I move amendment No. 1:
In page 15, to delete lines 18 to 20.
I wonder if we could take the related amendments with this amendment? Thy are: amendments Nos. 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38.
Committee on Finance. - Electoral Bill, 1962—Report and Final Stages.
Is the effect of these amendments to substitute a new form of ballot paper, and so on, which has been proposed?
I shall give the Deputy a brief note on the ones we are taking together. Amendment No. 1 repeals the power to prescribe the form of direction to voters as to the mode in which they are to vote. It is consequential on amendment No. 31 which removes the requirement on a returning officer to publish the notice giving directions to the electors as to the mode in which they are to vote. The requirement is being removed because, under amendment No. 34, the directions as to how to vote will go on the ballot paper. In other words, this is substituting one method of instruction for another.
Amendment No. 32 will repeal the existing statutory posters of directions, that is, the big posters with all the paraphernalia which are prescribed under existing law.
Amendments Nos. 33 and 35 provide for the abolition of the corresponding poster at Presidential elections and also for the entry of instructions on the ballot paper.
Then, amendments Nos. 36, 37 and 38 make corresponding changes in referenda ballot papers. I should have mentioned, as well, that amendment No. 31 also proposes the repeal of Rule 12 of the Fourth Schedule to the Electoral Act, 1923, which deals with declarations of secrecy abolished in other respects by the Committee Stage amendments.
I think all these are in line with discussions on Committee Stage and on Second Reading.
Yes; this is really conforming to what we generally agreed on Committee Stage.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 16, line 28, to delete "the hour of 3 p.m. on" and substitute "12 noon on the day after".
A suggested group with amendment No. 2 is amendments Nos. 3, 5, 7, 8 and 16.
These amendments arise directly from our discussions and more or less agreement on the Committee Stage at which point, in regard to these amendments, I said I would consider extending the time for the withdrawal of nominations. These amendments achieve the purpose and make some changes which are a necessary follow-on. For the purpose of the record, I might give the various amendments now being considered in the order in which I feel they affect the issue.
Amendment No. 5 extends the time for the withdrawal of nominations up to 12 noon on the day after the last day for receiving nominations. That, I think, is what we had hoped to achieve in order that there would be sufficient time for withdrawals if, for any reason, somebody was nominated who had not legitimately agreed to go forward, or for any other reasons. It will be 24 hours for withdrawals rather than the proposal in the Bill where only three hours were being provided for.
This period of 24 hours will have to be deducted from the statutory periods for nominations and polling in order to ensure that Article 16 (3) (2) of the Constitution is observed. The Article provides that a general election for members of Dáil Éireann shall take place not later than 30 days after a dissolution. At present, nominations must close on the 9th day after the dissolution and polling must take place between the 7th and 17th day after the close of nominations ; in other words, a total of 26 days after dissolution, excluding Sundays and holidays. To keep within the same over-all limits, it is proposed in amendments Nos. 7 and 8 to reduce the period in which polling must take place to the period between the 8th and 17th day after the close of nominations rather than the 7th and 17th day, as is the practice as present. All this, again, is to facilitate the 24-hour time for withdrawals as against the shorter period we have known in the past.
Amendment No. 2 is consequential. Amendment No. 3 is consequential on what I have already said on amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 5. The period of 72 hours, which amendment No. 16 proposes to insert instead of the period of 48 hours, will preserve, again, the status quo, notwithstanding the provisions of amendment No. 5 of 24 hours for withdrawals. It really is to make provision for a period of 24 hours for withdrawals. By and large, all these related amendments are merely conforming to that idea— extending or de-limiting times in order to take in the general pattern dictated for us by the Constitution.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 16, after line 45, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) Paragraph (1) of Rule 3 of the Fourth Schedule to the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion of `the day after' before `the last day'."
This is consequential.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 17, line 51, to delete "in" and substitute "for".
I think this arises also because of the discussion on Second Reading?
That is right.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 20, line 11, to delete "3 p.m. on" and substitute "12 noon on the day after".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 20, to delete all words from "provided" in line 23 to "withdrawal" in line 30.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 22, line 26, to delete "ten" and substitute "nine".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 22, line 27, to delete "six" and substitute "seven".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 22, line 43, to insert "or poll clerk" before "any person".
This amendment will ensure that a returning officer will not appoint as a poll clerk anyone who he is satisfied has actively been associated in furthering the candidature of any candidate at the election. Amendments Nos. 18 and 23 make a corresponding change in relation to Presidential elections and referenda organisation and administration.
I have a query to make in relation to the wording of the amendment. I assume it is intended that a person should not be appointed as a presiding officer who has played an active part in a political campaign. He may, in fact, have played an active part in a neighbouring constituency and not be associated with the campaign of a candidate in the constituency concerned. Surely it is not desirable that he should, if that is the fact? Is it a candidate or any candidate? Is that related merely to the constituency to which he can be elected or is it any candidate standing in the election?
Any candidate, anywhere.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 22, to delete lines 46 to 50 and substitute the following subsection:
"(3) The returning officer shall, on request, permit a person in respect of whom he is satisfied that that person has a bona fide interest in the election as either a candidate or a prospective candidate, or the agent of such a person, to inspect the list of persons to whom he has offered or proposes to offer appointments as presiding officers or poll clerks.”
With this amendment, we might also discuss amendments Nos. 19 and 24. Under Section 25 of the Bill as it stands, the returning officer is entitled to permit a candidate or his agent to inspect the lists of persons to whom he has offered or proposes to offer appointments as presiding officers, the request to inspect the list, to be made not later than 5 p.m. on the fourth day next preceding polling day. Amendment No. 10 will remove the time limit and permit the inspection at any time by persons having a bona fide interest in the election and will permit inspection of the list of prospective poll clerks as well as presiding officers. Amendments 19 and 24 make the corresponding changes in respect of Presidential elections and referenda. These amendments are consequent on my undertaking to look into the matter on being prompted to do so by some members of the House.
I can understand the intention of the amendment the Minister has moved. The question of inspecting the list of proposed appointments was discussed but in the amendment now proposed in substitution for the section as it stood, no time limit is mentioned. If I am a candidate and if I object on the day before the election to the list as it affects my constituency, how is the returning officer to ensure that at some distant polling stations in the constituency the required presiding officer and four clerks can be found? Ordinarily, we know that the existing practice is for the returning officer to have a list of the people doing duty over the years and where they have been satisfactory they are never interfered with but if, at this stage on the day before the poll, however desirable it might be that I should object to a presiding officer or poll clerk, has the Minister considered what opportunity the returning officer would have of finding a substitute by the following morning? By this time the ballot boxes will be distributed. They will have left the centre where the returning officer ordinarily has his office and will have gone out to be delivered to those who are to take charge of the ballot papers. In these circumstances how does the Minister suggest returning officers could properly fulfil their duties in regard to the conduct of the poll?
What prompted the amendment was the objection by members of the Opposition to this provision of the Bill that the list could be inspected only up to four days before the date of the poll. Having examined that suggestion, I came to the conclusion that such a limitation might be impracticable since, while you would have the right to inspect the lists it did not necessarily follow that the lists would be complete and an inspection carried out then might mean little or nothing as the lists might be added to afterwards. If this amendment is accepted, it will mean that the candidates or agents or others with a bona fide interest in the election will be entitled to inspect the list almost up to the time of the election.
It is a good point to ask how, if there is an objection at this late hour when the boxes have been sent to the presiding officers, the returning officer can get out of his difficulty. The very wise procedure adopted for a long time under existing law is for returning officers to have a small corps of standbys. To my own knowledge, members of the county council staff in my own county may be sent out if there is an objection or if somebody becomes ill. Another consideration is that, while giving the facility to the candidates and other interested parties to inspect lists and to ensure that they are available for inspection close up to the day of election, it does not follow that the lists may only be inspected at the last hour. I envisage the returning officer and the candidates and agents co-operating with each other to their mutual benefit and having some arrangement so that when the list is ready, if possible a few days before the event, the various people will inspect it. It is up to themselves to arrange. They might even have copies supplied to them. This will be a cooperative effort.
I am trying to safeguard the interests of candidates, their agents and others generally interested in the election to ensure that we will not make the law in such a way that an inspection of the lists would be abortive. I now hold that would be the case if we insisted that the lists could be inspected only up to four days before the election because, in many cases, the lists would not be complete. We shall, therefore, leave it to the last hour and no doubt the same sensible arrangements will be made by returning officers with candidates and agents in every constituency in regard to inspection of the lists and no doubt these arrangements will work just as smoothly as in the past. I think there is no need for any fear of a difficulty arising on the lines suggested by Deputy Jones, although he rightly raised the question.
It is very desirable to have the opportunity to inspect the lists. I can see the force of the point the Minister makes about the lists not being complete as there is often difficulty in obtaining a suitable person to do this work. In my own constituency, I have seen the returning officer, even a couple of days before an election, having to go out looking for people and having to contact the local Guards in regard to it. In regard to the difficulties facing returning officers——
Acting Chairman
The Deputy will appreciate that this is the Report Stage and he may speak only once.
If the Minister agrees that this is protective of the rights——
That is the very reason I brought it in myself as an amendment to amend what we agreed to originally. I feel this is a better protection than what we originally proposed.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10 (a):—
In page 23 to delete lines 20 to 41 and substitute the following subsection:
"(2) For the purposes of this section—
(a) a person's name shall be taken to be on a register of Dáil electors if the register includes a name which in the opinion of the returning officer or presiding officer was intended to be the person's name.
(b) the returning officer or presiding officer may and, if so required on behalf of any candidate, shall put to any person at the time of his applying for a ballot paper, but not afterwards, the following questions, or any one or two of them:
(i) Are you the same person as the person whose name appears as A B on the register of electors now in force for the constituency of....................?
(ii) Have you already voted at this election?
(iii) Had you reached the age of twenty-one on..................
(date of coming into force of the register)?
and unless such of those questions as are put to the person are answered, in the case of the first and third of those questions, in the affirmative and, in the case of the second of them, in the negative, the person shall not be permitted to vote.
(c) the returning officer or the presiding officer may and, if so required on behalf of any candidate, shall administer to any person at the time of his applying for a ballot paper, but not afterwards an oath or (in the case of any person who objects to take an oath on the ground that he has no religious beliefs or that the taking of an oath is contrary to his religious belief) an affirmation in the following form:—
`I swear by Almighty God (or—do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm —as the case may be) that I am the same person as the person whose name appears as A B on the register of electors now in force for the constituency of............. and that I have not already voted at this election, and that I had attained the age of twenty-one years on..........
(date of coming into force of the register)'
and if such person refuses to take the oath or make the affirmation he shall not be permitted to vote."
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10 (b):
In page 23, line 43, to insert "oath, affirmation" before "or objection".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:—
In page 23, between lines 46 and 47, to insert a new subsection as follows:—
"( ) The returning officer or presiding officer may, and if so required on behalf of any candidate shall, administer to any voter at the time of his tendering his vote and not afterwards an oath (or in the case of any person who objects to taking an oath on the ground that he has no religious belief or that the taking of an oath is contrary to his religious belief) an affirmation in the following form:
`I swear by Almighty God (or I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm) that I am the same person as the person whose name appears as.............. on the register of electors now in force for the constituency of ................and that I have not already voted at this election.' "
When we were discussing this matter previously, I referred to the Joint Committee set up to consider all matters relating to the electoral law. It is as a result of their deliberations that this Bill is now before the House. This Committee had before them the Minister's proposals in regard to legislation. Those proposals embodied the Minister's thinking and the advice he had from his officials. Those proposals were considered at length by the Committee. At page 131 of their final report the question of oaths at elections is referred to. The note in regard to the proposal sets out that it is a re-enactment of the various provisions in the original law.
On the Second Stage, I pointed out that the principal objective of this form of oath was not to deter any individual from recording his vote but to prevent the despicable crime of personation. We should make every effort to prevent an individual coming into a polling booth to take the vote of another. The effect of increased fines depends on somebody being able to prove that a person was guilty of personation. We provided in our system of electoral law the right of a personating agent to be present at a polling station. The most important function—in fact, the only function—of a personating agent is to ensure that the law is kept and that nobody can take another person's vote by personation.
The law now proposed would still allow the person coming in to cast his vote. Under this Bill even the tendered ballot is gone. But the fact remains that one who wants to personate may come into a polling station and attempt to personate. His penalty would depend on somebody being able to prove this. We should regard it as more desirable to attempt to prevent a crime being committed than to punish the wrongdoer. There is the deterrent of somebody being challenged and having to affirm. This does not mean he would necessarily have to take an oath if he had a valid objection. If it offended his conscience, he could solemnly affirm these things. We believe that is the greatest safeguard the electoral law has.
This does not happen very often in rural areas for the simple reason that very few people can come into a polling station there without being known to all the people there. Certainly there will be more than one person who can recognise him. In rural areas, challenging does not occur as frequently as it did in the past. But the fact that there were occasions when this challenge had to be given—in fact, there were cases where personation was proved—is sufficient proof of the value the challenge has had in the legislation up to this. I would submit that when the proposals originally came before the Committee and when they deliberated on this matter they felt that the retention of this type of question and oath in our electoral law was desirable and did not reflect in any way on any individual. I believe there are very few people entitled to vote in the ordinary way who would take such offence or would be so frightened that they would not vote. I do know there have been cases where people challenged in polling stations were not prepared to vote because, to the knowledge of people in the station, they were not entitled to the vote they were claiming.
It is for that reason we seek to have kept this safeguard which has been in the law all along. It is something not to be used lightly, and we would hope it would not have to be used widely. This is a necessary corrective measure which would do the job it is designed to do. I do not believe the raising of the penalty would be sufficient. If a person were brought to court, it certainly would be a salutary lesson at that stage. But we do not want to have people taught salutary lessons after they have broken the law. We should have something solemn to prevent people doing what is manifestly wrong so that they would on reflection refrain from committing this type of crime.
It is true that in the suggestions provided by me for consideration by the Committee who went into this whole matter, it was not proposed to alter the law in regard to the administering of oaths to voters offering themselves at the polling stations and asking for ballot papers. However, I want it to be quite clear that that has no bearing on the argument—that though my proposals to the Committee, if I could call them proposals, did not include any departure from existing law, this did not necessarily mean I was committed to adhering to the Committee's proposals to leave the law as it has been in this respect. My proposals to the Committee were put up as a sort of agenda to help the Committee to do their work more expeditiously and more effectively on matters requiring their consideration.
I am not using that as an argument as to why we should or should not accept the amendment put forward by Deputy Jones. I should like to say again that the proposal in this legislation to eliminate the oath for the ordinary voter at an election was designed to cut out as far as possible various formalities which have been traditionally enshrined, as it were, in our electoral code, perhaps not in any great hope of assisting in the proper carrying out of elections. The first person we must have regard to here is the voter attending a polling booth whose name appears legitimately in the register, who is entitled by law to be given a ballot paper. I do not think such a person should be impeded by anything such as the threat to take an oath in doing what he is legitimately entitled to do. No such impediment should be put in his way unless it is absolutely vital to the proper conduct of the election.
In circumstances such as those we are discussing, such a situation is likely to arise. Through the amendment here, we are in fact inhibiting people from voting by the mere threat of having to take an oath. I believe there is such a danger of inhibition, that it has manifested itself in the past, particularly in country areas where people have passed the word to others that if they went to cast their votes, they would be asked to take an oath. Because of that, people have been inhibited from exercising the franchise.
Here we are proposing the reintroduction of that oath, that inhibition, as it were, and I am afraid it would operate against the hundreds of thousands who are entitled to their vote and who might be prevented from casting that vote. The suggestion here is that the reintroduction of this provision would prevent certain other people from coming along to personate. The number coming along to personate in proportion to the total is not great. We are thankful that is so.
On the other hand, the reintroduction of the oath is not a very effective barrier to personation. It does not effectively prevent it. In all the circumstances, I do not think it is right we should insist on having oaths or the threat of oaths being administered in cases of ordinary law-abiding voters. The game is not worth the candle in proportion to the amount of good the retention of the oath might do as a deterrent to those who might be tempted to personate. Personation will be very effectively discouraged by the presence in polling stations of personation agents who can, under this Bill, request the arrest of any person who they have reasonable grounds for believing is a personator. The real further protection is in the new and heavier penalties proposed in this Bill.
I firmly believe that is a better way to approach this matter than through the amendment. It is on those grounds, after a lot of consideration, that I have come to this point of view. I am, however, open to persuasion by, as it were, the voice of the greater numbers, the wide experience of every member of the House in so far as the running of elections is concerned. Many of them were fighting elections before I knew what the word meant. If the proposers of the amendment insist this is the right thing to do, and since the Committee who considered this Bill did not propose any change in the existing system, I should be inclined to say to the House that I would by agreement, rather than forcing any issues by a division, be prepared to concede that the oath be retained, but let us have oaths for everybody or not have them in the Bill at all.
What would the oath for everybody mean?
For the blind, the elderly, the disabled as well as for the physically fit. I should say as well that there should be agreement that the oaths will apply to the stock questions of the past:—"Are you 21 years of age; have you already voted; are you the same person as that on the register?" If we are to have this proposal in the Bill, I think we must do it that way. If the House agrees to that, I shall submit a draft amendment in substitution for the various other proposals in the Bill which would give that effect.
I would strongly urge that the Bill be amended along those lines. I agree with the Minister it is desirable that, in regard to all the Bill's provisions, we should strive to get substantial agreement among us. I want to say in regard to the administering of an oath that I fully agree it is a grave obligation, but I do not think that there is in the context of our civil life any occasion more important, and I do not exclude proceedings in the High Court or any court of competent jurisdiction in this country, than the occasion of recording one's vote. I think the more solemnity with which we can surround that, the better it is for the community as a whole. I, in my public life, have had experience from time to time of people approaching me for sanction to resist the law and I have been in the position consistently to say nobody in this country, no matter how grievously he feels himself aggrieved by the legislation of Oireachtas Éireann, is entitled to defy it so long as we have the free institutions we enjoy, which give to every citizen the right to demonstrate peaceably for his convictions and to record his vote at elections, thereby, if needs be, changing a Government which he believes to be either capricious or unjust.
Any tendency which operates to create the impression in the public mind that the due process of election to Oireachtas Éireann is qualified by any corrupt practice, against which every conceivable precaution is not taken, is a very dangerous thing. I do not think it is in any way unreasonable, if a person goes in to record his vote, that he should be asked to swear by Almighty God, if he has no conscientious scruple about taking an oath, that he is the person he holds himself out to be and is entitled to cast the vote he seeks to record. It is, I think, wholly fitting that with so solemn a procedure, any rational citizen should, on request, be prepared to associate the solemnity of an oath with it. There is provision for individuals who have a conscientious scruple about taking an oath; they can affirm if they declare their conscientious scruple.
I have no hesitation whatever in saying that the presence of the power to require a person to swear, if challenged, before he records his vote, has operated powerfully, in my experience of ten general elections here, to control personation. It does not, of course, operate to prevent it absolutely. Personation goes on and, as long as elections are elections, I suppose there will be some personation, but the oath does operate effectively to prevent personation growing into a real and grave abuse. It is all very well to say that you will substitute for this device a power to requisition the arrest of a would-be personater. There is a world of difference between a neighbour, and I emphasise neighbour, calling on the returning officer to ask a voter to swear as to his identity and a neighbour calling on a member of the Garda Siochána to arrest a person beside whom he has to live for the rest of his life.
In my considered opinion, in more than 70 per cent of cases, if a personation agent in a polling booth in rural Ireland had only one means of preventing personation, and that was to precipitate the arrest of the individual attempting it, that sanction would not be invoked. Mark you, if I were asked confidentially should I ask the Garda to arrest my neighbour's son sent in by some experienced operator to attempt this offence, I should find it very difficult, with my knowledge of rural society, to say: "Yes, you should", thereby precipitating what those of us who understand country life appreciate might be a family feud that would continue for four, five or six generations. I do not think I need elaborate on that either to the Minister for Local Government or the Acting Chairman, at the moment. Can you picture in the Rosses, if a neighbour's son is sent in by an old campaigner to personate, and his next-door neighbour or a personation agent calls the Garda and says: "Arrest him"——
Would he not be asked, first of all, to take an oath?
No, not if we take the oath out of the Bill. We are proposing to put in a right to the personation agent to call in the Garda to arrest the person.
That is already there.
I say that right alone is no protection, because, feeling as strongly as I do in these matters, I should be slow in the Rosses, or Ballaghaderreen, or Ballybeg or, more particularly, in Kilmovee, which are rural districts in my home county, to precipitate the arrest of a neighbour's child because I know what that would mean for years and generations to come. But if the neighbour's son comes in and the agent says: "Swear that fellow", in 999 cases out of 1,000, you will not see him for the dust of the road. There are very few who will come into a polling booth and commit perjury in order to personate. If such a person is challenged, he will say he has a conscientious scruple, take out the door, and be away down the road as fast as his legs will carry him; and everybody will say: "It will be a while before Pat will come in to personate again", and later the Garda may warn him: "If you do that again, you may find yourself below in Sligo Jail, you divil, you." There is no harm done. No feud starts. Both parties know it was a fair try on and a fair cop. That will be the reaction. But call in a Garda to arrest your neighbour's child and you have done something which I, in my judgment, would find it extremely difficult to recommend to a friend of mine in rural Ireland.
Some people might say: "If you are so sensitive about people's feelings, why do you not drop all these tests and simply leave it to the presiding officer?" The answer is simple; I am confident that if you do that, personation would grow rapidly to a point where it would undermine the confidence of our people in the whole process of parliamentary election. I am profoundly convinced that there is no greater guarantee against the growth of such an evil than the power of the returning officer to administer the oath on the application of a personation agent. There will be some who will say: "You ought not to put people in this danger of committing perjury." I do not believe that is any real danger at all. Looking back over my experience of elections — my colleagues will, I think, confirm me in what I am saying—I do not remember a single case of an individual who came in and falsely swore that he was somebody he, in fact, was not. I have known hundreds of cases where boys and girls have come in—some of them, if they were hanging since they became boys and girls, would be hanging a long time—seeking to commit personation but who on being challenged with the oath, backed out and went away.
Is there any Deputy who ever remembers a case of an individual perjuring his soul and swearing that he was somebody he was not? I know of none and I think I have as much experience of elections as any Deputy and of elections of the stormiest possible kind.
Therefore, for these reasons, I would urge most strenuously on the Minister to restore to the statute the provision for the administration of an oath. If he thinks it should go back in respect of all the categories to which he has referred, I accept that but I am certain that for the protection of the institution, this is fundamental and vital.
Was this recommended by the Committee?
The position is that this was considered by the Committee and the Committee did not recommend the removal of the power of the returning officer to administer an oath on requisition by the personation agent and we, if we return to the oath, will conform to the mind of the Committee who considered the Bill.
I rejoice that we have been able to arrive at substantial agreement upon all vital matters in respect of this Bill and though I am not in the habit of congratulating any Fianna Fáil Minister, least of all the Minister for Local Government, I am bound to say that I think his approach to this Bill has been very prudent and that the Bill will be all the better Bill in so far as in respect of each matter substantial agreement has been arrived at. I do not deny that it is often very much more difficult for a Minister to secure that by saying: "Very well; I am prepared to concede my suggestion in favour of one that is urged on me by everybody else". In so far as credit is due for that, reluctantly, I am constrained to concede it to the Minister for Local Government and in so far as the Bill proceeds to enactment by that procedure, with profound misgiving, I offer congratulations.
You took the good out of it. Congratulate him and be done with it.
I offer congratulations to the corporation sole known as the Minister for Local Government.
I am sorry I was not in for most of this debate but I gathered from the Minister's concluding remarks that he would prefer to do something like this by agreement of the House, without forcing it on the House. Without any song and dance, I agree entirely with what Deputy Dillon has said. I assume that what is in the mind of the Minister is that the oath would give an opportunity to one inclined to personate to retract rather than be arrested. Therefore, the three of us are at one that the oath ought to be retained as a safeguard.
It does not save him from being arrested, of course, nor does it save him from being prosecuted.
I agree, but the case Deputy Dillon is making, and with which I agree, is that rather than have him arrested on the say of a personation agent, it would be better to confront him with this oath and ask him to swear that he is so and so, so that he will have an opportunity of retracting. As Deputy Dillon says, in 999 cases out of 1,000 he will disappear before taking a false oath.
There is one thing I should like to emphasise. The inclusion of the oath was a greater deterrent to personation than the term of imprisonment or fine. The oath is a real deterrent, when we have no other method of preventing personation. In many countries, there is an identity card which must be marked. We have not such an identity card in use here and under our system the oath is a great deterrent.
On the question of providing for arrest, in my view, it would be fatal, for two reasons. It would create bad feeling. The administration of the oath would not create such bad feeling. If a personating agent did, bona fide, challenge a voter for personation and the allegation was without foundation, there would be a cause of action against the agent. That would deter the agent from asking that a voter whom he suspected of personating should be arrested.
How exactly does the Minister propose to record this happy measure of agreement? We are at the Report Stage.
I have available at hand at the moment draft amendments which I think will cover the position.
We shall be very pleased to facilitate the Minister.
What we would now be agreeing on, apparently, is to provide for the oath for ordinary voters, to provide for the oath for blind voters, to provide for the oath for illiterate voters and to provide for the oath for incapacitated voters. In order to attain this end, we would propose to substitute two amendments I have in draft here for amendment No. 11, which is the one under discussion. There are copies of these draft amendments with which we can supply Deputies. I would drop amendment No. 13 and the Opposition amendments Nos. 11, 12, 14 and 15 would be dropped also. In substitution for these amendments, the draft amendments which have been passed around to Deputies would be inserted.
The Minister says that these amendments substantially achieve that purpose?
Yes.
I accept that.
At the same time, I think I should say that we will also take the necessary consequential action in regard to Presidential elections and referenda.
That is contained in these proposals.
We have those amendments.
Very well.
We have copies of these amendments.
Amendment No. 11, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 12 to 15, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 26, lines 40 and 41, to delete "forty-eight" and substitute "seventy-two".
Amendment No. 16 was discussed with amendment No. 2.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos 17 and 21 are cognate and perhaps they could be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 30, lines 35 and 36, to delete "Such request shall not be made if the candidate is not a continuing candidate."
Section 39 provides that each candidate may make one request for a complete re-examination and recount of all parcels of ballot papers. It has been suggested that a person who may want to make such a request may be prevented by the fact that he is no longer a continuing candidate. Amendment No. 17 is an attempt to avoid this difficulty which might conceivably arise. Amendment No. 21 makes a corresponding change in the provisions relating to a Presidential election.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 35, line 24, to insert "or poll clerk" before "any person".
We discussed this amendment with amendment No. 9.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 19 was discussed with amendments Nos. 10 and 24.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 35, to delete lines 27 to 31 and substitute the following subsection:
"(3) The local returning officer shall, on request, permit a person in respect of whom he is satisfied that that person has a bona fide interest in the election as either a candidate or a prospective candidate, or the agent of such a person, to inspect the list of persons to whom he has offered or proposes to offer appointments as presiding officers or poll clerks.”
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 19 (a):
In page 36, to delete lines 8 to 28 and substitute the following subsection—
"(2) For the purposes of this section—
(a) a person's name shall be taken to be on a register of Dáil electors if the register includes a name which in the opinion of the local returning officer or presiding officer was intended to be the person's name.
(b) the local returning officer or presiding officer may and, if so required on behalf of any candidate, shall put to any person at the time of his applying for a ballot paper, but not afterwards, the following questions, or any one or two of them:
(i) Are you the same person as the person whose name appears as A B on the register of Dáil electors now in force for the constituency of................?
(ii) Have you already voted at this presidential election?
(iii) Had you reached the age of twenty-one years on...................
(date of coming into force of the register)?
and unless such of those questions as are put to the person are answered, in the case of the first and third of those questions, in the affirmative and, in the case of the second of them, in the negative, the person shall not be permitted to vote.
(c) the local returning officer or presiding officer may and, if so required on behalf of any candidate, shall administer to any person at the time of his applying for a ballot paper, but not afterwards, an oath or (in the case of any person who objects to take an oath on the ground that he has no religious belief or that the taking of an oath is contrary to his religious belief) an affirmation in the following form:—
`I swear by Almighty God (or—do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm —as the case may be) that I am the same person whose name appears as A B on the register of electors now in force for the constituency of ............and that I have not already voted at this election, and that I had attained the age of twenty-one years on .............
(date of coming into force of the register)'
and if such person refuses to take the oath or make the affirmation he shall not be permitted to vote."
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 19 (b):
In page 36, line 30, to insert ", oath, affirmation" before "or objection".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 20 was discussed with amendments Nos. 13 and 27.
Amendment No. 20 is tied up with amendments Nos. 11 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f).
Amendment No. 20 not moved.
Amendment No. 21 was discussed with amendment No. 17.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 42, lines 5 to 7, to delete "Such request shall not be made if the candidate is not a continuing candidate."
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 42, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following new subsections:
"( ) (a) A polling card shall contain (as in the case of a Constitutional referendum) a statement, prepared and approved of by a Board consisting of a Judge of the High Court (to be nominated by the President of the High Court) who shall be Chairman of the Board, the Chairman of Dáil Éireann (or where he is unable, through illness, absence or other cause to fulfil his duties, the Deputy Chairman of Dáil Éireann) and the Chairman of Seanad Éireann (or, where he is unable through illness, absence or other cause to fulfil his duties the Deputy Chairman of Seanad Éireann).
(b) In the case of an ordinary referendum the polling card shall contain a statement of the proposal which is the subject of the referendum prepared by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice, the President of the High Court, the Chairman of Dáil Éireann and the Chairman of Seanad Éireann.
( ) The statement to appear on a polling card for a Constitutional referendum or for an ordinary referendum shall be furnished to the Minister (a) in the case of a Constitutional referendum within three days after the Bill containing a proposal to amend the Constitution has been passed or is deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas and (b) in the case of an ordinary referendum within three days of the date upon which the President informs the Taoiseach and the Chairman of each House of the Oireachtas in writing under his hand and seal that he has decided that the Bill contains a proposal of such national importance that the will of the people thereon ought to be ascertained."
When this matter was under review on a previous occasion, there were long discussions on the difficulties which could arise with regard to referenda. Reference was made in recent times to the debates which took place in this House on a matter which was being submitted to the electorate. To ensure that the proper proposal will fully appear before the people, and that they will understand what is being done, we propose in this amendment that the polling card which will be sent to the voter shall contain a statement of the subject matter of the referendum. The fact that the a statement will be prepared by such a board as we have outlined in the amendment will ensure that so far as the people and the House are concerned, it will reflect the intent of the referendum.
The fact that the board will consist of a chairman who as a judge of the High Court will have the necessary legal knowledge and the Ceann Comhairle of Dáil Éireann — or the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, in his absence —and the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad —or the Leas-Chathaoirleach, in his absence—will ensure that what was in the minds of the members of the Oireachtas who debated the matter which was to be submitted to the electorate for decision is contained in the statement. If the electors had such a voting card in their hands prior to the actual date on which the referendum is to take place, they would have an opportunity of studying the matter, and would be able to go to the polling station fully conversant with the matter on which they were about to vote.
This is a very important matter, and I think that on the last occasion the Minister agreed that very important issues could be raised, and that it was a matter of some consequence that there should be a determination of the subject matter of the referendum. This amendment which we suggest to the House, we believe, would give to the electorate a proper understanding of the subject matter on which they were expected to express an opinion. There is no necessity for me to elaborate any further. I think past history in regard to referenda, the difficulties which can arise and the type of discussions which took place on a previous occasion, led to a certain amount of confusion in regard to the matter being submitted to the electorate.
If the polling card contains a statement prepared by a board such as we mention in the amendment, there can be no doubt that the constitutional matter would be in order so far as the legal end was concerned, and so far as the intent of the Oireachtas was concerned. The fact that the Ceann Comhairle of Dáil Éireann and the Cathaoirleach of Seanad Éireann would be associated with the drafting of the subject matter would be sufficient guarantee that the intent of the Oireachtas would be conveyed to the electorate in a proper fashion.
Before and during the Committee Stage, I proposed that certain additional provisions might be made in regard to the polling card, containing an outline or an interpretation of what the referendum was to be about. Following further consideration, and after hearing the views of members of the House, and particularly the very definite views of the Leader of the Opposition, I dropped the amendment I had proposed on Committee Stage.
At this stage, I am still convinced the dropping of the official amendment was the right thing to do and that the reasons which compelled me to drop that amendment are as compelling now to prompt me to ask the proposers of this amendment to drop it also and to leave the situation as it is, that is, that the polling cards would issue and that on those polling cards there would be no attempt by anyone, no matter who he might be, to interpret what the forthcoming referendum would be or what the decision was that had to be taken, that the polling cards would merely be an indication to the various registered voters that they had a vote and indicate the place at which they might cast that vote.
My advice on this matter of making an interpretation of what a referendum is about to put on a polling card is that it is not likely to be an interpretation that would be agreed or acceptable to all concerned with the referendum. Neither is it likely to be something we should ask any person to do for the very good reason that there is no guarantee that any person or group of persons would be able to give a fair interpretation.
I would suggest, therefore, that the proposers of this amendment should look at it again and I am sure they will agree that any amendment of the provision would worsen the position rather than improve it. It was for that reason that I withdrew my own official amendment and for the same reason I would ask that this amendment also be withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 44, line 37, to insert "or poll clerk" before "any person".
This was discussed with amendments Nos. 9 and 18.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 44, to delete lines 40 to 44 and substitute the following subsection:
"(3) The local returning officer shall, on request, permit any member of Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann, or any personation agent, to inspect the list of persons to whom he has offered or proposes to offer appointments as presiding officers or poll clerks."
This was discussed with amendments Nos. 10 and 19.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 24 (a):
In page 45, to delete lines 20 to 40 and substitute the following subsection:
"(2) For the purposes of this section—
(a) a person's name shall be taken to be on a register of Dáil electors if the register includes a name which in the opinion of the local returning officer or presiding officer was intended to be the person's name.
(b) the local returning officer or presiding officer may and, if so required by a personation agent, shall put to any person at the time of his applying for a ballot paper but not afterwards, the following questions, or any one or two of them:
(i) Are you the same person as the person whose name appears as A B on the register of electors now in force for the constituency of................?
(ii) Have you already voted at this referendum?
(iii) Had you reached the age of twenty-one years on...........
(date of coming into force of the register)?
and unless such of those questions as are put to the person are answered, in the case of the first and third of those questions, in the affirmative and, in the case of the second of them, in the negative, the person shall not be permitted to vote.
(c) the local returning officer or presiding officer may and, if required by a personation agent, shall administer to any person at the time of his applying for a ballot paper but not afterwards an oath or (in the case of any person who objects to take an oath on the ground that he has no religious belief or that the taking of an oath is contrary to his religious belief) an affirmation in the following form:—
`I swear by Almighty God (or—do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm —as the case may be) that I am the same person as the person whose name appears as A B on the register of electors now in force for the constituency of.................. and that I have not already voted at this referendum, and that I had attained the age of twenty-one years on.........
(date of coming into force of the register)'
and if such person refuses to take the oath or make the affirmation he shall not be permitted to vote."
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 24 (b):
In page 45, line 42, to insert ", oath, affirmation" before "or objection".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 46, lines 12 to 16, to delete "a statement of the proposal which is the subject of the referendum in the same terms as nearly as may be as such proposal is stated in the writing under the hand and seal of the President sent by him to the Taoiseach," and substitute "a reference to the Bill or to the portion of the Bill containing the proposal which is the subject of the referendum,".
Being cognate amendments, Nos. 25 and 26 may be taken together.
This amendment corresponds particularly with the provision for a constitutional referendum and will also take away the measure of discretion which a returning officer has under the present law as to what is to appear on a ballot paper. Amendment No. 26 deals with ballot papers where more than one referendum is being held and, in its content, is similar to amendment No. 25.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 46, lines 19 to 23, to delete "a statement of the proposal which is the subject of the referendum in the same terms as nearly as may be as such proposal is stated in the writing under the hand and seal of the President sent by him to the Taoiseach," and substitute "a reference to the Bill or the portion of the Bill containing the proposal which is the subject of the referendum."
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 27 was discussed with amendments Nos. 13 and 20.
Amendment No. 27 not moved.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 55, after line 14, to insert the following paragraph:
"(g) Every order under this subsection shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as conveniently may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the order is passed by either such House within the next seven days on which that House has sat after the order is laid before it, the order shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder."
Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 are cognate and may be discussed with this amendment.
These three amendments fulfil promises given on the Committee Stage of the Bill that any orders dividing Limerick, Waterford or Cork would be laid on the Table of the Houses of the Oireachtas and may be annulled by either House within seven days.
When this matter was discussed previously, we pressed the Minister and he promised to look into it again. The fact that he now intends to bring in an order in regard to any rearrangement which might take place in the cities of Cork, Limerick and Waterford is something which will enable the members of the House to express their opinions on it. Therefore, I welcome the amendment by the Minister.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 55, after line 39, to insert the following subsection:
"(7) Every order under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as conveniently may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the order is passed by either such House within the next seven days on which that House has sat after the order is laid before it, the order shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder."
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 56, after line 9, to insert the following subsection:
"(7) Every order under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as conveniently may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the order is passed by either such House within the next seven days on which that House has sat after the order is laid before it, the order shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder."
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 62, to delete in the third column (in relation to the Electoral Act, 1923) "Rules 19 and 20 of Part I of the Fifth Schedule" and substitute "Rule 12 of the Fourth Schedule; in Rule 17 of Part I of the Fifth Schedule: the words `and of the mode in which electors are to vote'; Rules 19 and 20 of the said Part I".
This amendment and amendments Nos. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38 were discussed with amendment No. 1.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 62, to delete in the third column (in relation to the Electoral Act, 1923) "forms 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 in Part III of the Fifth Schedule" and substitute "forms 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in Part III of the Fifth Schedule".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 63, to delete in the third column (in relation to the Presidential Elections Act, 1937) "Rules 11, 12, 13 and 20 of the First Schedule" and substitute "in Rule 8 of the First Schedule: the words `and of the mode in which electors are to vote'; Rules 11, 12, 13 and 20 of that Schedule".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 67, before the line containing "(Back of Paper)”, to insert the following:
"TREORACHA.
I.Féach chuige go bhfuil an marc oifigiúil ar an bpáipéar.
II.Scríobh an figiúr 1 le hais ainm an chéad iarrthóra is rogha leat, an figiúr 2 le hais do dhara rogha, agus mar sin de.
III.Fill an páipéar ionas nach bhfeicfear do vóta. Taispeáin cúl an pháipéir don oifigeach ceannais, agus cuir sa bhosca ballóide é.
INSTRUCTIONS.
I.See that the official mark is on the paper.
II.Write 1 beside the name of the candidate of your first choice, 2 beside your second choice, and so on.
III.Fold the paper to conceal your vote. Show the back of the paper to the presiding officer and put it in the ballot box.”
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 68, before the line containing "(Back of Paper)”, to insert the following:
"TREORACHA.
I. Féach chuige go bhfuil an marc oifigiúil ar an bpáipéar.
II.Scríobh an figiúr 1 le hais ainm an chéad iarrthóra is rogha leat, an figiúr 2 le hais do dhara rogha, agus mar sin de.
III.Fill an páipéar ionas nach bhfeicfear do vóta. Taispeáin cúl an pháipéir don oifigeach ceannais, agus cuir sa bhosca ballóide é.
INSTRUCTIONS.
I.See that the official mark is on the paper.
II.Write 1 beside the name of the candidate of your first choice, 2 beside your second choice, and so on.
III.Fold the paper to conceal your vote. Show the back of the paper to the presiding officer and put it in the ballot box.”
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 69, to delete:
"TREORACHA I DTAOBH AN PHÁIPÉAR SEO A MHARCÁIL.
Má thoilíonn tú leis an togra, cuir an marc `X' sa chearnóg os coinne an fhocail `TÁ'.
Mura dtoilíonn tú leis an togra, cuir an marc `X' sa chearnóg os coinne an fhocail `NÍL'.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR MARKING THIS PAPER.
If you approve of the proposal, place the mark `X' in the square opposite the word `YES'.
If you do not approve of the proposal, place the mark `X' in the square opposite the word `NO'."
and substitute:
"TREORACHA.
I.Féach chuige go bhfuil an marc oifigiúil ar an bpáipéar.
II.Má thoilíonn tú leis an togra, cuir an marc `X' sa chearnóg os coinne an fhocail `TÁ'.
III.Mura dtoilíonn tú leis an togra, cuir an marc `X' sa chearnóg os coinne an fhocail `NÍL'.
IV.Fill an páipéar ionas nach bhfeicfear do vóta. Taispeáin cúl an pháipéir don oifigeach ceannais, agus cuir sa bhosca ballóide é.
INSTRUCTIONS.
I.See that the official mark is on the paper.
II.If you approve of the proposal, place the mark `X' in the square opposite the word `YES'.
III.If you do not approve of the proposal, place the mark `X' in the square opposite the word `NO'.
IV.Fold the paper to conceal your vote. Show the back of the paper to the presiding officer and put it in the ballot box.”
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 70, to delete:
"TREORACHA I DTAOBH AN PÁIPÉAR SEO A MHARCÁIL.
Má thoilíonn tú leis an togra, cuir an marc `X' sa chearnóg os coinne an fhocail `TÁ'.
Mura dtoilíonn tú leis an togra, cuir an marc `X' sa chearnóg of coinne an fhocail `NÍL'.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR MARKING THIS PAPER.
If you approve of the proposal, place the mark `X' in the square opposite the word `YES'.
If you do not approve of the proposal, place the mark `X' in the square opposite the word `NO'."
and substitute:
"TREORACHA.
I.Féach chuige go bhfuil an marc oifigiúil ar an bpáipéar.
II.Má thoilíonn tú leis an togra, cuir an marc `X' sa chearnóg os coinne an fhocail `TÁ'.
III.Mura dtoilíonn tú leis an togra, cuir an marc `X' sa chearnóg os coinne an fhocail `NÍL'.
IV.Fill an páipéar ionas nach bhfeicfear do vóta. Taispeáin cúl an pháipéir don oifigeach ceannais, agus cuir sa bhosca ballóide é.
INSTRUCTIONS.
I.See that the official mark is on the paper.
II.If you approve of the proposal, place the mark `X' in the square opposite the word `YES'.
III.If you do not approve of the proposal, place the mark `X' in the square opposite the word `NO'.
IV.Fold the paper to conceal your vote. Show the back of the paper to the presiding officer and put it in the ballot box.”
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 71, to delete:
"TREORACHA I DTAOBH AN PÁIPÉAR SEO A MHARCÁIL.
Cuir an marc `X' sa cholún thuas dar mír-cheann `TÁ' os coinne gach togra faoi leith lena dtoilíonn tú.
Cuir an marc `X' sa cholún thuas dar mír-cheann `NÍL' os coinne gach togra faoi leith nach dtoilíonn tú leis.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR MARKING THIS PAPER.
Place the mark `X' in the column headed `YES' opposite every proposal of which you approve.
Place the mark `X' in the column headed `NO' opposite every proposal of which you do not approve."
and substitute:
"TREORACHA.
I.Féach chuige go bhfuil an marc oifigiúil ar an bpáipéar.
II.Cuir an marc `X' sa cholún thuas dar mír-cheann `TÁ' os coinne gach togra faoi leith lena dtoilíonn tú
III.Cuir an marc `X' sa cholún thua dar mír-cheann `NÍL' os coinn gach togra faoi leith nach dtoilíon tú leis.
IV.Fill an páipéar ionas nach bhfeicfear do vóta. Taispeáin cúl an pháipéir don oifigeach ceannais, agus cuir sa bhosca ballóide é.
INSTRUCTIONS.
I.See that the official mark is on the paper.
II. Place the mark `X' in the column headed `YES' opposite every proposal of which you approve.
III.Place the mark `X' in the column headed `NO' opposite every proposal of which you do not approve.
IV.Fold the paper to conceal your vote. Show the back of the paper to the presiding officer and put it in the ballot box.”
Amendment agreed to.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration and passed.