Pádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)

She cannot be challenged yet because she is not in the House. Perhaps after the next election, she might be in a position to be challenged. I am talking about people who think their Dáil representatives are not providing the service they deserve in the constituency. Such people should have the right to put their names forward at an election. We can then let the people of the constituency decide, which is what democracy is about. Let the voters in the relevant constituencies decide to elect a new candidate or to re-elect a sitting Deputy if it was thought he or she gave a reasonable service. That is fair enough.

We should not move to limit the number of candidates. Of course there will be candidates who stand on a particular issue, and some issue candidates have been elected to the Dáil — perhaps some of those present in Chamber as we speak were elected on a particular issue. That is positive. It is democracy. It is the right of the people to do this. It is also their right to put their name forward on a particular issue. However, if 20 candidates run for just five seats, and eight, ten or 12 of them are issue candidates, they cannot all be elected. It is a matter for the people to decide which of the candidates is standing on the most important issue, and they will then elect that candidate for the term of the next Dáil. I support the right of anybody to put his or her name on the ballot paper for elections.

The Bill, as the Minister stated, responds to a judgment of the Supreme Court on 13 November 2006 in the case where three citizens challenged the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Attorney General and others. We are obliged as a result of the court case to bring in the Bill to alter the situation. The three citizens challenged the provisions in the Electoral Act 2002 that required the nomination papers of candidates who wished to contest elections to this House and who are not members of a political party be assented to, by way of signing the nomination paper, by 30 persons. I understand the Act which is now being amended meant 30 persons had to be present at the handing in of the nomination paper. This was overruled by the courts. Specifically, the Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional to expect non-party candidates to arrange for the 30 people who wish them to be on the ballot paper to travel to the relevant local authority offices and declare in person they would nominate that candidate. It was unreasonable, and should have been foreseen to be unreasonable, to have 30 people in one room to sign a nomination paper. That was over the top.

Fine Gael accepts that the law must be changed and it is the duty of the Oireachtas to correct the legislation. However, it would be remiss of the Opposition not to hold the Government to account for drafting improper legislation that requires us to pass this Bill. While it was not this Minister who introduced the legislation, he would be well placed to explain the legal advice his predecessor received when drawing up the Electoral Bill, now the Electoral Act, and steering it through the Oireachtas. To know what that advice was would be helpful to Members of the House, as well as members of the public. The Minister may also be well placed to inform us whether his Department was warned that the provisions relating to non-party candidates, as they are to be known on the ballot paper, were likely to be considered unconstitutional, which they have proved to be.

In accepting the need for the Bill, Fine Gael has one question for the Minister. The Bill states that under the Statutory Declarations Act 1938, a person who knowingly makes a false or misleading declaration is liable on conviction to a maximum fine of €2,539.48. Can the Minister provide further clarification on the exact implications of that? Fine Gael also wants to know what measures are being put in place to catch somebody who breaks the law in this area. There is plenty of law but not enough order in the record of this Government. Making laws is not enough — their implementation is vital. Somebody must take responsibility for the latest blunder by the Government and not spotting that such a simple condition would be unconstitutional. It is one more example of its dreadful record in handling elections.

It would be remiss not to refer to the debacle of electronic voting during the course of this debate, because I took a keen interest in the issue at the time. This Bill should have included a provision to eliminate the possibility of electronic voting being introduced. It is an electoral amendment Bill and was an ideal opportunity for the Minister so to do, although I am aware it addresses the decision of the Supreme Court.

That episode showed the entire political and electoral process in a very bad light. Taxpayers are paying exorbitant rates for the storage of useless electronic voting machines, thanks to a complete lack of direction from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

The revelation, on foot of a parliamentary question tabled by my colleague, Deputy Paul McGrath, that the State is paying wildly different annual rates for storage, from nothing in Sligo to an average of €1.65 per machine in Louth to an incredible €271.22 per machine in Waterford is astonishing. The Acting Chairman is from Waterford and I cannot understand how storage can be so much more expensive in Waterford than Sligo, or than the national average. Perhaps it is because it is the constituency the former Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government represents but one would think he could have shopped around for a cheaper place in Waterford. The Government should call off the whole exercise and sell the machines to somebody who could use them or keep them as souvenirs.

In early December 2003 I was a member of the Joint Committee on the Environment and Local Government which expressed serious reservations to the Minister about the rush to proceed with electronic voting without carrying out the necessary safety checks. To try to advance the matter the committee invited independent experts, officials from the Department of the the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Dutch company which manufactured the machines to a meeting on 18 December 2003.

The early part of the meeting was very informative. Very useful exchanges of views took place and some searching questions were asked. The independent IT experts posed 41 questions to the departmental officials and experts on behalf of the manufacturers. We adjourned for lunch with the intention of continuing in the afternoon for the rest of the day with a view to getting answers to those serious questions. The Minister, Deputy Cullen, was not present for the early part of the meeting but I am sure he was in touch with developments. Whatever transpired during lunchtime, when we returned the Government representatives on the committee immediately proposed we end the discussion and give the Minister the go-ahead to sign the contract for the supply of the machines. The proposal was approved because the Government had a majority on the committee and the debate ended. We never received an answer to the 41 questions and never debated the issue fully because somebody wanted to kill the debate on that day.

That was 18 December and the contract for the machines was signed on 19 December. It has since been discovered under a freedom of information request that at that time €20 million worth of electronic voting machines had already been delivered to Ireland. It is no wonder the Minister wanted to get the decision through under the pretence that the committee had decided to go ahead. The decision had already been made, although we did not know that at the time. That highlights the utter contempt the then Minister and the Government had for the committee. Some 4,500 new voting machines costing €20 million were imported into Ireland before the contract was signed and 1,100 of these machines were imported before the design was certified on 19 September.

One way or the other, with or without Dáil approval, the Minister was determined to go ahead with buying the machines. I do not know what drove him but I had hoped that something would be included in this Bill. If that is not possible, I urge the present Minister to take electronic voting off the agenda and auction off the machines. It is now costing €700,000 a year to store the machines, which will continue. I do not know in what state they are kept but it would be far better for the Government to admit its mistake.

The episode should be investigated by the Committee of Public Accounts because it was a complete waste of taxpayers' money to spend €60 million or €70 million on machines that cost so much to store and will never be of any use. The cost of introducing the system was €33.4 million in 2001, although I do not know the cost to date.

This Bill has important implications for our electoral system and Fine Gael has further proposals in this area. One such proposal is to allow for automatic voter registration upon reaching one's 18th birthday. As I canvass in Galway city I find that the current electoral register is far from accurate. I meet scores of people who have not registered and have come across houses where people left a couple of years ago but are still on the register. In Galway alone, 12,000 people who were over 18 in November, according to the census, are missing from the register. In fact, many more are missing from the register in Galway city if one counts all the people on the register who should not be on it, of whom there are thousands. According to the census, there are between 15,000 and 20,000 in Galway city who are entitled to vote but who are not on the register. Some might be students who do not wish to be registered in Galway but in their home electoral area but there is a serious discrepancy in the register.

There cannot be so many people missing from a register. The only way to obtain an indication of the actual position was to take the total number of people in Galway listed in the recent census, subtract the number listed who were over 18 years of age and compare the result to the number listed on the register. It emerged that there was a difference of 12,000 between the figures from the census and those relating to the register. This does not take account of the number registered but who should not be.

The Minister should take on board Fine Gael's proposal that people should be automatically registered on reaching 18 years of age. This would offer a simple solution to the difficulties we are experiencing with the register. It would be easy to use the PPS numbers employed by the Department of Social and Family Affairs to register people when they turn 18. Every person has a PPS number and when someone reaches voting age, the Department could automatically inform the relevant local authority. Such a system would effectively eliminate much of the confusion, although it would not eliminate the need to remove from the register those whose names should not be on it. However, the system we propose could be adapted to facilitate the latter. There is no doubt that it would ensure everyone living in an area would be automatically registered to vote on reaching 18 years of age.

Some might say it is not very important that certain individuals do not have a vote, while others might state it is not important that the names of many who should not be listed on the register are actually included in it. The potential for electoral fraud as a result of the gross mismanagement of the electoral register by the Government is huge. It would have been completely eliminated if the Minister had not been so stubborn and refused to accept proposals from the Opposition parties that PPS numbers should be used.

Everyone is aware that thousands of homes in the Galway West constituency were empty when council staff responsible for compiling the draft register visited them. I presume that the position was similar in other constituencies. It is the responsibility of each voter to check the draft register to see if his or her name is still on it. The initial process in this regard has ended because the official register has been issued. The only option open to voters to ensure they will be able to vote is to complete the pink form relating to the supplementary register. The system in this regard is not that straightforward and many will not go to the bother of obtaining the form, completing it and having it registered at a local Garda station by a member of the force who knows that they are resident at their given address. Safeguards of this nature are necessary in order to ensure people are not illegally registered on the supplementary register. Some simply will not register to vote if their names were not included in the original register. When the election takes place, therefore, the register will be inaccurate.

The register has been made available on-line in order that people may check to see if their names are on it. It is estimated that between 5,000 and 6,000 homes in Galway were empty when officials called to check people's details. On the basis of all the evidence that it was possible to acquire and from what I was told when canvassing in the area, I estimate that there are between 15,000 and 20,000 people in the Galway West constituency who are either not on the register but who are entitled to be or who are on it but not entitled to be.

Lifestyles are different from what they were ten or 15 years ago. What is happening with the register highlights the pressures with which individuals must cope. Thousands are out of their homes for up to 12 hours a day because they must commute to their places of employment and work longer hours. In many families both parents are obliged to go out to work. It was impossible, therefore, to ensure the register was checked properly. Even if a note stating their names would be removed from the register if they did not indicate that they were still resident at their address was left for them, people either did not have time or did not bother to reply because they were so busy. As a result, the register is in its current state.

Fine Gael also favours a reduction in the age at which people should be allowed to vote. This is to ensure more people would vote. By reducing the voting age to 17 years, people who are still in secondary school would be permitted to vote. In such circumstances, we could include in the school curriculum classes relating to the importance and relevance of elections and the right to vote. It is a good idea to reduce the voting age to 17.

I reiterate that the exclusion of 18 to 21 year olds from contesting Dáil elections makes no sense. It might be no harm if the right to stand in a Dáil election was reduced to 18 years. Citizens are very responsible at 18 and it might be good to have that age group represented in the House.

Section 1 is the main provision in the Bill. It amends the Electoral Act 1992, as previously amended, by inserting sections 44 to 52 in substitution for the existing ones. These sections cover the nomination of candidates in general for election to Dáil Éireann. Most of the existing law in this area is being re-enacted without amendment. The amendments necessary to meet the terms of the court decision — this is the important aspect of the legislation — are being incorporated, as appropriate, in the re-enacted sections so as to give a single text relating to nominations generally.

The new section 46(5) provides for two alternative mechanisms to regulate the nomination of Dáil candidates not in possession of a certificate of political affiliation, in other words, people standing as Independents.

See this speech in context