James Bannon (Fine Gael)

Yes. This Bill is just the latest example of the Government's lamentable record on handling elections and all they entail. It is technical in nature and responds directly to a judgment handed down by the Supreme Court on 13 November 2006 in the cases of King, Cooney and Riordan v. the Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Attorney General and others. King, Cooney and Riordan challenged the provisions of the Electoral Act 1992, as amended by the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2002, which required the nomination papers of candidates to the Dáil who are not members of political parties to be assented to by way of signing their nomination papers by 30 persons.

In his judgment, Mr Justice John Murray noted that political party candidates are not obliged to obtain the statutory declarations of 30 assentors but must produce a certificate of political affiliation signed by a party officer. He said that measures had been introduced to protect the electoral system from abuse and to ensure that the holding of orderly and democratic elections was not undermined by the unfettered participation of frivolous candidates or an excessive number of candidates. However, that matter was not really at issue in this case.

The court was also satisfied that the Oireachtas has the power to regulate the criteria with which citizens must comply to be nominated. There was a question of whether the statutory regulation of the nomination of non-party candidates was constitutional. However, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to expect non-party candidates to arrange for the 30 people who support their wish to be on the ballot paper to travel to the relevant local authority offices and make declarations in person to authenticate nominations. The court ruled that this was disproportionate to the objective of authenticating nomination papers.

The Bill allows candidates the option to lodge a deposit of €500 or 30 signatures, which is reasonable and which will allow any person to put his or her name on the ballot paper if he or she has strong feelings about particular issues or about the Deputies who have represented them since the previous election. This is their democratic right. I support the right of non-party candidates to run for election and to do so without constraint.

Under the amended Bill, non-party candidates may choose the system which best suits their circumstances to support their nomination, either by way of assent or by lodging a deposit. This is an improvement on the previous arrangements but reassurances are needed from the Minister of State that the reintroduction of deposits is constitutionally firm.

The authentication process often involved people travelling distances up to 70 km. This was certainly excessive and one could even say that it was above and beyond the call of duty. However, when one considers the lengths, metaphorically speaking, to which people were obliged to go to get their names on the electoral register, I suppose it is not something that would give rise to amazement.

The detailed procedures relating to assents are set out in the new section 46(6) to be inserted into the 1992 Act. All relevant details must be contained in the statutory declaration. These include: the assentor's name; address on the register; electoral number and polling district letters on the register of Dail electors in force at the time of the assent; contact details; the relevant Dail constituency on the date of assent where he or she is registered; the form of photographic ID and number contained on it; and the candidate's name and address. The assentor must also produce photographic ID to the person witnessing the statutory declaration. The assentor must also confirm on the statutory declaration that he or she has not consented to the nomination of any other candidate in the election concerned. The requirement for photographic ID could prove difficult, especially as not all elderly people may possess it.

I am pleased that, in respect of the potentially serious consequence for a candidate of having his or her nomination declared invalid due to an assentor nominating more than one candidate, the Bill inserts a new section 52(1)(c) into the 1992 Act. The latter provides that where a person assents to the nomination of more than one candidate, that candidate's nomination will not thereby be invalidated. This will serve to protect innocent candidates from the misbehaviour or false or misstatement of an assentor. A candidate should not suffer disproportionately as a result of the misbehaviour of an assentor. The fraudulent assentor should be penalised for his or her false declarations. It is, however, important to note that the consequences of this are that a non-party candidate may unknowingly stand for election without having fully met the requirement of obtaining the statutory declarations of 30 assentors.

I welcome the use of statutory declarations that can be witnessed by a commissioner of oaths, a peace commissioner, a notary public a garda or a local authority official, with assentor signatures on documents attached to the nomination paper rather than on the nomination paper itself. This will allow for greater flexibility in the time during which assents may be obtained.

Although I am conscious the Bill is primarily concerned with making provision in respect of the forthcoming general election, it is debatable whether it makes sense to ignore the opportunity to amend legislation relating to European and local elections. There is a need to amend the legislation in respect of the electoral procedures for European and local elections, having regard to the flaw in the nomination process identified by the Supreme Court in the Cooney case.

The Taoiseach's commitment to Thursday, 17 May for a general election is unfair to students who wish to vote in their home constituencies and indicates the Government's mounting unease.