Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill and I also welcome the Minister of State to the House. I agree with what Senator Brady stated. We did not value our democracy nearly enough in the past and we can recognise the benefit of democracy. Almost every day since I entered this House for the first time I recognise the trust given to those of us who step into this and the other House.

I am not sure the Government recognises and respects the huge benefit of independent candidates and Members in both Houses and I have some words to state on their value. In this House alone it is clear to see the six independent Members, including Senator Maurice Hayes, play an active role. The same does not seem to happen in the Dáil, although it could; perhaps they are not provided the same opportunity. This is one of the reasons this House has the benefit of being far less confrontational.

The Minister of State may be pleasantly surprised to hear I will take advantage of this debate to offer a word of praise to the Government. I do this quite often. This may seem odd when discussing a Bill that need never have arisen but for the Government's ineptitude at trying to make it more difficult for independent candidates than for candidates of political parties to put themselves forward for Dáil elections.

The problem with the Supreme Court did not arise because of an honest mistake such as we seem to encounter with increasing frequency as Ministers rush around trying to introduce legislation. I am reminded of the little Dutch boy putting his finger in the dike to stop what was happening. We seem to have had a great deal of rushed legislation in recent times and nobody wants it, including the Leader. This problem arose because of a Government try-on. It tried barefacedly to make matters more difficult for independent candidates seeking election to the Dáil and once again the Supreme Court caught the Government in the act. This Bill is a defeat for the Government and more importantly it is a victory for democracy and I welcome it on this account.

Where are my words of praise? I might be tempted to offer marks for courage to any Minister who dares on the brink of an election to introduce an electoral amendment Bill which fails to address the real pressing electoral issues. Such a Minister knows full well he will run the gauntlet of Opposition Members, as the Minister of State did this evening, who will not only remind him of those omissions but also of the scandal of the electronic voting machines.

My words of praise are in another direction. I wish to salute the way the Bill was written. Two possible approaches exist to the drafting of any Bill. The first conventional way is to amend existing legislation in a piecemeal manner, section by section. It may be perfectly correct legally but, as I pointed out in the House and elsewhere on numerous occasions, it makes for law which is difficult for the ordinary citizen to access. It is immensely difficult when one must go back because it amends other legislation.

Ordinary people are used to reading something from start to finish in one continuous stream. We all find it enormously confusing when we are expected to refer every few seconds to a completely separate document — a previous Bill — to find out what the first document is about. If we were trying to devise a way of making our legislation as impenetrable as possible we could hardly do better than this. Such an approach encourages a view that the law is a matter to be perused only by a restricted sacred brotherhood of professionals who jealously guard their access and charge through the nose for sharing the benefits of it. It is the very opposite of what we should look for in the way a democracy writes its laws.

The second way is not more difficult or right but it is infinitely easier to understand from the layman's point of view. This approach is what I call "repeal and re-enactment". Instead of changing the odd word, sentence or section here or there the approach is to rewrite from scratch entire sections or parts of Bills or even entire Bills. The ideal, which is not difficult to do in practice, is to have all relevant law contained in one place as one continuous running narrative. Cross-referencing is reduced to the absolute minimum.

I have spoken on this theme for as long as I have been in the Seanad, which is almost 15 years. Although many eminent people expressed agreement with me, I have not noticed much change in the way Bills are written. A notable exception was the Arts Act 2003 which could have been written by amending the two earlier Arts Acts but went back to square one and a completely new Bill was written. Apart from that I am hard put to recall an example of what I will call the "common-sense way" to write a Bill.

I am delighted at how the Minister of State chose to present the Bill before us today. Instead of amending previous legislation on a line by line basis he rewrote a large chunk of the relevant law at one go. This will make the legislation easier to understand for anybody who is not a trained lawyer and I applaud him for doing so. One wishes the effort was expended in a more worthy cause but that is another story.

I congratulate the Minister of State on the manner in which this is being done but I urge the Government to recognise the benefit of Independent Members of the Dáil, as it does with the Seanad. Much as I would like to see a reformed Seanad, which will happen, although not immediately, I hope the opportunity to have Independents in both Houses will continue.