Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 2 Apr 1963

Vol. 201 No. 6

Electoral Bill, 1962—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following amendment:

In subsection (1), page 55, lines 20 to 28, to delete paragraphs (b) and (c) and substitute:

"(b) The Council may, in pursuance of a resolution passed by the Council and for the passing of which not less than two-thirds of the members of the Council voted, apply to the Minister for an order made in accordance with subsection (5) of section 88 of the Electoral Act, 1963, dividing the Borough into two or more electoral areas.

(c) An order under this section shall appoint in such manner as most nearly secures equal representation on the basis of population the number of members of the Council to be elected at a Borough election for each of the electoral areas created by such order"—(Deputy Jones.)

Mr. Coughlan:

The amendment, as set out, gives authority to the Minister to divide certain areas under the ward system. I would say, without intending to be hurtful, that when the Minister was in swaddling clothes, we had in the city of Limerick a system of election under the ward system and at that time the city was divided into a number of areas or wards. While the city of Limerick was nothing like its present size or population we had at that time 40 members on the City Council. It was then decided that this was an unwieldy situation which led to a lot of skullduggery and the usual things that occurred in local authority and public matters, and somebody, in a saner moment, decided the city of Limerick should be left in one complete unit. Instead of 40 members we elected 17 to the City Council. The first four elected at that time were privileged by being named aldermen of the city.

Limerick, like many other centres, is changing and taking on a complexion more in keeping with public welfare and with the progress of the area. We are building vast schemes of houses, though, perhaps, not as quickly or in great numbers as the Minister's standards require—he certainly fired some abusive castigations on us on his departure to America recently to the effect that our speed or movement was not up to the standard he would wish to see. However, Limerick is in a state of flux at the moment. Numbers of parishes are being divided up by the Bishop who takes cognizance of building that is going on in particular parishes to the detriment of the oldestablished parishes in the city.

The whole situation in Limerick is changing. If the Minister thinks he can, without first consulting members of Limerick City Council, divide the city into wards and divisions—let him put it on a parish basis and there are something like seven or eight parishes in the city: we have 17 city members in the City Council—I do not know how he is going to divide it in 1963 and think of Limerick as it will be in 1965, 1966 or 1970. I suppose his guess is better and more realistic than mine, although I was bred, born and raised in Limerick.

Some time ago, in 1961 or 1960, I think, when the Minister made this proposal, it was followed up in Limerick City Council by a colleague of the Minister, the present Parliamentary Secretary. The members of the council decided again this division. Despite what the Minister says regarding the number of runners declared for the Cork body, I think this is a good thing. It would be a sad state of affairs if we did not have enough runners to fill the seats that are vacant in any council, urban, borough or county. Competition is good and we all welcome it. On 4th August, if my memory serves me well—I have not got my notes here—we discussed this matter in Limerick City Council and, as a result, the present Parliamentary Secretary who was then a member of the council withdrew his proposal to divide the city into wards or areas because on that occasion we and the members of his own Party were completely against the suggestion. If my memory is correct, the Minister was informed of this by our city manager and the Minister replied by referring to a statement he made at the General Council of County Councils viewing with abhorrence the big number of contestants and runners for seats on Limerick and Cork Corporations.

The Minister is overlooking one significant fact and I shall bring his memory up to more recent times. Last Wednesday, we had about 40 runners in the Lincoln and on last Saturday something like 46 runners in the Grand National. I am speaking completely from memory but I think I am not mistaken when I say that the people of Ireland were not so illiterate that they could not discern one runner from another. Neither have the people of Limerick been so cursed with illiteracy as not to be able to discern one runner from another when the local election comes round.

I do not know what is in the Minister's mind regarding Limerick but I have a fairly good idea. We are a discerning people and know what we want and how to get it. If Limerick people want a man who lives in Garryowen or Thomondgate—I am sure these names are familiar to the Minister and his officials—they will take him and the people from Ballinacurra, two miles away, will take that man also if they think he is worthwhile. But Limerick is changing at the moment. The City Council are building houses by the hundred and have schemes arranged for the next 700 or 800 or, perhaps, 1,000 houses. If the Minister divides the city up into 17 seats and gives us two or three or four areas, he would want to be a bit of a Mandrake or a juggler to balance one area against another. I should not like to take his chance, knowing Limerick as I do. If the Minister says: "You will elect three members or two members in this area"—I suppose it all depends on the political strength of the area—and we then come along as the City Council and erect 200 or 300 houses in that area which will mean at least three votes per house, where is the Minister in his calculations?

Without being hurtful, I want to impress on the Minister that he is biting off more than anybody can chew. We are only in the growing stages in Limerick city and nobody knows what the position of the city will be in ten years time, particularly having regard to the new city being created at Shannon. Whether that will have urban, borough or county borough status, nobody knows. Even the Minister does not know. That situation will have to be met, whatever charter the Shannon area will have. We are alert in Limerick to what is happening beside us. Yet we find the Minister saying: "I can", "I may" and "I will" and "I shall divide Limerick into an area or areas and give these people areas and they will select their own men in these areas."

I fought three city elections in Limerick. I know what it is. Thanks be to God, I do not know what it is to be defeated in Limerick but there were many defeated. We have at all times had two and three times as many runners as we had places in the City Council. That is a very healthy situation and a very good thing. It means that somebody is taking an interest.

I want to impress on the Minister the situation with regard to this city of mine. We members, who were elected by the people of Limerick, do not want or desire the situation as envisaged by the Minister. We want to leave Limerick until such time as Limerick has settled down, until we see exactly the final picture where this city is concerned. At the present time, we do not know that. If we do not know it—we who live there—the Minister—who works in Dublin—can have no notion and no possible idea of what situation or what picture will be presented within the next five or ten years by this city.

I would impress on and appeal to the Minister at this stage with regard to the division of Limerick. The number of spoiled votes in the Limerick election should be a barometer. Thanks be to God, we are devoid of illiteracy in Limerick. We know what we want and we can learn and read and think, which is allimportant. We can select our men or women in Limerick and let them be from any particular area.

Limerick is a small town at the moment. It is just an enlarged town, if you like—a good provincial town. We are all more or less neighbours in our city and everybody knows everybody else. If the Minister is to carry out this idea of his at this stage, let me go on record as saying here today that within a shorter time than the Minister predicts, we will be faced with a situation in Limerick in which we shall have to review the whole situation because of our present building scheme, with approximately 1,000 houses on our stocks. I would ask the Minister to consider seriously before he makes any decision the views of the elected members of Limerick who are the voice of the citizen and who speak on behalf of the citizens.

Just a short time after the Minister's statement to the General Council of County Councils here in Dublin, when this matter was introduced in our council by a colleague of the Minister —his Party disagreed with the suggestion—we decided there and then that Limerick was not fit to be warded, zoned or divided into areas, as the case may be. I am asking the Minister now to consider seriously the position of Limerick. Maybe Cork is a completely different situation and certainly Dublin is, but, where Limerick is concerned, and maybe Waterford—I would imagine Waterford would come into the same category as Limerick— there is no necessity for this division.

I would ask the Minister, before he takes any step in this direction, to leave this matter to the local authority and let a decision be reached there. Whether or not it be a two-thirds majority, I do not mind— his decision is a matter for himself. Certainly, before any steps are taken by the Minister or his Department in this matter, he should consult the elected members of the City Council.

Mr. Blaney:

I can, I think, understand what Deputy Coughlan has been saying in general terms but I do not quite agree with him in all he has said. Particularly do I disagree with him in respect of the manner in which he read into what I may have said in the past his own interpretation. For instance, he seems to be quite convinced that I am against, and have indicated that I am against, the idea of so many people going for seats. In other words, he suggests that I would like to see fewer candidates and less competition and that I was hitting at the big numbers standing in Cork and Limerick. That is not the case.

There would still be competition in those areas. It would not in any way reduce the competition but I assert that in a situation wherein you have 30 or 40 candidates seeking election for up to, maybe, 20 seats, the voter—under our system of election, which is proportional representation — has not a clue as to what effect his No. 25 or No. 35 vote will have. He is entitled to have a fair idea of what the interpretation of his vote will be when it comes to be counted. But, because you put before him a list—and he has no other choice—of 40 names for, say, 17 seats—if he is to use his vote and not have it disappear by the elimination of his continuing candidates—he has to vote right through. He has not an idea when he has marked that ballot paper as to whether or not he is really voting for the candidates of his choice or in fact helping somebody against whom he would prefer to vote. I think that is wrong, fundamentally wrong.

Mr. Coughlan:

A man votes only for what he thinks right.

Mr. Blaney:

I grant that literacy in Limerick is all Deputy Coughlan says it is. I grant that they are a thinking people—anything. However, I still challenge that electors in any area will be in a position to know, where there are 40 runners and 17 seats, the effect of their votes Nos. 20, 30 or 40. They have not a clue nor could anybody else——

Mr. Coughlan:

They do not do it.

Mr. Blaney:

It takes days, with a very astute counting staff, to disentangle what it is all about. Undoubtedly, there are results that are a surprise to everybody, not least to the people elected, and in some cases quite a surprise to the people left out. It would be thought, from what the Deputy says, that I am asking for something outlandish, unreasonable, and something that has never been the right of any Minister for Local Government in the past. That is far from the truth. The situation today is, as it has been for very many years, that every county council, urban council and district council area is subject to being divided by the Minister for Local Government without request, without approval and, if necessary, without reference to any of the elected bodies of all of those areas.

Mr. Coughlan:

But it was never done in Limerick since I was a baby. Why now?

Mr. Blaney:

That is one of the reasons why it should be made now in that it is a little while since the Deputy was a baby. There have been changes. The Deputy has outlined that it would be impossible to know what will be the situation in Limerick, in three, four six or ten years from now. If that is an argument against a change that would bring us up to date, surely no change since the Deputy was a baby is an argument that some change is urgently necessary at the moment?

Mr. Coughlan:

Will the Minister allow the people to decide, rather than himself?

Mr. Blaney:

But it would be the people who would be deciding in that case. It is not the people the Deputy is proposing. He is proposing that it should be the people who are elected under a procedure which is not suited to the system and the type of voting practised in the greater part of the country. They are elected under a system that could not possibly be understood by any human mind and yet the Deputy alleges that they represent the mind of the people.

Mr. Coughlan:

Have the people not given their decision over the years?

Mr. Blaney:

I am questioning the wisdom of the method by which the people have selected their representatives in the past in these three cities only. I am not questioning it in Dublin city or in any county council or urban council. All I can say is that these three cities should be brought into line and that it would be better for them to be brought into line with the other electoral areas. It is a reasonable request and one with which I think the House will not find fault, should they agree to this change.

Mr. Coughlan:

Before the Minister makes a decision on this matter, will he leave it to a decision of the Limerick city people?

Mr. Blaney:

No.

Mr. Coughlan:

When I say the Limerick city people, I mean the people they elect to speak for them?

Mr. Blaney:

No.

Mr. Coughlan:

What does the Minister or his officials know about the situation in Limerick? Nothing. I was born and reared there and I know something about it and I know what the people want. If the Minister and his officials tell me they know what they want in Limerick from one end of the week to the other, I say they are talking through their hats. This is a matter which we shall decide in Limerick. We shall make an issue of this as far as Limerick is concerned and we shall fight it to the last ditch. If the Minister or his officials think they can chop the city of Limerick into areas in a way that will satisfy the people of Limerick, they are sadly mistaken. Before that day comes, I would ask him to reconsider the matter.

Mr. T. Lynch:

I have a little interest in this because I can see that Waterford is coming next. I am sure the Chair will not rule me out of order if I compare the two because the idea is the same in regard to both places. This is evidently in the nature of an attempt by the officials of the Department of Local Government to take all power to themselves. As the representative of the people, the Minister should be very jealous of the people's power. I agree with Deputy Coughlan that if a change were wished or asked for, that change should not be brought about by one, two or three persons in the Custom House but should be brought about by the elected representatives of the people of Limerick, the Mayor, aldermen and members of the Corporation of Limerick.

That is a very reasonable request. I shall not make any wisecracks about this but there is always the great danger that somebody other than the Minister would wield this power. I do not think the Minister is asking this power for himself. This power is being taken for all time by the officials of the Department of Local Government so that a Minister, maybe the present Minister, would not be consulted and the people of Limerick might find themselves in a strange position in regard to elections. I would ask the Minister to ascertain whether the Corporation of Limerick were at fault. If they were at fault, it would look as if a change were needed. I do not know what the position is in Limerick but 1938 or 1939 was the first time I had experience of this happening in Waterford. It should be left entirely to the Mayor and members of Limerick Corporation, to make the decision as to how the city should be divided for the purposes of local elections.

That reminds me of another matter in connection with the division. Maybe in the years to come, this will be a terrible weapon to have put into the hands of the Custom House. I do not say that this Minister—because I know he has been antagonistic towards such a thing—or that anybody I know would do as has been done in the Six Counties. I refer to the gerrymandering of a city such as Derry and I dare say that if this power were given to the city of Derry, the gerrymandering would continue. I consider that there should be no division of elected areas in Limerick without the consent of the majority of the Corporation of Limerick.

Mr. Jones:

When the Minister was replying to Deputy Coughlan on this matter, he gave an indication of the effect of this amendment and of others which will follow it and said that, on principle, he is opposed to leaving the decision to the elected representatives of the people in that area. That is something I deplore because the elected representatives of the people are the expression of the popular will in these areas. When the Minister compares county council areas with builtup areas in a city, it is an invidious comparison. In a county council area, which is a large physical area, the vote is scattered over many towns, villages and rural districts, whereas in the cities, there is a concentration of population, which, as Deputy Coughlan pointed out, is in the process of being moved about as housing changes. As we are aware in regard to Dublin, there is a growing population in the cities to the detriment of the countryside.

The Minister has decided that he will not leave the situation as it is because of the difficulties which he says the average voter will have in marking a ballot paper so as to give effect to his wishes in the matter of the government of his city. I would point out that any voter in the cities of Limerick and Waterford, or indeed of Cork, is not faced with any greater task than that which will face the voters in Dublin North-East in the very near future.

Mr. Coughlan:

Or the people who backed the winner in the Lincoln or the National last week.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

That would not arise on this amendment.

Mr. Jones:

In any event, the Minister feels the voters will be faced with a difficulty. For that reason, he believes he should divide up the area for them. What generally happens is that people are fairly well acquainted with a number of candidates in areas contiguous to the areas in which they live. They are equally familiar with candidates who have been before them previously and whose names are in the public mind. They carry their vote to the ninth or tenth preference in selecting those who they think should represent that area on the city council. When that system operates over all the areas represented, you get a very fair representation of public opinion. Therefore, I think the Minister is being unwise in taking the view he has taken.

The Minister may have had this power previously—he assures me it is in previous legislation. He does not see any reason why anybody should fear it will be used in a wrong fashion. I would trust indeed that any Minister for Local Government in the Parliament in this part of the country would not draw down on himself the ire that would descend on him if he attempted to do anything like what has happened in other places.

As I said previously, this is the superior legislative body in the country. We should not do anything which would seem to weaken the democratic process of allowing the locally elected representatives of the people to decide these matters for themselves. If the Minister cannot see his way to accept that, I believe he is doing a disservice both to himself and to the system we know as local government. You are going to take away the word "government" and have local administration. You are going to have local administration imposed from a central authority.

Mr. Blaney:

The view taken by Deputy Jones is entirely wrong. This is not imposing the will of some superior body on the administrative operations of an elected body; this will be a decision of the Dáil on the method of selection and election of local authorities. It will neither add to nor take away from any of their powers.

Mr. Coughlan:

The people do not want it.

Mr. Blaney:

If it did, I would not sponsor it here.

Mr. Coughlan:

The people do not want it.

Mr. Blaney:

How does the Deputy know?

Mr. Coughlan:

I live in the place.

Mr. Blaney:

That does not mean the Deputy knows.

Mr. Coughlan:

Of course, I do. I have represented them long enough.

Mr. Blaney:

The Deputy does not believe in the old adage of "the nearer the church, the farther from God"?

Mr. Coughlan:

No.

Mr. Blaney:

The Deputy made an analogy about the Lincoln with its 40 odd runners. I shall leave the Deputy with his analogy. It is comparable with a local election in Limerick with 40 odd runners and nobody knowing who is going to win.

Mr. Coughlan:

Is that not the way we want it?

Mr. Blaney:

No. What you want is the system in existence in every other administrative unit, where areas of a certain size are represented by a number of sitting members. In the normal way, the number of candidates for those seats would be within the comprehension of the average voter and he is able to mark his ballot paper accordingly.

Mr. Coughlan:

Does the Minister think the people of Limerick have not that intelligence?

Mr. Blaney:

The intelligence and literacy of the people of Limerick do not enter into this. When you have proportional representation and you have 20 seats contested by 40 or 50 runners, 99 per cent of the voters when marking their ballot papers cannot know precisely the full effect of their votes. That is wrong. I do not see why it should be allowed to continue in these three isolated cases when it has been corrected in every other administrative area in the country, including even Dublin city.

Mr. Coughlan:

Does the ordinary voter not know the difference between his No. 1 vote and his No. 25 vote?

Mr. Blaney:

He does not know where it will go.

Mr. Coughlan:

Give the people credit for intelligence.

Mr. Blaney:

That would be superintelligence. An odd genius might have it, but I doubt if anybody could tell you where the 25th preference in a list of 40 names for seven seats will go.

Mr. Coughlan:

Do you mean to tell me they would give a 25th vote?

Mr. Blaney:

If they do not, these cities should be divided up and we should have only the appropriate number of candidates. In our general elections, we have no greater number than five seats in any constituency. The highest number in any country administrative unit is eight. The tendency has been in that direction. PR tends to bring that about. We have 30 or 40 candidates for 17 or 20 seats. There are 70 counts and 5 days of torture. At the end, does anybody know whether the result is the right one or not? Yet it is important to know.

I am not imposing this for the fun of it. It will be of no advantage to me if it means more work. I do not like work any more than the next man and I have no wish for additional work if I can avoid it; but I am asking that these three areas be brought into line with what is good enough and what has worked well for every other administrative unit in the country. Why is it not good enough for Limerick, Cork and Waterford and why should they not be treated in the same way?

Mr. T. Lynch:

I should like to remind the Minister that the unfortunate thing is that when the Department produced a special Bill for Waterford, the Waterford Corporation at the time happened to be dissolved for some mysterious reason, and they consulted with somebody in Water-ford—we do not know who—but it was not with any of the political Parties. The Department of Local Government brought about the state of affairs that now exists in Waterford. Then it was applied to Limerick, and then to Cork. I am not defending this. I am showing that the Department was able to make the mistake when left on its own. What I want put into the Bill is that if this is to be done in Limerick or Cork or Waterford, the Minister or his successor will consult with the Mayor and Corporation of Limerick or Cork or Waterford. This whole system is wrong. We seem to be bringing in legislation all the time under which everything is left to the Minister or his officials.

The Minister said he was no more fond of work than anyone else but I am quite sure the Minister will not have any work if that goes through because if these things were done, they would not be referred to him. The Irish people thought that they would be their own rulers but we are legislating their rights away. If there is any change to come in this connection it should be through the local council, and if a local council makes a decision and asks the Minister to do it, that should be the way. What is wrong is that every day powers are being taken away from the local representatives and we are asked to vote them away. We are constantly voting powers to outside bodies and when we ask the Minister a question about them, he says that he has no responsibility in the matter and that we have voted our powers away. I do not think the Minister should let this go and I would ask him to be reasonable about it. If these local authorities want this change, they are the best judges. With all respect to the Minister's officers, they are not the best judges. It should be left to the people's elected representatives.

Mr. Booth:

I think there is a misconception here. I do not for a moment agree that this proposed legislation is an undue stressing of central authority. I feel this is a matter which we cannot leave safely in the hands of the local authority for the simple reason——

Mr. Coughlan:

Why?

Mr. Booth:

If the Deputy will keep quiet, I shall tell him.

Mr. Coughlan:

I shall, but I am not going to listen to anybody telling me anything about Limerick.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

Will the Deputy allow Deputy Booth to speak?

Mr. Booth:

A local authority has a considerable vested interest in the present situation. I have also had experience of local government and we have discussed this matter in the Borough of Dún Laoghaire. The elected representatives, having been elected under a certain system, have a vested interest in the continuation of that system. A number of them feel that if the system were to be altered, their chances might be reduced. That is a fact which we cannot gainsay. There is no use saying the people do not want it. I know, and the House knows, that when any elector is faced with a ballot paper with 30, 40, or 50 names on it, he is appalled, mesmerised and mystified and there is no use saying that he never asked for the constituency to be divided up. The average elector does not know how that situation can be remedied. All he knows is that he is being given something like the list of runners in the Lincoln and in all conscience, he cannot arrange that number of names in any numerical order with any degree of certainty. We have only to look at the competitions in the Sunday newspapers to realise that the arranging of 12 articles, or words or photographs in any order of preference gives rise to an almost unlimited number of choices.

It would be impossible to say that a vote given under those circumstances would in any sense be an accurate reflection of public opinion, because it is quite impossible for that number of candidates to make any impact on the mind of one voter. Those of us who have been at the counting of votes in local authority elections know that we are faced with a very restricted use of the franchise and that a voter will either vote for the five, six or seven candidates who are personally known to him or will try to use up his vote fully by marking numbers up and down the ballot paper more or less at random. I would be against any effort by any Government to take too much power into their hands but I do not feel this is the case in this instance. The power is there and in every other case there has never been a suggestion that the power has been misused or that there is any danger in the future that it will be misused.

I feel that the electors of Limerick, Waterford and the other boroughs concerned have no reason to fear that they are suffering discrimination in any way and to be treated in exactly the same way as all other electors is entirely reasonable. I quite see what Deputy Jones is standing up for, and the other Deputies may support him in that, but in all conscience, I cannot see why this should be given to such a few areas for no particular reason. I would ask them to withdraw the amendment because the power is still in the hands of the local authority, through the Minister, to do it if they wish to have it done. I would hope that the withdrawal of the amendment would highlight the whole problem and they would have the right to act. I am all in favour of their doing so, if they would do it, but they have not and I do not think they ever will, simply because the vested interest of the present system is there and cannot be got over. I do not think we should make too much of a song and dance about it, and I hope the amendment will be withdrawn.

Mr. Sherwin:

There are nine constituencies in Dublin. I say that the people of Dublin are truly represented because the popular man in a particular area will get a good vote. He probably would not get as good a vote in another area. If the city were one constituency, it would mean that the man elected would be a Party man who might not live in the city at all. Such people are elected only because they have the machine and the money behind them. If the city were one constituency, it would mean that the poor, local man would have no chance of being elected.

One of the arguments against the elimination of proportional representation was that it would give all the power to the machines and rub out the individual. The country rejected the idea of the straight vote. Here is a case where the local man with no machine and no money will have no chance of election. It is incorrect to say that the local people do not want him. When a man is elected, he has a local vested interest. He wants to hold on to his position. He cannot talk for the man who wants to be in his place. Therefore, I am talking about——

Mr. Coughlan:

You do not know what you are talking about.

Mr. Sherwin:

I do. I have the experience of several elections behind me. I came in on my own—no one lifted me in.

Mr. Coughlan:

With your bicycle.

Mr. Sherwin:

No one helped me. I am the truest representative in Ireland. My name is at the bottom of the panel and a vote for me is a 100 per cent true vote. You were helped in by the machine. I have neither a machine nor money.

Mr. Coughlan:

Where did they find you at all?

Mr. Sherwin:

You would not stand a chance without the machine.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

Order.

Mr. Sherwin:

Parties are made up of pocket groups and constituency committees. In America, they have what are known as the regulars. There are two types of people who take part in an election: the regulars who never vary in their ties to the machine, and the citizens, but it is only when an election comes off that the citizens enter into it. The decisions are made by the regulars. I want to see the citizens coming into it instead of leaving all the power in the hands of the regulars. I want to see the man in the street getting a chance and not the vested interests.

Mr. T. Lynch:

Deputy Booth said that he would like to see the local authorities acting and that, in his experience, they did not act. I take it that Deputy Booth has been on a local authority only since the advent of the managerial system.

My argument is that the local authority should have the say, and not the Minister or the Minister's officials. I submit to Dublin Deputies that Dublin is a very big area. Surely we would not be representing the areas that sent us here if we did not say what we think. There are 15 members of the Waterford Corporation, 17 members of the Limerick Corporation and 22 members of the Cork corporation. Those three corporations are the creation of the official who now want to take this power back again. The officials have the idea that they did wrong. They did it without consulting the local authorities. I know they did not consult the local authority when they did it in Waterford.

I appeal to the Minister not to leave these sections in the Bill. I think that authority to change the electoral areas should be left in the hands of the local bodies. They are better able to do it. There is a trend towards thinking that only the officials of certain Departments and certain Government companies know what is good for an area down the country. The sooner we make a stand against that type of policy the better. I believe that if any changes are to be made, they should be made by the local authority in the area concerned.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved.

Mr. Jones:

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 56, to add a new subsection as follows:—

"(5) An order made by the Minister under Section 7 of the Limerick City Management Act, 1934 or under Section 6 of the Waterford City Management Act, 1939 or the Cork City Management Act, 1941 shall not take effect until a draft shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and a Resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each House".

In moving this amendment, I want again to draw the attention of the House to the fact that local authorities or private bodies who promote private Bills must have those Bills brought to the Oireachtas for approval. They come under the scrutiny of someone in the Oireachtas who is responsible for their examination.

I want to make an analogy. Some of the sections of this Bill are not the type of section which we believe should be inserted in the Bill. The Minister has taken power to divide up areas and to make certain regulations and orders in regard to the divisions of those areas. I want to ensure that the Minister will first have to make draft orders and bring them before the Oireachtas for approval before they are held to be binding in the areas to which they apply. This is a watering down of what I had previously hoped the Minister would accept. I want to ensure that before an order is made by the Minister, he will bring a draft order before the House and that the House will have the authority to deal with the order before it has valid or binding effect. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.

Mr. Blaney:

As the House is aware, this amendment is related largely to what we have been discussing. I do not agree with it in the form in which it is at the moment but, particularly in view of the fact that the House has accepted the position as it stands in regard to the divisions by order of the Minister, I would be prepared to provide that, instead of the draft of such regulations being laid before each House of the Oireachtas for approval, the order would be laid before each House of the Oireachtas, and a motion to annul can then be moved. That would meet what Deputy Jones would wish to have, that is, an opportunity to raise the matter contained in the order.

I would much prefer that procedure and would be prepared to bring in an amendment on Report which would compel the Minister to lay before each House of the Oireachtas the actual order and enable a motion to annul to be moved. It may be annulled or passed and it gives an opportunity of discussion here. That would take care of Deputy Lynch's fears that the officials of the Department might run away with the Minister at any stage and that it might not be the Minister's wish but rather that of bureaucracy at work that would operate. I do not think that is a real fear but in case it might happen and I would not be there to see that it did not happen, I propose to bring in an amendment to the effect that the order be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.

Mr. Jones:

I am grateful to the Minister for that undertaking. On that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. T. Lynch:

I, also, am very grateful to the Minister.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 88 agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

Perhaps, by agreement, amendments Nos. 31, 32 and 33 might be discussed together?

Mr. Coughlan:

I move amendment No. 31:

In subsection (1), page 57, line 1, after "may" to insert", but not without the prior consent of the appropriate local authority,".

Mr. Jones:

In regard to amendments Nos. 32 and 33, the Minister has already found that he cannot agree to clause (a) of each of the amendments since the power is now reposing in the Minister. In regard to clause (b) of each of the amendments in regard to the laying of the draft regulations before each House of the Oireachtas, I assume the Minister will give the same type of undertaking as he gave in regard to amendment No. 30?

Mr. Blaney:

No. It may be of some benefit to the movers of these amendments if I say that I think there is a misapprehension about what is intended in the section. The section has really nothing directly to do with or any bearing on the ultimate results of any local election in any given area. The words "wards", "electoral divisions" and "district electoral divisions" are merely terms to describe administrative units which make it possible to compile a register on which an election is fought but their boundaries or what they contain will not have any bearing on, and will not make it possible to bring about a change in, a boundary or the question as to who belongs to a particular area or who belongs to a particular local authority district or functional area. They do not play any part.

I want to remove any fear or misapprehension Deputies may have that the words in that section in any way interfere with what we have been talking about on the other two sections. These are purely names given to units which, inter alia, have a very useful purpose in enabling us to compile registers on which we fight elections but they are only supplementary and subsidiary to and from part of an electoral area or a constituency or a borough area. They cannot extend that or contract it. No matter what we do with them, it will not interfere with the actual area boundary within which a number of candidates may be elected for the local authority concerned or within a constituency. The section can neither expand nor contract any part of any area for either parliamentary or local elections anywhere in the country.

There is some apprehension that this has something to do with and is related to the section we have been discussing. I just want to make it clear that it has nothing whatever to do with that, that it cannot affect the boundaries, neither contract nor expand them. If there is any fear in regard to these matters, I want to remove it.

Mr. Jones:

Would the Minister see any objection to laying the orders he will make under the section on the Table of each House of the Oireachtas?

Mr. Blaney:

It is not because I see any objection; it is because of their innocuous nature that there does not seem to be any necessity to lay them on the Table of each House of the Oireachtas. It is not so much that I do not want to do it as that I do not see any real purpose in doing it.

General MacEoin:

It is only for the electors list.

Mr. Blaney:

That is right. It is really to help us in administering, among other things, the electoral list, and nothing else. Deputies may rest assured that we are taking nothing from them in this section—nothing.

Mr. Coughlan:

Do we take it that the Minister is going to leave the position as it was as far as Limerick is concerned?

Mr. Blaney:

No.

Mr. Tully:

You are breaking up one area into two or more?

Mr. Blaney:

Yes.

Mr. Tully:

Will that not have a very grave effect on the candidates in the area? A candidate who collects a certain number of votes over the entire area will now be confined to one of the smaller areas.

Mr. Blaney:

No. The word "ward" here is probably an unfortunate choice but, nevertheless, a proper one. There is confusion about this word "ward", for the reason that many years ago the local elections in some cities, particularly Dublin, were fought on a ward boundary system. Contrary to the generally accepted opinion, wards do not operate in Dublin for local elections. They are not the real boundaries. They have no standing in law, determining the area within which so many candidates are elected. The wards we are talking about in Section 89 likewise would not be the determining factor as to the areas within which so many people would be elected.

Mr. Tully:

Who decides how many wards make up an electoral division?

Mr. Blaney:

The Minister.

Mr. Tully:

If he decides afterwards that in fact one ward will make up an electoral division, does that not bring about the position that in fact the ward is the area from which people are elected?

Mr. Blaney:

That can happen, but it has not been happening and I do not think it is likely to happen in very many cases. Coincidentally, it may happen but it does not follow that that is the way it will happen, nor is there any reason why it should so happen.

Mr. Tully:

We can understand why the wards were in Dublin a long time ago. If the Minister is preparing areas which are handy to handle, to use an everyday word, why should he have it in such a way that subsequently two or three of them would have to be joined together for the purpose of making an electoral division? Surely the natural thing would be to say the area which you now call a ward is the one from which you elect representatives?

Mr. Blaney:

No. Wards and district electoral divisions are comparable since they are designed for the same administrative purpose. One such purpose for which they are administratively used is to help us in the carrying out of elections of various kinds, the compiling of registers which are easily identifiable, and so on. Although a number of them may be joined together to form an electoral area, or a constituency, for general election purposes, it does not follow that there is anything inherent in the boundaries of these units which confers any benefit or takes away any existing advantage. The census is compiled on these. DDs are used for that; they will continue to be used. They are boundaries which, for good administrative reasons, can be changed from time to time. A boundary may expand or contract to suit circumstances. The whole idea is to make the system administratively workable.

Mr. Coughlan:

We will be faced with a local election in Limerick two years from next June. Suppose, in the meantime, Limerick Corporation build 200, 300, 400, 500, or 600 houses and transfer a number of citizens into that new housing area, what will the Minister do then? We will still have the ward with three or four seats. We will have 17 members in the Corporation. What will the Minister do?

Mr. Blaney:

That situation can be dealt with much more expeditiously under these proposals. If changes of significant proportions take place and alter the balance radically, the Minister will set about rearranging so that a proper balance will be maintained.

Mr. Coughlan:

He will bring in another Bill.

Mr. Blaney:

He will bring in a new scheme for the approval of the House and, if it is approved, it will come into operation. That is part of the usefulness of having this type of system. I think it is a gross exaggeration for the Deputy to say that no one will know what will happen. The Deputy knows what building is projected not alone for next year and the year after but for three or four years ahead.

Mr. Coughlan:

I do not know how the Minister will divide up the city. I know my mind but the Minister does not know his mind. That is the trouble. The Minister has not a clue.

Mr. Blaney:

The Deputy knows his mind; I know my mind. The Deputy should not try to make my mind up in a way in which I am not prepared to accept.

Mr. Coughlan:

I speak for Limerick. You do not.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

The Minister does not.

Mr. Blaney:

It is possible we speak for as many in Limerick as the Deputy does. We could decide, for purposes of illustration, to divide Limerick into three wards and into three areas for election purposes. If that happened then the three wards and the three electoral areas would correspond in boundary. If they did correspond, the latter division would have to come here. We do not have to bring the ward division here for approval but we do have to bring the electoral areas. A ward is not an area from which people will be elected. It is purely and simply an administrative unit. It may form the whole, or only part, of an electoral area. Our main concern is with electoral areas.

Mr. Jones:

I take it that the Minister will ensure that membership on the basis of population will be fair and proportionate?

Mr. Blaney:

Regard will be had to population and valuation, but there is a fallacy in making it legally binding from the point of view of population. One could have a large boarding school, a large hospital, or an institution which might bring about an imbalance, the imbalance the Deputy is afraid would take place. We are not tying ourselves to population because that would tie us so strictly we would have to include everybody; it would be impossible to try to exclude from the point of view of drafting. I assure the House the intention is to have regard to population and valuation, but not to tie ourselves strictly to that because, by doing so, we would get ourselves into more trouble rather than avoid difficulties.

Mr. Coughlan:

Will the Minister tell us how he will divide the city of Limerick into three areas, bearing in mind that there are 17 members in the Limerick Corporation? On my calculation, three will not go evenly into 17.

Sir Anthony Esmonde:

The Deputy can have a seven-member constituency.

Mr. Blaney:

He can carry one.

Mr. Coughlan:

That is what we will be doing. The city will be gerry-mandered to such an extent that you can carry three or four.

Mr. Blaney:

You can carry one.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 32 not moved.

Section 89 agreed to.

SECTION 90.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

Amendment No. 33, in the name of Deputy Jones, is cognate with amendment No. 32.

Mr. Blaney:

This amendment is just harking back to the same argument. My intention is to bring before the House the Order as made, not the draft, and an annulment motion may be moved in respect of it.

General MacEoin:

The order will be made but such a motion will be a motion to annul?

Mr. Blaney:

That is so.

Amendment No. 33 not moved.

Section 90 agreed to.

SECTION 91.

Mr. Blaney:

I move amendment No. 34:

In subsection (7), page 58, line 19, to delete "practice," and substitute "practice or any other alleged offence at an election,".

This is to extend the subsection to cover all types of electoral offences. In the subsection as originally drafted, we referred only to corrupt and illegal practices which did not cover such actions as counterfeiting ballot papers or putting a paper other than a ballot paper into a ballot box. The amendment does not alter the subsection; it merely brings all offences within the meaning of the subsection.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That Section 91, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Jones:

There is just one point I should like to make on the section. Subsection (6) (1) says:

An election agent may, with respect to each polling district, appoint one deputy agent (and no more) to act within that district.

By way of explanation, would the Minister say if it is his intention that this deputy agent will have the same power within the polling district as the election agent will have? The agent has power under the Bill to appoint personation agents. Will the deputy agent have the same power?

Mr. Blaney:

Yes.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 92.

Question proposed: "That Section 92 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Jones:

This section, in paragraph (f) of subsection (2), provides:

For an authorisation by a returning officer to a person to vote at one poll at a polling station other than the one allocated to him shall authorise the person to vote at that station at the other poll or polls in the same constituency.

It does happen that presiding officers and polling clerks sometimes are appointed to areas other than the areas in which they reside. You might have presiding officers and polling clerks working out in one division in a county which is not the area in which they reside. I am wondering how does the Minister entitle such presiding officers and polling clerks to vote in their own areas if they should be acting outside them.

Mr. Blaney:

If I am an elector in an electoral area, there does not seem to be any valid reason why, because I am working as a presiding officer or polling clerk in another area, I should not be entitled to vote for my choice of representatives in an area other than that in which I reside. That is really the argument against that.

Mr. Tully:

How about a postal vote?

Mr. Blaney:

The Committee were generally against this postal vote system. There are so many snags, and so many good cases that could be made for it that if we widened it, innumerable cases would arise. It is true that by and large the returning officers do try to accommodate these people if they can. On the other hand, if people do not want to lose their right to vote, they should not go and work.

Mr. Tully:

As well as getting a day's wages, they are facilitating the State in the running of elections and they are being deprived of their rights.

Mr. Blaney:

Do not be codding yourself.

Mr. Tully:

In some areas, returning officers have to scour districts looking for people to do this work.

Mr. Blaney:

They can exercise their right within the entire constituency. In local elections, it is different because if they go outside their boundary, they are outside the area. However, there is a wide discretion within the electoral area.

Mr. Tully:

At an earlier stage the Minister pooh-poohed the idea that anybody would be appointed to act as presiding officer or polling clerk outside the area in which he resides.

Mr. Blaney:

Surely there must be enough suitable people in a constituency to man their own polling stations?

Mr. Tully:

The Minister knows well the situation that could arise in a big town, where a person would be residing outside the borough boundary. If he does not, he will find many in his Party to enlighten him.

Mr. Blaney:

If they are to teach in the county and live in the city, to preside in the county and vote in the city——

Mr. Tully:

Take Drogheda as an instance. Many people who cannot get a house in the town live in County Meath. They teach in the county and are more likely to be appointed to a polling booth in the school where they teach.

Mr. Blaney:

Why do they not build enough houses in Drogheda?

Mr. T. Lynch:

Why does the Minister not increase the grants?

Mr. Jones:

Can the Minister see any way of getting over this difficulty? I am aware of the difficulties in the way of providing postal vote facilities for the persons I refer to but at the same time there is the right of the individual to his vote to be considered. There may be difficulty in transferring the paper for the presiding officer because of the secrecy of the ballot but people should not be put in a position in which they will be unable to record their votes.

General MacEoin:

Under the old system, it was quite a common practice for a presiding officer who was acting in an area outside that in which he lived and voted to be given permission to get a ballot paper from his area. At that time, there was the further provision that if a candidate's personation agent was in a booth, he also was regarded as an official. The point was that the worker was not being deprived of the right to vote because of the circumstances in which he found himself. I do not know if that system could still operate under which a certificate by all those concerned stating that certain people had included ballot papers for another area, would be in order. I admit that if there were a different returning officer, it would create some difficulty. But the Minister should consider carefully making some effort to ensure that a person who is entitled to vote will not be left without a vote because he was willing to work on that particular day. It is true that he need not take that job if he did not like it but it is a situation that is serious enough and I should like the Minister to consider it again.

Mr. Blaney:

While it would appear from subsection (f) that the matter we have been discussing could properly be discussed at this stage, in a sense it is only incidentally it arises here because we are really dealing with the holding of two elections on the same day. I am all in favour of what Deputies have been saying. It suits me if we can accommodate the people and the more people we can accommodate in any constituency the better. I always feel that way and probably there is some mathematical reason for it with which we are not now concerned. Even if it means trouble and difficulty, particularly if the trouble and difficulty can be overcome by the returning officer, I would go a very long way to meet the situation. After all, it is the returning officer's disposition of the staff in these awkward places which brings about the problem we are asked to solve and even if he must strain himself a little more in order to accommodate these people, I shall certainly see if I can do anything about it.

I agree with the general idea that, if possible, we should be able to arrange for the transfer of votes from one lot to another. Again I must say that this consideration is only incidental to this part of the Bill and it would properly arise on another occasion. If that occasion arises, I shall certainly try to arrange it and meanwhile I shall see what can be done in this Bill or even in this section. I can only promise to look into it fully.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 93 agreed to.

FIRST SCHEDULE

Mr. Blaney:

I move amendment No. 35:

To insert the following repeals in the appropriate places:

“37 Geo. 3, c. 127.	Meeting of Parliament Act, 1797.	The whole Act.
39 and 40 Geo. 3, c. 14.	Meeting of Parliament Act, 1799.	The whole Act.
15 & 16 Vict., c. 23.	Meeting of Parliament Act, 1852.	The whole Act.
30 & 31 Vict., c. 81.	Propagation Act, 1867.	The whole Act.
33 & 34 Vict., c. 81.	Meeting of Parliament Act, 1870.	The whole Act.
No. 22 of 1936.	Electoral (University Constituencies) Act, 1936.	The whole Act.
No. 16 of 1937.	Plebiscite (Draft Constitution) Act, 1937.	The whole Act.
No. 18 of 1942.	Local Elections (Amendment) Act, 1942.	The whole Act.
No. 15 of 1945.	Presidential and Local Elections Act, 1945.	The whole Act.
No. 8 of 1948.	Local Elections Act, 1948.	The whole Act.
No. 9 of 1959.	Presidential Elections (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1959.	The whole Act.
No. 14 of 1960.	Elections Act, 1960.	The whole Act.

This is a formidable-looking amendment but in fact it is no more than a list of the additional Acts that are being repealed, and with which we have dealt generally in the various sections already discussed.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney:

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 62, in the third column with respect to the Electoral Act, 1923, to insert ",52" before "and 54".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney:

I move amendment No 37:

In page 62, in the third column, with respect to the Prevention of Electoral Abuses Act, 1923, to insert "9, 10," before "11 and 14".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney:

I move amendment No. 38:

In page 63, in the third column, with respect to the Presidential Elections Act, 1937, to insert ", 13" before "and 20".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney:

I move amendment No. 39:

In page 63, in the third column, with respect to the Presidential Elections Act, 1937, to insert "paragraph (2) of Rule 26 of that Schedule;" before "paragraphs (2) and (3)".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney:

I move amendment No. 40:

In page 63, in the third column, with respect to the Presidential Elections Act, 1937, to add "paragraph (2) of Rule 38 of that Schedule" after "tendered votes lists,".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney:

I move amendment No. 41:

In page 64, in the third column, with respect to the Referendum Act, 1942, to insert "15," before "21 and 28".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney:

I move amendment No. 42:

In page 64, in the third column, with respect to the Referendum Act, 1942, to delete "and 13" and substitute ", 13 and 14".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney:

I move amendment No. 43:

In page 64, in the third column, with respect to the Referendum Act, 1942, to insert "paragraph (3) of Rule 29 of that Schedule;" before "in paragraph (d) of Rule 31".

Amendment agreed to.

First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.

Mr. Sherwin:

Before moving the amendment standing in my name, may I ask the Minister was there any Independent on this Select Committee?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

I do not see how that arises on the amendment.

Mr. Sherwin:

I should like to know because I would consider such a body a hostile body, if there were no Independents on it. If there was, he must have been asleep.

Mr. Booth:

There was some Independent Deputy. I think it was the former Deputy Russell.

Mr. Sherwin:

That is the man who ceased to be a member on the last election. That is wholly illegal.

Mr. Blaney:

No, it is not.

Mr. Sherwin:

I suggest that the Independents should have been on that Committee. Otherwise, the Committee could be accused of being a hostile committee and of preparing material to suit themselves. Now, it turns out that there has been no Independent since this Dáil met on that Committee. I shall raise the matter in the House. If I had been there, I should have objected to and pointed out certain matters of which the Committee seemed to be ignorant. I am glad now to be informed that there has been no Independent on the Committee since this Dáil met and I accuse the Committee of being hostile to the Independents.

Mr. Booth:

The Committee did not meet since the present Dáil reassembled.

Mr. Sherwin:

That is extraordinary.

Mr. Booth:

It had finished its work.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

Is the Deputy moving his amendment?

Mr. Sherwin:

Yes. I move amendment No. 44:

In page 67, to delete paragraph (1) of "Directions" and substitute:

"(1) Each ballot paper shall contain a list of the candidates as described in their respective nomination papers. Before entry on the ballot paper the names of the candidates shall be put into a drum or convenient receptacle by the returning officer in the presence of the candidates or their representatives at a time arranged by the returning officer, and the names shall appear on the ballot paper in the order in which they were drawn from the drum or receptacle."

The amendment is designed to change the alphabetical form of putting names on a ballot paper. Where a man's name is placed depends on his surname. If his name is Allen, he is on top and if his name begins with the letter W or T, he is at the bottom. I do not know how that came about. Perhaps I am the first person to raise it. I can assure the House the matter has been debated a million times since I entered politics because the people whose names begin with the letter A, B or C have always boasted that they had a great advantage over those whose names put them at the bottom of the ballot paper.

I remember when certain people canvassing to get themselves nominated argued that they would have a good chance because the name began with the letter B. That argument was based on the fact that a small percentage of the electorate mark the names at the top of the ballot paper. Everybody participating in politics, and especially everybody who has stood as a candidate and watched the counting of the votes, knows that in a fairly large constituency, some 200 or 300 papers are marked, beginning at the top, 1, 2, 3, 4 and so on all the way down to the bottom, thus proving there is an illiterate vote of from 200 to 300 persons. That means that a man whose name commences with the letter A, though he might not be known to a single person in the constituency, will get for certain 200 or 300 illiterate No. 1 votes. That is admitted.

When I raised this question before, the Minister joked a bit. He said that maybe they vote from the bottom. The Minister can joke away. There is no evidence that people vote from the bottom or, if there is, it can be proved that only about one in every 200 votes is recorded from the bottom up. However, it is admitted by those who benefit as well as by those who suffer that 200 or 300 No. 1 votes which were not intended are, in fact, given to the person whose name is at the top of the list. If those votes were put into a hat and somebody whose name starts with the letter W managed to get to the top of the list, then that person would get those 200 or 300 votes.

People who are illiterate come in. They are not concerned with who is at the top or the bottom of the list. They just start to vote from the top downwards. I have seen it. Everybody else has seen it. Let us admit that, from the beginning, there is an advantage of 200 or 300 votes, in a fairly decent sized constituency, for anybody whose name starts with the letters A, B, or C.

If there is an A and a B, as happens in many cases, then, if the A is only a poor candidate, on his elimination his votes go on to B and represent No. 1. It is admitted. It is not denied. Everybody accepts it. Further evidence of that, apart from the fact that it is admitted generally, is that people with political ambitions have changed their names. They become Irishmen when it suits them and Englishmen when it suits them. If a man changes his name to Breathnach when his English name is Walsh—W being at the bottom of the list—he will get 200 or 300 votes. In the last election, there was a man who always described himself as an Irishman—Ó Cléir—only Ó Cléir: nothing else would do. But, for election, he changed himself into an Englishman: he put in Clery——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

I do not think the Deputy should refer to individuals.

Mr. Sherwin:

I say that that happens, depending on whether it will get them those admitted 200 or 300 votes. I have tried to think of any other contest or any other game where people would agree to be at a disadvantage. I have not found it yet. If a few friends play Banker for a match, a button or a halfpenny, they will draw to see who will deal the cards. They will not agree to anyone in particular dealing the cards all the time. They will draw for dealer because there is a little advantage in it in that whoever deals the cards is last and, therefore, has an idea from what is on the table. The deal goes around and, because it goes around, they accept it. Nevertheless, they cut the cards to see who deals first. In other words, nobody agrees to any game or any lottery where someone will be at a disadvantage and if anyone insisted that a certain section would have an advantage, well, they could play by themselves because the others would not play with them.

It is generally accepted that nobody will enter into a contest or a game if there is a disadvantage without any just reason. But here is a contest in which the prizes are big. I am telling you. A man, just because his name starts with A—he might not know B from a bull's foot—will get 200 or 300 illiterate votes and anybody else on the list who might be just as good as he is or better, is at that disadvantage just because he is at the bottom of the list. How does it work out? I actually examined the last two elections. I found in one case—I shall not mention names—that a man won the seat by 120 votes. The man who came after him was four places down. If it is true that in a fairly large constituency there are 200 or 300 illiterate votes then this man was elected unfairly, solely because his name was high up on the ballot paper. I want to put it to the House that that has happened many times.

In the elimination of candidates, too, let us take two men of the one Party. The name of the first man starts with B and for the sake of argument, the name of the next man starts with T. There might be only a few votes between them. But poor T is eliminated before B just because he did not get the jump vote, if you like. There are only a few votes between the two men representing the same Party but, nevertheless, poor T is eliminated because his fellow representative got a few more and his name turns out to be B. Why? If there were a lottery, it would not happen. I am trying to point out that there is a definite advantage for some and a disadvantage for others; that it is unfair and that there are no just grounds for it.

I shall be candid. I had a mass of stuff here to prove how it works out in actual practice. I was at a hospital inspection this morning and, after that, I rushed to the Corporation and I have come here without my material. I am making the case, and it can be proved, that in numerous cases men have been eliminated just because of their misfortune in having a name that left them low down the list on the ballot paper. If there were a lottery, and others happened to get drawn above their comrades, they would be elected and not the persons whose names topped the list alphabetically.

You cannot deny it happens. There was a by-election in South City a short time ago. The winner won by 50 votes. You can win by ten votes. Down the country, some fellow won by one vote. You can win by one vote. The whole democratic principle is that a majority can be one vote. Why should any man or woman, just because his or her name starts with A, B, or C, have an advantage over his or her comrades? Why?

I even examined cases of people who have double-barrelled names, especially people who dabble in politics. I have always found that where they added a name to their original name they put the one that would bring them higher up on the ballot paper first. This definite advantage is admitted throughout. As further evidence, I was looking up on the B's, C's and D's in this House. There are 60 Members of the House whose name starts with B, C and D— and there are 26 letters in the alphabet. All of this must, at some stage, have been of help for their election, to the disadvantage of someone else. It happens. It must happen. You can kid yourself all you like but it does happen. I have spoken to some of those people.

In my opinion, all the people whose names are low down on the alphabetical list should start a civil war in their Parties. They should get guts and start it. It is just that they do not like to be a trouble and that is why they keep their mouths shut. However, they complain bitterly. There are no valid or just grounds for that situation. It does not help the electors at all. If there are 200 or 300 illiterate voters then every candidate should have a chance of getting those votes by having all the names put into a hat and letting the returning officer draw out the names and, in the order in which they are drawn, having them printed on the ballot paper.

Here is another disadvantage for the Party group. The Party submits the names, in alphabetical order, of five candidates. Some poor guy's name is at the bottom of the list. Quite obviously all the illiterate Party voters — there is an illiterate section at the back of every one of them—look at the card and begin at the top. Naturally there is every chance that the poor guy whose name is at the bottom of the Party list will get the last vote. The disadvantage is all around for the person who is unfortunate enough to have a name which puts him at the end of the ballot paper. It is not right or fair. I do not remember this matter having been raised before but I would ask the Minister to examine it.

Mr. Tully:

My number in the House is 144. I think that is the answer to Deputy Sherwin's argument because I would not like to see the names jumbled up. When people are contesting an election, it does not matter where their names are on the ballot paper, whether they are at the top or the bottom. If people want to vote for them, they will vote for them. If what Deputy Sherwin said were true, he would not be here himself.

In regard to illiterate voters, there must be an extraordinary situation in Meath because I do not think that in my experience there have been more than a dozen papers marked 1, 2, 3. Maybe a dozen should give us a reason for changing the whole thing round but everybody else votes in a reasonable way and the fact that somebody's name begins with the letter T does not matter. When we are voting here in the House my number is 144; yet I was able to head the poll in the last Dáil election and in the council elections so it would appear that whether your name begins with the letters A, B, C or S, it is immaterial.

Mr. Sherwin:

I merely wish to reply to Deputy Tully. He is thinking of himself. He should think of the other poor unfortunate whose name begins with the letter T and T who has not got the backing. I am not thinking of myself because I got in on the first count in the last election and headed the poll at the previous election. I am thinking of the poor unfortunate who is only coming up. Let us forget ourselves in this instance.

Mr. Blaney:

Depending on the way one looks at it, I suppose there could be a great deal of sense in what has been said by those who are contradicting each other. I am afraid I shall not be able to throw any light on this except to remind the House that I did assert—and I was not joking when I said this to Deputy Sherwin on the last occasion—that if there is an advantage in being at the top, the second best place is the bottom.

Mr. Sherwin:

The Minister is joking again.

Mr. Blaney:

I am not joking. The argument Deputy Sherwin puts forward applies to illiterate or semiilliterate voters and we have gone to a great deal of pains to provide a procedure for these voters and still have the secrecy of their vote maintained. I would say that the procedure we have laid down is the answer to this problem and we should encourage its use to the fully by such people.

I am inclined to agree to a degree with Deputy Tully. It is all very well to say that if you are having a game of cards and you cut for deal, the deal goes round but in a general election if the names are jumbled up and drawn out of a drum and that is taken as being the first deal, it will not be the same players who will be sitting in at the next deal or the deal after that. Indeed, the one player right through the line could be getting the bad draw all the time. Could anyone say that would be a fair situation?

I am not at all satisfied that there is any significant number of people who are so illiterate or so simple that they will choose a candidate merely because he is at the top of the paper. It is amazing how people, even with the poor information they did get in the past, were able to sort out the names and distinguish between one Party and another. They do make mistakes, go to the wrong candidate and to the wrong Party at times but I cannot see that any particular placing of the name of a candidate on a ballot paper will mean his election or his elimination. In fact, if we were to work on that basis and if we took it that people would start in the second or third space and work down the list, there is no guarantee they would come back to the fellow at the top. It can be seen that the candidate at the bottom has the best stand because everybody will drop him a vote when they are passing by.

I do not think the draw suggested by the Deputy would be an improvement on the present situation if a remedy were needed. As far as I can see there is no great problem. If there is a problem it is lessening and will continue lessening to the point of disappearing. To upset the present arrangement would not, in the last analysis, be fair to anybody nor would it be an improvement to many.

Mr. Sherwin:

The Minister's remarks remind me of what was said in relation to the Counties Limerick, Waterford and Cork. It was suggested that any change should be left to the elected representatives, to the vested interests. If there are 60 B's, C's and D's here there are a great many who do not want any change and I am afraid that influences the Minister. In regard to Deputy Tully's comments, it must be remembered that only one table can be seen at a time. He says he saw about a dozen of these votes. It must also be remembered that, on his own admission, he is hostile to the proposal, and in this game when you are hostile you exaggerate one way or the other and do not give a true picture. It is like the people up in the North who control that area; they want no change because they have vested interests. I am not speaking because I fear the loss of my own seat. It may have been so in the early stages when I had to struggle but it does not count now. I am speaking in the interests of fair play and that is what this Bill should be based on, fair play for everyone.

An Ceann Comhairle:

Amendment No. 44?

Mr. Sherwin:

I shall not press it because I have no battallons behind me.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Second Schedule agreed to.

Third Schedule agreed to.

FOURTH SCHEDULE.

Mr. Blaney:

I move amendment No. 45:

To insert at the beginning of the Schedule the following Title and heading:

"FORMS OF BALLOT PAPERS AT REFERENDA

PART I."

and to add the following part:

"PART II.

FORMS OF BALLOT PAPERS AT ORDINARY REFERENDA

1.

FORM OF BALLOT PAPER WHERE ONE REFERENDUM ONLY IS BEING TAKEN.

(Front of Paper)

Marc Oifigiúil.

->

Official Mark.

		An bhfuil tú ag toiliú le dlí a dhéanamh den togra thíosluaite?	Do you approve of the undermentioned proposal becoming law?
Counterfoil No........
					TÁ
Voter's No. on register.				YES
Letter.	No.				Níl
					No
		TREORACHA I DTAOBH AN PÁIPÉAR SEO A MHARCÁIL.	INSTRUCTIONS FOR MARKING THIS PAPER.
		Má thoilíonn tú leis an togra, cuir an marc “X” sa chearnóg os coinne an fhocail “TÁ”.	If you approve of the proposal, place the mark “X” in the square opposite the word “YES”.
		Mura dtoilíon tú leis an togra, cuir an marc “X” sa chearnóg os coinne an fhocail “NÍL”.	If you do not approve of the proposal, place the mark “X” in the square opposite the word “NO”.

(Back of Paper)

No. ..........................................................	Constituency of ....................................
Reifreann i dtaobh an togra go ...........	Referendum on proposal that .............
...................................................................	...................................................................
...................................................................	...................................................................

Note: The back of each ballot paper shall be numbered consecutively and the front of the counterfoil attached to it shall bear the same number. The number on the back of the ballot paper shall be printed in the smallest characters compatible with legibility.

2.

FORM OF BALLOT PAPER WHERE TWO OR MORE REFERENDA ARE BEING TAKEN ON THE SAME DAY.

(Front of Paper)

Marc Oifigiúil.

->

Official Mark.

Counterfoil No.........	I gcás gach togra faoi leith dá luaitear sa chéad cholún anseo thíos, an bhfuil tú ag toiliú le dlí a dhéanamh den togra?	In the case of each of the proposals stated in the first column below, do you approve of the proposal becoming law?
Voter's No. on register.	TOGRA.	TÁ	NÍL
PROPOSAL.	YES.	NO.
Letter.	No.	1.
		2.
		3.
		TREORACHA I DTAOBH AN PÁIPÉAR SEO A MHARCÁIL.	INSTRUCTIONS FOR MARKETING THIS PAPER.
		Cuir an marc “X” sa cholún thuas dar mírcheann “TÁ” os coinne gach togra faoi leith lena dtoilíonn tú.	Place the mark “X” in the column headed “YES” opposite every proposal of which you approve.
		Cuir an marc “X” sa cholún thuas dar mírcheann “NÍL” os coinne gach togra faoi leith nach dtoilíonn tú leis.	Place the mark “X” in the column headed “NO” opposite every proposal of which you do not approve.

(Back of Paper)

No. ....................	Constituency of....................
Reifreann i dtaobh na dtograí seo a eanas:—	Referenda on the following proposals:—
1. ..............................	1. ..............................
..............................	..............................
2. ..............................	2. ..............................
...............................	..............................
3. ..............................	3. ..............................
..............................	...............................

Note: The back of each ballot paper shall be numbered consecutively and the front of the counterfoil attached to it shall bear the same number. The number on the back of the ballot paper shall be printed in the smallest characters compatible with legibility.”

The subject matter of this amendment has already been dealt with on amendment No. 23.

Mr. Sherwin:

Before the amendment is put it used to be in order to state on the ballot paper "Outgoing TD". Is that in order now?

Mr. Blaney:

If that is the only occupation, why not?

Mr. Sherwin:

He can put that down?

Mr. Blaney:

It is not a question of outgoing; he would be a TD.

Mr. Sherwin:

The question of whether he is or not has been argued. We are not TDs going out; we are outgoing TDs.

Mr. Blaney:

If he is a TD, he can so describe himself. In no case would he be an outgoing TD.

Mr. Sherwin:

If he were too presumptuous, he might not get a vote.

Amendment agreed to.

Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 23rd April, 1963.