I would remind the House that Senators may speak only once on Report Stage except for the proposer of an amendment who has the right of reply. Each amendment must be seconded. I draw to the attention of the House that there is a misprint in amendment No. 5. The lines reference in page 19 should read lines 1 to 18. There should be no asterisk before amendment No. 41 as it is not a Government amendment. Amendments Nos. 4, 7, 14, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25 and 26 are out of order as they have the same effect as amendments rejected in Committee. Also, amendments Nos. 16, 50 and amendments Nos. 1 to 51 are out of order as they do not arise out of Committee proceedings.
Electoral (No. 2) Bill, 1991: Report and Final Stages.
Did the Chair say amendment No. 1 was out of order?
Amendments Nos. 16, 50 and amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 51. Government amendments Nos. 1 and 2 may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 1:
In page 11, line 10, to delete "1987" and substitute "1992".
Section 1 (4) provides for the collective citation and construction of the Referendum Acts. It is necessary to reword the subsection to take account of the recent enactment of the Referendum (Amendment) Act, 1992 and this amendment provides accordingly. The present collective citation is Referendum Acts, 1942 to 1992. The revised subsection (4) will provide that this collective citation will include the sections of this Bill which are relevant to referenda. The amendment is purely technical.
I am in favour of this technical amendment. I want to bring to the attention of the House that this amendment initially arose out of a proposal from the Labour Party.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 2:
In page 11, to delete lines 29 to 31 and substitute the following:
"(4) The collective citation ‘the Referendum Acts 1942 to 1992' shall include Part XXIII in so far as it relates to referenda and the Referendum Acts 1942 to 1992 shall be construed together as one Act.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 15, line 39, after "constituency" to add "or ordinarily resident in that constituency at any time during the preceding five years, but resident outside the State on the qualifying date".
This amendment deals with the provision of votes for emigrants and would allow people who were "ordinarily resident in that constituency at any time during the preceding five years, but resident outside the State on the qualifying date". It would be particularly relevant to young emigrants or people who had left this country for a short period of time. They would be registered and able to cast their vote in a certain set of circumstances if this amendment were allowed. It would also allay some of the concerns expressed by Senator Murphy during the earlier debate on Committee Stage when he spoke in terms of the possibility of an enormous number of people residing outside the State being entitled to vote.
The question of emigrant votes is one of great concern to the Labour Party. It is part of our policy that they be entitled to vote and we had a very strong and positive response from emigrant associations. I hope the Minister will accept this amendment because it is important to make some gesture towards even a small fraction of the people who have left this country and who feel very badly treated. The State seems to wash its hands of them as soon as they leave. That is in sharp contrast to what happens in other countries but I do not want to go through the debate we had on Committee Stage.
This amendment defines some of the concerns expressed on Committee Stage. It is a worth-while amendment and I cannot see how it would create difficulties with which this State and the various organisation election processes could not cope. I sincerely hope the Minister will review the attitude he adopted on Committee Stage and accept this amendment, which is considerably watered down from what we would have felt was desirable. It would be an important step forward in showing some regard and concern for emigrants and it would be a welcome change from the lip service and maudlin sentimentality we go on with in relation to people who leave this country. When it comes down to brass tacks we have no hesitation in turning our backs, walking away from them and saying as soon as they have left country, they are gone; goodbye. We do not want to give them any rights. That is in sharp contrast to how many other countries treat their emigrants.
I second the amendment. I would like to express our deep concern to the Minister that a guillotine has been imposed on Report Stage and that we must complete our business within two hours. The House divided on the issue. We are satisfied with the number of amendments the Minister has taken on board. About 20 out of the 26 amendments are matters that were raised here through amendments we proposed and it shows the positive nature of the contributions made on Committee Stage. Our amendments are on issues that are important and substantial and could well benefit from being included in this legislation before it goes to the Dáil.
Amendment No. 3 is in that mould. It is an important amendment. We discussed the question of giving voting rights to emigrants on a number of occasions in the Seanad. We have pointed out that such entitlement is commonplace in other countries where citizens of the country live abroad for whatever reason. This amendment seeks to tidy up the original proposal so that there is no danger of being swamped by an emigrant vote. We are restricting the role of the emigrant vote to a maximum period of five years; in other words, the person would have been a recent citizen who would be au fait with the conditions, circumstances and issues that might be important when exercising the franchise.
Concern was expressed that emigrants might not know the issue. If it is limited to five years I do not think there is any great danger of that. It will not be a question of them being out of touch. If we are talking about up to five years I do not think there is any great danger of that. It is not a question of being out of date. We are giving a reasonable set of parameters within which the Minister could take an emigrant vote on board. I know the Minister indicated earlier that the Government were thinking about some type of legislative framework. At a single stroke here we could incorporate this provision which is most reasonable and is the best in the circumstances.
I am outraged that this Bill has been guillotined, particularly in view of the fact that we were not given prior notice. We were in fact given to understand by the Leader that the very opposite was the case. He gave us more than one assurance that it would not be guillotined and it simply means we can no longer believe what the Leader tells us.
The Senator should speak to the amendment.
These amendments must be looked at in context. The speeches which we will make on them will be curtailed given the short time we have to deal with the Bill. These are amendments to a Seanad Bill. It is our Bill and we have an obligation there-fore——
We are dealing with amendment No. 3 and I ask the Senator to address that amendment.
It is important to put it in the context that we have not had the views of the Dáil on this Bill.
This is a Seanad Bill. Therefore, how could we have the views of the Dáil? It is a very simple matter.
Of course we could not——
I ask the Senator to please address the amendment and leave it at that.
Of course, we could not have the views of the Dáil and that is the point I am making. The views expressed here are the first opportunity which the elected Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas have had to comment on this Bill. It is outrageous that it is being rushed through. I am really disappointed——
We have been discussing this for 12 days. That is not rushing it through.
It is a Bill, which I might point out to my colleague opposite——
Are you going to address the amendment, please?
Yes.
Do so now.
If the Chair would curtail the Members on that side of the House——
If the Senator would address the amendment we would get through the Bill.
Now the Senator is telling the Chair what to do.
Please address the amendment. It is very simple and basic. We are on Report Stage and you are wasting time.
I have no wish to waste time seeing that time is so short. That is the point I am at pains to make.
The Senator is filibustering.
As the Chair said, there is so little time to speak on it that we must get on and address the amendments. We will not have the opportunity to speak on them as we would wish and that is totally unacceptable.
Many amendments have simply been ignored by the Minister, on which we were given to understand we would be given some latitude. This amendment evoked great heat and feeling on all sides of the House. I was not in favour of the original amendment which seemed to allow too much latitude. It simply spoke of a person who was formerly resident in a constituency but now resident outside the State and I felt there was such a large proportion of our people abroad it could lead to a huge imbalance. I was not in favour of that amendment but now that the restricting factor has been added in of only allowing people who were resident in the constituency at any time during the preceeding five years, it narrows it down considerably and makes it perfectly acceptable.
When we were discussing the section very laudable sentiments were expressed by the Minister about how the Government had a committee looking into this question and the Minister gave us to understand it was only a matter of time before we would hear something relevant to the matter of giving emigrants a vote. Now the Minister will not even accept or consider an amendment restricting it to people who were resident at some stage during the previous five years. I find it very difficult to accept there is any validity or truth in the idea that the Government are giving this matter real, genuine consideration.
As Senator Costello said, representations were made to all Senators. I received some but I did not automatically succumb to them or agree with them willy-nilly. I made my position quite clear when discussing this on Committee Stage and said I had serious reservations about the matter. Those reservations have now been greatly reduced, if not eliminated, by this amendment. I hope the Minister will now look at it seriously and bring in something meaningful in the near future.
While I fully appreciate that the Minister would have difficulty in controlling votes outside the State, I still believe this is a reasonable amendment. When people emigrate they never know how long they will be away. They should be given an opportunity to take part in our elections.
This was discussed at length in both Houses. There are many people in the State who cannot cast their vote on polling day and are annoyed so much attention is given to those who emigrate. I refer to airline staff, sailors and fishermen. The latter go to sea, at 5 a.m. and do not return until 9 p.m. or 10 p.m.
A large number of people resident in the State cannot vote. I refer to the officers appointed by returning officers, presiding officers and polling clerks.
They are a separate group. It is not appropriate to the amendment.
It must be raised on their behalf because even since we discussed this here less than a fortnight ago——
Not on this amendment.
When we discussed votes for emigrants a fortnight ago I had representations from many people. In the recent referendum, people were appointed to polling stations almost in the street where they lived and they were refused a vote. I have letters from two people who were refused a vote because they were outside the constituency. When the ballot paper is the same all over the country, does it matter whether one is appointed to one's home polling station or one in Cork, Galway or Donegal? Many Dublin people were denied the opportunity to vote. We all know it would not have made any difference to the result of the referendum but people are annoyed when they cannot vote.
That is a separate matter. We are talking about emigrants.
I fully agree and every effort——
Let the Senator go on until 1 o'clock.
——should be made to give emigrants a vote. The Minister would have difficulty in controlling it for long-term emigrants but this amendment would give him a breathing space. Emigrants should not be cut off when they leave our shores. I have no objection to the five year period. Many people emigrate from necessity and have every intention of returning if that is possible. Others find the going rough and return home. It is a great pity to deny them the opportunity to vote for the short period they are out of the country.
I support the amendment. I put it to the Minister that there are other groups living in the State and he could without difficulty, do something about them. There is nothing more annoying than to find that one cannot cost one's vote. Every effort should be made to ensure that as many people as possible who are on the register and entitled to vote are given the opportunity to do so.
I urge Senators to stick to the subject matter of the amendments. You have strayed a great deal on this one.
Existing law on the registration of electors, which is repeated largely unchanged in this Bill, provides that in order to be eligible for registration a person must be ordinarily resident in a Dáil constituency. The effect on this amendment would be to modify the resident's requirement and enable persons resident outside the country to be registered as electors provided they resided in the constituency concerned at any time during the previous five years.
The principle involved here was discussed at substantial length on Committee Stage. The only difference now is that Senators appear to accept that an open-ended extension of the right to vote to emigrants is not a practical proposition. Oireachtas representation for emigrants raises fundamental questions, including constitutional questions. In fairness, both the emigrants and the resident population in any arrangement that might be decided on, would have to recognise the difference between those who reside permanently in this country and those who, for whatever reason, live abroad on a continuing basis. The difference relates not just to the representation or taxation question but to the emigrant's circumstances, including jobs, wages, housing, health and welfare, the environment, etc. The Government are giving the fundamental issues involved the careful consideration they demand.
In the circumstances, I ask the Seanad to reject this amendment and allow time for the Government to complete their consideration and adopt a position in the matter.
How long is long enough for the Government to decide? Will they decide before the end of this Government or will they decide before the crack of doom? I have difficulty visualising what the problems are that prevent them from reaching a decision on this matter.
In relation to what the Minister said about the proposers of this motion having accepted that what was suggested initially was impractical, that is not the case. We are trying to meet some of the concerns expressed on Committee Stage in relation to difficulties which might arise, but the fundamental question remains. Many of the good wishes, hopes and announcements made by the people on the other side — many of them were silent this morning — and many of the concerns they expressed have been met in this amendment. They like to make sentimental sounds and give the impression that their heart is in the right place and that, sooner or later, they will get round to doing something; but nothing has happened. They have their chance now and they are walking away from it. I wonder what the Progressive Democrat element of this Government will do to ensure that their policy to grant votes to emigrants will be implemented? We know they are a policy driven party because they never stop telling us that. Will they get down to brass tacks when it comes to waling through the lobbies in a few minutes time? To be fair to them, they did it the last time and it will be interesting to see if they will do it again today. It will also be interesting to see if they do it in the Dáil when it will really count.
I regret that the Minister rejected our amendment.
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 18; Níl, 22.
Tá
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Joe.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Harte, John.
- Hederman, Carmencita.
- Hourigan, Richard V.
- Howard, Michael.
- Jackman, Mary.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Neville, Daniel.
- O'Reilly, Joe.
- Raftery, Tom.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Ryan, John.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Upton, Pat.
Níl
- Bennett, Olga.
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Conroy, Richard.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Foley, Denis.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Donovan, Denis A.
- Ryan, Eoin David.
- Wright, G.V.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Costello and Upton; Níl, Senators E. Ryan and Fitzgerald.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
Amendments No. 5 and No. 6 are Government amendments. They are related and may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 5:
In page 18, to delete lines 46 to 48 and in page 19, to delete lines 1 to 31 and substitute the following:
"(5) Where on the qualifying date, a person is detained in any premises in legal custody, he shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to be ordinarily resident in the place where he would have been residing but for his having been so detained in legal custody.".
Section 11 (5) and (6) provide for the registration of ordinary hospital patients, mental hospital patients, prisoners and employees resident at a hospital for the purpose of their employment. The subsections, which propose to repeal the existing law, provide that hospital employees and long stay patients in ordinary hospitals may be registered at the hospital while short stay patients, prisoners and patients in mental hospitals will be registered at their home address.
On Committee Stage different aspects of these provisions were discussed. In my reply I indicated that I could not accept changes in relation to the registration of prisoners and mental hospital patients but that I would give further consideration to the position in relation to other categories. Following consideration, I am satisfied that the hospital workers and patients in ordinary hospitals should be registered in accordance with the rules applicable to electors generally and that special registration provisions are not necessary in this case. Under this amendment, therefore, subsection (5) will relate only to prisoners and subsection (6) will relate only to mental hospital patients. As at present, both categories will continue to be registered at their home address.
The references to hospital employees and patients in ordinary hospitals will be deleted. These categories will fall to be dealt with under the ordinary rules and, where appropriate, may exercise a choice under section 11 (1) which relates to the situation where a person may appear to be eligible for registration in respect of more than one address.
The changes introduced by the Minister are to be welcomed. They are an improvement, but I am sorry he did not go the whole way and accept the wider changes we proposed; half a loaf is better than no bread.
As Senator Upton says, the changes are an improvement. They get rid of a lot of circumlocution and tautology. They also separate the two issues of the hospital patient and the person in legal custody.
Amendment No. 6 is a useful amendment. It tightens up the legislation. However, the salient point we are making in this has not been adverted to in the amendment. It is that the facility for registering people who are in custody or in institutions should be facilitated. The right to vote for those who are not in a position to leave an institution should be acknowledged. This is particularly true in relation to prisoners and people in a hospice or who are not likely to be able to return to their home for the duration of an election, or perhaps for a very long period of time. This provision effectively debars them from exercising the franchise.
They should have that option. I do not see why polling should not take place, say, in a prison, under the strict monitoring of the prison governor and the presiding officers. That should also be possible in an institution such as a hospice.
The basic principle underlying this legislation is to facilitate the maximum number of people to participate in the democratic electoral process. While welcoming the tightening up of the section, we do not think the amendment will ensure that what we wanted to see enshrined in this section is inserted.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 6:
In page 19, lines 21 to 23, to delete "and he is not a person in employment in the hospital, home or institution who is resident therein for the purposes of his employment".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 7 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 21, line 14, to delete "on the qualifying date".
Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10 seek to improve the efficiency with which the register is compiled. They seek to prevent situations arising where people find themselves unable to be registered because they have not reached the qualifying age on a qualifying date. In fact, they may reach the age of 18 subsequent to the qualifying date and before the end of the period of relevance of the register. They are fairly minor technical points which would allow a number of people to get their names on the register more easily. It is important that the amendments should be accepted and I hope the Minister will give away.
These three amendments are interlinked and they refer to the cut-off date for applying to be on the register.
Acting Chairman
Is the Senator formally seconding the amendment?
My apologies, I am formally seconding amendment No. 8. In support of what Senator Upton had said, what we want to do is to improve the situation in relation to getting young people on the register of electors so that if an election takes place when they reach 18 their entitlement to vote will operate from that point. At present the qualifying date operates from September which means that a certain period will elapse where people are in limbo. They are over the age of 18 but they are not entitled to vote. Under the Constitution, anybody who has reached the age 18 is entitled to vote. Present regulations prevent this from happening, but our amendments would allow it.
The Minister should be prepared to accept those points and introduce the necessary changes to ensure that anybody who has reached the age of 18, and can show evidence of that fact at a polling station should be entitled to vote. It is an important amendment and I am disappointed the Minister has not given more consideration to our suggestions in this regard.
I, too, am somewhat disappointed that, not only the present Minister, but previous Ministers have made little effort to ensure that people when they reach 18 years of age have the opportunity of voting. As was made clear on Second Stage and on Committee Stage, because they cannot register until they are 18, very few people of 18 years have the opportunity to vote. Usually the year has gone by and they are 19 before they can exercise the franchise.
I asked on Second Stage if consideration could be given to permitting people to go on the register before they are 18 but that it would be an offence for them to cast their vote before they reached 18 years. Surely it is not an offence to be on a register before the age of 18? This is done in parts of the country. It may be slightly irregular or even illegal but, at the same time, I would not consider it an offence for a person to send in an application and for the local authority to accept it so that they could put themselves on the register at 17 or 17½ years of age in anticipation of when an election might take place. I would like the Minister to give some consideration to these suggestions, to ensure that more of our citizens at 18 years of age have the opportunity of voting and not to restrict them so much as at present.
I am sure if a survey were carried out we would all be rather shocked to see how few people of 18 years of age have the opportunity to vote. They are 19 before they do so. There should be some leeway to permit them to go on the register before they are 18 so that if an election should occur within the next year but after their 18th birthday has passed, they could vote.
I support strongly the thrust of the argument put forward in support of the amendments. I find it difficult to understand why a person who has attained the age of 18 years at a point during the year prior to the holding of an election and was of the qualifying age on the date on which the election was held, is denied a vote. It is wrong. They should be encouraged to come in to the system. Even if it requires a special section in the register, the opportunity should be provided. I do not see any valid argument against it. Younger people are continually taking more responsibilities in various fields and it is only reasonable that the opportunity would be provided for them to vote.
The compiling of the register in many cases — particularly in urban areas — leaves much to be desired and many people who are already 18 on the qualifying date are still not on it. No barrier should be put in place to prevent a person who has attained the age of 18 prior to the date of election from casting their vote in the election. I encourage the Minister to think long and hard on this one.
I strongly support the three amendments. In my years, I have known young people who have not had a vote until they were 25 because of the weakness of the regulations on the age factor. Where a young man or woman has reached the appropriate age after the registration date, the law should allow that person to proceed to the polling station produce a document, a birth certificate, confirming that he or she is of age. That could be acceptable. It is something the Minister could look into because I know young people who have become disenchanted having reached the age of 25 and still having no vote. Perhaps the Minister would have another look at this?
Under section 15, as drafted, only persons who are entitled to be registered on the qualifying day but who are not so registered are entitled to apply for entry in the supplement to the register. The section provides a mechanism whereby electors who should have been included in the first place can be added to the register. The essential consideration is that the persons concerned must have been eligible from day one. Under the section, as drafted, no account may be taken of subsequent events. For example, the section will not cater for people who change address during the lifetime of the register or people who return home after a period abroad, nor is it intended to cater for people who reach voting age after the coming into force of the register.
These amendments would enable a person who reaches 18 years after the coming into force of a register to apply for entry to the supplement on reaching that age. It would also enable a person who moved house after the qualifying date to apply for entry in the supplement. The provision in section 15 in relation to the supplement is, basically, a safety net to catch those eligible electors who should have been included in the first place. These amendments, if accepted, would depart from the principle on which the section is based. The principle is that the applicant for inclusion in this supplement must have been eligible when the register was being compiled.
Our electoral arrangements are based on the idea of a final and conclusive register. Section 15 proposes to retain this arrangement subject only to the correction of proven errors. Acceptance of this amendment would mean a radical departure from this position. Under existing law, repeated in rule 11 of the Second Schedule, a person who reaches 18 years up to the date of coming into force of the register is eligible for entry in the register. Under Rule 13 of the Second Schedule, this date will in future be 15 February.
There is an element of consistency in what the Minister is doing. He seems to be committed to keeping people, such as emigrants who may even leave the country for a short period — perhaps a month or two — off the register.
In relation to the fixed register and the grave levels of concern which have been expressed by the Minister, I wish the practice was in accord with that. I am sure the Minister knows — and Senator Howard knows — that there are many people on registers in places such as County Clare who were a long way from Clare when the register was being compiled. Many of them make their way back on buses funded by political parties, to cast their votes. The idea that they should be resident at the premises they registered on a qualifying date is out of accord with reality. Large numbers of people are maintained on registers, for whatever reason — mainly because it is known which way they will vote — although they have been living far away from that place. Large numbers arrive from Dublin and Cork to vote in rural Ireland. I cannot imagine that so many of those people were resident in the west when the register was compiled. In many ways what we are trying to do is to regularise what is the reality.
The practice and level of enforcement are in contrast with the lofty position being adopted by the Minister in this matter. In some constituencies there would be a few hundred people — maybe as many as 1,000 — who would be bussed home to vote on polling day to places where they were not resident when the register was compiled.
I just wanted to make a point in opposition to what Senator Upton is saying. Although he comes from a rural background, he must be living in the city too long and his senses have been dulled. Due to the emigration pattern — particularly in my own part of the country — there are people who are legally on the register when the registers are being compiled but who may have moved out of the area and then moved back. These movements are not permanent and are due to the pattern of migration as well as emigration. Particularly in recent years, this pattern has been temporary among young people over 18.
I do not want to address the suggestion the Senator made that people are being bussed——
Go on.
The Senator appears to be suggesting that there are people on the register who are not legally entitled to be on it.
(Interruptions.)
To put it at its simplest for Senator Costello, who comes from County Sligo and should know better, and Senator Upton who comes from County Clare——
That is the problem, we know what is going on.
Acting Chairman
Senator Mooney, without interruption, please.
There are people who are legally entitled to be on the register, particularly young people, who subsequent to having been put on the register may have had to move away from the area to find work. However, because work is difficult to find, particularly for young people, they leave home temporarily——
The morning after polling day, perhaps even that evening.
The Senator was suggesting that people are on the local register who are no longer resident in an area and are put on it for spurious reasons. I am suggesting that this amendment ignores the other side of the equation which is that there are people who are legally entitled to be on the register but who move in and out of the area. Who is to say that a person will be where they would like them to be at the time an election is called?
(Interruptions.)
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are related and may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 11:
In page 22, line 41, after "of" to insert "his".
Section 17 (2) provides that a person who satisfies the registration authority that he is unable to go, in person, to the polling station to vote, due to physical illness or physical disability suffered by him is entitled to be registered as a special voter. During Committee Stage debate on amendment No. 30, it was suggested that the inclusion of the words "suffered by him" in this section is insensitive and may be offensive to people who have a physical illness or disability.
I have had the provision examined and I have concluded that the formula suggested on Committee Stage by Senator Hederman is the most appropriate. This involves substituting "his physical illness or physical disability" for "physical illness or physical disability suffered by him." The amendments provide accordingly. I think this will meet the concern expressed without changing the meaning of the provision.
I thank the Minister for the approach he has taken and congratulate Senator Hederman in having her choice of words selected.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 12:
In page 22, line 42, to delete "suffered by him".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 23, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:
.—A person who is entitled to be entered on the Special Voters list and was not so entered, may apply to the registration authority for inclusion in a supplement to the list referred to in section 17 (1) and the provisions of section 15 (5) shall apply to any application made under this section."
This amendment is self-explanatory. It is simply a request to ensure that a person who is normally entitled to be entered on the special voters list and who for some reason or other was not included could be entered on the list.
I formally second the amendment.
The effect of this amendment would be to enable a person who is eligible for entry on the special voters list but who was not so entered to apply for entry in a supplement to the special voters list. The closing date proposed for applications would be the same as that applying to applications for inclusion in the supplement to the register under section 15.
Under section 15 applications for entry in the supplement to the register may be made up to the 12th day before polling date. This cut-off date would not be suitable in relation to special voters because, depending on the polling day selected, special voting could already be underway on the 12th day. In this connection section 81 requires ballot papers to be delivered to special voters as soon as practicable after the close of nominations. The procedure for dealing with special voter applications would also render this cut-off date impracticable. A medical certificate may be necessary and the registration authority may require further information.
Under Rule 20 of the Second Schedule a minimum of seven days must be allowed for the furnishing of such information. Also, special voting requires detailed forward planning by both the returning officer and the Garda authorities. Even if it were practicable it would be most undesirable to have special voting applications being made when an election is already underway. We are dealing here with some of the most vulnerable sections of our community, the disabled, the ill, the old. They should be allowed make up their own minds in their own time, free from the kinds of pressures that can be generated by the heat of an election. To have applications up to the date suggested would be neither practical or desirable. The amendment should not to be accepted.
I am disappointed with the Minister's reply and the approach to the problem. I do not believe the Minister, at any point in his reply, doubted or questioned the fact that there can be people who are entitled to be on the register of electors but may not be on it for a number of reasons. Ordinary justice would require the Minister to outline to the House ways and means of getting over the disadvantage, so that such people who were entitled to be on the register could be entered on it.
When an anomaly has been identified by those, for example, on this side of the House and we attempt to highlight the issue for the purpose of resolving it, it is totally frustrating when the reply indicates that the main preoccupation in the preparation of the reply was to find a means of not responding to a genuine point that had been raised. In view of the fact that the Minister did not reject the point I made which is the core of the problem, that is, that a person who is entitled to be on that list and is not on it for some reason — which may not be the fault of the person — there is a greater onus on the Minister and his advisers to find the means of rectifying that wrong, than on me or anybody on this side of the House. I do not think that issue has been addressed and responded to and, accordingly, I want to express my disappointment.
Acting Chairman
Is the amendment being pressed?
Yes.
I had indicated I wished to contribute.
Acting Chairman
I have put the question.
In fairness to Senator Mooney he was prepared to respond to the point I made and I acknowledged that. Whether he was for or against it, he had the guts to get up and say so.
Acting Chairman
Is the amendment being pressed?
Yes.
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 17; Níl, 20.
Tá
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Joe.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Harte, John.
- Hederman, Carmencita.
- Hourigan, Richard V.
- Howard, Michael.
- Jackman, mary.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Neville, Daniel.
- Norris, David.
- O'Reilly, Joe.
- Raftery, Tom.
- Ross, Shane P.N.
- Ryan, John.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Upton, Pat.
Níl
- Bennett, Olga.
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Foley, Denis.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Donovan, Denis A.
- Ryan, Eoin David.
- Wright, G.V.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Cosgrave and Neville; Níl, Senators E. Ryan and Fitzgerald.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 26, line 43, to delete "five" and substitute "fourteen".
This amendment seeks to extend the period for appeals against various decisions regarding the register from five days to 14 days. It is a reasonable and sensible amendment. Five days is a very short period to put together an appeal. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.
I second the amendment. Reducing the number of days from 21 to 14 and five days from the actual date of publication of Iris Oifigiúil is an extremely short period in which to prepare an appeal. Two weeks should be the minimum period.
It is almost impossible to prepare an appeal in that time.
New dates are now being established for the qualifying dates for the main register and the special voters list. I ask the Minister to ensure that departmental information leaflets, advertising on radio, television and in the printed media is concentrated primarily on the closing date for the general voters list and that there is less publicity and promotion of the closing date for the special voters list. I ask that the Department be given increased air time to inform the electorate that they have the right to be put on a special voters list so that those who are eligible will know through the media of radio, television and the press.
I ask the Minister to accept this amendment because only a few people will ever use it. Five days is too short a period to prepare an appeal. This is most reasonable amendment and the Minister would be well advised to accept it.
I can assure Senator Mooney that we will give very careful consideration to the points he has made. We moved from 30 September to 25 November to allow a longer period for special voters to register. We will make people aware of the need to register on time.
Amendment No. 15 proposes to extend the period allowed for lodging an appeal against a registered decision from five to 14 days. They will make specific provision for appeal against the registrar's proposed ruling on any application. The procedure involved is that the registrar will publish his proposed ruling and five days will be allowed for appeal by any person aggrieved. It should be noted that the right to appeal is not restricted to the party concerned. Any person aggrieved by the proposed ruling may appeal within five days.
We have to consider the circumstances in which an application for registration might be made. It takes time to establish and organise a political party. It takes time to assemble the evidence likely to be necessary to support the application for registration. Clearly the party will be anxious to have the application decided as quickly as possible so that they will be able to participate in any forthcoming election, and in our situation an election can occur at any time.
In this amendment we have accepted that there would be a built in delay of 14 days between the making and the coming into effect of the registrar's ruling. Thus, we could have the situation where the registrar might rule that the conditions for registration are fulfilled and there is no appeal. However, the ruling could not come into effect for 14 days and the applicants would not be able to participate as a party in any election arising during this period. The new party could thus miss out on what might be, for them, a vital election. I am sure the House will agree that this would be neither fair nor reasonable and I will not, therefore, accept this amendment.
I am disappointed. I reiterate that five days is a very short period in which to put together an appeal.
Acting Chairman
Is the amendment withdrawn?
No.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 16 not moved.
Government amendment No. 17:
In page 31, to delete lines 32 and 33.
Under section 30 (6) the approval of the Minister is required for the appointment of a person as deputy returning officer at a Dáil election. An appointment of a person as deputy returning officer is made in the first instance by the returning officer. The case was made on Committee State that the appointment of a deputy returning officer should be left completely at the discretion of the returning officer. I have since considered the position further. Experience has shown that returning officers exercise due care in the selection of persons for appointment as deputy returning officers and that the persons appointed are competent, well qualified and efficient. On this basis I think the matter can safely be left to the discretion of the returning officers and the amendment will remove the requirement for approval by the Minister. This is in line with the general approach of the Bill which is to allow the widest possible discretion to the statutory returning officers.
I thank the Minister for the amendment he has introduced. It is very much in accordance with what we said on Committee Stage.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved.
Acting Chairman
Before Senator Upton speaks I would like to say that, in accordance with the rules of the House, Senator Upton may move his amendment and have it seconded; any other Senator who wishes can contribute before the Minister and Senator Upton will have the right to reply.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 37, to delete line 3.
This amendment seeks to delete the provision that somebody of unsound mind should not be allowed to vote. The reality and practice is that there is no way to determine whether somebody is of sound mind and for that reason there is little point in having useless items included in Bills. I understand from what the Minister said on Committee Stage that the ultimate determination of whether somebody would be of unsound mind would be by way of a court case. I find it very hard to visualise anybody putting themselves through the courts to determine that type of question. For those practical and realistic reasons, its inclusion in the Bill is pointless.
I second the amendment. While we welcome the fact that the Minister has agreed to delete the reference to "imbecile" nevertheless, the retention of the words "unsound mind" is unwelcome. As Senator Upton pointed out it is virtually impossible to determine whether somebody is of unsound mind. I would refer the Minister to section 11 where we discussed somebody being registered in an institution, whether in a mental hospital or penal institution, and that their registration will not be the institution but their normal place of residence prior to going into the institution. If they are of unsound mind, presumably they are in the institution and therefore, they will not be at home to vote. The only direction we can have is whether they are already in such an institution. If so, they will not be at home to vote in the first place. The simplest thing for the Minister to do would be to delete this entirely and forget about it.
Where would I find the disqualification for membership of a local authority?
I would not be in favour of this amendment. I accept that the terminology "a person of unsound mind" has a certain emotive aspect. The Minister has been sensitive to the suggestions and proposals made on the other side of the House in relation to language and terminology referring to people's physical and mental condition in the context of this Bill. I would only suggest that because another section of the Bill permits an elector to nominate any person who is resident in the constituency so named, a situation could develop where for frivolous or spurious reasons an elector or group of electors could come together and nominate someone in order to disrupt the election or the democratic process for reasons of their own.
I take the point made by Senator Costello that the person or persons concerned would be in an institution. If that institution were located in the constituency in which the election was taking place and such an appalling scenario were to develop, it would be an even worse injustice to the person concerned that he or she would be placed in this invidious position of being nominated to take part in an election, considering the state of their mind or their mental state at the time. Therefore, I would be totally opposed to this amendment on that ground.
In response to Senator Hederman, disqualification for membership of local authorities would be found in various enactments relating to local authorities. Section 41 (a) repeats the existing provision which declares that persons of unsound mind are not eligible for membership of the Oireachtas. It seems self-evident that a person who, by reason of mental illness or mental deficiency, is not capable of managing his own affairs should not be put in a position of managing the affairs of the nation. The ineligibility would apply to persons suffering from severe mental illness and obviously not to persons who might from time to time suffer from nervous or similar disorders.
It appears that in most, if not all, member states of the EC severe mental illness disqualifies both for voting and for membership of the national parliament.
I have no great objection to the general tone of what the Minister says, but in practice this does not add to anything. I do not think there is any easy way of enforcing it. When we look back at the history of some of the people who are elected to some institutions, I wonder if it is consistent with having a sound mind when a gentleman who got elected to a local authority as part of the ceremonies which surrounded the election was organised to tear down his own posters in a saloon bar where they had been specially erected as a kind of item of entertainment when he was told that these were the posters belonging to one of his opponents. He was not even able to read his own name. The fellow went on to be elected and he served his people in his own way and in a manner which was worthy enough. I shall refrain from naming him.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 37, line 5, to delete "six months" and substitute "five years".
This seeks to increase the duration of a sentence for which it would be possible for somebody to be allowed to cast their vote. We are talking in terms of increasing it from six months to five years. We have been through the arguments on Committee Stage and I will not repeat them again at this stage. I simply say that I hope the Minister will show an element of accommodation in relation to this matter.
I second this amendment. We discussed it at great length and we will not dwell on it unduly. I gave an example of somebody who could be more than six months in prison having been convicted of the unauthorised sale of contraceptives, condoms for example. The Minister for Health has just now indicated that condoms can be sold at all sorts of outlets.
Acting Chairman
I do not know what relevance that has to the Electoral Bill.
It is a relevant point. We could have somebody in prison for 12 months who would not be eligible to stand for the Dáil because he had suffered a conviction, although now the law is being changed in relation to it. This is an example of the ludicrous nature of some of the offences that can result in somebody being disqualified from standing for Dáil Éireann.
We should not have a restriction of this nature that is so strong or so demanding. There are many categories where people could go into prison for doing a public duty. Certain matters could be construed as obstruction or could be construed as a breach of the peace when, in fact, they might well be doing a public duty. That would result in six months imprisonment but nevertheless they would be disqualified from Dáil Éireann. Very many of the forebears of the Fianna Fáil Party were elected first to Dáil Éireann in 1919 when, as was said in the Dáil on that occasion, they were faoi ghlas ag Gallaibh.
I wholeheartedly support this amendment. It is disappointing the Minister did not apparently take any notice of this amendment. On Committee Stage very cogent arguments were put forward, some of which have already been mentioned by Senators Upton and Costello.
The other point is that you could be undergoing a sentence of six months and you could be on your last week of the sentence; you could come out of prison and there could be another four or five years before there might be another election and you would be able to stand again. It is most unjust and unfair. The crimes which carry a penalty of six months imprisonment are in many instances not major issues. People might be defending a civil right by participating in a march or in some sort of obstruction because of a frustration which they experience. Because we have no local democracy in this country, they cannot do anything about these matters and they are motivated by the highest principles and by the very best motives to take a stand on a certain issue. They may find themselves in prison for six months and they may be just about to come out of prison and still the Minister will not allow them to stand for election.
The purpose of prison sentences is rehabilitation but the Minister is simply saying the idea is a total farce that people could be rehabilitated during their prison term and would be very competent people to be elected to membership of the Dáil. For a number of reasons I find the Minister's attitude very disturbing and I really wonder what the Minister himself thinks about the matter. Does he feel annoyed, distressed or ashamed in any way that we have to discuss important issues of this kind? It may be unlikely but it is also a possibility that this will come about and that somebody will wish to stand for membership of the Dáil. There is no point in the other side getting up and saying that we want criminals of all kinds to be allowed stand for the Dáil. That is not what we are saying. The other side of the House likes to misinterpret, misconstrue and put all kinds of flowery connotations on what we have said. I am not saying, and neither did the two Senators who have spoken, that we want hardened criminals to be allowed stand for the Dáil. There is no point in Senator Mooney or any other Senator on that side of the House suggesting that. I can see them wanting to make those ludicrous suggestions they made on Committee Stage.
The Senator will be surprised.
I do not know whether Senator Mooney was present during Committee Stage but those suggestions were made by Senators on that side; those are the interpretations put on what we said. There was an innuendo about the ideas that we were putting forward. This Bill, into which the Minister has put so much work, has been debated here with interest and enthusiasm and in a very constructive way. The Minister has proved that by taking on board many amendments. Does he think it right that it should be treated in this light and flippant manner and disposed by 1 p.m.? Look at the size of the Bill and the number of sections and amendments. This Bill is being rushed through. Is this because there is an election around the corner? That is what I want to know. Is it that the Minister thinks there is an election around the corner and wants to be sure to get these sections passed before that?
Of course it is.
I do not totally agree with this amendment but I would ask the Minister to look at the time period. Six months is quite short. Senators Hederman and Costello referred to minor offences. If the Minister cannot look at this now, maybe he would do so in the Dáil and extend the period to one year.
Senator Hederman said we had very long debates on Second Stage and on Committee Stage. There is no doubt that very worthwhile and interesting contributions were made by the Senators, particularly from the Opposition benches as well as the Government benches. I responded to many of those contributions. I am confident that it will enhance the Bill when it is passed through the Seanad and Dáil.
Why rush it through? Why impose the guillotine?
Acting Chairman
You are consistently out of order. Resume your seat.
If the Minister will reply to that question I will resume my seat. I am a most obliging Senator.
I am entitled to respond. The Senator is contradicting herself. On the one hand she is complimenting us, she is talking about the time we spent on the Bill on Second and Committee Stages. I am not responsible for ordering the business of the Seanad, but I am satisfied that the views of all Members are well known and have been incorporated in the Bill by way of the amendments that have been accepted by me.
Section 41 (j) provides that a person who is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for any term exceeding six months, whether with or without hard labour or penal servitude for any period, shall not be eligible for election to or membership of the Dáil. Under the amendment the disqualification would apply only in relation to a person serving a sentence in excess of five years. The Seanad discussed on Committee Stage at some length the rights and privileges of prisoners in relation to registration, voting and standing for election. At the end of the day, the House accepted that the disqualification of prisoners for membership of the Dáil should continue in place.
I would remind the House that there is nothing new in the disqualification. It has been in place since the foundation of the State. As I said on Committee Stage, it appears that in virtually all EC member states the law envisages that a citizen may be deprived of the right to vote or stand for election on conviction for a serious offence. The disqualifying period of imprisonment specified in 1923 was six months. In relation to Senator Bennett's point, there is no way I will accept that a period of five years should be allowed. That is my position on the matter.
I thought after the intervention by Senator Bennett that we were about to enter the age of enlightenment; the exchanges which took place after that mean that we enter the age of disagreement. I am sorry the Minister has taken — using the words of a dear old county councillor colleague of mine — a firm stand and that he is not prepared to give an inch on it. I hope that in the other House he will be a little more flexible and may try to reach a decision on a period between six months and five years.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 not moved.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 41, line 2, after "known" to insert "(provided that no objection shall be taken pursuant to this paragraph to the use by a candidate of his name as registered in the Register of Births)".
At the risk of paraphrasing Senator Howard, this is the Sonny Scanlon amendment. For anybody who is not familiar with Councillor Sonny Scanlon, he has been a distinguished member of Clare County Council for a number of years. He is widely known by the name Sonny Scanlon. Senator Howard very forcefully made the case on Committee Stage that if Councillor Scanlon saw fit to describe himself by his birth certificate name, which I understand from Senator Howard is Patrick Joseph Scanlon, he should be entitled to do so. I would be in favour of that option being made available to anybody who wants to use the name on their birth certificate. If it would damage them politically, then I do not think it should be the function of returning officers to protect them from themselves.
This seems to be a sensible and realistic amendment, namely, that people should be entitled to use the name on their birth certificate even if that is not the name by which they are commonly known. In some cases it can be difficult, where people are known by a series of different names, to determine the name by which they are commonly known. For example, Senator Ó Cuív is widely known in his own constituency and throughout the country as Dev Óg, but he is known in this Chamber as Senator Ó Cuív and I understand that his name goes on the ballot paper as Senator Cuív, without the "Ó". There you have a whole series of difficulties.
If people wish to use the name on their birth certificate, it should be their right to do so, even if it will be a political disadvantage to them. I do not think returning officers should be given discretion to tell people they cannot use their proper name, the name which is on their passport and the name which will be on all official documents. It is wrong that they should not be allowed use that name if they wish.
I second the amendment. Senator Upton has put the argument very well why we should either delete this section entirely or add the amendment we have here. Our original proposal was to delete the section but in this amendment we are allowing for both situations to operate. In other words, a person may use the name by which he or she is commonly known, with the option of using the name that is on the birth certificate. It should be no concern of the returning officer what name they use. It is a matter for the candidates themselves. If they want to use the name on their birth certificate and are not commonly known as such, then the likelihood is that they will not benefit from using a name by which they are less well known. Why should the returning officer have any say in the matter? People often like to use the Irish form of their name. They prefer to use the proper form of their name, the name they will use on all official documents and there is no reason they should be prohibited from doing so. The Minister should take this amendment on board because this type of unnecessary intrusion does not add to the legislation and is just pernickety. Senator Conroy would say in relation to one or two of the amendments we put forward that we were nit-picking. This is a nit-picking provision.
I spoke on this matter on Committee Stage and I gave the example Senator Upton has already used in relation to a member of the Clare County Council, Sonny Scanlon. That is the name by which he is commonly known. I was not entirely satisfied with the responses I got on Committee Stage as to what discretion the presiding officer would have if Sonny Scanlon decided to use his name, Patrick Joseph, instead of the name by which he is commonly known. Other examples have already been quoted in relation to Senator Ó Cuív.
I have a very distinct recollection of being in Donegal looking for a Patrick Gallagher in the village of Kerrykeel. This was many years ago and it had nothing to do with politics. The man happened to be a sheep dipping inspector. I made no progress whatsoever with the address and the name I had. Even in the local post office there were complications because there were many Paddy Gallaghers in the area. I mentioned that this man happened to be a sheep dipping inspector and immediately there was no problem. I was directed to his gate which was about a mile and a half away, but I was told the name by which he was commonly known. People from the west known very well that there are people called by names which are not their baptismal names or registered names. There are problems which I raised on Committee Stage. I am still convinced that this subsection will cause endless problems.
There is another danger that I raise again because I was not satisfied with the response. Suppose, for example, a person uses their baptismal name on the ballot paper but it is not the name by which they are commonly known. Is that election not open to challenge because the name of the candidate appearing is not the name by which the person is commonly known? The subsection will cause endless hassle and now is the time to look at it. The matter would be resolved either by accepting the amendment or the simple and clean operation of getting rid of subsection (a) altogether.
The section as drafted requires the returning officer to object to the name of a candidate if it is not the name by which he is commonly known. The amendment proposes that no objection shall be taken to the use by a candidate of his name as registered in the register of births. As I mentioned on Committee Stage, this provision was inserted by the Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1986, having been drafted presumably by a Labour Party Attorney General. The provision was regarded as vital by the Government of the day and it is difficult to see what has caused the change of mind in the meantime. I do not see anything in the provision that would result in an objection being raised to the use by a candidate of his own name. I am not aware of any incident where such objection was made and is difficult to see the necessity for the amendment.
If there is a need for protection in relation to the name as shown on the register of births, should not the name as appearing on the baptismal register also be protected? After all, most citizens are baptised and it is not unknown for the baptismal name to be different from that on the birth certificate. I have no doubt about the Senators' sincerity but they are worrying unduly about imaginary difficulties and I suggest that the amendment be withdrawn.
I am disappointed the Minister does not accept the amendment. It is straightforward and would prevent difficulty down the road. It would also prevent the risk of court cases and constitutional actions in relation to people thinking they have been ill-treated in this matter.
In relation to this terminology being put together by a Labour Party Attorney General, I want to make two comments. First, even Labour Party Attorneys General are not infallible and matters can be improved as time moves on — it is six years later. I doubt that the Labour Party Attorney General spent a long period of time working this out. I would have thought he would have rather more to do with his time than wondering whether somebody's name should be the name by which they are commonly known or indeed that six years on, lo and behold his life would be fulfilled, it would finish up as part of an Act. For those reasons, and for the most basic reason I have already indicated, I am sorry the Minister will not accept the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 not moved.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 are related and may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 27:
In page 61, line 37, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
Section 102 provides that where a voter inadvertently spoils his ballot paper he may, on returning to the presiding officer, be given another ballot paper. An amendment to this section on Committee Stage proposed to change the word "may" to "shall", thus making it obligatory on the presiding officer to give a replacement ballot paper in all circumstances. As I indicated on Committee Stage, the intention of this section as drafted is that the presiding officer would have some discretion in the matter. For example, if the presiding officer had any reason to believe that the spoiling was deliberate rather than accidental, he could refuse to give a replacement paper.
I have considered this section further and the best way to deal with the matter is to provide that the presiding officer shall give a ballot paper to a person who satisfies him that the spoiling of the original paper was inadvertent. The amendment provides for this and meets both objectives in a reasonable way. Under it the genuine elector will get a replacement ballot paper, while the presiding officer will have discretion in cases where the request is not a genuine one.
This is a vast improvement on the situation that obtained previously but it will be useless if the voter does not know what we are proposing. I would like the Minister to take some steps to ensure that it is widely known that if a ballot paper is inadvertently spoiled it may be or can be returned to the presiding officer. People inadvertently spoil their ballot paper. I welcome the Minister's change in the Bill and I would ask him to ensure that it is widely publicised.
I welcome the attitude the Minister has adopted to this matter. It has improved the Bill. He was responding primarily to a Labour Party amendment and I thank him for the way he has done it. The element of discretion given to the returning officer is desirable, but once the returning officer is satisfied then he should have an absolute obligation to provide the extra paper. I also agree with what Senator McMahon said. Quite a large number of people simply do not realise that they have that entitlement and it is very important that at polling stations it should be made clear by way of notification and in advertisements.
I support Senator McMahon and Senator Upton in relation to the propagation of the information, not just on this specific issue but on the whole issue of the rights of voters. A great deal of confusion that arises, say for example on spoiled votes, comes about mainly because voters are not always fully informed as to their rights. If I went into a polling station and make a mistake I would not be sure what I should do.
Acting Chairman
It is now one o'clock and I am required to put the following question in accordance with the order of the Seanad of this day: "That the amendments set down by the Government and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill, that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and that the Bill is hereby passed."
This is outrageous.
Question put and declared carried.
Sitting suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.