: "He added, however, that he had been told that a lot of the people involved had not voted in the last election and it was interpreted incorrectly by someone, or a number of people, that they were uninterested in voting and should therefore be taken off the register". Anois, sin ráiteas oifigiúil ó dhuine atá fostaithe ag an gcomhairle contae.
Ba thrua go deo liom go n-imeodh an seans seo tharainn an rud seo a chur in a cheart, mar ní bheidh caoi eile againn go cionn tamaill fhada. As an 300 duine a bhí i gceist cuireadh ar ais 250 acu ar an gclár. Ach an cheist a fhiafraím ná, cén fáth go mbeadh deis ag duine a n-ainmneacha a bhaint den chlár am ar bith. Deirtear san Acht, mar shampla: "For the purpose of preparing the Register, each registration authority shall make a house-to-house or other sufficient inquiry in the registration area, exclusive of boroughs and urban districts therein"— sin le haghaidh áiteanna amuigh faoin dtuaith. Tá an rud céanna fíor faoi mhuintir na cathrach: "The Corporation of each borough which is not a county borough and the council of each urban district in a registration area shall make a house-to-house or other sufficient inquiry in the borough".
Bhí sé sa sean Acht agus tá sé leagtha síos arís sa Bhille seo. Má bhí an fhoráil ann an t-am sin agus gur éirigh le duine éigin 300 duine a bhaint den chlár agus má ná an fhoclaíocht ceannan céanna anois ann, ní dóigh liom go bhfuil an geata dúnta nó nach mbeadh daoine in ann mí-úsáid a bhaint as seo. Tá a fhios ag gach polaiteoir nach ndéantar a house-to-house inquiry. Mar sin, níl an tAcht á fheidhmiú go huile is go hiomlán.
Dá bhrí sin, beidh mé ag iarraidh ar an Aire nuair a bheidh leasuithe á bplé againn, é sin a láidriú, lena chinntiú aris, uimhir a haon, go dtiocfaidh an duine chun a dhualgas fiosraithe a chomhlíonadh. Tuigim go maith go bhfuil sé suas don saoránach féin a chinntiú go bhfuil a ainm ar chlár na dtoghthóirí. Fógraítear é go forleathan, ach is é bun agus barr an scéil é gur beag tionchar a bhíonn ag a leithéid sin ar go leor daoine. Ní thugann siad faoi ndeara é. B'fhéidir go bhfuil neart oideachais orthu ach níl dóthain oideachais pholaitiúil orthu le go bhfeicfidís céard is ciall leis sin agus céard iad na céimeanna ar chóir dóibh a dhéanamh lena chinntiú nach bhfuil siad disfranchised.
Ceann de na bealaí go bhféadfaí cearta bunreachtúla an tsaoránaigh a chinntiú ná dá gcuirfí an reachtaíocht i bhfeidhm. Deir an tAcht: "For the purpose of preparing the Register each registration authority shall make a house-to-house inquiry". Tá sin an-láidir mar abairt: "they shall", ach níl an fiosrú "house-to-house" á dhéanamh, nó níl sé á dhéanamh go foirfe. Agus tóg na focail "other sufficient inquiry in the registration area". Sin an áit a bhfuil an geata oscailte. Tá an-laigeacht san abairt sin, mar tugann sé bealach éalaithe don oifigeach atá i gceannas air seo. Tá súil agam go mbreathnófar air sin nuair a bheidh leasú curtha isteach.
Ag éirí as sin uilig, caithfidh mé a rá go bhfuil mé an-mhíshasta go pearsanta leis an gcuid seo den Acht a thugann an trioblóid seo dúinn uilig, fo-alt (7) (i). Deir sé: "Any person may claim to have a correction made in a draft register, including in particular a claim to have the name of a person added to or deleted from the draft". Any person may do that. Sin atá ráite ansin, ach nach aisteach an rud é, i gcás Chonomara a luaigh mé, gur baineadh 300 duine de chlár na dtoghthóirí agus nach raibh a fhios ag duine ar bith cé rinne é sin. Mar sin, is féidir le duine ar bith — any person — liosta a scríobh amach agus a chur in iúl don returning officer go dteastaíonn uathu A, B, C, nó liosta mór fada d'ainmneacha daoine a bhaint den chlár gan fáth nó cúis ar bith. Níos measa fós, tá siad in ann an liosta sin a chur isteach gan ainm ar bith a chur leis. Sin an chaoi gur glacadh le 300 ainm daoine as paróiste beag suarach tuaithe amuigh i lár na Gaeltachta bliain ó shin. Ní raibh eolas dá laghad ag na daoine a baineadh den liosta. Níor thuig siad céard a bhí ar bun. Níor hinsíodh dóibh go raibh sé á dhéanamh. Ní bheadh a fhios ag éinne murach go, raibh daoine san áit a chonaic cad a tharla agus iad ag dul tríd an liosta go fánach agus a d'ardaigh an cás ag an gcúirt ath-bhreithnithe agus gur éirigh leo ansin é a chur ina cheart.
Níor cheart, dar liomsa, go dtárlódh sé sin. "Any person may claim"— má tá éinne ag éileamh nach ceart do dhuine áirithe a bheith ar an chlár, ba chóir dó a ainm agus a sheoladh a chur in iúl. Níos laídre fós, ba chóir go mbeadh sé de dhualgas air teacht os comhair na cúirte athbhreithnithe, a chás a dhéanamh agus a rá amach go díreach cén fáth go raibh sé ag iarraidh daoine a bhaint den liosta.
Tá sé ráite anseo arís agus arís eile, "we do our best"; "táimid ag iarraidh"; "níor mhaith linn go mbeadh aon duine gearrtha amach as", agus mar sin de. Ach caithfimid féin ár gcuid gnóthaí a dhéanamh i gceart anseo. Nuair a chuir mise an cheist ar an Aire sa Seanad bliain ó shin dúirt se, nuair a d'éirigh linn beagnach gach duine a chur ar ais ar an chlár, nár chruthaigh sé sin go raibh gabháilteacht ann agus go raibh rialacha ann a chabhraigh leis na daoine sin. Admhaím é sin, ach ní chóir go mbeadh duine bainte den liosta sa chéad áit. Beidh mise ag moladh mar leasú: duine ar bith atá ag iarraidh duine a bhaint den chlár nó a chur air, go dtabharfadh sé a ainm agus a sheoladh agus go rachadh sé go dtí an chúirt athbhreithnithe chun a chás a dhéanamh. Caithfimid cosaint a thabhairt do chuile dhuine in aon bhealach is féidir linn. Tá roinnt pointí eile ann freisin ach sin an dá rud is mó a bhuail mise mar dhuine sa saol poiblí. Chonaic mé chomh mí-chothrom is a bhí an tAcht a bhí ann in aghaidh an tsaoránaigh. Tá súil agam go mbeidh an tAire in ann leasú ceart a chur isteach ansin.
Tá rud eile gur mhaith liom a rá ó thaobh an duine eas-sláinteach no disabled. Tá athruithe maithe déanta ansin ach arís tá mé ag ceapadh go bhfuil sé beagainín ró-ghéar go mbíonn ar an duine dul ag an dochtúir gach bliain. Ba chóir go nglacfaí le liosta as ceantar ar bith agus go bhféadfadh an dochtúir an liosta a sheiceáil. Tá mé féin bainteach le gluaiseacht i gConamara ar a dtugtar Cathaoir Rothaí na hÉireann, is é sin the Wheelchair Association of Ireland. Bhí cruinniú cinn bhliana ó shin agus bhí suas le 14 duine ann. Tháinig an dlí nua seo amach go bhféadfadh siad seo vótáil sa mbaile ach an t-iarratás a bheith saighneáilte suas i gceart. Ag an gcruinniú sin thóg an rúnaí síos ainmneacha agus seoltaí na ndaoine go léir agus chuaigh sé go dtí an dochtúir áitiúil.
Chuir an dochtúir a shíniú ar pháipéar oifigiúil The Wheelchair Association á rá go mbeadh na daoine seo i dteideal vótáil sa mbaile, mar go raibh siad ar wheelchairs. Ach ní ghlacfadh an chomhairle chontae leis sin. Chaith siad amach é mar faoin riail atá ann go gcaithfidh gach duine foirm iarratais a líonadh, é a chur ag an dochtúir, agus é a fháil ar ais ón dochtúir lena chur isteach. Seo eagraíocht deonach a bhí ag tabhairt cúnaimh do na daoine sin, agus ba chóir go nglacfaí le síniú bona fide dá leitheid. Níl aon chruthúnas ag lucht an chomhairle chontae nó ag aon duine eile gurb é an duine a chuir isteach an t-iarratas a shaighneáil é sa chéad áit agus ní iarrtar an cruthúnas sin. Tá brú go leor sa saol ar na daoine seo faoi láthair gan bac mar seo a chur orthu agus iad ag iarraidh a gcearta mar shaoránaigh a chur i gcrích le vótail.
Tuigim go maith an fhealsúnacht atá taobh thiar den riail ach nuair a deintear riail i dtosach baintear triail as. Ní bheimis ar ais leis an mBille seo ach amháin go bhfuilimid ag cur feabhais ar cheann a bhí ann roimhe seo. Mar an gcéanna maidir leis an riail seo faoi na disabled. Bhí roinnt blianta ann leis an riail a thriail. Ba chóir é sin a leasú anois i bhfianaise a bhfuil tárlaithe agus i bhfianaise an eolais atá againn anois agus nach raibh againn nuair a deineadh an dlí.
Tá mé féin anois sa chaoi nach féidir liom aon teideal is mian liom a chur tar éis m'ainmse, de réir an dlí nua atá ansin. Táthar ag déanamh amach go gcaithfidh mé "non-party" a chur tar éis m'ainmse. Tá rud amháin cinnte. Níl mise ag tabhairt cead do dhuine ar bith "non-party" a chur tar éis m'ainmse. Tá mé chun dul á throid in áit ar bith in am ar bith. Tá an rud seo sewn-up ag na páirtithe: caithfear páirtí a bheith agat, agus tá rialacha nua dochta daingne ann ó thaobh daoine a chlárú agus araoile. Tá an-chuid rialacha go deo. Níl sé ceadaithe go gcuirfeadh duine nach bhfuil i bpáirtí an focal "Neamhspleách", nó "Independent" mar shampla, tar éis a ainm. Ní thuigim an fhealsúnacht atá taobh thiar de sin. Ní dóigh liom go mba chóir go mbeadh aon fhaitíos ar an páirtithe móra i m'éadan nó in éadan duine ar bith eile.
Ba cheart go mbeinn in ann a thaispeáint do na toghthóirí i mo cheantarsa go bhfuil mé neamhspleách. Ní ghlacaim leis an aguisín atáthar ag súil le déanamh, go gcuirfí non-party i ndiaidh m'ainm. Níl aon rud agam in aghaidh chlárú pairtí ach má tá duine nach mbaineann le páirtí, dar liomsa, tá an ceart sin aige go bunreachtúil. Ní thuigim go dtugann an Bunreacht aon cheart speisialta do dhuine mar go mbaineann sé le páirtí thar an duine nach mbaineann le páirtí. B'fhéidir go mbeadh Seanadóirí in ann a mhíniú dom chun mo shástachta gurb amhlaidh atá. Nílim ag glacadh go bhféadfar é a dhéanamh go dtí go gcruthaítear a mhalairt. B'fhéidir go mbeidh orainn bunreachtúlacht an Achta seo a thriail amach anseo.
Dála an scéil, tá rudaí an-mhaith istigh san Bhille i gcoitinne, ach lochtóinn an fhoráil atá anseo faoi go bhféadfadh duine clárú ar chlár toghthóirí breise nó draft eile. Tá sé sin féaráilte go maith ach tá deacracht beag amháin agam leis. De réir an Bhille, chomh luath in Éirinn is a ghlaotar toghchán, ní féidir le duine dul ar aon draft register ina dhiaidh sin. Níl a fhios agam an bhfuil mé á léamh i gceart ach feictear dom go bhféadfadh duine a fágadh as Clár na dToghthóirí dul go dtí an comhairle áitiúil ionas go réiteofaí an dearmad sin agus go bhfogrófaí a ainm ansin ar an gclár oifigiúil. Is cóir go mbeadh an deis sin ag saoránach ach ní thuigim cén fáth go mbíonn cosc ar an ngníomhaíocht sin tar éis do thoghchán a bheith fógartha.
Fógraítear toghcháin trí sheachtain roimh ré agus is i rith an chéad seachtain sin a chinntíonn toghthóirí go bhfuil siad ar an gclár oifigiúil. Tar éis an toghcháin a fhógairt ba chóir ceithre lá ar a laghad a chur ar fáil nuair a cheadófaí ainmneacha a chur ar an gclár; ní scrúdaítear clár na dtoghthóirí go hionduíl go dtí go bhfograítear toghchán. Ní chuirfeadh an t-athrú sin an iomarca brú ar an gcomhairle áitiúil agus dhéanfadh sé an-chuid chun cearta daonlathacha an tsaoránaigh a chosaint. Beidh mé ag iarraidh ar an Aire an leasú seo a dhéanamh.
I congratulate the Minister of State on his promotion to office. It is a great honour for himself and his constituency and I wish him well in the post. I have no doubt he will give a good account of himself.
I welcome the Bill. It is overdue to some extent but it is good to have it here at last. It brings together a large number of enactments over a period of 100 years for Dáil election purposes. It is a wide-ranging Bill and it will be the subject of much debate. It has received much comment on Second Stage and on Committee Stage it will be more thoroughly scrutinised and the sections teased out to a greater extent.
Today I will confine myself to a general contribution on the Bill. In this country, we have for a long time enjoyed the right to vote, an important freedom which everyone should enjoy. We know that in many countries this right is not available to all citizens. Ireland has a fair system of proportional representation; it is agreed widely that our system of election is democratic and that the results are a fair reflection of the parties and candidates that stand for election.
Somebody may ask why we have such a very low turnout at elections? We have the freedom to vote and a fair system; yet, on some occasions we have 50 per cent turnout or less. That seems like a waste of a valuable liberty and there must be a reason for it.
One of the reasons people may not vote is because they have not been informed of the political democratic system embodied in local, national and European structures. We suffer a loss due to the absence of politics and a study of structures of government, local, national and European, on the school curriculum. There we would have an opportunity to explain our political democracy to people at an early age; we could inform them of the value of the system and make them aware of the opportunities for involvement and of their responsibility in the matter.
People have a responsibility to vote when that opportunity is available. I consider it inappropriate of people who have opted not to vote to complain about those who were elected. Our educational system should take this matter on board; a start must be made with knowledge of basic rights and responsibilities. Lectures in political studies at third level are fine; they provide an opportunity for those with a specific interest in politics to inform themselves but people are entitled to be politically educated and informed throughout their schooling. Politics, unlike other subjects affecting human life, is omitted from the primary and secondary school syllabi.
If one asks a ten or 11 year old today to describe the structure of local government or the responsibility of their local authority, they may be able to name one of the members who is perhaps a neighbour or friend and say that they have some involvement in the provision of street lighting or a water scheme. They may be able to say what political party the member belongs to but they do not know how people are elected or what laws and regulations govern the structure. The same applies at national level. The democratic system and the structures that exist in this country should be considered in the educational system.
This Bill does not deal with student involvement in the electoral system. The Supreme Court case and its interpretation are mentioned in the Bill but student involvement in the electoral system has very much been a hit and miss affair over the years. In an electoral court, whether someone is put on the register as a student depends to some extent on the opinion of the county registrar. Some county registrars say a student nurse is not a student. I find that very hard to understand. I understand that some county registrars take a more favourable view. All students living away from home should be able to register in their own locality because they still have ties with their areas. Students living 50 or 60 miles from home — in Limerick, Cork or Dublin — often return home at weekends. They are still members of local voluntary organisations — GAA teams, soccer teams, hockey teams, camogie teams and are very much part of a village, town or rural area. Students should have the right to vote. It is a mistake to make it inconvenient for them to vote. They must be helped and encouraged to vote.
Sunday voting should also be considered. I understand the Catholic Church — I do not know about other churches — do not have any objection to that. We must not disenfranchise anybody because of their religious belief. Many young people work away from home during the week living in rented accommodation but when they go home they get involved in the activities of the locality. As I said, the possibility of introducing Sunday voting should be examined. The provision of free travel for students returning home to vote should be considered. If we are interested in young people being involved in the electoral system and if we want the percentage of people who vote to rise we should make it easier for them to vote. To provide free travel for students to vote would not place a massive burden on the Exchequer. Besides increasing the percentage of people voting at elections, there is another benefit in involving students in elections in their own areas — they might find it less appealing to take to the streets to protest.
As regards the emigrant vote, I read the other day that 40 million people in America claim to be of Irish descent. Many young people left the country in recent times who still have very close ties here. They intend to return if the opportunity presents itself, and in order to maintain a link with them and show that we care for them, we should consider granting them the right to vote. I suggest that for a start they should have representation in this House.
Senator Ó Foighil spoke about a scandal in west Galway or the Connemara area where up to 250 people were disenfranchised. Notices were sent to the local authorities saying these people were no longer resident there. Under this Bill that may not happen as readily. I welcome the proposal that there will be a supplementary register with a list of additions and deletions. I believe preparing a full draft every year increases the opportunity for error. That is not a good system. The proposed new system is very welcome. It is annoying to find that one has been taken off the register for no apparent reason. I do not think that that will happen as often or as regularly under the new system.
One complaint I have in regard to checking the draft register is that it covers the Christmas period. I would have thought that was not the most opportune time for such an investigation. I would ask the Minister to consider amending that section because I understand he is open to suggestions.
As regards canvassing close to polling stations, as almost every Senator said, the voter has his mind made up before he comes to the polling station who he is going to vote for. I disagree with that. He might have his mind made up which party he was going to vote for, but he certainly would not have made up his mind as to which candidate he was going to vote for. The party system and the opportunity of getting the maximum number of seats depends to a large extent on the vital information given by the party worker outside the polling station to the party supporter going in to vote. That has been part and parcel of the political system down the years. Certain agents might not always put the party first but others will in order to secure the maximum number of seats. To deny party activists the opportunity to give information or advice to supporters on the day is an interference to some extent.
I understand that in some urban areas voters have to run the gauntlet of canvassers. That is totally unacceptable and I am opposed to it. It does nothing but harm to the democratic electoral system. It is unhelpful and may deter people from voting.
There are many people who, for one reason or another, will approach a party worker on the day and ask the order of preference and candidate. There is nothing wrong with that. It is democratic. It is the party political system and has worked for years, it does not interfere with the voters but allows the party to pursue their objective of getting the maximum number of the seats.
It will be difficult to implement the provision relating to the 50 metre provision. I will not deal with this issue in any great detail because other Senators have done so. However, one issue that was not mentioned relates to cars being parked on the public road outside polling stations. Does this Bill cover vehicles which carry voters to polling stations and then park them in front of a polling station to allow the voters to walk into a polling station? It would have far-reaching consequences if the Bill covered such a case. I would like clarification on that point on Committee Stage.
Those are just a few general points I wish to make. Obviously on Committee Stage I will go into certain areas in more detail but I am glad I had an opportunity to contribute to this most important debate. I hope the House will make suggestions and put down amendments so that, at the end of the day, we will have a better Bill.
I compliment the Minister for introducing this comprehensive Bill. It is an attempt to update the legislation which controls and determines the electoral system which is the basis of our democracy.
As a politician for many years, I have been interested in the operation of elections in many countries, especially in the European Community and in the United States. In by-elections where there is a concentration of Oireachtas Members, one has extremes and the system, as we have operated it since the foundation of the State, comes under pressure.
I had the honour of representing the Oireachtas a couple of years ago at the very famous and controversial elections in Nicaragua. I read about the huge rallies involving the Brown Shirts and the Black Shirts back in the thirties and early forties but the first time I had an opportunity of seeing hundreds of thousands of people coming out to cheer for candidates was in Managua. On election day, the extraordinary thing was that many of the provisions the Minister has included in this Bill were in operation there. There was no flamboyant display of posters or literature adjacent to or near any of the polling stations. There was a very quiet, orderly queue stretching for several hundred yards, especially in rural areas. The voting process was very slow because fingerprints were taken as a precaution. It was painstakingly slow and each individual went into an American type cubicle with the curtains drawn and took a long time to vote. It was a very long procedure. My colleagues and I were impressed by the fact that the area surrounding the polling booths was completely devoid of what we would regard as ordinary polling day activity. It was a good idea.
I welcome many of the proposals set out in section 147. They will be an improvement. Most people who take the trouble to vote have their minds made up before election day. Politics engage and exercise the minds of a very high percentage of our population even though some people say they will not bother voting because all politicians are the same. With our very high standard of education and exposure to public affairs in our media, people do not need to be either browbeaten, reminded or cajoled into voting for any candidate. I welcome the restriction the Minister is introducing.
In the interests of expediency, it might be no harm if candidates' cars were excluded from the provisions. A candidate is bound to have a poster with his name on the car and if he wishes to see the workers outside a polling station it is unreasonable to ask him to park 50 yards away. There should be exceptions made for people coming and going. The question of transport is not as important now as it was many years ago. The majority of people have their own means of transport. Senator Finneran made an interesting suggestion, that students be given some kind of free travel voucher to enable them travel home. It is important to encourage the younger generation to be part of the political process.
I do not mind what way a constituent argues, whether for or against Government policy or party policy so long as they vote for or against it. The wags on the ditch who are against everything do not make a contribution to the democratic system. It would be a good idea to facilitate young people, especially those attending university or third level colleges. They are often miles away from home and the cost of travel eats into the very meagre finances of the vast majority of them. I ask the Minister to look sympathetically at that suggestion made by Senator Finneran.
In this Bill the Department are making an attempt to update the entire electoral system. I welcome that. Since 1924 there have been many changes and improvements. The problems are greatest in rural areas because it can be difficult to find 500 or 600 people in an electoral district. One cannot expect people to travel long distances. Some people avail of every excuse to avoid voting.
It is a pity that in some elections we have a very low turn out of voters. On the curtailment of opinion polls, there has been a big change in media coverage in recent years. Reporters do not confine themselves to the events of the day or to speeches. More often than not commentators promote their own views or positions on the questions of the day. It is difficult to know what effect that has because invariably it is not what the Taoiseach, the Leader of the Opposition or any other politician has to say but the slant the correspondent puts on it is what the elector will read. The system needs to be protected against that.
Section 36 provides that the Ceann Comhairle is deemed to be re-elected. The Minister should seriously consider applying a similar system to the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad. If the Cathaoirleach is to stay above politics, as the practice and procedure in this House has dictated over the years, and removed from the core politics of his or her party, it is important that person should have the same protection as the Ceann Comhairle enjoys in the other House.
This is an opportune time for the Minister, and the Department, to look very closely at this question. As a former Cathaoirleach I know that if one is to be impartial and stand apart from one's political party colleagues, it puts the outgoing Cathaoirleach at a severe disadvantage in facing into the next general election.
Debate adjourned.
Will the Acting Leader say when it is proposed to sit again?
It is proposed to sit at 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 4 March 1992.