Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 Feb 1959

Vol. 173 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Referendum (Amendment) Bill, 1958—Report Stage.

Mr. J.A. Costello

I move amendment No. 1:—

1. In page 2, to delete line 16 and substitute:—

"following amendments, namely,

(1) Every ballot paper at a constitutional referendum shall be in the form set out in the Schedule hereto.

(2) Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 15 shall not apply in relation to a constitutional referendum.

(3) Sub-section (5) shall cease to have effect and in lieu thereof the following sub-section shall be inserted, namely,

‘(5) 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.'

(4) In the case of a constitutional amendment—

In applying paragraph (1) of rule 3 of the rules contained in the First Schedule, the following sub-paragraph shall be substituted for sub-paragraph (b) of that paragraph:

‘(b) the short title of the Bill containing the proposal which is the subject of such referendum and'."

I put down this amendment on the Committee Stage and withdrew it in order to enable the Minister to give some consideration to the principles underlying it. Its purpose was to have a ballot paper that would give some guidance and information to the voter in the difficult circumstances which would confront that voter at the taking of the referendum poll. Apparently the Minister decided not to do anything about it. I do not suppose there is any use in my pressing the amendment. The Minister does not even think it worth a single word of comment.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Blaney)

In deference to the Deputy's wishes, I will say that, in so far as his wishes and the wishes of the Opposition on the Committee Stage of this Bill are concerned, it is not correct to say that I have done nothing or taken no cognisance of those wishes as expressed in the earlier amendment. I feel I have gone practically the whole way towards meeting their wishes. It is not in any sense of ignoring their expressed wishes that I come here now and do not subscribe to the idea as outlined in the amendments proposed on this stage by Deputy J.A. Costello.

Question—"That the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 2.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 2:—

In page 2, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following new section:—

4.—(1) Whenever the polling day at a constitutional referendum is also the day on which the poll at an election of a person to the office of President of Ireland or at a general election is taken, an authorisation under Section 3 of this Act, as well as operating to authorise the person to whom it is given to vote at the poll at the referendum at the polling station specified in the authorisation, shall also operate to authorise him to vote at the poll at the election at that polling station, and that polling station shall, for the purposes of (as may be appropriate) rule 7 of the rules contained in the First Schedule to the Presidential Elections Act, 1937, or rule 16 of the rules contained in the Fifth Schedule to the Electoral Act, 1923, be deemed to be the polling station allotted to him.

(2) Section 28 of the Referendum Act, 1942, as well as applying whenever the polling day at a constitutional referendum is also the polling day at a general election, shall also apply whenever the polling day at a constitutional referendum is also the day on which the poll at an election of a person to the office of President of Ireland is taken and, for that purpose, references in that section to a general election shall be construed as including references to an election of a person to that office.

The law relating to Dáil elections provides that a person must vote at the polling station allotted to him in the polling scheme. There is a provision, however, under which persons employed by a returning officer at a Dáil election who are prevented by the circumstances of their employment, that is, persons such as presiding officers and poll clerks, from voting at the polling station assigned to them may be authorised by the returning officer to vote at another specified polling station in the constituency. There is no power to enable a similar authorisation to be granted in the case of a referendum or Presidential election.

Section 3 of this Bill, however, proposes to grant these facilities to persons employed in connection with the referendum. The first part of the amendment provides that an authorisation given by a local returning officer at a constitutional referendum under Section 3 of the Bill as well as operating to authorise the person to whom it is given to vote in the referendum at the polling station specified in the authorisation, will also operate to authorise him to vote at that station at a Presidential or general election the poll at which is held on the same day as the referendum. The rules referred to in the first part of the amendment are those which provide that in the case of a Presidential election or a Dáil election a person shall vote at the polling station allotted to him in the polling scheme.

Section 28 of the Referendum Act, 1942, includes provisions designed to secure uniformity in the case where the poll at a constitutional referendum and a general election are held on the same day. The second part of the amendment extends the provisions to the case where the poll at a constitutional referendum is also the day on which the poll at a Presidential election is taken. The provisions referred to deal with the employment of the same persons in the taking of both polls, the use of ballot boxes and the use of the same official mark for ballot papers. There is also provision that the ballot papers at the two polls must be of different colours.

The amendment does not provide that the poll at the referendum and the poll at a general election or a Presidential election shall be held on the same day. It merely lays down the procedure to be followed in the event of two polls being held on the same day. The Taoiseach referred to the possibility of the poll at the constitutional referendum and the Presidential election being taken on the same day. He stated that circumstances could arise in which the two polls would fall to be taken about the same time and that in such circumstances the interests of public convenience and of economy would obviously be served best by holding the two polls on the same day. The reference is Dáil Debates, Volume 172, No. 4, columns 441-442, 14th January, 1959.

Mr. J.A. Costello

Are we to assume from this amendment that it is intended that the referendum poll should take place on the same day as the election for President? Is that the purpose of this amendment?

Mr. Blaney

No, the purpose really is that in the event of the two of them being held on the same day, there should be these facilities available to enable the same persons, the same polling stations, and the same formalities, to deal with the two on the one day, rather than have duplication of staff.

Mr. J.A. Costello

But if it was not necessary, or if it was not intended to have the poll on the same day for the referendum and the Presidency, surely it would not have been necessary to introduce this belated amendment on the Report Stage? Is it not to be taken as a necessary inference, from the putting down of this amendment on the Report Stage, that the Government intend to have the two polls taken on the same day, namely, the referendum and the Presidential election?

Mr. Corish

I think the Minister is now engaged in so much pretence and shadow boxing, because he knows perfectly well that it is intended to have the Presidential election and the referendum on the same day. If he looks at his brief, he will see that he as much as said so when moving the amendment and I do not propose, by my vote, to facilitate the holding of the election for the Presidency of Ireland with this referendum.

We have been told by the Taoiseach how important is this question of the Third Amendment of the Constitution. We have been told that it is supposed to be above politics that it will bring about a remarkable change in the country, both economically and socially. We are told it will be the cure-all for all our ills. If it is so important—as indeed the Presidency of Ireland is—I do not think there should be any confusion about the two of them. I do not think that, on the one hand, people should be asked to vote either for Deputy Seán MacEoin or Deputy Eamon de Valera for the presidency, and in the same election, to vote on the three issues which will be contained in the referendum.

We in the Opposition were abused in regard to the vote on the Constitution in 1937. If there was confusion on that occasion, if there was a certain direction given to voters, nobody was to blame for that confusion, and the directions which were given by politicians on that occasion, but the Government then in office, the Fianna Fáil Government. Whilst I was not in politics in 1937, I think it was wrong to confuse the Presidency of Ireland with the political issues which there were in the general election and it was difficult for any politician or any candidate on the one hand to say: "Vote for the candidate of Fine Gael, or Fianna Fáil, or Labour" and then attempt to give another direction as far as the Constitution was concerned, the Constitution sponsored by the Fianna Fáil Government.

We must have the Presidential election in, I think, the first or second week of June of this year. As far as the Presidency is concerned, I have my own view about that. We had—let us call them—politicians, or men actively engaged in politics, as contestants in the last Presidential election and it looks as if we are to have men who have been politicians all their lives, and closely connected with politics, as candidates in this election. The referendum on the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, in my opinion, need not be rushed and I wonder what is at the back of the Taoiseach's mind, or the Government's mind, in desiring the holding of this referendum so quickly, in view of the fact, first that they have such a large and comfortable majority, and secondly, that the next general election is not due until February or March, 1962.

Do the Government intend to hold an election immediately after the referendum, or what is their view? This referendum which is being rushed through, with what I describe as indecent haste, could be held in 12 months' time, in 18 months' time or in two years' time. Why the two of them have to go together, we do not know, but we have our ideas. As I said on another occasion, the Government, believing that the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill has not such bright prospects, now want to put on this horse, called the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, what they consider to be the best jockey they have, the Taoiseach, Deputy Eamon de Valera. Many people have a great regard for him, but I do not think his name should be used on the day of the referendum in order to try to force the referendum through, in order to try to colour it. The Presidency of Ireland is too important a position to be thrown in with the referendum and I should say vice versa, that an amendment of the Constitution is not something that should be thrown into the arena in a fight that will be between politicians.

For that reason, I oppose this amendment and I ask the Government, through the Minister for Local Government, to decide now that the Presidential election and the referendum will be held on different dates and on dates that will be widely separated.

Mr. Blaney

As I mentioned——

General Mulcahy

The Minister is not concluding?

An Ceann Comhairle

No.

Mr. Blaney

As I mentioned in the statement on this amendment, and I made it quite clear, I am not, by this amendment, bringing about a situation wherein these two polls will be taken on the same day. I am merely providing, and I am only concerned with providing, certain machinery, if they should fall on the same day. Then certain machinery would be put into operation that would facilitate all concerned. That machinery would be first, that persons who would be employed as returning officers at stations other than the station in which their names appear on the voters' list would have the facility of voting on both issues and, secondly, that the presiding officers, polling clerks, polling stations, the official mark for the ballot papers and the ballot boxes and all that paraphernalia, should, in fact, be used for both purposes on the same day at the same place. That is merely and solely the purpose of this amendment, and it has nothing to do with the fixing of the date for the taking of either of those polls that we are talking about now.

General Mulcahy

The purpose of discussion in this House is to see the business of the country transacted in the most efficient and harmonious way. When, at this particular stage, we are asked to discuss amendments to the Referendum Bill that has been introduced for the purpose of dealing with the referendum that is to take place in the immediate future, and is to take place at a time when a Presidential election is due, and when, in these circumstances, an amendment is brought in to provide that the election for the Presidency can take place on the same day and make the necessary arrangement for that, what are we to do? What are we doing? Are we before a blackboard dealing with some theoretical problem in higher mathematics or are we dealing with the practical affairs of the nation? We must consider that the holding of an election for President and a referendum on the same day has all the undesirable features about it that Deputy Corish spoke about, particularly in circumstances in which the referendum to be held is intended to dislocate and wipe out all the natural, organically-grown political organisation and to attempt to burst up every piece of political development in the country, except two large Parties that will fight with one another as two massed Parties in opposition, taking us back to the old days of cockfighting.

It is no wonder that we are brought back to consideration of the cockpit by some speeches made on Government Benches. That is one thing; but what I consider a greater enormity than even contemplating a thing like that happening, is that here we are considering an amendment to the Referendum Bill, providing that the Presidential election and the referendum may take place on the same day and that after that, within the next couple of months a referendum will take place and a Presidential election will take place, and the Dáil is not to be told whether both will be held on the same date.

The Minister for Local Government says he is here purely in that capacity dealing with electoral machinery matters and he has nothing to say about all this. We are reminded, and even chided at times, about the collective responsibility of the Government, but we in the Opposition remember what the Dáil is, and that it is the Parliament of the country and that it should be treated with respect. We want to see that thought is streamlined as far as possible and we want to cut out confusion and difficulty and ensure that we be as clear as possible as to what lies before us so that we shall be able to get confusion and disorder out of our minds in approaching whatever work has to be done. The Minister for Local Government says that he is purely and simply Minister for Local Government and cannot go into those things. Does he not realise that he makes us feel as if we were standing in front of a thimble-rigger at a fair and from the point of view of doing practical business we are trying to find out under which thimble is the vote on the referendum and under which is the vote for the President, or are they both under the one thimble. I suggest the Minister for Local Government is treating the Dáil in the same way as it was treated by the Minister for Agriculture when we were discussing the wheat levy, when the Minister sat there for a whole night with his mouth shut, giving no indication and no encouragement to Deputies to expect anything and then made his announcement outside the House a day or two later.

What difficulty is there in the approach of carrying on the practical business of the country, either for the voters or for the organisers, for the referendum or the Presidential election and what difficulty is there from the technical point of view in understanding the matter in the Dáil to prevent the Minister for Local Government from telling us now whether the election for the President and the referendum on the Constitution Amendment Bill will take place on the same date?

Mr. O'Donnell

Without doubt, we shall have a Presidential election this year, because it is due. Here we have an amendment to the Referendum Bill. We know that a Presidential election must be held before next June, or at least about the beginning of that month; we also know that the Government have a majority to enable them to run their full term and on every opportunity the House has had, this Bill or the Bill abolishing P.R. has been before it. I submit there is much more urgent legislation. The Road Traffic Bill is long overdue; an amended Intoxicating Liquor Act is due. When we were in office, motions were put down urging the Government to introduce such legislation but instead of doing that now we find the Government taking every spare moment in the House to discuss the Bill abolishing P.R. and there is a rush at the last moment to amend the Referendum Bill for the purpose of holding the referendum and the Presidential election on the same date.

If the referendum is not to be held on the same day, why the urgency in regard to the Referendum Bill? There is plenty of time to give the country an opportunity of studying the implications of abolishing P.R. The people could be allowed to study it for the next year or two until some time before the Government go out of office and then we might have the amendments to the Referendum Bill. If we were to do that, we would be doing something good and we would not be throwing in the referendum and the Presidential election on the same day.

There is no doubt that the reason for this is to enable the Government to hold the referendum and the Presidential election in the same year and to play what they consider the joker in this particular election. I do not mean that in any way disrespectful to the Taoiseach; I mean it as the trump card.

Mr. Cunningham

There are two candidates. Which of them are you referring to as the joker?

Mr. O'Donnell

I do not want to be disrespectful or I would answer that very quickly. I am referring to the Government's intentions——

General Mulcahy

Is it not a queer game in which the trump card is being discarded?

Mr. O'Donnell

Quite so, but discarded for another game. That is why I oppose this amendment.

Mr. Larkin

The Minister has told us that this is purely a machinery amendment, an amendment to change the system governing elections, so that in the event of a referendum taking place on the same day as the Presidential election, it will be possible, without the inconvenience which would occur under the present system, to have these matters dealt with by the public on the same day.

I think the Minister implied that we and possibly the members of his own Party, also, as elected representatives, must be lacking in intelligence and ability and lacking in all the qualities of evaluation when he naïvely suggested that the purpose of this amendment is to deal only with a problematical situation. At the beginning of June this year, the Presidential election must take place and there is no difficulty about that under present electoral practice. If a President is to be elected, at least the citizens should be afforded an opportunity of examining the merits and demerits of the candidates and deciding whether they wish to support a particular candidate or candidates. The examination by the ordinary citizen should be as objective as possible. Candidates going before the electors for the position of President of Ireland should get the support of the people on the basis of their service to Ireland, of their ability to carry out the duties of the post, and so on. Certainly, a situation should not be contrived in which the candidates would go before the people as protagonists or antagonists of a constitutional amendment.

The Minister is being less than fair in suggesting to this House—and in the light of collective responsibility, the Government are being less than fair in allowing the Minister to do so—that this amendment is meant to deal only with a situation which might arise, but might not arise for a long time. If it is the intention of the Government—and it appears to be clearly their intention —by whatever means lies in their power to force a Presidential election and a constitutional amendment referendum to take place on the same day, they should at least have the honesty to send the Minister for Local Government in here to say: "Yes, that is our intention. That is what we propose to do. We propose, if we can, to hold this election on the same day as the referendum so that the personality and the record of the Taoiseach, standing as a candidate for the Presidency can be utilised to try to draw support for the constitutional amendment." The Minister merely says here: "I do not know what the intentions are." There is no indication as to whether that is the intention or not, but I want to ask this House to make provision that if, accidentally, the situation develops, the machinery of election will be telescoped and it will be made easier, particularly for the people organising the election, to do so.

The Minister himself must know that the election of the President and a referendum on a change in the Constitution cannot occur, at least during the term of office of the present Government, unless the Government determine it shall occur on that date. There would be nothing accidental about it. As far as the Presidential election is concerned, that is fixed, but as far as the proposed referendum is concerned, it has not been fixed. The only body that can fix it is the Government, and it is a little naïve on the part of the Minister to say here that if, by accident, a referendum should take place coincidental with a Presidential election, it would be very nice if provision were made for the machinery to make it possible.

I do not propose to make any argument as to whether the referendum should take place in July or August of this year, next year or the year after. I would be wastting my words because the Government are determined to have a referendum and seeing they have such a large majority in this House, they must eventually get their way. However, let them, through the Minister for Local Government, tell this House what their intentions are and whether it is their intention to use the Taoiseach as a stalking-horse for a change in the electoral system. It would be no credit to any Presidential candidate who went to the Phoenix Park after a Presidential election in which the candidates were strong protagonists on one side or the other of a constitutional change. If we are expected by the Government or by this House to have any lingering regard for the office of President, we should at least make an effort to take the election of President away from the political campaign which must take place in connection with the proposed change in our electoral system.

Many people feel there is considerable waste in having the expense of the Presidential office and a growing number of people express in the streets of the cities and country towns criticism of the Article in the Constitution which provides for the office of President.

An Ceann Comhairle

That surely does not arise on this.

Mr. Larkin

It arises only in this connection, that this House and the Government should endeavour to ensure that whoever is elected to the office of President will be elected by the people following, as far as possible, an objective examination by the people of his qualifications to fill that office and certainly not as strong protagonists or antagonists in relation to a change in the electoral system.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sure the Deputy does not want to repeat himself, but he is doing it.

Mr. Larkin

I do not think I said that before or whether in effect it has been said that a question is involved in the Presidential election of the successful candidate being the winning jockey on a particular proposal.

Mr. Blaney

Once again, I want to draw the attention of the House to what I have already said in my statement on this amendment. I want to repeat that in this amendment we are not trying to make obligatory the holding of these two elections on the same day. The purpose is that if they should be held on the same day, certain things should follow. I cannot and do not intend to follow the arguments which have been made here as to why they should not be held on the same day, or to advance reasons why they should be held on the same day. That is rather outside the real scope of what this amendment is concerned with.

The question is being asked— pressed, in fact—as to whether I will state that it is the intention to have both of these on the same day. The question might be quite straightforward, but again I do not see why it should be tied to this amendment. I shall repeat the position as outlined by the Taoiseach in answer to a question in the House some time ago about this matter. The Taoiseach referred to the possibility of the polling in the constitutional referendum and the Presidential election being taken on the same day. He then stated—and this is some weeks ago—that circumstances could arise in which the two polls would fall to be taken about the same time and that in such circumstances the interests of public convenience and of economy would obviously be best served by holding the two polls on the same day.

One of the matters confronting me as Minister for Local Government in regard to this is that the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill has not yet become law. But assuming that it did become law at the next meeting of the Seanad and that there were none of these difficulties in regard to this Bill we are discussing here to-night and that we were to go ahead and hold the referendum as quickly as possible after the passing of the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill through both Houses of the Oireachtas, it would not be possible—and again I am talking about the mechanics of the operation of taking a referendum—to have that referendum taken earlier than the first week in April. There is a significance about the month of April as far as elections are concerned because the new voters list comes into operation on the 15th of that month each year. Assuming that we were in a position to have the referendum as quickly as possible, I assert, from the point of view of the mechanics of holding it, that it would not be possible to have it before the first week in April. Then we find ourselves within a week of the coming into operation of the new voters list; and I do not think that anybody would seriously suggest that we should hold either a referendum or an election so close to the introduction of the new voters list without waiting for it.

When that new list comes into operation on the 15th, I understand it would not be possible to have the referendum the day after. In fact, my information is that it takes a considerable length of time—again because of the mechanics of the taking of any vote—to get out the new lists and make voters' cards available and so on. So it would be a few weeks after the 15th before it would be possible to take a poll on the new register. That would be getting us on towards the end of May. The Presidential election must be held between the 25th April and the 24th June, but for various reasons, in order to facilitate the incoming President and so on, it is usually held around the middle of June or somewhat earlier.

If we now find ourselves in the position—as we will find ourselves no matter how this is dealt with—that the earliest we could possibly have this referendum and bring in new voters would be towards the end of May, are not those facts possibly bringing about the circumstances referred to by the Taoiseach some weeks ago: that, for the sake of economy and in the interests of the public, when these two polls fell to be taken at nearly the same time, they would be taken together.

Mr. Corish

Would the Minister develop the point about the public interest?

Mr. Blaney

Let me finish with this point. It has been suggested there is no real reason why this referendum should be taken now, or why it should be taken in a manner the Opposition regard as hurriedly. I dispute the word "hurriedly". It is suggested it could be left for six months, a year or a couple of years, for the reason, as was stated by Deputy Corish, I think, that Fianna Fáil as the Government enjoy a substantial majority at the moment and that no general election would be due normally for a number of years. Undoubtedly, both of these statements are correct; but here is the other side of the picture—the reasons why I see this referendum being taken not six months from now or two years from now. The first point is that under our present Constitution a revision of the constituencies is obligatory in November of this year. If there is no change in the constitutional law in this matter, that will have to be done. We would be carrying out this revision, with all the discussion and time it entails, and a short time afterwards, it would be completely nullified if a referendum changing the whole system were taken and passed.

I might point out that it would not be possible, assuming the people accepted the proposals in the referendum and leaving out the question of the revision of the constituencies obligatory under our law, to have an election based on the single member constituencies shortly after the referendum. Such an election will take a considerable time, not so much in the revision of the boundaries, which will be to a large degree, I should imagine, natural or existing boundaries for one purpose or another, but because it will create quite a problem in the revision and breaking up of registers by the returning officers in the different constituencies as we now know them. It would not be possible to let this drift up until almost the eve of the departure of the Government from office or to hold it as a referendum, assuming they had to go to the country six months or 12 months after the coming of the new system. Would it not be rather ridiculous if we had this referendum passed six or eight months before the next general election, the people having agreed to the change and, yet, because of the impossibility of implementing the various changes necessary, we would have to hold that general election on the old basis instead of on the new basis? These are the general considerations that I see confronting me as Minister for Local Government.

Mr. Corish

As far as the Minister can see, the two will be held on the one day.

Mr. Blaney

I have given the Deputy what I see. The Deputy may take what he likes from it.

Mr. O'Donnell

May I ask the Minister a question? Is it not a fact that, when the Taoiseach first announced to the House that it was proposed to amend the Constitution, he said he did not wish to have the issue clouded in any way and it would be his desire that there should be nothing else before the people. He then discovered that the Opposition intended to nominate Deputy MacEoin for the Presidency and he countered immediately by withdrawing his original statement: he said it might be in the interests of the public to have the two on the one day, irrespective of whether or not he thereby clouds the issue in relation to the amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. Killilea

I do not think that is exactly what he said. I do not think that is what happened.

Mr. O'Donnell

I do not know what happened. I should like to know what happened.

Mr. Killilea

I think he made it quite clear that, because of the Opposition tactics, he did not think they would last so long.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order!

Mr. O'Donnell

The Minister has given a good and valid reason why he, as Minister for Local Government, should try to rush this Bill. He says a revision of constituencies is due in November next. If he introduces a Bill here and leaves the Second Reading over, he will comply with the law. Now he cannot have the Bill passed in November. The Seanad might hold it up for three months. If he introduces a Bill—this is my recollection of the law—and leaves the Second Reading over until such time as the referendum has been held, and if the answer to the referendum is in the affirmative, he can then withdraw his Bill and revise the constituencies. That is my reading of the law and that cuts across the argument put forward by the Minister.

From the point of view of mechanics, I can see his argument, but it will suffice if he merely introduces a Bill. Why then this rush? Why this anxiety to cloud an issue which the Taoiseach declared he did not want to cloud? I cannot understand the position. Next year local elections are due. Why could we not hold the local elections and the referendum on the one day? I would not approve of that, but it could be done. Why must we drag in these important issues, the Presidency of Ireland and the referendum, on the one day? Both candidates will have their supporters and those supporters will have to vote, first for the President and then for the amendment of the Constitution. If there were nothing to cloud the issue, they would not drag personalities into the issue; but if the retention of P.R. is tacked on to the tailcoat of the Taoiseach or Deputy MacEoin, the issue will certainly be clouded, so far as the public are concerned. I do not think the Minister should press this amendment. He should do what the Taoiseach originally intended to do—keep the one issue before the public on the day the referendum goes to the people.

Mr. Corish

The Minister certainly drove home his point with regard to the difficulty of holding the referendum in March, April or May. He said practically everything, except that, in his opinion, the two should be on the one day. He seemed to stress the difficulties in having the referendum quickly. He talked about the register of voters and the time taken by the Seanad to pass a Bill, and so forth. All I ask him to do is to take his time. This referendum could well be held in 12, 18 or 24 months' time. Even if he were concerned about the revision of constituencies, I do not think people would object to the holding of the referendum next August, September or October.

I think I am right in saying that there were two general elections in the year 1927—one in June and one in September. I assume it was in the public interest to have those two elections in that year. I am sure the Government at the time considered it in the public interest to have a general election in 1932, and another in 1933, one in 1937 and one in 1938, one in 1943 and one in 1944.

In reply to a Parliamentary Question, either the Minister or the Taoiseach said that the holding of the referendum would cost in the neighbourhood of £80,000; £80,000 has been spent in more foolish ways than it would be spent in holding the referendum and the Presidential election on separate days. The Minister said it would be in the interests of officials to have the two on the same day. He said it would also be in the public interest.

I am thinking about the public interest and the national interest. I want to see a President emerge from this election who will have not only the confidence of the people but also the respect of the people. I do not want to see a President emerging from a political battle, namely, the referendum. The present President first took office with approximately 50 per cent. of the people anti-Seán T. Ó Ceallaigh, because he was Fianna Fáil and was mixed up in what was regarded as a political dog-fight. We all know that his Excellency has been extraordinarily successful as President and has won the respect of all the people. It is possible he did not have it for the first three months, the first 12 months, or the first three years, because he had been actively connected with the Fianna Fáil Party. No disrespect to the Fianna Fáil Party, but they were opposed in the particular election by others—by Fine Gael, the Farmers' Party, the Labour Party and some Independents. Out of all that, his Excellency emerged as President.

After that particular example in 1945, when he was first elected, I thought that every subsequent Presidential election would be held completely on its own. I had the notion that no active politician would become a candidate for the Presidency of Ireland because he would be associated for a long time with political Parties, and with the political dog-fighting of politics as we know them in this country. However, whether it is Deputy MacEoin or the Taoiseach who emerges as President but not in the political dog-fight that we will have with regard to this referendum—he will have more respect from more people more quickly if he is not elected either on the day of a general election or on the day of a referendum. That is my interest in it.

I have no quarrel with the Minister for Local Government on this amendment, except that he is aiding, abetting and facilitating the holding of the referendum and the Presidential election on the one day. Not only do I think that is not in the public interest but I believe it is not in the national interest. I do not think any other country in the world would hold an election for the Presidency on the same day as the voting on a political issue like a referendum, or as happened here in 1937, on the day of a general election.

Mr. O'Sullivan

One thing that has developed from this discussion is that we have drawn from the Minister for Local Government something approaching a declaration as to the intention of the amendment. He was rather too naïve in introducing it when he said that he was more or less guarding against an eventuality. He wants to make good in this Bill an omission of his predecessor in the original Referendum Act. This is not the only occasion on which this measure has had to be amended in recent months. That is an extraordinary thing. I am sure that the Cabinet at that time gave grave consideration to that measure. The Minister who launched it was an experienced man but now, without having any experience of a referendum under the Referendum Act, we have this succession of amendments and changes, and examining it in the light of what the people are being required to do in relation to the referendum, if so many amendments have to be introduced in relation to the holding of a referendum, a simple administrative action, surely we are entitled to question the copper-fastening of many far more important and fundamental matters in the very amendment of the Constitution itself.

We feel the Minister had his tongue in his cheek earlier on in the discussion, but the last time he spoke, from the arguments he advanced, it is quite clear that at least in his own mind, although he will not say it, it is practically certain that the two elections will be held on the one day. He represents the Government in the House on this amendment. He is a senior member of the Government and he must be speaking with collective responsibility. There was a time when we heard all kinds of gibes from the Party opposite about the lack of collective responsibility in the inter-Party Government. The Minister is a member of a Government with a big majority from which we can surely expect collective responsibility. Nobody in this House is so innocent as to think that this is merely a haphazard closing of a loophole in this legislation.

There is no doubt that everybody agrees—and the Minister might as well say it—that the Government have decided, for political reasons, to hold both the elections on the one day. In the hearing of members of this House, the Taoiseach said on two occasions that they would not be held on the one day, but circumstances changed that. When the Government found that they were meeting with rough weather, something had to be done and so we have this sacrifice in an effort to deal with the situation, but it is a dastardly thing to cloud such a vital and important matter as an amendment of the Constitution with the issue of the personalities of the candidates for the Presidency.

The fact that an amendment of the Constitution should be kept apart from all other issues was recognised in the Constitution of 1937 which protected itself by requiring that a referendum relating to an amendment of the Constitution, should contain no matter other than the positive issue. The Government must not only observe that in the letter but they must observe it in the spirit, but they are not observing it in the spirit when they join a Presidential election, with all the discussions and controversy that will ensue, with what should be a clear and undisturbed examination of a matter which is vital to the future of our people.

The Minister went to considerable pains to explain why the referendum could not be held before June. He could have saved his breath. It is readily understood by everyone, but he was not on such sound ground when he went on to make the case for the holding of the referendum as soon as could be after 1st of June. After all in the case made by the Government it has taken 40 years to disclose the weaknesses they claim were in the system adopted by Arthur Griffith, enshrined in the 1922 Constitution and confirmed and enshrined even more effectively in the 1937 Constitution. With the passage of all that time and considering that it has been thrown open to the public for discussion and examination only within the past few months, we say to the Government and to the Minister that they have quite a lot of explaining to do to make clear what they regard as the urgency of this referendum.

All the lengthy discussions in both Houses of the Oireachtas during the examination of P.R. and the straight vote system and all that they involve and all the discussions by groups far removed from politics show a healthy development. However, these discussions are only getting under way and the young people who are examining this problem, are people who will have no opportunity of registering their vote in the ballot boxes. Why the Government do not permit the boys and girls of 19 and 20 years of age to use their vote, when they come of age and are on the register, to determine what is as important to their future as it is to the future of those over 21 is something that the Government cannot explain.

There is not the urgency the Government would like the people to believe there is for pushing through this referendum. We accept their reasons why it cannot be held a week or a fortnight before the Presidential election must be held but if they persist in their present intention—and they should make clear what their intention is—it means, and all the indications are, that this amendment is introduced this evening because the Government have decided to hold both elections on the one day. They should re-examine it and they should give some time for the people to examine it dispassionately, to weigh all the pros and cons of what they are asked to do in relation to the referendum, and the more time they allow for it, the more satisfied the people will be with the outcome. If they persist in what they are doing, in denying any detailed examination of the issues by their insistence on the urgency of the matter, then whatever the outcome, people will be less satisfied with the result because there will be people who will feel that more time should have been given for a fuller examination of the consequences and of all that is involved.

There is no doubt, as Deputy Larkin has said and as the people throughout the country are saying, that if the Government persist in their endeavour to cloud what was becoming for them a difficult thing to get across, the desirability of a change in the electoral system, if they persist in clouding that with all that would be involved in the personalities of the candidates for the Presidency, they will be doing a very bad day's work. It is indicative of their approach to the whole thing that here, in the enactment of this simple amendment, the responsible Minister is not permitted to come into the House and say candidly: "This is what we intend to do and this is the reason we are asking the Dáil to accept this amendment." It is in the light of that that we criticise them for their lack of candour. We criticise them on the bigger issue for the fact that they are still insisting that this amendment of the Constitution is so urgent. We insist that the Government think and think again and permit a more detailed and closer examination of all that is involved, so that when it comes to a result the people of the country will certainly be more satisfied with the consequences.

Dr. Browne

I gather from the Minister that we are committed now to the dual election, the Presidency and the referendum, being held on the same day. He has made a very tacitly convincing case and he is clearly critical of certain facts and dates, precedents from which he cannot escape. There is no doubt in my mind that when the Taoiseach said it was most undesirable to have these two elections on the same day, he reflected the feelings of most of us. It is clear that the whole problem will be bedevilled and the question of a cold and abstract consideration, as to whether the Constitution should or should not be amended, will be confused with feelings of personal loyalty or dislike, of sympathy or emotion, factors which should not be taken into consideration at all in the whole question of the decision to amend the Constitution.

The Taoiseach, in reply to a question asked of him when the Minister was speaking a few minutes ago, mentioned the question of expense. Of course, it has to be taken in the context of the questions involved. If the question of the referendum is confused in the people's mind, as it certainly will be confused, with the Presidential election, and if they take an unwise decision, then clearly there is no money which could reasonably be spent which would compensate the country or the people for that decision.

The main case made for changing the Constitution is that it is an attempt to ensure stability. That is one of the reasons why I oppose it. Stability in this respect means the stability of stagnation, the unchanging stagnation in the state of the country. The Taoiseach, as one of his parting acts, wants to ensure that that stagnation will remain after he goes; and it is obviously one of the reasons most of us have had to oppose this amendment. It means stagnation in the present conditions of emigration and unemployment, social services and so on. That is the stability which I say is stagnation. Consequently, if the people are confused, in the dual issue of the Presidency and the referendum, because of emotional factors brought in by the appearance in the field of two old protagonists in the old days, two one-time soldiers who will have behind them those emotions which make people think with their hearts instead of with their heads, the people may take decisions which will have effects reaching far beyond this generation, the men fighting the Presidency and our own children. Consequently, I do not accept the suggestion by the Taoiseach that expenditure in the terms mentioned is a valid justification for holding the two elections on the one day. The issue is very much too important and I am quite certain that the people will be prepared to see it in that way.

One of the reasons we have been asked to change from P.R.—one of the rather offensive reasons—is that it was too complicated for the people, that they did not understand P.R. properly. These same people who cannot understand P.R., according to Government speakers, are being asked now to take these two issues together—one complicated by emotion and sentiment and the other complicated by its own special problem, the referendum to amend the Constitution.

In this House and in the Seanad, we have discussed this matter at considerable length and have dealt with the very complex and obstruse points, both for and against. It is in itself a very complicated question, indeed. That complicated question is to be taken in all its complications, and it is to be inextricably interwoven into a confused, emotional background, the battle to be fought out between two men who took opposite sides in the civil war, and so on.

I think it is very wrong indeed for the Taoiseach to have misused our democratic institutions in this way. Probably there was never a time in the history of Europe, and never in the history of this country, when our democratic institutions, this Dáil and Seanad, were at a lower estimation in the public mind or the mind of the man in the street. That is largely because they cannot understand why they form a deliberative Assembly of this kind, send their nominees here in order to run the country in an equitable, just and efficient way and then, over 35 to 40 years, we have created a totally decadent and nearly bankrupt society. They feel that this Parliament does not work and that deliberative Assemblies are some kind of complicated fraud which they do not understand.

I believe that the decision to hold this dual election on the one day is one of the most deliberate, well thought out, premeditated frauds or tricks carried out by the Taoiseach on the people in the whole of the past 40 years. I say that for this reason. The Minister who spoke here a moment ago made his case in a very convincing way. He instanced the reforming of the constituencies. That raises our legitimate right to debate this in full. He is the prisoner of the date of the Presidential election and the other factors he mentioned all hem him in. In creating the position here, we must, as far as I can see, take these two separate questions at the one time, but surely these factors were all predictable factors? They were all facts well known to the Government, well known to the Taoiseach when this whole very serious question of amending the Constitution was first mooted in the Government.

The Taoiseach has reassured us, on many occasions, that this question of a referendum to amend the Constitution and get rid of P.R. has exercised his mind over a number of years. It did not just occur to him at a Press conference a few months ago. He has assured us that it has been in his mind for a very long time and he must have well known, when he decided to hold the referendum, that there were certain facts which were there for all of us to know. He knew of the ending of the Presidential term of office, and the necessity for holding a Presidential election. He knew of all the factors mentioned here by the Minister, including the re-drawing of the constituencies, and he must have anticipated that there would be—if we were doing the job in Opposition that we should be doing, and I make no apology because I made very few contributions to the debate—a long and prolonged debate in the House on this matter.

Consequently, that is what the Minister is now doing in his bland assured way, sheltering behind the protection of these facts. These inexorable facts were there when the Government first took office some two years ago. These predictable facts and factors and assumptions were all there, readily available to the Government and, if they wished to avoid the impasse in which the Minister now finds himself, they were sufficiently long in office and experienced in politics—particularly the Taoiseach— to know that this position which the Minister is now trying to wash his hands of, was inevitable in the circumstances of the Taoiseach's late declaration to decide to amend the Constitution and go forward for the Presidency at practically one and the same time. So, I say that our democratic institutions have, or are to be, misused, exploited, and abused again by one man, the Taoiseach, on this occasion please God, for the last time. This is his last time.

Mr. Booth

I had hoped that we might have confined ourselves exclusively to what Deputy Dr. Browne referred to as the inescapable facts. Instead of that, he has insisted on wandering through possible motives which may, or may not, have influenced certain people and he has ascribed, without any evidence whatever, the entire responsibility for this decision to hold the referendum and the Presidential election on the same date, to the Taoiseach personally. I think that we all know this is rather typical of his approach, but it is not conducive to a dispassionate appraisal of the merits of the whole situation.

I remember very distinctly, in the early stages of the debate on this legislation, that the Opposition accused us as a Government of intending to incur quite unnecessary expenditure by holding a referendum and a Presidential election on different dates, and thereby doubling the expenditure. It was pointed out by several Opposition speakers that such a procedure was quite unnecessary and that, if a referendum were found to be necessary in the same year as a Presidential election, it would be obvious that the public interest would demand that both should take place on the same day. The argument on our side was that we wished to try to keep them as separate issues. Now, as Deputy Dr. Browne has said, the Minister finds himself the prisoner of facts. He described them as inevitable facts, but my view is that the facts as we now find them, were not inevitable at all.

There was ample time given for a full discussion of the Referendum (Amendment) Bill, and also the Constitutional Amendment Bill, and that time was more than taken up by the Opposition speakers who went on giving the same speeches, time after time, and yet adding nothing to anyone's knowledge of the facts which were to be put before the people. I was able to keep awake for a long period of that debate only by trying to get ahead of the speaker who had the floor, and by finishing his sentences before him, just as a form of exercise. I found I was always able to finish the sentence well ahead and could easily start the next sentence and finish that one, too, because I had heard it so often. There was no question of any restriction of debate whatever.

What did annoy me personally was that the debate went on interminably on the same lines, and nobody could say anything new. If that debate had been conducted by the Opposition in what I would consider a proper, constitutional way, the debate would have——

General Mulcahy

Is this a contribution to an understanding of what is before the House?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy seems to be getting away from the ministerial amendment.

Mr. O'Donnell

He never got near it.

Mr. Booth

The ministerial amendment provides for what would be necessary in the event of a referendum and Presidential election taking place on the same day. Deputy Dr. Browne was ascribing certain motives to the Government, and particularly to the Taoiseach, for bringing that state of affairs to pass. I support this ministerial amendment simply because it is necessary.

Mr. Corish

Is it desirable?

Mr. Booth

It is necessary and the question of desirability does not arise at this stage. I personally should have preferred—though, again, I do not think it is relevant—that the two should take place on different dates.

General Mulcahy

We are trying to find out are they to take place on the same day?

Mr. Booth

Surely if this ministerial amendment is accepted and passed, that, at least, leaves the door open for the two to take place on the same day.

Mr. O'Donnell

But will they?

General Mulcahy

I was waiting for the Deputy to tell us.

Mr. Moran

It will all depend on what happens in the Seanad and elsewhere.

General Mulcahy

The Seanad have nothing to do with it.

Mr. Moran

Depending on the suitability of day.

General Mulcahy

In what way?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Booth might be allowed to make his speech.

Mr. Booth

It appears that it could be very likely that the referendum and the Presidential election must take place at least within a matter of a few weeks of each other. Only a few weeks could possibly separate them, no matter what happens, and when it comes to that, it is obviously quite inexcusable to hold them on separate dates and, consequently, the Minister is making provision in this amendment to hold them on the same day. Let it be perfectly clear that that was never our idea and that it would not have been necessary at all, if the Opposition had dealt with the matter in a more statesmanlike way. It never was justifiable to ascribe the motives Deputy Dr. Browne has ascribed for the holding of the two polls on the same day. It has been asserted time and again that that was not our intention, but now we are forced into the position of having to do it or of its being likely that we shall have to do it.

For these reasons, I support the amendment because it is the only solution to a situation which need never have arisen, but which I believe was deliberately created by the Opposition. If it was not deliberately created, it was created through crass ignorance as to what the result would be. For these reasons, I have no hesitation in supporting this amendment. I hope that it will be dealt with as rapidly as possible.

Mr. J.A. Costello

The last speaker, obviously, has not read the amendment. It has no relation whatever to the holding of the referendum poll on the same day as the poll for the Presidential election. It is a comparatively minor detail that is covered by this amendment—a provision to allow the officials in a polling booth to vote at that polling booth instead of somewhere else. That is all that is in the amendment. Whether this amendment is passed or not has no relation whatever to whether the two polls will be held on the same day, but, when we find an insignificant or comparatively insignificant amendment of this kind being rushed on the Report Stage, referring to a case where possibly the referendum poll may be taken on the same day as the Presidential election, then we are entitled to ask are we to infer from that that it is the intention of the Government to hold these two polls on the same date and that is the query that we on this side of the House have raised. I have no doubt that the Fianna Fáil Deputies and the Government were very restive at the lengthy debates that took place on the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill because it had this effect— whether Deputy Booth went to sleep or not—that it wakened up the country and now there is an interest in the country that the Government were afraid would have been aroused. We are very proud to know that we at least contributed our part to the awakening of interest in the provisions proposed to be enshrined in the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill and to the danger inherent in it and that is the reason why, when they wanted to rush it originally, they accused us of preventing the people from expressing their view upon it and that is the reason why they did not want any debate upon it.

We are entitled to ask, because of this insignificant amendment being put in here, which has no relation whatever to, or no importance at all in connection with, the holding of these two polls on the same day, when there is a reference to the holding of the two on the same day, is it the intention of the Government to have them on the same day? That query has not been answered.

Deputy Dr. Browne has misled himself into acceptance of the Minister's statement as to being prisoners of the facts. Of course the Minister or the Government are not prisoners of the facts at all. Facts have nothing whatever to do with this matter. No matter when the Presidential election must be held, whether by virtue of the various provisions of the statute law and otherwise and the Constitution, providing for the holding of the Presidential election within specific dates, that has no relation whatever to the referendum on the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill. Under the Constitution, a referendum to change the Constitution is to be submitted to the people in accordance with the law for the time being in operation, that is, the law at the moment, that is, the Referendum Act, 1942, as amended by the Act of 1946, and whatever amendment is put into it by this Bill, if it becomes law. There is nothing in any of the statutes at present dealing with the referendum providing any date or dates within which the referendum must be given to the people. I would recommend Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party to read their law, or to get somebody to tell it to them, before they make statements such as those we have listened to to-night. The Minister is not the prisoner of the facts of this matter at all.

I suppose it is legtitimate for the Minister and the Government to say that it is convenient to have them on the same day. I can understand that argument, if it were put forward as a legitimate argument—that it is convenient and, possibly, it would save expense. If these were the real arguments, of course, I would listen to them, but we know perfectly well, and I am very glad to know now that the country knows perfectly well, that the real reasons these two elections will be held on the same day have nothing whatever to do with convenience or with the saving of expense, that it is the last effort to try to save the Referendum Bill from defeat by throwing the personality of the Taoiseach into the arena at the last minute and to have the voters going in there voting, as they hope, for Mr. de Valera as President and then, because it is his last act, they are asked: "Do not let the poor old man down; do not let him down now by voting against him on the Referendum Bill."

That is what is at the back of this. In principle it is wrong. I do not believe it will succeed. I endeavour, so far as possible, to make no prophecies, having laid down the principle that there is no such thing as the foreseeable future, but I have no doubt that the purpose behind the holding of the two polls on the same day is to introduce the personality of the Taoiseach as what is believed to be, or thought would be, an influencing factor in connection with the holding of the poll for the referendum on the Third Amendment of the Constitution.

It is wrong in principle; I do not think it will succeed; but it is an indication, certainly, to us of the fears of the Government, well-founded fears, that all is not going as well as they had thought with the referendum and that they are not going to have as big a walk-over as they thought they were going to have when they initiated the proposals to a startled public.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I listened with interest and with considerable dismay to Deputy Booth. Deputy Booth, for the second or third time in the House, recorded his acerbity at what he described as the interminable debate on this issue. Deputy Booth would almost lead one to believe that the lengthy debate on this measure stood between the Government and the enactment of a hefty programme. Deputy Booth must know that this House met one day per week before the Christmas Recess. He must also know that there was no item on the Order Paper after the Christmas Recess except the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill.

Mr. O'Donnell

And the Insects Bill.

Mr. O'Sullivan

There was an Insects Bill. The alternative to a discussion on the Referendum Bill was that we would all go home and stay at home. For many of us it is much more difficult to attend this House than it is for Deputy Booth. Deputy Booth has been a member of this House for only two years. If he had been here before the last general election, he would have sat in this House, not for days or weeks, but for months, listening to his colleagues on the Greyhound Industry Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This has nothing to do with the amendment.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I agree, but the allegation has been made that the discussion on the Amendment of the Constitution Bill has been an interminable debate. It was said in the Seanad that many Senators were indebted to the debate in this House before they approached the problem. It is true that what was said here has sparked off throughout the country considerable interest in the referendum in relation to the Constitution and the debate was intended to do that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise on the amendment.

Mr. O'Sullivan

It arises out of Deputy Booth's remarks, with which I am solely at the moment concerned. I must protest against the allegation that we on this side dragged out the debate in this House for any intention other than fully to examine the matter in all its implications and to ensure that we would put on the record our opinions in relation to every aspect of it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are dealing with a ministerial amendment at the moment.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Quite so. In that respect, the Deputy seeks to advance a contrary viewpoint. He expresses it as though, if it were up to himself, he would wish that this Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill were examined apart from the Presidential election. In that, we concur, but he will have to state again, and with greater clarity if he wishes to put it across, that despite that being his desire, there is some more abiding necessity which overrides his preference for having the elections considered distinctly and on separate occasions.

General Mulcahy

Deputy O'Sullivan asks the Minister to think and think again on the matter. A short time ago, the Minister gave us all the evidence necessary that they had been thinking, thinking, thinking, and that there was no aspect of the position they had not thought about. He showed us that as far as this amendment is concerned, its operation could not be set in motion until some weeks after 15th April; that the readiness to proceed with the referendum would not be there until the end of May and the necessity to go ahead with the machinery for the Presidential election would be all there in the begining of June. He practically said that, unless unexpected circumstances arose, it was the intention to have the referendum and the Presidential election on the one day. Everything he said brought the discussion down to that point. It is important that this House be told what is in the Government's mind in the matter. What the Minister for the Gealtacht said with regard to the Bill in the Seanad has nothing at all to do with the argument in respect of dates, and so on, that the Minister for Local Government went through—and I would ask the Minister for Local Government to let his colleague know that.

Why can we not be told here, in the light of the information the Minister for Local Government has put in front of us, that the Government have decided that unless some unexpected circumstances arise, the two will take place on the one day? It is important that the Minister should think on that matter! From the point of view of the dignity of this House and from the point of view of the dignity of the Minister's position in this House, it is important and desirable that he give us that information.

In putting this matter before us, the Minister appears to be of the opinion that, unless unexpected circumstances arise, these two elections will take place on the same day. Why is it necessary for the Minister to treat us as youngsters at a fair looking at the thimble-man and wondering under which thimble the pea lies? The Government, through the Minister, are treating this House in a most insulting fashion. What is it that prevents the Minister, in the light of the information he has given us before with regard to Presidential election dates and the possible referendum dates, from saying that, unless unexpected circumstances arise, it is the intention of the Government to have the two on the same day?

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

As an addendum, is the Minister even prepared to say whether or not the Government have considered the question of holding the two elections on the same day? If they have considered that, is the Minister prepared to give the House the benefit of whatever conclusions the Government have arrived at? It seems to me that it would be quite out of the question that, at the end of the month of February, when the Government are proposing to hold a referendum within a matter of months and when the Government must hold a Presidential election within a matter of months, some very urgent consideration should not have been given to this question, particularly having regard to the views expressed by the Taoiseach earlier. I would ask the Minister to accept the invitation extended to him by Deputy Mulcahy to tell the House quite bluntly whether or not the Government have come to a decision on this question and what the decision is.

Mr. Blaney

Far from there being any suggestion that I have been unfair or misleading to the House, I feel that, in summing up the various conclusions presented to me, I have been more than fair in setting out things, as Minister for Local Government, in regard to the holding of these elections in the coming year. In so far as inviting me on this amendment in Committee to state what is discussed at Government meetings is concerned, I do not think that is quite the question that should be asked.

Let me put it this way. The circumstances surrounding the holding of these two polls—I have in mind now, in particular, the referendum—have been changing as time elapsed. I am not going to the point of saying to the House that, because of the Opposition's tactics, these circumstances have come about that I have summed up to-night. I am not saying that or accusing them of that. I am not suggesting that they brought that about, or otherwise. However, it has been a changing circumstance. The timing of the whole thing has depended, and still depends, on the time this matter is completed in this House and in the Seanad.

If I had been asked at the time this Bill was introduced, and I was disposed to give an answer, when this referendum poll would take place or if it would take place on the same day or in the same month as the Presidential election—if I had been asked back in November that same question and if I were to answer it truthfully and honestly at that time—I would have said that, in my opinion, it was most unlikely that they would clash or come so near together that circumstances would bring about a situation in which the two could be held conveniently together.

Mr. Corish

What happened in between?

Mr. Blaney

That is what I am talking about. As time elapsed and as the time taken on discussion went on from week to week—

Mr. Corish

That is ridiculous; there was special time allotted.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

We sat specially in January.

Mr. Blaney

As time went on, there were these factors that I have outlined, in fairness to the House, and I think it will be agreed that I have set them out. The factors were affected by the time taken in discussion and I am not saving that in order to try to push this over. I am saving it as I see it and I am saying that if I had been asked, when this Bill was first introduced, about the date on which this might take place I would have said, in honesty, that I could not see the two being taken together. That is one of the reasons why it is now necessary, in the changing circumstances, to bring in such an amendment. The House can believe that if they wish or they need not. That is, in all honesty, my own position in the matter.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Will the Minister say does he intend to hold the two together?

Mr. Blaney

Surely the Deputy is fully aware that it is not a matter that I, and I alone, can decide, when this poll might be taken?

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Has the Minister consulted the Government and what decision have the Government come to?

General Mulcahy

While accepting that the Minister is trying to be as helpful and as clear as possible, and accepting that he is not able to see as clearly into the heart of things as Deputy Booth, I take it that I have to be content with the way he led up to the situation and with my own interpretation in regard to the unexpected circumstances arising that both are to take place together. May I be a little helpful in clearing from the Government's mind any of the things which they think might be exceptional circumstances? I think the sooner we are told the dates on which both the referendum and the Presidential election are to be held, the better it will be for the general political dignity of the country and of this House. To help them to try to make up their minds, I would tell the Minister, and the Government, in relation to suggestions emanating from the Fianna Fáil Party that the Taoiseach should be allowed to go to the Park unopposed, that that would be quite unthinkable. With the political experience which the people have, and with this proposal by which they are asked to discard their political freedom and liberties, then to contemplate the unopposed return of the author of this proposal to the position of President is quite unthinkable and no more time need be wasted even on propagating an idea like that, or considering it.

The Government should get ahead with this work, in so far as this work is work they consider important, and get ahead with it in the straightest possible way. Evidently, they have made up their minds that they are going to have this referendum at the earliest possible moment. They would have pushed it through in December or January, if they could have done so. Having made up their minds that they are going to push it through, let them make a statement as early as possible as to whether or not the two events are to take place on the same day and let us get away from the loss of dignity of this House and of Ministers and of Government, because apparently they have made up their minds and they will not say what they have in mind.

Mr. J.A. Costello

I just want to intervene for a few minutes and make what I hope will be my last contribution to this debate. I do not want anybody outside the House to be left under any impression, from what has been said in this House, inadvertently or otherwise, that there is any connection in law, and the Constitution, between the holding of the referendum and the Presidential election. There is no connection between them. The Minister for Local Government is the Minister who appoints the date on which the poll for the referendum is to be taken and there cannot be any doubt whatever about that. Equally, there is no doubt that there is no time in the Referendum Act of 1946, or any amendment to it, within which the Minister must make that Order.

Section 8 of the Act of 1942 provides that the Minister is to make the Order when the Bill for the amending of the Constitution is passed, or deemed to have been passed, by both Houses of the Oireachtas. The Minister is then given power to provide, by Order, the date for the holding of the referendum. There is no time limit imposed on him in that, or any other statute, and therefore there is no connection whatever between the holding of the referendum on the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill and the Presidential election. I want that to be clearly understood outside this House. As I say, there might have been an argument based upon convenience or the saving of expense by the holding of the two together, but no such argument has been put forward because the Minister has declined to say whether or not the two are to be held together.

We are not children in this matter and there is not one person in this House, or outside it, who does not believe, or is not firmly convinced, that both these polls are to be held on the same day and we must approach it on that basis.

Mr. Corish

Everybody knows it, except the Government.

Mr. J.A. Costello

We know that is to happen, at all events, and I do not want anybody to think that that situation has been brought about by any constitutional or statutory requirements imposed on the Government, or on the Minister, because there is no such requirement.

All that having been cleared out of the way, I want to make this last remark. In the particular circumstances of these two proposals—the proposal to amend the Constitution and the proposal to appoint a President in this particular year—it is quite contrary to principle that they should be held on the same day. Everybody knows that the one man behind the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill is the Taoiseach, that he is the sole activating force behind it——

Mr. Booth

Nonsense!

Mr. J.A. Costello

——that it is his personal enthusiasm—wrong-headed enthusiasm—that is at the back of all this. We know that there is nobody outside this House who has any notion other than that it is the Taoiseach who is at the back of this. He is the man who brought this proposal forward, pressed it forward, and the man who, we are told, is to be a candidate in the Presidential election. It is quite wrong that he should endeavour so to influence a matter of such vital import as an amendment of the Constitution by holding the election for President on the same day as the referendum on the change in the Constitution. It is wrong in principle. I believe it is a matter of expediency by the Fianna Fáil Party. It is a matter of expediency and they think they will get something out of it. It is my view, and I repeat it, and I am sure there are others who hold the same view, that there is the clearest evidence that terror has stricken the hearts of Fianna Fáil as to what is to happen to the referendum.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The Government and the Minister are treating this House in a rather contemptuous fashion by getting the Minister for Local Government to come here and express the point of view, in the course of the discussion on amendments to the referendum, that he does not know whether or not the Presidential election and the referendum will be held on the same day. Have we not listened to the Taoiseach's statement that, irrespective of what will happen, the two elections will not be held on the same day? The Taoiseach committed himself to that in no uncertain fashion. Now, the Minister for Local Government says that circumstances have changed.

What are the changed circumstances? In my opinion, it is quite easy to see what the change in circumstances is. The change in circumstances is that many people, including some Fianna Fáil supporters, are not so happy about the abolition of P.R. as Fianna Fáil thought they would be last November. As pointed out by Deputy O'Sullivan, the continued discussions in this House and in the local authorities have brought home to the people that it would be unwise to abolish P.R. and the Government Party and the Taoiseach, bearing that in mind, have now decided it would be rather dangerous for them to have the referendum on the abolition of P.R. and the Presidential election held on separate days, in case public opinion might be against them.

They are taking advantage of the fact that the Taoiseach is a Presidential candidate and they hope, by having the two decisions made on the one day, that they will be able to get the people who are doubtful about the advisability of abolishing P.R. to vote in favour of the abolition, seeing that they would be voting for the Taoiseach at the same time. This wave of indignation against the Government's move in seeking to abolish P.R. is the main change in circumstances and not what was mentioned by the Minister. They hope to retrieve the situation, but I have no doubt they will not be able to do so, by holding those two elections at the same time.

The Taoiseach and the Government have gone back on very definite statements they made: they have gone back also on public opinion, and now we have the Minister for Local Government coming along in the latter part of February, two or three months before the election, with the indefinite statement that he does not know whether or not the two elections will be held on the same day. It is a most contemptuous way to treat the Dáil.

Mr. Rooney

The Government may be assured that we will meet them and beat them on both issues, if they decide to have it that way. It is obvious that they have decided to use the Taoiseach as a pawn in the political game to carry the proposed electoral system which has aroused so much opposition in the public mind. Fianna Fáil are well aware that there is generally great opposition to the proposed change in the electoral system. Therefore, they have decided to bring in this clause, which is really only optional. They are afraid to come out and tell the people: this is the plan. They leave it as an optional arrangement whereby if a Presidential election and a referendum should take place on a certain day, the presiding officers under a certain section will be permitted to exercise their vote in respect of the Presidential election as well as in respect of the proposed change in the electoral system.

It is only fair that the Minister should admit that it is planned to use the Taoiseach now as a candidate, in an effort to carry the new electoral system, but in spite of their best intentions, I feel they will be beaten on both issues, even if they have the election and the referendum on the same day, as provided for here.

The public should not be treated in this manner. They are required to make a decision in respect of a very serious issue affecting the freedom of the individual in regard to his right to elect a representative to the Dáil. It is now proposed to use a candidate in the Presidential election for the purpose of making a change in the electoral system which the people have operated for the past 40 years. Surely that kind of trick—it can only be described as a trick—must be exposed and the public must be made aware that the purpose of this amendment is to carry a step further the plan to take from them the right they have at present to select and elect any candidate they wish for any policy of their own choice.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment reported and agreed to.

Bill, as amended on Recommittal, reported.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are now back to the Report Stage. Amendment No. 2 was recommitted for the reasons I already stated. The House is now in session and is not in Committee. Amendment No. 3 is to be moved.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 3:—

2. In page 2, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following new section:—

4.—At a constitutional referendum in relation to the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1958—

(a) a polling card sent under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Referendum (Amendment) Act, 1946, shall contain the statement set out in the Appendix to this section,

(b) a polling card shall also be sent by the local returning officer for a constituency to every elector whose name is on the register of Dáil electors for such constituency and is on the postal voters' list for such constituency,

(c) a polling card sent under paragraph (b) of this section—

(i) shall indicate that it is for a postal voter and shall accordingly not state the number and situation of polling place referred to in sub-section (1) of the said Section 4,

(ii) shall contain the statement referred to in paragraph (a) of this section, and

(iii) shall be sent by post to the elector at the same time as his ballot paper is sent, being addressed to him at the same address as is stated on the envelope in which the ballot paper is sent,

(d) sub-sections (3) to (6) of the said Section 4 shall apply in relation to polling cards sent under paragraph (b) of this section,

(e) copies of the statement referred to in paragraph (a) of this section may be displayed in or in the precincts of polling stations,

(f) notwithstanding Section 2 of this Act and sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule thereto, in applying paragraph (3) of rule 18 of the rules contained in the First Schedule to the Referendum Act, 1942—

(I) the following sub-paragraph shall be substitued for sub-paragraph (a) of that paragraph:

"(a) the presiding officer shall read out to the voter the Short Title of the Bill containing the proposal to amend the Constitution as stated on the ballot paper and then ask the voter, ‘Do you approve of or do you object to that Bill becoming law?"'

(II) the following sub-paragraph shall be substituted for sub-paragraph (c) of that paragraph:—

"(c) where the voter fails to understand the import of the said question, the presiding officer—

(i) shall read out to the voter such summary of the proposal which is the subject of the referendum as is contained in the statement set out in the Appendix to Section 4 of the Referendum (Amendment) Act, 1959,

(ii) shall then ask the voter ‘Which do you wish to do—to vote in favour of the proposal? or to vote against the proposal?', and

(iii) shall then mark the ballot paper in accordance with the answer of the voter;"

APPENDIX

The following Summary of the principal proposals in the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1958, is circulated for the information of 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.

The purpose of this amendment is to provide for the circulation to voters of a summary of the principal proposals in the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1958; for the display of the summary as a notice at polling stations and for the reading of the summary by presiding officers at polling stations to incapacitated voters who fail to understand the import of the prescribed question: "Do you approve of or do you object to that Bill becoming law?"

The statement set out in the appendix of the amendment is the statement agreed to by the parties in the House and read out by the Minister in the Dáil on 27th January, 1959. (Dáil Debates Volume 172, No. 8, columns 1110-1111).

Section 4 (1) of the Referendum (Amendment) Act, 1946, provides for the issue to voters of polling cards giving the voter's number and polling station. The summary will be included in these cards.

The cards are required to be issued by local returning officers at such time that they will be delivered in the ordinary course of post not later than the third day before polling day.

Normally, polling cards are not sent to postal voters. At the referendum on the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1958, the local returning officer will, however, be required to send the cards, including the summary of the principal proposals of the Bill, to postal voters at the same time as ballot papers are being sent to them. The polling cards for postal voters will not state the voter's number or polling station since voting in these cases will be by post.

Sub-sections (3) to (6) of Section 4 of the 1946 Act provide for the arrangements with the Post Office for the delivery of the polling cards (sub-section (3)), the expenses of the local returning officer in issuing the cards (sub-section (4)), that a referendum shall not be invalidated by reason of the failure of the local returning officer to send a polling card to any elector or by reason of the non-delivery of a polling card or of any error or misstatement in a polling card, (sub-section (5)), and that no action or other proceeding shall lie against a local returning officer in respect of any error or misstatement in any polling card (sub-section (6)).

Paragraph (f) of the amendment deals with the questions which the presiding officer may ask an incapacitated voter who applies to have his ballot paper marked in the referendum on the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1958. Under the provisions the presiding officer reads out to the voter the Short Title of the Bill and asks "Do you approve of or do you object to that Bill becoming law?", marking the voter's ballot paper in accordance with his answer. If the voter fails to understand the import of the question the presiding officer is required to read out the summary of the Bill as set out in the Appendix of the amendment and ask "Which do you wish to do—to vote in favour of the proposal? or to vote against the proposal?", marking the voter's ballot paper in accordance with the answer. A request made by a voter within four hours before the close of the poll to have his ballot paper marked for him may be refused by the presiding officer, if in his opinion, having regard to the number of voters coming in to vote, his acceding to such request would interfere with the proper discharge of his duties or would unduly obstruct the voting of other voters. (Rule 18 (2) of First Schedule to Referendum Act, 1942.)

Article 2 of the Second Schedule to the Bill is not being touched. It will deal with constitutional referenda generally.

Mr. J.A. Costello

I think it is rather inept that we should be turning into our statute law the statement that was approved by all Parties in the House as being an appropriate statement to be issued with the card sent by the returning officer to each voter. The proposal in this amendment, as I understand it, is to put into an appendix what was agreed to between the Parties in the House. In other words, every time there is a referendum if that procedure is to be adopted in future, there must be an ad hoc agreement in the House and then a special Act of Parliament passed to give legal effect to it.

Mr. Blaney

The provision in this amendment and the appendix is really ad hoc in relation solely to this referendum.

Mr. J.A. Costello

I understand that. That is what I was objecting to and that is what I said was inept. In accordance with parliamentary procedure, all Parties in the House agreed that a certain form of statement should be approved of and issued. Now it is intended to give that the force of law. Perhaps it is convenient, but at all events this is merely ad hoc. In any future referendum, all the procedure must be gone through again. There must be a Bill passed through this House and the Seanad and enacted. That seems to me to be the height of absurdity and ineptitude. I cannot see the reason for it at all.

I should like to refer to the amendment in my name and which, on the Committee Stage of the Bill, I withdrew, in order to enable the Minister to consider it. I was endeavouring to provide a statutory procedure by which something like what was achieved by agreement would be the statutory requirement for all future referenda. What we did succeed in reaching agreement upon was a simple, concise statement containing a summary of the principal provisions of the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill. We succeeded in achieving that through the machinery of this House, through consultation and conference. I do not see why something like what I have put down in my amendment should not be made the general law of the country instead of leaving it to an ad hoc statute every time there is a referendum. We make ourselves rather ridiculous by accepting the procedure suggested in the ministerial amendment here. I would commend to the Minister the suggestion I have made which, I may say, was a bona fide effort to try to meet the situation for all future referenda, and had no sinister meaning behind it. If the Minister or his colleague thinks that because I put it down, there is something sinister in it, I should like to disabuse his mind of that notion. This is only an effort on my part to try to deal with the situation in general, so that what was done by agreement would have the statutory ratification of being, as I called it, a statement in simple and concise language of the principal proposals of the Bill. I think that would be a better procedure. It would not hamper any future referenda that might be held and would be much more dignified and in accordance with the general procedure of the House.

Mr. Corish

This is one of the things on which we differed fundamentally when we discussed this Bill originally, but subsequently it is one of the things on which we agreed. We went a fair distance towards meeting each other on this, but Deputy Costello is perfectly right: while we have achieved what we set out to achieve in the first place, it is a fact that every time a referendum is held, there will have to be a special Act of Parliament to provide for the wording of the summary of the amendment of the Constitution on which people will be asked to vote.

I would agree to a very large extent with the amendment in the name of Deputy Costello, but I think he ought to have gone a little further to provide for the type of thing we did in regard to the referendum on the Third Amendment of the Constitution, that is, to include some words to the effect that the summary to be submitted to the electorate would be a summary in words to be agreed upon by the various Parties or members of the House. The Minister cannot at this stage change it, but I would suggest that he ought to amend it in such a way as to leave in his own proposal in the form of amendment No. 3, but also to embody in the Bill amendment No. 4 in the name of Deputy Costello, with the change I have suggested.

The Minister made reference to what he described as an electoral regulation whereby those people who could not vote and whom we usually describe as illiterates, may be refused information which the ordinary electors get in the summary, four hours before the closing of the poll. That could be a hardship. We have not so many illiterates at the present time as we had in years gone by, but virtually closing the polls to people who cannot read the summary, assumes, in effect, that illiterates do not work. Four hours before the closing of the polls would be five o'clock. I appreciate the difficulty there might be with illiterates at 8 o'clock or 8.30 at night when queues of people are there waiting to vote. It would be difficult for the returning officer to read out then the summary contained in the appendix. The Minister ought to consider changing the regulations to provide that the reading of such a summary need not be made three hours before the closing of the polls or extend the closing of the polls to ten o'clock at night.

In recent elections, the experience all of us have had is that there is a very low poll up to six or seven o'clock. The bulk of the voters come between seven o'clock and nine o'clock. I am sure anybody who works in a general election or has to man booths on election days knows how boring it can become between nine o'clock in the morning and about seven o'clock in the evening, apart from a short break for lunch. The times are not at all suitable for the majority of voters. For that reason, the Minister should try to ensure that the voting hours be changed from nine o'clock to ten o'clock, or from ten in the morning to ten at night, or better still, if there is no serious objection, to have the voting either on a Sunday or on a day that would be declared a public holiday.

There is no doubt that there are many hundreds, and even thousands, of people who during the whole of their lifetime have not had an opportunity of voting. I have in mind particularly commercial travellers. Elections are never held on Mondays and are rarely held on Fridays. They are usually held on Tuesdays, Wednesdays or Thursdays. As far as commercial travellers are concerned, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays are their busy days. On such an important vote as the referendum, it is desirable that every citizen who possibly can should have an opportunity of voting.

In that respect also, I should like to ask the Minister—maybe he has referred to it already—what people will be entitled to vote, what people will get these voting cards and what people will get this summary? Will it be every single person included on the register? Does it include the Garda Síochána, for instance? I know it does include the Defence Forces. I think the Minister ought to give consideration to some of those suggestions with the possibility that he may bring in such amendments or similar amendments when the Bill comes to be debated in the Seanad.

Mr. Rooney

It is clear from this matter that the House is being asked to legislate now for a specific contingency. The reason for that is the fact that the Constitution as originally designed did not provide for a voting system which it is now proposed to ask the public to decide upon. I am in favour of the suggestion that it is only fair to the country that this House should legislate in clear general terms within a recognised framework where the law or the regulation relating to it can be applied to various contingencies that may arise. It is clear from this Bill that we are legislating only for the purpose of meeting the contingencies arising from the need here to have a decision on this referendum in regard to a voting system which is not provided for in the Constitution.

The Minister mentioned that arrangements are being made for postal voting. This matter of postal voting arises at nearly every general election. It certainly should arise on a very important issue such as this. The election takes place on a certain date. As Deputy Corish has said, it is often found that people who have business outside their own constituency or away from their own polling districts, for one reason or another, cannot possibly exercise their vote. They get the opportunity of voting only on that particular day, and they are deprived of that opportunity because of the necessity of being away from the polling district on that day. I am referring to such people as commercial travellers and people who might be on business outside the country. Then there are the emigrants who have left the country to seek employment, but who have every intention of returning to the country as soon as possible. Those people have no opportunity of exercising the votes to which they are entitled. In certain circumstances, the postal vote should be extended to cover these people.

It would be unreasonable to suggest that for trivial reasons people should be given the opportunity of exercising a postal vote, but this problem arises at every election where it is necessary for people to be away from their polling districts. It would be helpful, even at this time, if the Minister or his draftsmen could consider seriously a set of circumstances in which any particular citizen would be entitled to exercise his vote. For instance, take the person who is taken ill and finds himself in hospital on the day of the vote. Next day or the day afterwards, he is out again. He has no opportunity of exercising his vote. The people in hospitals and institutions who would be normally entitled to exercise their vote ought to be given an opportunity of having a postal vote. I believe that at present the postal vote is reserved for members of the Army. When we are considering this matter we should widen the scope of the regulations relating to postal votes, so that a larger number of the people, who for some reason or other cannot exercise their votes on the particular day, should be given that opportunity.

General Mulcahy

I have just a couple of points to make. In paragraph (e), it says that "copies of the statement referred to"—the statement in the appendix—"in paragraph (a) of this section may be displayed in or in the precincts of polling stations". That "may" should be "shall". Would the Minister not consider it most desirable that there should be a copy of the appendix displayed in the polling stations or in the precincts? I should like to ask him what is the implication of the word "may" and why should it not be "shall"?

Then, with regard to (f) (I) and (f) (II), some rather penetrating mind seems to have been at work here. The proposal is to amend paragraph 3 of Rule 18 of the Second Schedule to the 1942 Act where incapacitated voters are being helped. That paragraph says:—

"In carrying out the provisions of this rule, the presiding officer shall observe and comply with the following directions, that is to say (a) the presiding officer shall ask the voter, ‘Which do you wish to do— to vote in favour of the proposal or to vote against the proposal?'"

That is the question to be put to the person who wants to be assisted. The presiding officer will then mark the ballot paper. In paragraph (c), where the voter fails to understand the import of the question, the presiding officer shall read out to the voter the Proposal as stated, and then ask the voter: "Do you approve of or do you object to the Proposal becoming law?" Apparently some deep consideration has been given to that process and, under the amendment now proposed by the Minister, when a person wants to be assisted by the presiding officer, the question he will be asked is not the question provided under (a) but the question provided under (c) where he says that he does not understand the question. If the voter does not understand what was No. 2 question, but will after this be No. 1 question, he will be put No. 1 question from the Schedule of the 1942 Act when he looks for further advice as to what the original question means. These two questions have been transposed and I am wondering as to the mental processes which decided to make this change in this way.

Mr. Blaney

Taking the last point first, under paragraph (f) (2) (c) (1), which is, I think, the point Deputy Mulcahy is on, the presiding officer, in the case of a voter who fails to understand the question whether he approves of or objects to the Bill becoming law, is required to read out to the voter such summary of the proposal as is contained in the statement set out in the appendix. In other words, the lead-in and the tailend and the various questions tied on to that statement do not enter. It is merely the middle part of the agreed statement setting out a summary of what is mainly contained in the Bill. The word "summary" is used deliberately. The presiding officer will not have to read out the lead-in and the tailend which appears on the agreed form we are circulating to voters in general. I do not know if that answers the question.

General Mulcahy

It does not. If the Minister looks at paragraph (3) (a) of Rule 18 of the 1942 Act, when the voter first looks for assistance, the presiding officer will ask him whether he wishes to vote in favour of the proposal or against it. That is now being changed and the presiding officer will now ask: "Do you approve or do you object to the Bill becoming law?" That is the formula provided in the rules under the 1942 Act for the second question. A person comes in and says he wants to be assisted. The old rules provided for a particular type of question and, if the voter did not understand that, then a second question was put to him. These two questions are now being reversed in the Minister's new regulations.

Mr. Blaney

I shall have to depart from the point for the moment. I have something on it somewhere, I know, but I am not quite clear on it. I shall deal with it before I finish.

General Mulcahy

I just draw the Minister's attention to it. I find it difficult to understand why the questions should not be the same in both cases.

Mr. Blaney

I am slightly confused myself with all the cross-references, but I shall have something to say on it before I sit down.

With regard to the matter raised by Deputy J.A. Costello in relation to the form of the amendment being an ad hoc provision and his assurance that his efforts were not to be regarded as being in any way mischievous, or anything like that, I can assure him that the Opposition's approach to this matter has been fully appreciated by myself and my colleagues inasmuch as we were able to get certain agreements which helped us to overcome difficulties that were regarded at one stage as insurmountable; and, as a result of those agreements, we are now in the position of being able to circulate to voters generally a simple formula setting out what the issue before them is.

With reference to the application of that practice to all future referenda, which seems to be the Deputy's wish, I can only say that I still have the same objections as I had on the Committee Stage. While we undoubtedly have got agreement in this instance, if we were to make this part of permanent legislation, governing all future referenda, we might not so readily, if at all, get agreement as to the form of the summary. It is solely for that good reason—I consider it a very good reason—that we are leaving this as an ad hoc arrangement. As well as that, we shall gain some experience of how this ad hoc arrangement works. As a result of that experience, we may possibly incorporate it as a permanent feature in this kind of legislation.

With regard to postal vote facilities, I have tremendous sympathy with the views expressed by the two Deputies on this occasion and on earlier occasions. Giving effect to such a vote would be very difficult. We would have to ensure that we would not find ourselves in a situation in which there would be ultimately more postal voters than voters actually attending the polling stations. While I cannot see my way on this Bill, at any rate, to trying to find a way around those difficulties, I shall bear what has been said in mind because I am in full sympathy with the views expressed. I appreciate there are genuine and bona fide reasons for such a course. Commercial travellers, for instance, may have to be away from home on the very day polling takes place and cannot, therefore, exercise the franchise. I am aware of all these things, but the difficulties are very great.

Mr. Corish

What about the Garda? Is the Minister giving the Garda a vote.

Mr. Blaney

On this occasion, no.

Mr. Corish

Are they prevented by legislation from having a vote on this?

Mr. Blaney

They are not Dáil electors and therefore they do not come in on this.

Mr. Corish

It is only Dáil electors who can vote in a referendum?

Mr. Blaney

That is correct. I might say that, even if we wished to bring in the Garda, it would have been too late at the time of the introduction of this Bill. The lists have been finally checked and they are either in the printers' hands or are on their way to the printers. We would have had the unusual position of legislation proposing to give the Garda votes and, while that Bill was in process of becoming law, the lists in relation to these two very important events have actually been completed and it would not have been possible, therefore, to put the Garda on them. We would have had the anomalous position of giving them a vote while, through lack of machinery, it would not be possible for them to exercise that vote. Again in regard to Deputy Mulcahy's poser in so far as this change in the question is concerned, the change of the rules applicable to this case, I might say that the proposal will now be stated in the ballot paper by reference only to the Short Title of the Bill. The rules were, in fact, drawn up so that the ballot paper would include a statement of the proposals. In other words the rules that then applied must be changed somewhat in order to meet a change in the situation brought about by that particular aspect of things.

General Mulcahy

The change is a result of great clear thought.

Mr. Blaney

I hope so.

Mr. Corish

May I ask the Minister if he considered at all the suggestion that the voting might be extended or that there might be, not a national holiday but a closed day, for the voting on such a matter as the referendum or the Presidential election?

Mr. Blaney

The polling hours, as the Deputy is aware, are fixed by statute and they are from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. They can be extended further to 9.30, I think, by ministerial Order or otherwise, but by statute the normal hours are 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendment No. 4 not moved.

Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

Final Stage?

General Mulcahy

The Bill will have to be printed—Final Stage this day week.

Mr. Blaney

Could we, by any chance, have it now?

Mr. Corish

No.

General Mulcahy

Not a chance. Let us have a look at the printed Bill.

Mr. Blaney

What about to-morrow?

General Mulcahy

No.

Mr. Corish

We want notice.

General Mulcahy

We are not being unreasonable.

Mr. Blaney

I shall only say, in furtherance of my plea, that the House might take it now that while it is rather confusing in certain ways by reason of various references and cross-references, it is nevertheless a fairly straightforward and small piece of legislation on which we have had a considerable amount of debate on all the various stages and on which we have found relative agreement on many aspects. The Bill in its original form has been kicking around more or less for almost three months. Possibly that might be taken as an extenuating circumstance.

General Mulcahy

The House has been very reasonable in view of the way in which this Bill was drafted, but I appeal to the Minister to throw his mind back to the discussions on the form of the ballot paper. There are a lot of things in some of our minds and we have particular feelings with regard to the form of the ballot paper, which is a very important thing. I ask the Minister to understand that it is not for any purpose of obstruction or to tantalise him in any way that we do not give him the Bill now, or even to-morrow. A very substantial number of amendments have been added to it just now, but the form of the batlot paper still remains in the most unsatisfactory form in which it was when we discussed it here in Committee Stage. I ask the Minister to understand that we have constructive suggestions to make, and it is unreasonable to expect us to give the Final Stage to-morrow.

Mr. Blaney

When do you suggest we take the Final Stage?

General Mulcahy

Some day next week.

Mr. J.A. Costello

Next Tuesday.

Mr. Corish

Are we meeting on Tuesday?

Mr. J.A. Costello

The first day we meet next week.

General Mulcahy

Could the Minister tell us whether or not we are sitting on Tuesday?

Mr. Blaney

I am afraid I cannot.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

We are sitting on Tuesday.

Fifth Stage ordered for Tuesday, 3rd March, 1959.