Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 to Sections 1 and 3 respectively might be taken together.
Referendum (Amendment) Bill, 1958—Committee Stage.
I have no objection. I was about to suggest that myself because they really compromise one subject matter.
SECTION 1.
I move amendment No. 1:—
To delete paragraph (b).
The first purpose of these amendments in the form in which they are stated is to get rid of the system by which amendments to an existing statute or statutes are dealt with by reference in a Schedule. That may be from the point of view of the draftsman an extremely useful method of drafting and rather more easily done than in the body of the Bill but it has led, as we all know, to complications in debate and discussions in this House. My first purpose in these amendments is to take away the Schedule so that there will be no difficulty from the point of view of the rules of order.
The purpose of these two amendments is really to get rid of what I described I think—if I did not do so. I shall do so now—on the Second Reading of this Bill as a ridiculous proposal. The proposal originally in the Bill in sub-section (1) (b) was really to take in what was provided in Section 15 of the Referendum Act, 1942 at sub-section (5). That sub-section provided:
"At a constitutional referendum, the proposal which is the subject thereof shall be stated on the ballot paper in the same terms as nearly as may be as such proposal is stated in the Bill containing such proposal passed or deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas."
The purpose of this sub-section obviously was that voters at a referendum should have some notion of what they were about. The only way they could get that was either by discussion outside this House, following discussion inside the House, and then on the ballot paper but the proposal here, when the Bill originally came, was that instead of telling the voters anything about what was in the Bill there was merely given the Short Title of the Bill which, under the existing constitutional and other provisions, is, in fact, very much longer than the Long Title of the Bill. That seemed to me to be so absurd that suspicions were raised in our minds about the amendment.
These amendments were put down in order to embody in this Bill something which we think ought to be contained in the Bill and govern not merely the constitutional referendum which we have been debating here for some weeks past but also all future referenda. Deputies must remember that the Referendum (Amendment) Bill, 1958, has on its face no particular reference to the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill we have been discussing for abolishing P.R. P.R. is not mentioned anywhere in this Bill at all nor is the Bill we have been discussing mentioned in it.
This is a Bill to settle the procedure not merely for the proposed referendum on the abolition of P.R. but for all future referenda. Therefore, we must approach the consideration of this Bill from that very special point of view. I think there can be no doubt whatever that it is absurd to suggest the voters will have the remotest notion what is in the proposed amendment to the Constitution merely by having their attention directed to the technical Short Title of the Bill. That is what the proposal is. It is utterly indefensible.
What is intended to be done by these amendments in my name is, first of all, that the ballot paper shall be in a different form from that in which it is in the Schedule of the present Bill. Certainly, it will revert more or less substantially, with certain improvements suggested by these amendments, to the form set out in the Schedule to the Referendum Act, 1942. The ballot paper shall contain a column wherein there shall be stated in concise clear language—popular language if you like —the principal proposals in the Bill to amend the Constitution in such a way that voters will have some notion about what they are voting. Surely that is a principle that ought to appeal to any person of any common sense in substitution for the ridiculous proposal contained herein?
I propose, therefore, that the ballot paper, instead of being in the very tendentious and very misleading form it is in the First Schedule to the present Bill, should take the form I have set out in the First Schedule in these Amendments. That contains, first of all, what is really the form of the ballot paper which was in the Referendum Act, 1942, except that I have, I think, improved it by putting the phrase "instructions for marking the paper" at the very top of the ballot paper. Then we have: Do you approve or do you not approve of the proposal stated becoming law?
What was in the Referendum Act, 1942, was: "Do you approve or do you disapprove of the proposal stated in the first column below becoming law?" I have taken that sentence out of the Schedule to the Act of 1942, making one change in it. Instead of the words: "Do you approve or do you disapprove", I suggest: "Do you approve or do you not approve". That is a much simpler way of putting it to the very simple people who may vote on this referendum and who might not know. I think that is an improvement.
The next two paragraphs of this form of ballot paper are taken up from beneath the form of the ballot paper in the Schedule to the Referendum Act, 1942, thus making the matter clear without in any way affecting the principle of the ballot as set out in the Schedule to the Act of 1942. Then you have: "If you APPROVE of the proposal, place the mark ‘X' in the second column under the word ‘YES'". Then it goes on. "If you DO NOT APPROVE of the proposal, place the mark ‘X' in the third column under the word ‘NO'". Then the three columns follow. We have on the left hand side the column for the proposal. I hold that there is set out there a concise, clear statement of the principal provisions of the Constitution Bill which is the subject of the referendum.
That can be done simply, concisely, clearly and very shortly. There is not the slightest shadow of doubt about that. The present proposal to change the Constitution by abolishing the principle of P.R. in elections is, in its present form, almost impossible to read; but notwithstanding that, when you digest it, you find only three proposals in it, which can be stated very shortly and simply: the abolition of P.R., the substitution of the single non-transferable vote and the setting up of a commission. Those three principles can be stated very concisely in the column headed "Proposal". Similarly, any other Bill can be digested in the same way and the provisions set out, so that the voter can know what he is doing. I have headed the other columns with "Tá" and "Yes". In order to make the thing absolutely clear, because there may be some trouble by reason of the words "approve" or "disapprove" or "approve" or "do not approve" being used, I put down "Yes" or "Tá". "Yes" or "Tá" or "No" or "Níl" really mean "approve" or "disapprove". Anybody looking at that and asked: "Do you approve or disapprove?" will know what "approve" means. If you approve, put "Yes" or "Tá"; if not, put "Níl" or "No". Such a person will know exactly what he is doing. That is a simple form of ballot paper, addressed to people who may not know precisely what they are doing or what they are asked to do.
This Constitution Amendment Bill is the first referendum going to the people. It is of the utmost importance. If there is to be any validity attached at all to those words so much bandied about in this debate, particularly by members of the Government, "the will of the people", if they are to have any effect or validity, it must be clear and demonstrable that the will of the people has been expressed with full knowledge of what they are doing. Therefore, they should know precisely what they are doing; otherwise, the voting may not really express what people wish or people may not come out to vote because they do not know what they are asked to vote about.
That is not mere theoretical argument at all. Anybody who hears discussion of the Government's proposal outside knows there is a great deal of disturbance, disquiet and wonderment about what it is all about. That is not political argument. It is a mere statement of fact. If there is to be any validity in this argument, which has been bandied about in various contexts and in utter irrelevancies from time to time—that the will of the people is to be expressed—then it must be expressed after they have been fully informed and with full knowledge of what they are doing.
Accordingly, I think this ballot paper is simple and clear and is a vast improvement on the proposed ballot paper, which gives no information whatever or no information of any validity. It starts off in the First Schedule to the Bill: "Do you approve of the proposal to amend the Constitution contained in the undermentioned Bill?" I asked, and got no reply, to the question: Why were the words "or do you disapprove" left out? Then you have "Tá, Yes" and "Nil, No". You have the position where, under the proposals in the Bill, the ballot paper faces the not too well educated voter and asks: "Do you approve of the proposal to amend the Constitution contained in the undermentioned Bill?" The Short Title of the Bill is given, as being as the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1958, which means nothing to him. Then he has "Tá, Yes" and "Nil, No". He is being asked to approve of the proposal. He says "Yes" or "No". What do you do if he does not approve? Why is it not put to him clearly to approve or disapprove?
Another portion of the amendment deals with fundamental matters also. I have already dealt with the question of the form of the ballot paper and what should be in it. I propose also to amend the provision in Section 15 of the Referendum Act, 1942, by inserting other matters. I have dealt with sub-section (1), the form of the ballot paper. Sub-section (2) is the same amendment as the Minister desires and is set out in the Schedule. There is no change in that. Sub-section (3) is a radical amendment. I do not ask the Minister to go back to what might be said were the complicated provisions of the 1942 Act. I suggest an easier way than merely giving the Short Title of the Bill. I suggest that sub-section (5) shall cease to have effect and, instead of it, there should be inserted the following:—
"At a constitutional referendum a summary of the proposal which is the subject thereof shall be stated on the ballot paper in simple and concise language so that the voter may understand the principal provisions of such proposal."
Surely there cannot be any argument against that suggestion? Anybody can take even the most complicated Bill and state it in simple and concise language. If anybody suggests that it would be difficult and that you must have the whole Bill or half the Bill set out, the answer is in the words stated there. First of all, you have what are the principal proposals. Having ascertained those, you can state them in simple and concise language that is easily understood.
Take the case of the present Bill— a complicated Bill with all sorts of provisions. There are three principal proposals in it: the abolition of P.R., the establishment of single member constituencies with the single nontransferable vote and the setting up of a commission to define the boundaries. That can be stated in simple and clear language. The voter then knows what he is asked to do. He has been informed by debates in the House and discussions outside and he is able to make up his own mind. I cannot see that there could be any possible objection to the suggestion I put there. You do not need a constitutional lawyer to do what I ask to have done. In fact, you do not require any lawyer. It can be done in layman's language, in popular language. The authority for doing that will be the section in the Act I propose to insert.
Sub-section (4) is really the same as the Minister's amendment. I am just leaving it as it stands. There are two amendments proper, therefore, and the Schedule I set out is, in my submission to the Dáil, an improvement, which will give the voter the information he is entitled to and which will lead to the proper expression of the wishes of the voters and generally the wishes of the people in a referendum.
Then, the proposal in the ballot paper will show in concise and clear language—not necessarily legal language—the effect of the principal proposals of the Bill. Accordingly, the people can know what they are doing.
Would Deputy Russell agree to take his amendment No. 2 together with Nos. 1 and 3?
Yes.
Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are being discussed together.
The purpose of my amendment No. 2 is to clarify for the benefit of the voter the main provisions of the intent of the Referendum (Amendment) Bill. I should like to refer to the Minister's remarks when introducing the Bill on the Second Stage. Under the Referendum Act, 1942, the form of ballot paper to be used at the referendum contains a space in which the proposal which is the subject of the referendum is to be set out. The voter is asked to state whether he approves or disapproves of the proposal becoming law. The Act provides that in the case of a constitutional referendum "the proposal must be stated on the ballot paper in the same terms as nearly as may be as such proposal is stated in the Bill containing such proposal, passed or deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas."
I suggest that the form of ballot paper as set out in the Bill does not conform with the provision that the proposal "is stated on the ballot paper in the same terms as nearly as may be as such proposal is stated in the Bill containing such proposal" and my amendment is for the purpose of inserting in the space underneath the question: "Do you approve of the proposal to amend the Constitution contained in the undermentioned Bill?" the following:—
"Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1958, which provides for the abolition of the system of P.R. by means of the single transferable vote and the substitution of single-seat for multi-seat constituencies."
I suggest that is possibly the most concise form in which one could set out in the space provided the purpose of the Bill. Giving less information would not, to my way of thinking, provide the voter with reasonable information as to the purpose of the Bill.
There is, too, the position of incapacitated voters. As the Bill stands, an incapacitated voter will simply be told: "This is the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill." My amendment brings to the attention of the voter the main provisions of the Bill— the abolition of P.R. and the creation of the single-seat instead of the multi-seat constituency. I suggest that is the minimum information to which any voter, incapacitated or otherwise, is entitled.
During his Second Reading speech the Minister advanced the following argument at column 114 of Volume 172 of the Official Report in support of the form of ballot paper:—
"...We found that because of the situation as now contained in sub-section (5), Section 15 of the Referendum Act of 1942, we would be compelled to include in any ballot paper we might issue all that is contained, literally word for word and line for line, in the Third. Amendment of the Constitution Bill which is before the House at present. We would have to put it all in..."
I think everybody accepts there are obvious practical difficulties. The Minister suggested that the Bill could be made available at post offices and in other public buildings. It was suggested by Deputy Corish, I think, that copies of the Bill might be sent to voters. I take it that would be a very expensive procedure and, apart from that, I assume very few would read it.
Having regard to all the circumstances, the simplest way is to set out in the space provided on the ballot paper the main purposes of the Bill. They have been discussed here over the past two months and they will be easily understood and appreciated by the ordinary voters. Whether or not the Minister accepts my amendment, or makes some minor alteration. I think the voter is at least entitled to the information set out in the amendment.
I said at the conclusion of my speech on the Second Reading that I was willing to consider any and every suggestion that might come from the Opposition. In our deliberations on this Bill we ourselves have gone into the whole matter thoroughly and we do not find it as simple as Deputy Costello would now give the House to understand to find a formula incorporating any or all of the information he suggests should be conveyed clearly and precisely to the electorate. I have listened to the speakers here and I have read the speeches of Deputies who believe that the Bill contains as many as three issues. Others hold that it really contains only one issue, others that it contains more than three issues. While it is suggested we should get a summary, concise, clear, and simple in the interests of all concerned, I think Deputies opposite are well aware that it is not so easy to get a simple, precise summary which will be acceptable to everybody and to all Parties in this House.
The amendment suggested here is one which I do not think, judging by what has been said so far at any rate, will give effect to the wishes of those who propose it. Incorporating the entire Bill in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the 1942 Act would be—I think this is agreed by all—a ridiculous procedure. The alternative suggested is that we should put on the ballot paper a summary or synopsis, of the contents of the Bill. It is all very well for us here to give our views as to what the Bill contains. We might even go so far as to send out a circular, agreed if possible, couched in simple language for the benefit of the voters.
Anything that goes on the ballot paper must be of an authoritative nature. We cannot play around with what may go on it. It was to ensure that there would be no suggestion of playing around with the way in which the proposal would be set forth on the ballot paper that we refrained from doing anything along the lines now suggested. It is almost impossible to get any kind of summary which would present fairly the actual issue involved in this particular referendum. That certainly is my belief at the moment. It was my belief when we were considering this matter originally. Nothing I have yet heard has changed my opinion as to the absolute impossibility of getting a form of words which will set forth a clear exposition of the entire contents of the Bill and will not at the same time lend itself to being held up by some member of this House as something unduly influencing voters one way or the other. That is still, as I say, my mind on the matter, despite what has been said on these few amendments so far.
There is a widespread feeling in the public mind that they are going to be tricked on this issue. I shall take the two words, "Yes" and "No" to support my argument. First of all, the voter gets a ballot paper and, if he wants the present system to be continued, he votes "No". Would not the logical thing be to say "No" to the proposed new system? Instead, the voter who wants the present system continued has to vote "No" to the present system and "Yes" to the new system. Obviously, unless the voter is properly tutored and has good reason to understand whether to put the X sign opposite the word "Yes" or the word "No", he will be confused as to the result of his vote. As I have said, a voter who supports the present system has to put X opposite the negative. That is a peculiar way of saying that you want the present system continued, but that is the way in which the ballot paper will be presented to the voters in this referendum.
What has been done so far in the Bill that has been presented to the Dáil to try to clarify the position to the public will confuse the people and some effort should be made by the Government to make very clear to the people the result a voter will get by putting X opposite the word "Yes" or by putting X opposite the word "No" on the ballot paper.
I do not know to what extent I am in order in making this suggestion. It appears to me that it will be exceedingly difficult if we are to have a detailed discussion on the form of the ballot paper merged into the discussions as to whether parts of this amendment No. 2 should stand or not and, in particular, as to whether part (3) of this composite amendment should be accepted. Part (3) is the one which states that there shall be on the ballot paper a summary in simple and concise language of the proposal. That is a matter which can be debated and, I think, upon which the debate might be concentrated, but, at intervals, as in the case of Deputy Rooney, we are diverted from the discussion of that matter to a discussion of the form of the ballot paper. Could we, perhaps, agree that the discussion on the form of the ballot paper might be held over until we have come to some decision as to the amendment proposed in part (3) of Deputy Costello's amendment No. 3?
Would the Ministers help us in that?
I have no objection to that, but I should like to point out to the Minister that the very difficulty he has drawn attention to arises from the form of the Bill, amending it by a Schedule. If we had this in a Schedule here in the Bill each of the sections would have been dealt with and each sub-section would have been dealt with on Committee as a separate discussion, which is what we wanted and I was trying to achieve that by the form I took, but I have no objection to debating the question of the concise statement being put in the ballot paper as a separate discussion leaving over the other parts of the ballot paper for discussion afterwards, if that is acceptable.
May the Chair point out that there is an amendment, No. 5, in the name of Deputy Costello, which might lend itself to a debate on the other forms of the ballot paper?
I beg your pardon?
There is an amendment, No. 5, in the name of Deputy Costello, and the Chair was about to suggest that the debate on matters other than the proposal connected with the form of the ballot paper could be reserved for amendment No. 5.
I think it is fully understood that the discussion on amendment No. 1 and amendment No. 3, in so far as it affects amendment No. 5, need only affect that part of amendment No. 5 which would be included in the square headed "Proposal". If the Minister for Health, on the lines upon which he made his remarks there, would help to keep us on those lines by meeting us in the discussion in a way that we can exchange ideas, then the proposal is perfectly agreed, and, as you say, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, there would remain then to be discussed on amendment No. 5 everything that is suggested in that amendment outside whatever might be put into the square under the heading "Proposal".
I am in another difficulty, that is, as to the exact status of amendment No. 3 in contrast with amendment No. 4, whether amendment No. 4 is an alternative to amendment No. 3.
Not at all. It is an entirely different subject matter.
Wait now. I agree that the form of the ballot paper is one matter and the statement which might appear on the ballot paper is another. What I am asking the Deputy is whether the proposal in amendment No. 4 is not an alternative?
The reason I put that question is that, in the course of the discussion on Second Reading, I think it was Deputy Corish and other Deputies, appreciating the difficulty in which we were, suggested that if a statement were circulated by the returning officer before the day of the ballot, that might serve. When I read these amendments, I thought that perhaps amendment No. 4 was an alternative to part (3) of Deputy Costello's amendment No. 3.
If I may answer the Minister, amendment No. 4 is really supplemental to the provision in amendment No. 3. The scheme is, if amendment No. 4 were adopted, that there should be sent out by the returning officer with the card showing the voter's number and place of voting a document setting forth to each elector and in simple and concise language, a summary of the principal provisions of the Bill containing the proposal passed, or deemed to have been passed, by both Houses of the Oireachtas. That simple and concise proposal goes out to each voter with the card showing his number and where he is to vote. He, therefore, has ample opportunity of considering that when he gets his voting card. Armed with the information contained in that document, which has to be stated in simple and concise language, he goes into the polling station and sees before him in a column what is practically the same—in fact, I would envisage identically the same language —as is in this document. One supplements the other and he has the information, when it is sent by the returning officer about what the purpose of the proposed constitutional amendment is. He goes in and sees the ballot paper and having seen the other document, he knows what it is all about. He votes "Yes" or "No", being in complete possession of all the information to know what he is voting on. The two things are not different but supplementary. I do not know whether at this stage I should answer the argument the Minister has made or whether he wishes to say anything further.
I had not intended to reply to the case made by Deputy Costello on the opening of the discussion on these amendments, but I should like to point out that I can see if we are to have this supplementary document submitted, a document which is required to state in simple and concise language a summary of the provisions of the Bill and if we are to use that precise form, or more or less that precise form in relation to the ballot paper, we may get a rather unwieldy ballot paper. It is all very well to talk about the electors being fully informed, but one can inform them by sending them a statement before they go to the polling booths. It would be simple in form and easy to handle such a statement. If in fact the ballot paper must convey in precisely the same terms, or even approximately the same terms, the same meaning as the supplementary statement which Deputy Costello envisages under amendment No. 4, then I think we are going to get a very large ballot paper indeed and lose to some extent the advantages which it is sought to secure by having a simple ballot paper, with, if you like, a supplementary message explanatory of what the referendum is about.
If we are to have these two—the statement on the ballot paper and the supplementary statement—we may have the voter going into the polling booth with the supplementary statement and the ballot paper and starting to compare one with the other. That of course would involve a great deal of time and probably cause a great deal of obstruction to the course of the poll. I really think I was justified in assuming that this effect was not intended, but that one amendment was put down as an alternative to the other and I believe one should try to consider it from that point of view.
I should like to add one or two comments to what the Minister has said in reply to the arguments I advanced in favour of this amendment. As I understand it, he says sub-section (5) of Section 15 is ridiculous. In fact, it was his own Department who in 1942 were responsible for this Bill, and he says now that the Local Government Department in 1942 brought forward to this House a ridiculous proposal and secured its passage through the House. I do not know if the Minister for Health was or was not Minister for Local Government in 1942.
I was.
Mr. Costello
That might explain the ridiculousness of the proposal. The Minister said there was no Opposition in the House, but perhaps if they get this Bill through, and we have no Opposition——
It shows the importance of having an Opposition.
Mr. Costello
——if they get this Bill through and we then have no Opposition, he will be having ridiculous amendments of the kind brought in by the Minister for Health when he was Minister for Local Government and his successor saying it was ridiculous. Now that is a nice performance, to say the least of it. That is what we are arguing about here, that sub-section (5) of Section 15 is ridiculous and we are proposing to put something even more ridiculous into its place. Instead of telling the voters or adding the whole Bill as a supplement to the ballot paper, which might or might not be read—if people are sufficiently interested, they will at least have an opportunity of reading it— what is so ridiculous in that—we propose to give them merely the Short Title of the Bill which, if you want to have anything ridiculous, is much longer than the Long Title, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
That is a ridiculous position, but it is even more ridiculous when we hear the arguments of the Minister because what he says is that because of the difficulty in getting a concise statement of the principles of the Bill put into the ballot paper, "We will give them no information at all." The Minister comes forward and says: "My predecessor, Deputy MacEntee, when Minister for Local Government proposed that the people should be fully informed by getting the entire Bill on the ballot paper." He now says: "That is ridiculous. What I propose to do is to give no information at all, except the Short Title of the Bill"—which is not ridiculous.
The reason he gives for that is that it is difficult to get a concise statement of the principles of the Bill and so "We will give the elector no information on the ballot paper." Was ever argument in this House reduced to such complete absurdity?
Surely the position adopted by the Minister and his colleagues at the moment is entirely indefensible. We are being asked to pass what we are told is necessary legislative machinery to permit of an important decision being taken by the people. As the Bill now stands, in the first referendum being held under the Constitution, a ballot paper is proposed which incorporates as an integral part of it a column supposed to indicate to the voter what he is voting about.
As the Bill now stands, in that column will go the words "Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill", and it is suggested by the Minister and the Government that that phrase indicates to the voter what it is all about. In my view, that argument is absurd. It would be far better and certainly more consistent to provide nothing at all on the ballot paper. That at least would be consistent. If the advice given to the Minister in relation to the present section in the Referendum Act of 1942 is correct— I cannot enter into whether it is correct or not, but assuming it is correct—and if, under the Minister's predecessor's section, the ballot paper must contain quite a number of proposals, we can then appreciate that there are certain administrative difficulties involved, but surely the mere fact that these difficulties exist can be no reason for, in effect, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, giving the voter no information at all.
While there may be reasons which I do not know about, up to the moment it appears to me that the Minister in charge of this Bill has adopted a non possumus attitude which is unjustifiable. He points to a difficulty and then, because the difficulty exists, he expects all of us to ullagón and say that nothing can be done about it. Have we not enough ability here to devise some formula which will give the voter at least some information, in a matter of this kind? It is absurd for the Minister, with his Departmental advisers sitting there, to say that the best they can do is produce a phrase “the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill.” I do not think he is helping the House at all in this discussion.
I hope sincerely that the Minister and his colleagues will revise their view and that they will recognise that what we are saying here is not being said merely for the purpose of saying it. There is grave public disquiet with regard to this matter and there is public concern that, on a constitutional referendum of this kind, proper information should be given to the voter, so that those who go to cast their votes may do so, knowing what they are voting about. It cannot be said, as was suggested on the Second Reading, that the voters read the papers or listen to the radio. Of course they do, some of them, but by no means the majority of those entitled to vote do so. The vast majority of those entitled to vote seldom, if ever, read a daily newspaper. They may listen to the radio, but I do not know that it can be said with certainty that the vast majority of the electorate have been in a position closely to follow the debate and argument in this House. In any event that is a matter for conjecture and the issue is too important for us to decide upon a pure matter of conjecture.
The Act which we are amending now provides as one of its principles that on any referendum—and this has particular reference to a constitutional referendum—the voter should have before him on the ballot paper a clear indication of what he is voting about. We should not change that lightly and substitute for it a proposal, as at present incorporated in the Schedule, which in fact gives the voter no information. I am talking about a voter who has not been following our debate and argument here as closely as others may have followed it.
I think the Minister should come to meet us on this important matter and that, through his Department and those available to advise him, the Government should prepare for our consideration some formula which will meet the difficulties suggested by the Leader of the Opposition and which will ensure that when the voter casts his vote, he will know what he is voting about.
I do not want to intervene too often, but I do so now in order that the Minister may have one last point—there may be nothing in it—to deal with when he is replying, if he decides to reply. I would direct the Minister's consideration and that of his advisers to the question of the constitutionality of the proposals contained in his own Bill. He has proposed to use the Long Title. The Constitution says that the Bill is to be expressed as "An Act to amend the Constitution", with its Long Title. If that be so, it is a point which at least should be considered whether substituting in the ballot paper the Short Title for the Long Title is or is not in agreement with the provisions of the Constitution.
I do not think anybody ever suggested that, whether the Long Title or the Short Title is on the ballot paper, it will convey all the proposals in this Bill. I do not quite follow the argument which has been made here. It might as well be suggested that, in an ordinary election, the ballot paper should set out the Party to which each candidate belongs—Fine Gael, Labour, Fianna Fáil and so on. On Deputy O'Higgins's line of argument, the elector must have on the ballot paper before him all this information. Surely that is assuming that all the electorate are completely illiterate and do not know what is going on at all?
No, but that there are some illiterate voters.
Does anybody seriously suggest that the people voting for or against the proposals here will not make sure, before they come in and get the ballot paper and go carefully through the information, about what is contained in this Bill? Do we not all know that, before any elector comes in to exercise the franchise, to record his opposition or approval of these proposals, he will have made up his mind and that he will not be assisted in any way by any information contained in the ballot paper? So long as it is quite clear on the ballot paper that he has an opportunity of indicating whether he is for or against the proposal in as simple a method as possible, from a practical point of view, that is what is required. Otherwise, I cannot follow Deputy O'Higgins's line of reasoning. I cannot see any way in which we could get approval of the type of thing which would go on the ballot paper. The only alternative would be to attach the complete Bill to the ballot paper.
The Deputy speaks about public uneasiness. Considering the amount of time and debate which has been devoted to this matter here and the discussion that is going on about it throughout the country, surely everybody understands what this proposal is and what it entails? I cannot follow the reasoning of Deputy O'Higgins, or, for that matter, of Deputy J. A. Costello in connection with this. It has been suggested in some peculiar way, by, I think, Deputy Rooney, that there is something confusing about the form of the ballot paper. I could not quite follow his reasoning about the "Yes" and "No". If he is right, there is something there to be examined.
The proposal as it appears in the Schedule seems to be a simple, straightforward one. I think every Deputy should be satisfied that the electors are not going to make up their minds just when they come into the presiding officer at the last moment. They will come to the polling booths with their minds made up to vote for or against this proposal. It is immaterial whether we put the Long Title or the Short Title, as it will not help or hinder any elector who comes in to exercise the franchise.
I do not think the Minister's argument answers the case which, we have suggested, is of importance. It may be quite true that some electors will come in with their minds made up in favour of P.R. or against it. The difficulty that we envisage is that, when they come to cast their votes, they will be in doubt as to how to express themselves on the ballot paper according to the way they wish to vote. We must all appreciate the fact that there will be voters who may be illiterate, who may not have had the benefit of a good education, who may not have been able to read or may be blind and not have had the benefit of a wireless or have bothered to listen to the Dáil reports. These people may be a minority in the country, but they are entitled to vote according as they wish and their vote is as valuable as any other person's vote.
We have to see that people who may be illiterate or badly educated are entitled to vote in the manner in which they wish to vote. People coming into the polling booths, having made up their minds to vote in favour of P.R. or having made up their minds to vote against it, will have a ballot paper put into their hands which, I respectfully submit, does not make clear to them how they should express their opinion in order to record their opinion properly. There will be people who do not know what the proposal to amend the Constitution is. There will be people who are in favour of P.R. There will be people who, when they pick up this ballot paper and see the word "YES", may think that, by putting an "X" in front of it, they are voting in favour of P.R. Such a person may be a stupid person. Such a person may be an illiterate person. However, that such persons do exist there can be no doubt.
It is manifestly unfair on the Government's part, to refuse these amendments and to run the undoubted risk of confusing people who are ill-informed about the legislation and about what exactly the Dáil is discussing. I see no reason why a poorly educated person, picking up this ballot paper, will not think he is voting in favour of P.R. by putting an "X" in front of the word "YES".
We have suggested it is desirable that the elector should get as much information as possible on the ballot paper. I wonder if the Government accept that proposition? We think it desirable that the ballot paper should contain as much information as is practicable on what the elector is voting for. It may assist the elector, in the first instance, when he sees the proposal there, as to the manner in which he may cast his vote. Above all, even though he may have made up his mind before coming in and before seeing these proposals, the manner in which he has to exercise his vote in accordance with his wishes will be made perfectly clear to him.
We have suggested a way out of the difficulty. We have suggested that there should be inserted on the ballot paper, in simple and concise language, a summary of the proposals. What objection is there to that? The apparent objection—I use the word "apparent" advisedly—is that it is impossible to find simple and concise language to make a summary of a Bill to amend the Constitution. I think a summary of this Bill could be made in simple and concise language in five minutes— and, if the Minister wants it, I can do it for him.
The Minister raises the second objection that it may be difficult to get agreement by the members of all Parties on what is the summary in simple and concise language of the amendment in the Bill. That may be so. We may all have slightly different views on the language to be used in the "simple and concise language" but we are prepared to make a present of that to the Government at this stage. We are prepared to put into the Bill that there will be inserted in simple and concise language a summary of the proposals and it will, of course be a matter for the Government to work that out.
And we will try to help the Minister.
And we will try to help him. If, in fact, he gives in simple and concise language something with which we disagree then it will have been our fault for putting it into the Bill. Maybe we are foolish to trust the Government in this fashion. Maybe it is wrong of us to take that risk. We can make that point subsequently, if the Government have in some way given a wrong twist in their summary. At this stage, we are prepared to allow the Government to put on the ballot paper a summary in simple and concise language. Is it impossible to make a summary of this Bill in simple and concise language?
I do not quite appreciate the necessity of considering this matter that there may be illiterate voters and people who find it difficult to understand things. When you are asking the people to make a fundamental change in the Constitution, you are doing a very formal thing. I do not see why the document upon which a voter expresses his opinion would not be a formally drawn-up document.
From anything the Ministers have exchanged by way of opinion, I find it difficult to think that much of what has been said from the ministerial benches this evening is anything but something like bubble-gum blowing. It does not seem to have anything but a kind of treacly, bird-lime effect on discussion. I do not see that, from the Minister's point of view, it is necessary to do anything but to produce a clean, formal sheet of paper that can be regarded as being authorised in some way and having on the top of it "The Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill". Then, lower down, you can have the instruction. "If you agree with this, put an ‘X' below. If you disagree with it, put a nought."
All you need is a sheet of paper headed at the top "Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill". Then, lower down: "If you agree with this, put an ‘X' below. If you disagree with this, put an nought." That is the attitude the Ministers have taken up. Do the Government not appreciate that when the people are asked to bring in a change in the Constitution the document upon which the individual voter expressed his will should have formality and clarity about it? It does not matter, in fact, from the point of view of the proper doing of business, whether or not that form is being handed to an illiterate or a semi-ignorant voter or to a person who not only is well able to read but is well able to absorb the contents. Surely if the State is arranging for an action to be taken by a responsible voter then the matter ought to be done in a proper way?
The Minister speaks about a difficulty. When winding up the debate, the Minister expressed himself as perfectly willing to listen to all the suggestions of the Opposition by way of amendment or otherwise. He had the advantage of having the discussion here. He had the advantage of realising that there was something to be thought over. However, he has made no contribution to this discussion that would show he has given any attention to this matter since we last saw him here on the subject—nor has any of the other Ministers who spoke.
Is it not a fact that, by all the suggestions made by the Minister for Health to-day—or, at any rate, from the ministerial benches—some people think only one change is to be made in the Constitution while other people think three changes are to be made, and yet other people again think several more changes are to be made in the Constitution? Is the proposal the people are asked to vote on not a proposal to wipe out the P.R. system under which Deputies are elected to three member constituencies with the single transferable vote? Further, is it not proposed to wipe out that system and to substitute instead single member constituencies and the non-transferable vote? Is it not also proposed to introduce a commission to delineate the boundaries of constituencies rather than have it done here? Are they not the proposals and why have we this bubble-gum blowing from the ministerial benches in their efforts to avoid agreeing that that is so and to imply in an ill-defined and verbose way that there are difficulties in stating that on a piece of paper? I ask Ministers are these not the proposals in relation to the document on which the citizens will vote in relation to the changing of the Constitution?
The attitude of the Opposition to-night is rather mystifying for anyone who sat through the discussion on the Second Reading of this Bill. During that discussion it was obvious that they then had no ideas in their minds as to what they felt was wrong with this Bill, and that was put to them during the discussion. Although there was but one useful suggestion from the Opposition—and it was Deputy Corish who alluded to it at the time—which has since been taken up and indeed was under consideration, we are now being accused of not having given any thought in the interval to the difficulties. The fact is, we had given very great thought and consideration to the difficulties of this measure before the Second Reading. If since then, on reconsideration—and there has been quite an amount of reconsideration—we did not seem to add anything to what we had to say on the Second Reading, it does not at all imply that we have not given the matter full consideration.
Again in reply to some of the points made here, it is no harm to revert to the manner in which this matter and the subject matter of the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill have been debated in this House, to find out whether or not it can be held that the people have had and are having up to to-night the benefit of a very elaborate debate which would leave very few of them in the ignorance in which Deputy Costello, senior, and Deputy Costello, junior, seem to feel our electorate are.
This ignorance of the electorate is not a new thing from the elder Deputy Costello as can be instanced from his statement in the debate on the draft amendment of the Constitution. At that time I think he said—I should hate to misquote him—on some stage or another that many of our people did not even know what a Constitution was. Possibly that is still the idea that he and other colleagues of his have in regard to our electorate. I do not agree with that view of the intelligence of our electorate. I am satisfied that with the length and variety of the discussion, the hours and the number of speakers who have taken part in the debate on the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, our people are very well informed as to what is involved in the referendum and what they will be voting on. Even at this moment they are very well informed and I am certain that between now and the taking of the referendum they will be even more informed, if that is possible.
On the debate on the Second Reading of the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill there were 63 speakers. The debate lasted for 50 hours, spread over nine days. When the Draft Constitution Bill was before the Dáil in 1937, the Second Reading lasted only 21½ hours spread over three days. There were then only 28 speakers. The Committee Stage of the Draft Constitution lasted about 39 hours spread over seven days and there was a Recommittal Stage taking approximately seven and three-quarter hours spread over two days. Therefore the Committee and the Recommittal Stages of the Draft Constitution took 46¾ hours as against 50 hours spent on the Second Reading of the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill. Despite the fact that we have had a lengthy session since in Committee on the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, we are now being told the people are not alive to what is at issue and they will not be properly informed by the time the referendum takes place. Surely, this being but a small part of the Constitution and more time having been spent on a very small part of the Constitution than was spent on the whole Constitution in 1937, it can scarcely be held that our people are not very well informed, in so far as it is possible to be informed, from the discussions in this House.
So give them a blank piece of paper.
We will not suggest giving them a blank piece of paper. In the plebiscite of 1937 what was the form of the ballot paper? Was there a description in full given of the Draft Constitution? Was the voter not then asked merely whether or not he was in favour of the Draft Constitution?
How many spoiled votes were there on it?
Possibly as a result of the manipulations of the gentlemen on the opposite benches at the moment.
That is a sensible approach to the subject matter of the Bill.
Just as sensible as that of my learned colleague, Deputy Costello, just now. All we have got so far is an effort to confuse the issue again. Let us look at this question of the wording on the ballot paper. "The Draft Constitution" were the words on the ballot paper in 1937 in connection with a very full and lengthy document? Now of course we propose to put the Short Title only on this ballot paper and it is suggested we are doing something almost unconstitutional, that we are not giving the people the full facts as to what we are doing. So far as information is concerned, many Deputies may already be aware that it is intended to send a circular to the voters in advance of the taking of the referendum and that circular I hope will be an agreed circular which will obviate circulating the full text of the Bill, as we would have to do probably if we did not get agreement.
Is it intended to circulate a summary of the Bill?
An agreed summary.
Then it is possible to get a summary?
An agreed statement of the principal objects.
Why not put that on the ballot paper?
The Deputy suggested a little while ago that in five minutes he could give us a summary, but what we really need is an acceptable summary, a summary that could be held not only by the people in this House to be a true and accurate summary of all that was contained in the Bill but a summary that could be held by everybody in the country to be a true and accurate synopsis of all that was in the Bill.
Do you intend to send out such a summary?
We intend to send out an agreed statement.
Why not put that on the ballot paper?
Because of what I have said already. What goes on the ballot paper would be an authoritative summary or statement. A summary or a statement which may be agreed, and which may be juggled around in order to get agreement, can scarcely be held to be an authoritative document or summary of the Bill.
What is the purpose of sending it then?
Surely Deputy Costello, junior, at this stage must know the purpose for which it is being sent?
I am suggesting that if it is being sent for the purpose of informing the electorate of the contents of the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, it should, I presume, be a fair summary of the Bill and if it is there is no objection to putting it on the ballot paper also.
If you find the wording of the summary acceptable to the members of this House, but I have pointed out that what may be accepted in this House need not necessarily be accepted as a true and accurate statement of what is contained in this Bill by the electorate through out the country.
Will the Minister not answer this question?
The Minister should be permitted to make his statement.
If the Deputy has a question let him put it.
If we are to send out an agreed summary of the proposal, the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, does the Minister think it is a fair summary?
Let me say that what I see of it, if the Deputy is concerned as to whether it is fair to his way of thinking, I think is more than good.
If the Minister thinks it is fair—I take it the Minister would not send this out unless he felt it was a fair summary because he would otherwise delude the electorate —why not put it on the ballot paper?
For what purpose?
For the purpose of informing the electorate what they are voting about.
If the purpose of sending it out is to inform them of the purpose of taking the referendum it is scarcely credible that the Deputy is suggesting the people are so ignorant that when they get into the polling booths they will not know what they are voting on.
The point I was making——
The procedure is to let the Minister make his statement.
I shall wait to hear the Deputy.
The only point I was making is that the Minister was arguing that we could not get an accurate and fair summary.
I did not say that.
We have got an agreed statement apparently, let me put it this way, that is to be sent to the electorate. I want to know why that should not go on to the ballot paper? The argument that the Minister is putting forward against the amendment is that it would not be possible to get a summary of the proposals in simple, concise language. Apparently we have got that, and I want to know why that will not be put on the ballot paper?
For exactly the reason I have given the Deputy on at least four occasions in the last five minutes.
What is that? Would the Minister mind repeating it?
There may be a descriptive statement or a summary but the mere fact that it is an agreed statement, agreed amongst the members and Parties in this House, does not copper-fasten it as a fair, and accurate, and full statement of what is contained in the Bill, and the "full" part of it is the one that is really of importance.
Would the Minister say what would make it a full, fair and accurate statement?
The whole Bill.
If the agreed statement is not sufficient?
The whole Bill.
We have reached a rather interesting stage in this discussion. It transpires that the Minister does not see any insuperable difficulty in circulating to the voters a fair summary of the contents of the proposed amendment of the Constitution.
An "agreed" summary or an "agreed" statement.
It transpires the Minister hopes that a summary which is fair, and which is agreed by all Parties in this House, may be circulated to voters. Now, therefore, all the drafting and other difficulties have disappeared. The spirit has descended upon certain people and the light has been seen, but the Minister then goes on to adopt a further impossible position. He now says that he will not put that on the ballot paper. I want to direct the Minister's attention to the fact, which I am certain is well known to him and to other people in this House, that quite frequently when a voter goes to vote he does not record or mark his ballot paper in accordance with his intentions. He makes a mistake, even on a simple ballot paper for a Dáil or local government election.
How much more true can that be with regard to a voter, voting in an unusual form of election, which is a referendum on a proposed amendment of the Constitution? He may know his own mind. He may intend to go in and vote against the abolition of P.R., or to vote in favour of the proposal. That may be the intention in his mind but when he goes in, having decided in his own mind the way he intends to vote and having read all the debates and informed himself on the whole issue, he sees facing him on the ballot paper merely the words "Third Amendment of the Constitution". He may not be a well-educated person. He may have his own idea as to which side he is on but ordinarily he would be entitled, under present legislation, to say to the returning officer: "What does this mean? Can you tell me if I vote for the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill whether I am voting in favour of P.R. or whether I am voting against it?" But the returning officer, under the Minister's proposal, cannot say a word to him. He can only say: "If you are in favour of the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill answer ‘yes'. If you are against it answer ‘no'." Why would the Minister not agree, in relation to such a voter, where an agreed, fair summary is possible, that he should be presented on the ballot paper with the particular question he is asked to decide and, mind you, that is what the law now says.
I think the Minister is being extremely unfair to his colleague, the Minister for Health. The Minister for Health is an old and experienced member of this House. He came into this House in 1927 and has remained here since, but the Minister for Health, as Minister for Local Government in 1942, saw precisely what had happened in the plebiscite held on the Constitution in 1937. In that plebiscite the significant thing was that there was such a large proportion of spoiled votes. The unfortunate electors who went in to vote in the plebiscite on the Constitution saw just "Draft Constitution", and a large proportion of them did not know in putting down their "X" whether they were voting in favour of or against it.
The significant thing about that plebiscite was the large percentage of spoiled votes and it was because of that, I think, that the Minister for Local Government, five years later, came into this House with the Referendum Bill of 1942, which incorporates a section saying that in a referendum on the ballot paper there shall be a statement setting out the proposal the people are asked to decide. The Minister for Health, as Minister for Local Government then, was acting wisely, I think, in the light of experience but now, when he has left the Department of Local Government, his successor says that the section he put in the Bill in 1942 is impracticable and unworkable.
It appears now, however, that it is both practicable and workable to put on the ballot paper a fair summary of the Constitution amendment proposal. We have got the Minister so far; he has only another few inches to go and he will not go that distance. Why? I should like to know and I suggest that the reason is political: that the Minister realises that it is possible that on this referendum the people will also be asked to elect a President. He looks forward to seeing a number of people coming in to vote for the Fianna Fáil candidate for the Presidency who have not followed this issue clearly. He hopes that on going into the polling booths to vote for the Fianna Fáil candidate, the Taoiseach, they will be handed also a referendum ballot paper with nothing on it except "Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill" and they will vote "Yes" for that.
That is what is obviously behind the Minister's hesitation in going the whole distance on this issue, having gone almost the whole way. I suggest that he would serve himself and his colleagues better, and the cause he professes to believe in, if he would agree with the eminently reasonable attitude adopted by the Opposition in asking for a fair summary. That is all we ask, that a fair summary should go on the ballot paper, so that it cannot be said that, whatever way the people decide, it was decided either in ignorance or by mistake.
Let those on the Ministers' Benches, who profess concern for the welfare of the country, remember that this referendum issue can be decided by one vote, by a simple majority, by the vote of an illiterate, unfortunate person, who goes in a car to a polling booth perhaps to vote for one of the Presidential candidates, if the election is held on the same day, and is presented with this referendum ballot paper. He says to the returning officer: "What does the Third Amendment of the Constitution mean?" He is told, under the Minister's proposal: "I cannot tell you that. I can merely say you are asked to vote for or against the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill." The Minister says that it is sufficient and that voter will answer "yes" or "no". By the vote of that illiterate person, the future of this country may be decided. Does the Minister think that is reasonable? Does the Minister think it is a safe position for him to adopt, to deny that person, illiterate, or deaf, or blind, or physically incapacitated, the right to get some information as to what he is asked to vote upon? The Minister originally started off by saying that a fair summary was not possible. We know now it is possible. That has been a tremendous hurdle for us to get over. It has been got over. Now we suggest going the whole way and putting a full summary on the ballot paper, if it is possible by agreement of the House. Then the Minister can take pleasure in the fact that whatever way the people decide this issue, the decision will be taken in full knowledge of what is at stake.
There is just one remark which I should like to make before I withdraw this amendment. I have not, and I never had, the slightest hope of receiving from the Minister for Local Government any reasonable consideration for any reasonable amendment we might put down. It appears to me quite obvious that the Minister came in here with his mind completely made up and closed to any arguments. The alleged arguments which he advanced demonstrate one thing, that is, that he wants—I do not know whether he spoke for his colleagues or not—to close down on debate in this House so that the people will not be fully informed.
What is the point—I doubt if it was relevant—of producing the comparable figures for the amount of discussion that took place on the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill and the Draft Constitution except to show that we have spent more time discussing this Bill than the Draft Constitution. Did he forget that his own Leader, then President of the Executive Council, would not listen to any argument against the principle of the adoption of P.R. which he and his colleagues now wish to destroy? Very little argument took place on that. The Taoiseach would not listen to it because he was so right. Now he comes in and says that he was wrong, and the Minister criticises us for debating at too great length this proposal to change a system which the Taoiseach said in 1936 was correct and which he now says is wrong.
Not merely do we make no apology for fully debating these proposals but we rejoice in having done so and we shall continue to do so. The one thing which we were determined to achieve, and which we have achieved, was to bring home to the people the seriousness of the issue in the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill. We intend doing that to the last day on which this campaign will be waged no matter what the Minister, or his colleagues, say, and no matter what number of statistics are brought in. We want to inform the people; the Minister and his colleagues want to keep the people in the dark. Because of their majority, they will not listen to discussion. They do not regard this as a parliamentary assembly, as a deliberative assembly. They want to push the Bill through without discussion, but we intend to have discussion.
The Leader of the Opposition——
I wish, Sir, to withdraw this amendment.
——whatever other defects he may have——
Are we discussing the section?
There is a slight formality before an amendment can be withdrawn.
The amendment has been withdrawn.
I am asking for the permission of the House to withdraw the amendment.
Before we concede that permission, I should like to make a point.
I think we must get a vote rather than have a speech.
Oh, no.
That is for the Chair to decide. The amendment must be withdrawn by permission of the House.
Is it customary for a speech to be made?
No, it is not customary.
Since Deputy Costello cannot afford to have the amendment discussed and wishes to withdraw it——
I want to save the Minister the shame of being called ridiculous by his colleagues.
(Interruptions.)
Poor Deputy Norton has got cold feet.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 2:—
To add to the section a new paragraph as follows:—
"(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph (b) of this section the proposal contained in the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1958, shall be stated on the ballot paper in the following form:—
‘Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1958, which provides for the abolition of the system of P.R. by means of the single transferable vote and the substitution of single seat for multi-seat constituencies.'"
I wish to ask the Minister a few questions. As I understand it, the Minister has come some of the way to meet my objection in regard to the form of ballot paper. I should like to be clear about what he is prepared to do. As I understand it, he is agreeable to a statement, which will be agreed by all Parties, a fair and reasonable summary of the proposals contained in this Bill, being sent out to each voter before he votes. Would the Minister also see that the same summary will be available in the polling booths so that anybody who has not read it, or has not listened to a summary from somebody else, will be in a position to ask the presiding officer to read the summary for his benefit before he votes? Finally, will the agreed summary of the Bill be published in the national newspapers?
In answer to the Deputy's question, I should feel that, as it is not a legal, authoritative or precise document it should not be in the polling stations. On the other hand, it may well be that it is possible to allow it in the polling stations, but, candidly, I do not think so.
Surely it must have some authority behind it when it will be sent out by the Minister for Local Government or the returning office?
It is only the authority of Deputies and they mean nothing, of course!
Let me put it this way. I want to put it very clearly and I shall read the actual statement. Before doing that, my very strong feeling about it is that whatever we may agree to, whatever statement we may have arrived at or can have arrived at in various ways, coming and going, deleting and adding and so on, while that is all right and may be issued as an agreed statement, only that which is really authoritative, precise and legal should be in the polling booths. Because of this, because while you may sell, give or deliver any summary or statement as to what is supposed to be in the Bill, or is in the Bill, I think it is going a little too far to suggest that the agreed statement should be "shoved" down the voter's neck when he goes into the polling station, because of the fact——
I did not suggest that when I was speaking.
No. I am not merely answering Deputy Russell; there were a few interruptions which I at least took to be in that strain. I am suggesting that doing as the Deputy suggests, putting it into the ballot paper or the polling booths, or leaving it available and freely displayed in the polling stations is tantamount to "shoving" it down the voter's neck. It is not a legal or authoritative document——
That is nonsense.
O.K. That is my view.
We are not surprised at that view.
Before the amendment is withdrawn, perhaps I should read this statement.
I merely want a clear statement from the Minister to answer the question: If a voter walks in not having read the statement—and tens of thousands will not read it; the statements will be destroyed or the people will not bother with them—and asks for a simple explanation of the issue on which he is about to vote, surely the presiding officer may read out that agreed, summarised statement, explaining, if you wish, that it is not an official statement or a precise, authoritative statement? Surely that is not tantamount to "shoving" it down the voters' throat, especially if they ask to have it read?
In trying to meet those who have tried to meet us in regard to the circulation of this statement I have explained what I think. I may have been stronger than I should have been, possibly, in putting across my views on what putting it in the polling stations is tantamount to. Nevertheless, despite that view of mine, between now and the next stage, I shall consider the suggestion put forward in regard to it, but I should like again to emphasise that as it will not be a legal or authoritative document, it does not appear to me to have the right to be within the precincts of the polling stations. But I am prepared to consider what may be or can be done between now and the next stage, and I undertake to the House to do that.
Furthermore, on the Second Stage of this Bill, the argument was used, perhaps by Deputy Russell, and others——
I did not speak on that Stage.
——in regard to illiterate voters, that there will be people who because of infirmity or illiteracy, are not of themselves capable of reading and understanding what is going on. Such people may come into a polling booth, it was argued, and find that the question or proposal before them is not sufficiently clear and it was suggested they ought to be allowed to ask the returning officer for information, but that he will not be allowed to give any further enlightenment on it.
As I pointed out on the Second Reading, the returning officer or presiding officer at a general election or a local government election is not permitted to give information to an elector, illiterate or otherwise, who seeks it, as to whether the Mr. Smith on the ballot paper is the Mr. Smith belonging to the Party the person wants to vote for, or what Party any particular candidate may belong to. They may not give that information at the moment and everybody knows it can be as confusing to electors—or even more confusing—where there are ten or 12 candidates on a ballot paper as in the case in a referendum.
Does the Minister not see that amending the Constitution is slightly more important than electing Mr. Smith to the Dáil?
That is not the parallel I am drawing and the Deputy knows it.
What is the Minister proposing to consider between now and the next Stage? Does he propose to consider the suggestion that this summary should be available in the polling booths?
Yes.
If so, would he also consider why, if this agreed statement is to be available in the polling booths, it should not also be on the ballot papers?
Because the Leader of the Opposition has withdrawn his amendment and will not allow us to discuss it on its merits.
I have noted the conversation the Minister seemed to have with the Minister for Health about three minutes ago and that the Minister is now prepared to say he will reconsider this debate.
Is the Deputy objecting to that?
No, I am delighted.
Do not allow the Minister for Health to come in now. Beidh lá eile ag an bPaorach.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Section 1 agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Section 2 agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 4:—
Before Section 4 to insert a new section as follows:—
"Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Referendum (Amendment) Act, 1946, shall be amended by the addition at the end of the sub-section of the following:—
‘and the local returning officer shall also deliver, whether by post or otherwise as he shall think proper and at the same time as such polling card is delivered to such elector a document stating in simple and concise language a summary of the principal provisions of the Bill containing the proposal passed, or deemed to have been passed, by both Houses of the Oireachtas'."
In a sense, I have already dealt with this amendment in dealing with the previous amendment which I have withdrawn. It is an amendment to sub-section (1), Section 4 of the Referendum (Amendment) Act, 1946, to provide that the local returning officer shall send to each voter who is entitled to vote at the proposed referendum a card showing his number and polling place and that with that card, or contemporaneously with it, the local returning officer should deliver a document stating in simple and concise language a summary of the principal provisions of the Bill containing the proposal passed or deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas.
The principle of the amendment would appear to be acceptable, and, if the Deputy will agree, it is possible that we can have this matter considered between now and the next Stage and see if we can bring in something that would be acceptable to him on the lines of the amendment.
I am quite agreeable.
We shall put down this amendment again on Report and the Minister may have his own amendment.
Before the amendment is withdrawn, this might be an opportunity to read the agreed statement.
This is the statement as we now have it, an agreed statement by the Parties in the House, although I think some of the Independent Deputies, unfortunately, may not yet have got it. The statement is as follows:—
"The following summary of the principal proposals in the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1958, is circulated for the information of the voters:—
At present, members of Dáil Éireann are elected on a system of P.R. for constituencies returning at least three members, each voter having a single transferable vote.
It is proposed in the Bill to abolish the system of P.R. and to adopt, instead, a system of single-member constituencies, each voter having a single non-transferable vote.
It is also proposed in the Bill to set up a commission for the determination and revision of the constituencies, instead of having this done by the Oireachtas, as at present.
If you APPROVE of the proposals in the Bill,
Place an X opposite the word YES on the ballot paper.
If you DO NOT APPROVE of the proposals in the Bill,
Place an X opposite the word NO on the ballot paper.
A copy of the full text of the Bill can be inspected and purchased at all post offices throughout the country."
I assume it is understood that this statement is being issued as the result of an agreement between the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party and Clann na Talmhan; and with the tacit approval of all the other Parties in the House?
That is so, and if the Minister wants any more explicit statement on my behalf, I am prepared to put it in any words that he or his colleagues choose. Have I made it clear that we have agreed to this document and to its being published?
May I save the Leader of the Opposition from a slight misfooting? As far as the statement goes, it is all right; but the latter part of this document is based upon the Schedule as it appears in the Minister's Bill and would not be in harmony with amendment No. 5, which we hope we may be able to persuade the Minister to accept. It is just a small matter and it does not affect the general principle of the circulation, on the one hand, and the statement of what is involved, on the other. It deals simply with the machinery side of the matter.
I do not know whether this is a Health Bill or a Local Government Bill——
The Deputy is looking very well on it, is he not?
On the assumption that it is a Local Government Bill, I want to direct my remarks to the Minister for Local Government and pray that he will not be interrupted, while I am addressing him, by his colleague, the Minister for Health. I understood the Minister to say that in principle there could be no objection to amendment No. 4 moved by Deputy Costello. Consequently, if this amendment or something substantially the same goes into the Bill, then we are putting into the Bill an intimation that a returning officer may send by post, or otherwise deliver, a document stating in simple and concise language a summary of the principal provisions of the Bill. If he is directed in the Bill to do that, that would seem to me to be sufficient authority for exhibiting in the polling booth a copy of the document which, if this amendment is accepted, the returning officer would be directed to send out under the Bill. Therefore, I suggest that this summary takes on a new significance, if we put this section, or the substance of this section, into the Bill.
Might I ask the Minister whether the summary which he has just read out is that which will be issued or supplied by the returning officer? Is it the same summary?
It is quite likely to be the same one. I hope I have made it clear that, in principle, the amendment seems to be accepted and between now and the next Stage, we hope to consider the matter fully and bring in something which will meet the wishes of those who sponsored this amendment; but that does not tie us down to all the things that would appear on the wording there.
On the assumption that something like this is accepted, and that the document will be circulated, does the document not take on a recognisable significance? If it is issued as provided for in the Bill, would that not justify its provision in the polling station, or its availability there?
It is accepted that it would be there in some such form, but that is another aspect which must be considered.
If the Minister accepts the principle of this amendment, which says that the returning officer shall send out to the voter a summary of the Bill, that is, a summary of the purpose of the referendum, would that not actually be the statement the Minister described as being an agreed Party statement? Then it will not be an agreed Party statement: it will be a document of authority sent out by the returning officer. There will not be two documents?
I think this is being resolved, but it is unwise to come down on one side, as we may be tying ourselves to a method which may not be practicable at all.
Since the Minister seems prepared to accept this amendment, will he undertake to ensure that the presiding officer will read this summary to illiterate voters in the polling booth?
I am afraid I could not accept that at all.
Why not? It is not such a long document. It is not a legal document.
That does not follow, but even if it did follow I could not accept it.
The purpose of the summary is to enlighten the public. If it is to enlighten those who can read, they will read it when they get it. How is the Minister to ensure that the illiterate voter or the non-educated person will know of this, unless it is read for him?
It still would not have the authority of a legal document.
It is not so important that it be a legal document in the strict sense of the term. What is important is that the import of the issue be conveyed to such a person as an illiterate voter.
Does the Deputy really think the import of what is contained in this referendum will not be known?
It is surprising what will not be known.
If the Minister brings in an amendment which will embody the principle in Deputy Costello's amendment, would it not be possible to extend the amendment to convey that where there are illiterate voters, this document will be read out, that is, the one which is being sent to each voter? If it is reasonable that the presiding officer should read out ten, 12 or 20 candidates' names, as being the people from whom he must choose at an election, would it not be reasonable also that the presiding officer should read out the issue in a referendum, so that the illiterate voter may be able to make up his mind as to which way he should vote? I do not wish the Minister to commit himself, if he will think about it.
I am not likely to do so just now, in regard to this suggestion. It would be very unwise, possibly, to put a legal obligation on the presiding officer.
He has the legal obligation in respect of the candidates' names.
I should not like to put this as a burden on the presiding officer. He may be able to do it in a quiet little backwater polling station, but it might make the position intolerable in a large polling station and make it difficult for voters to get through. When they are all lining up and there are illiterates inside asking these questions and getting these answers, and everyone waiting around, possibly some may not get in to vote at all. That is one aspect of the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 4 agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 5:—
Before the First Schedule to insert the following new Schedule:—
The form of the amendment is in the Schedule as I have drafted it. I have indicated, in the course of the speech I have made, the improvements that appear in it and I do not intend to repeat them. I just wanted to indicate that the Act of 1942 contained the words "Do you approve of the proposal to amend the Constitution or do you disapprove?" The words "or do you disapprove?" are left out in the proposed form in the Bill. I suggest the words in my amendment would be clearer and an improvement: "Do you approve or do you not approve of the proposal stated in the first column below becoming law?", in order that persons may know precisely what they are going to do. All the other amendments suggested follow.
As Deputy Costello said, he made reference to this amendment when speaking on his earlier amendments. I cannot quite recall what his main arguments were, but of one thing I am satisfied, that is, that, looking at the proposed specimen ballot paper, it still appears to me, as it did when this matter was being dealt with, that the one in the Bill appears to be a much clearer type of ballot paper than the one suggested in the amendment before us. I am still of that opinion regardless——
I am perfectly sure the Minister is of that opinion. The ballot paper is tendentious. He wants it to be in such a way that the voter who has not quite made up his mind will, when he sees this, vote "Yes". "Do you approve?"—"Yes". Why did you leave out the words "or do you disapprove?" Why is that phrase left out?
Why did you give it such a mourning look? Why did you put the black border? Anyone looking at that would feel somebody had had it.
Why did you leave out the words "Do you disapprove?"
What is wrong with the words in it?
Will you answer my argument?
What is wrong with the words there?
I have already said that. Now answer my argument.
I consider the type of ballot paper here is tendentious also. What is the answer to that?
I do not expect this Minister for Local Government to answer any reasonable argument, but I want the people to understand that the words "or do you disapprove?" are left out in this proposed ballot paper. They are left out for some purpose not explained by the Minister.
I can assure Deputy Costello and the House that any changes that have been brought about in the form of the ballot paper now proposed in the Bill have been brought about with one purpose—to make as clear and as simple as possible the whole formula in the taking of this referendum.
Why did you leave out the words "or do you disapprove?"
Why should we put them in?
In 1942, they were put in. Why are they left out now?
Might I point out that, when the Minister was speaking on the Second Stage, he said, at column 17, Volume 172 of the Official Debates "the voter is asked to state whether he approves or disapproves of the proposal becoming law". He does not, in fact, according to the way the ballot paper is set out in this Bill.
Amendment put.
The Committee divi ded: Tá, 37; Níl, 66.
Tá
- Barrett, Stephen D.
- Barry, Richard.
- Burke, James.
- Byrne, Tom.
- Carew, John.
- Coburn, George.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Costello, Declan D.
- Costello, John A.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Esmonde, Sir Anthony C., Bart.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, Denis.
- Lindsay, Patrick.
- Lynch, Thaddeus.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- McQuillan, John.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, William.
- Norton, William.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Russell, George E.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tierney, Patrick.
- Wycherley, Florence.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Blaney, Neal T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Seán.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Carty, Michael.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Clohessy, Patrick.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cotter, Edward.
- Crowley, Honor M.
- Cummins, Patrick J.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Mick.
- de Valera, Eamon.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Donegan, Batt.
- Dooley, Patrick.
- Egan, Kieran P.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Fanning, John.
- Faulkner, Padraig.
- Galvin, John.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Griffin, James.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Loughman, Frank.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maher, Peadar.
- Medlar, Martin.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Moher, John W.
- Moloney, Daniel J.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Moran, Michael.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Malley, Donogh.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Toole, James.
- Ryan, James.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Crotty and Palmer; Níl: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman.
Amendment declared negatived.
Question—"That the First Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill"—put and declared carried.
Question—"That the Second Schedule be the Schedule to the Bill"—put and declared carried.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment:
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 25th February, 1959.