Michael Kitt (Fianna Fail)

——is a response to the November 2006 judgment of the Supreme Court in King, Cooney and Riordan v. the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Attorney General and others. It is a measured response and, as Senator Bannon has noted, achieves a good balance between the rights of those who are not members of political parties and the need to prevent frivolous or excessive numbers of candidates.

In 2002, people who were not members of political parties had to bring 30 assentors to the election office. While that can present a good photograph opportunity, it is not always possible to arrange for that many people to be physically present when required. If the central requirement for nomination by 30 people cannot be met, provision is made for paying a deposit. We were all familiar with deposits until 2002, when the provision for 30 assentors was introduced.

The Supreme Court judgment made reference to the legitimate interest of the State in the conduct of elections. In this regard, fixing a date is less important than allowing sufficient time for people to vote. That is why the early opening and late closing of polling stations in the last election was welcome.

I am not sure whether much can be done about frivolous or excessive numbers of candidates. Great Britain has the Monster Raving Looney Party and other parties who give themselves strange names. Unfortunately, they make frivolous use of the electoral system and put no policies forward. In addition, those of us who have attended election counts have noticed that some people make frivolous comments on their ballot papers, which are thereby made useless.

The Supreme Court found that the £300 deposit provided for in the Electoral Act 1992 was not a disproportionate requirement and would not discriminate against a person who wished to run for office. It is reasonable to change the amount to €500. Prospective candidates have the choice of finding 30 assentors or paying a deposit. As the Minister of State noted, a quarter of a quota is needed to have the deposit refunded.

This legislation is a balanced response to the Supreme Court judgment. The Minister of State should not be held responsible for everything that happens in his Department because he has not been there since 2002. However, he has done very well during his time in office. I hope the Bill is passed promptly by the House.