Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

I am afraid that in recent times he has started to behave in the same slick, smart alec way as his colleague, the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who regularly answers such questions by referring to a question he answered six months previously. I remind Ministers that the answering of parliamentary questions should be taken seriously. Many officials in each Department — including executive officers, assistant secretaries, secretaries and, in many cases, the Secretary General — are supposed to vet the answers that are prepared. The Minister ultimately puts his or her initials on the response. It is not good enough to give the House a glib response like "I refer the Deputy to question so and so of September, October or March of last year, or last month". In all circumstances, questions are asked to get the up-to-date, current position. Ministers might not want to mention the negotiations they might have had with their cronies in the meantime, but they should remember that they are duty bound to give the information demanded of them. I will pursue this matter again. If the Minister, Deputy Roche, thinks for one moment that I have finished with it, I assure him that I have not. Ministers of all parties should remember that parliamentary questions are the best protection they will ever have, in or out of office. The time ultimately comes when all Ministers have to leave office. When questions which were not answered are examined in retrospect by others, a conclusion may be reached that will be regretted by the former Minister who refused to address the issue.

I have no problem with ensuring that as many people as possible can stand for election, although I would like to comment on the ongoing debate about the age at which one should be allowed to vote. Some people think the current voting age of 18 should be retained, although others think it should be reduced to 17, 16 or 15. Why not bring it down to ten? I do not agree with such suggestions. The voting into office of a Government is a serious issue that should be taken seriously. Some young people are parents at the age of 16 or 17, but that does not necessarily mean that everything else follows.

I have come across many cases in recent years of mothers of children having serious concerns about the associations of their sons or daughters with older people who could be sexual predators. The parents are not given adequate protection from the State and neither do the children who are not sufficiently capable of dealing with the threat which such associations presents to them. Parental guidance is required in certain cases up to the age of 18 years, depending on the views of the parents' which must be taken into account. If something happens which is not right, this should not mean that we should legislate to ensure that it is always right. The Minister should bear this in mind because other discussions will be held in the future where there will be conflict between the parents of children and others who may decide arbitrarily that a certain path should be followed. In my experience in the past 12 or 14 months in particular, parents of children have had serious difficulties in finding out who can protect their child who may have wandered off the track and who may well come back into line again. It does not mean that if this happens the State should stand over what has happened and declare it to be legal. I would be loath to reduce the age. We should ensure that everybody recognises the seriousness of the business of electing governments.

My colleague, Deputy Gay Mitchell, has referred to European legislation. We have things to learn from Europe but they should also learn from us. Our system of democracy is at least as good as anybody else's. We were longer waiting for it than most other nations so we should cherish it. However, we should honour it by making sure we do not bring it into disrepute. I am amazed at the degree to which some cynics will snigger at the quality of people who become involved in politics — these are usually people not of their own ilk. They complain that snags in the system of democracy allow this to happen. Democracy means that if a candidate can garner sufficient support and if he or she is not a criminal, then everything else should be within reason and a person should have the opportunity to participate in that exercise.

I was asked to witness a signature on a local authority housing application form, a form with which the Minister will be very familiar. It is a 29-page document and is the ultimate answer of the bureaucrat to the housing crisis; if the document is long enough and difficult enough then nobody will want to fill it in and they will shudder when they see it. It is similar to the agricultural document which has 700 notations required before it is returned. The local authority form may be signed by a peace commissioner.

I discovered that I was not permitted to witness another document as a peace commissioner was not of a sufficiently high standing and that it could only be witnessed by a bank manager, a solicitor, a clergyman or clergywoman, a teacher, a doctor, a nurse or some other such person of high standing. I was amazed and offended because I do not regard myself as of lower standing than any other human being nor should anybody else in this House. Nobody should presume that they deserve a higher standing by virtue of somebody else's identification of their position which confers on them some extraordinary higher level of intelligence or standing than the rest of us.

Some politicians may have been led astray and some may have wandered off the path. This might have been because the profession used to be very poorly paid, even though I do not wish to make excuses. There is no profession, group or association in our society that should look down on politicians and regard them as an inferior group of people.

The legislation on independent assents is an improvement as it was unworkable in the past. I am not impressed with the urgency or manner with which it was introduced into the House. The Minister will know I am deeply suspicious of the antics from that side of the House especially coming near an election. He knows well my reasons for that deep suspicion. Every measure from that side of the House with regard to electioneering is to do with gaining an overall majority. They are all various versions of diversions and red herrings, electronic voting being one example and the Kelly case being another. I remind the House of the case of the post office stamping all my correspondence with the slogan, "Vote for Fianna Fáil" at the time of the last general election, until Deputy Broughan had the temerity to take the case to court and put a stop to it. This is an adulteration of the democratic process, all for the golden calf of achieving the overall majority.

Much discussion has taken place on the subject of expenditure at election time. We presumed the new regulations on maximum expenditure at election time would change everything but there was no intention of anything changing. All the Government has done is spend on massive splurges beforehand. Significant amounts of money are being expended all over the country. The public is becoming fed up with the barrage of literature coming through letter boxes. The effect is the opposite to what was intended and the public is turned off. I cannot understand why the Government has been fiddling around with the election system and with procedures that worked well. I refer to the voters' register. The Government never wanted the voters' register to be accurate. It did not wish An Post to compile it because it might have been done effectively as An Post could visit every door in the country every day of the week.

Time does not permit me to say more. However, before long, there will be an opportunity to have a full debate on these issues at length, not in a truncated fashion, as is the case at present.

See this speech in context