Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Mar 1972

Vol. 259 No. 11

Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1971: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following amendment:
In subsection (j), page 3, to delete "Counterfoil No" and "No" from form of ballot paper. —(Deputy Hogan.)

This amendment proposes to delete from voting papers the number on the back of the voting paper and the corresponding number on the counterfoil. I have no very strong views about the number on the counterfoil. The crucial matter is continuing to show a number on the back of the voting paper. That number can be connected with a voter and that proves that the secrecy of the ballot box is not absolute. The Minister has given us no indication as to what his views are on this and I am at a loss to know what purpose this number on the back of the ballot paper serves. Has there been any case before our courts in which this number was of vital importance? Has there been any discussion on any count or recount in which this number was used to good purpose? Has it helped to resolve a dispute with regard to an election?

I put down some questions to the Minister but they were disallowed by the Ceann Comhairle on the ground that this was a matter that could best be raised during the discussion on the Committee Stage of this Bill. Has the Minister any information as to whether this numbering system is used in other countries? The position in the USA is different. They have some kind of punching system.

In the Bill there is, in my view, a very inaccurate method of laying down what this numbering on the back of the ballot paper should be: it is provided that it should be in the smallest characters compatible with legibility.

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

Last week I produced a specimen of a ballot paper here. Not alone was there a number on it but the number was quite large. Anyone with average sight could read it from 20 feet away. There was also on the ballot paper the name of the constituency. There is no provision providing that the name of the constituency should appear on the ballot paper. This numbering on the back of ballot papers first appeared in 1923. Not content with numbering they then went on to stick in the name of the constituency. The provision has been deliberately flouted. I do not know to what extent it has been flouted, but it was certainly flouted in the case in Monaghan. There is a method of measuring type. It is a points system. You have six-point, eight-point, ten-point, 12-point; I do not know what the lowest point is. Surely in the drafting of the original provision the specific point should have been mentioned.

Hear, hear.

It was left quite vague —the smallest characters compatible with legibility. Apparently, the idea was that someone with a magnifying glass would be able to read it, if the necessity arose, but the fellow on the far side of the room could not read it. I put it to the Minister that there is no purpose in having this number on the back of the ballot paper. As far as I know, it has never been used to any particular purpose. I could be wrong in that. If the Minister can tell me that it has been used to good purpose I shall be glad to hear from him on the point. I would be interested to know if it is absolutely essential to have this number on the back of the ballot paper. We have had it now for 50 years. I do not know if it has ever been used to any purpose. It certainly sows suspicion that it can be used for the purpose of intimidation. If it serves no useful purpose it should be removed. So long as it remains people will always be suspicious and there will always be the possibility of intimidation. I showed the number on the specimen voting paper I produced here last week.

It was an actual voting paper.

The Deputy did say a specimen.

It was a voting paper rejected on the basis that it was not adequately stamped. There was a mark on it but the assessors thought it was not sufficiently definitive to pass as a valid vote and it was rejected on the basis of inadequate stamping. I shall be grateful if the Minister will reply to the points I have raised.

The amendments deal with the numbering on the ballot paper and I shall refer briefly to the size of the numbers. I think I gave good reasons the last night why we should retain the serial number on the back of ballot papers. I do not know whether Deputy Hogan wants me to repeat the points I made then but I think I should emphasise that the most important reason for having numbers on the back of ballot papers is for the security of the ballot and to ensure that no false ballot papers are allowed into the count.

I should like to repeat that in the electoral case which was decided by the Supreme Court the plaintiff sought a declaration that certain sections of and rules in the Electoral Act, 1923 and Direction No. 5 contained in the Second Schedule to the 1963 Act, were inconsistent with and contrary to the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution and were repugnant thereto and invalid. Direction No. 5 contains the requirement that serial numbers be printed on the ballot papers and counterfoils. The court accepted the plaintiff's plea in relation to some of these provisions but it did not rule that Direction No. 5 was unconstitutional. To me this would indicate that the court considered that the serial numbers do not endanger the secrecy of the ballot.

Despite all that, a case is still being made by Deputy Hogan and some others that the serial numbers constitute a danger to secrecy. When this was being discussed here last week it was alleged that a personation agent at a polling station might be able to get the particular serial number on a ballot paper given to an elector by some method of counting the votes from the very beginning when the polling booth opened at 9 o'clock, if he wanted to find out how a particular person voted. I think this is stretching the imagination a bit far.

Not a bit.

Remember that at all times a person in a polling station is obliged to secrecy and can be prosecuted for a breach of secrecy in regard to any information that he obtains while in the polling station. Then we were asked to accept that this particular personating agent is present at the count and while there he manages to identify this particular paper from among the 30,000 or 40,000 ballot papers which relate to that constituency.

Not out of 30,000. Out of a box containing less than 100.

Yes, but there might be 12 boxes being counted at the one time.

There are no boxes with less than 100 now.

Indeed there are.

There were 93 in one box the last time.

The polling booths were all revised.

I still think it is an extraordinary stretch of the imagination to suggest that this person could happen to be at the particular spot where these votes are counted. There is also the fact that the returning officer and his staff are obliged to place ballot papers, on opening them, face upwards. The number is on the back so it would be very difficult to come by the number.

They are put down like that and then turned up. It happened in Longford-Westmeath a couple of years back.

We must also bear in mind that the person is standing at the other side of a barrier so that anything he sees is upside down. Anyway, all he has a chance of seeing are the names on the ballot paper and the way in which they have been marked. It would indeed be quite a coincidence if a person was able to determine an exact voting paper and then find out how the voting went on it even if by mistake the vote was placed upside down. The instructions state quite specifically that they are to be placed face upwards but if this mistake occurred all you would see is the number and hundreds of other votes would come down on top of that ballot paper. Then if they had been placed upside down, which is wrong, when the time came to count them they would be faced upwards——

They are shaken out of the box.

I do not know how anybody could imagine that you could relate the number to a particular ballot paper and keep an eye on it and check how the voting went when it was being counted. Deputies are stretching this to the ridiculous. I think they agree with me and I would ask them to accept that it is unfair to try to create the impression in this debate that it is possible to trace a particular ballot paper.

It can be done and it has been done.

I think it was Deputy Keating who made the point that whether the vote is traceable or not if the electorate are led to believe that it is they are open to intimidation. I am prepared to say to electors here and now that the vote is not traceable and that anybody who tells them otherwise is codding them.

Will the Minister repeat that at the next party meeting because his people do not believe that?

I cannot put it any plainer than that. Deputy Hogan raised the question of the position in other countries. I tried to get some information about this. It seems clear that every country provides safeguards to ensure that only legitimate votes are taken into account and that the results of elections are not distorted by fraudulent votes. In Britain the system is identical to that which existed here prior to the Supreme Court ruling. The ballot papers and the counterfoils bear serial numbers and the elector's registration number is written on the counterfoil.

In the United States the tendency is towards voting machines but ballot papers are still used in some of the states. The practice in relation to serial numbers varies. In New Jersey and Nevada ballot papers and counterfoils are numbered consecutively, just as ours are, while in Pennsylvania the serial number is printed on a tear-off slip. There are, in addition, strict arrangements for establishing the identity of an elector coming to vote. In Pennsylvania an elector must sign a document in the polling station and his signature is compared with the sample signature already in the possession of election officials. In France there is a separate ballot paper for each candidate and an elector votes by putting the ballot paper containing the name of the candidate of his choice into a special election envelope and he must show this envelope to the presiding officer before it goes into the ballot box.

I do not know how much more the Deputies want me to say on this. They know that any person who is entitled to vote is also entitled subsequent to an election, to bring a petition before the court against the result of an election, against the manner in which it was carried out or about the way in which the election was run. For example a petition could be brought following an election where five votes had been in dispute. There could be a dispute for various reasons. The embossing of the ballot paper might not have been very clear and a decision would have to be made by the returning officer as to whether this paper was valid or otherwise. If, in such a case, the returning officer decided that five such doubtful papers were valid and subsequently the election results were announced and a particular candidate lost his seat by four votes which is not unusual—we have had examples of this happening in recent elections here and it is not impossible to imagine that it might happen again— the candidate defeated by four votes might decide to bring a petition before the courts on the question of the validity of the five votes which the returning officer had stated were valid and which were counted in and they would have a very important bearing on the outcome of that election. I cannot see how a justice deciding this case could possibly give a decision unless he could identify the ballot papers which were in doubt and I would suggest to the House that the only way in which any person judging a case of that kind could make a decision would be to have clearly indicated to him the exact five ballot papers which were in doubt. He would have to be absolutely sure that the five papers which came before him as evidence in such a case were in fact the five papers which were originally in dispute. The only way in which he could be satisfied on that would be by an identifying mark on each of the papers, that mark, of course, being the serial number.

What is to prevent a returning officer putting a mark on each of these ballot papers the same as in the case of documents handed into court? Use your imagination for a change.

To be absolutely sure, the justice would require some specific method of identifying each ballot paper.

The simplest and the most obvious way of doing that would be to have a serial number on it. Also, you could take the case that you have no numbers on the ballot paper or counterfoil and you could have a presiding officer tearing off the ballot paper from the block and by accident tearing four or five together and he would not know that until the very end of the day because if there were no numbers he would have no means of checking.

I am surprised that there are amendments down suggesting the removal of these numbers from the ballot paper because they are there as a protection towards the security necessary in holding elections and also as a protection against fraud and false papers being introduced into ballot boxes. I would suggest that the Deputies might withdraw the amendment. It is not of very major consequence to them. There is no great conflict between us here. I have shown the need for the numbers and once that has been shown I hope it is understood and accepted in that sense by the Deputies who put down the amendment.

Another point came up that I would like to refer to briefly in regard to the number on the back of the ballot papers and their size. The law states that they shall be of a size compatible with legibility. This has been questioned and Deputy Hogan produced a ballot paper. I did not see it but I understand that the number on the back of it is not in his opinion compatible with legibility.

It is too compatible with legibility. That is the trouble.

There is a problem here and I would like to get a chance to explain it to the House. Since 1963 the law has required that the number on the back of each ballot paper shall be printed in the smallest characters compatible with legibility. The Stationery Office place contracts for the printing of ballot papers on behalf of the returning officers and these contracts run for a number of years. This is for Dáil elections. The last contracts which were placed by the Stationery Office for Dáil election ballot papers commenced on 1st April, 1970, and continues until 31st March, 1977. There are 22 printing firms with whom contracts have been made to do this work when required. I have inquired today from one of these firms who do most of the printing as they do all of the Dublin constituencies. This firm has been using 14-point type for the serial numbers on the back of ballot papers, I think similar in size to the one Deputy Hogan has in front of him.

Substantially smaller.

It appears that there may be small differences in the size of the characters used by other printers but basically I understand that they are of the same dimensions. I understand also that machines that will print a smaller size of character can, in fact, be obtained but the cost of adapting the present machines would be very high. There are no firm figures available to me and I made this rough check this morning as I understood Deputies wanted some information on this. The estimates that I have been given are that it would cost approximately £2,000 to adapt the machines to print a smaller size number.

What size? Will the Minister be precise?

I am not saying, but to get any size smaller than that, you can take it that it would cost approximately £2,000 to adapt a machine to print a smaller size number. There are 22 printers and to continue with contracts with all of these printers we would be involved in quite a substantial expenditure. Of course, as the contracts have already been placed I would expect that the State would possibly be expected to carry this increased expenditure of over £40,000.

In view of the cost of adapting these machines and the fact that we will be faced with a referendum in the very near future, I would suggest to the Deputies that in order to try to meet the point they are making I will request the Stationery Office to look fully into this whole matter with a view to establishing what can be done during the course of the present contracts and in future contracts to facilitate the use of a smaller size number than that which has been used up to now.

In case anybody listening or reading this debate would not have any great knowledge of the printing trade and the technical terms that are used to describe type sizes, I would like to point out——

They are not very technical. They are quite simple.

If you understand them. The 14-point type size is 3.9 millimetres.

The word "millimetre" is much more technical to me than "point".

It is a measurement which is easily obtainable by any member of the public who wants to find out what size we are talking about without having to go to a printing firm.

Give it in inches.

We are all in metric now in the Department of Local Government. I can give it precisely in millimetres.

Thank you for nothing.

We are moving into metric measurements in almost every aspect of our operations in the Department. In view of what I have said, I would hope that the Deputies would not press the amendment. I would hope also that they will accept in good faith what I have said I intend to do in instructing the Stationery Office in relation to the size of the serial numbers in future contracts.

To hear the Minister talking one would imagine that this was some kind of mumbo jumbo story that we have been putting here in the House. It was put as plain as plain could be by the three of us who spoke here on the last occasion. Deputy Keating hit the nail on the head when he said it was the suggestion that was made that was so important. The Minister in that long statement of his has not been able to give a single instance in 50 years where the number on the back of the ballot paper was counted, although, indeed, we had the long counts in the 1965 election; one went on for 11 days and another for nine days. They were in North-East Dublin and Longford/Westmeath. In neither case did the matter of the numbers on the back of the ballot papers enter into it. A Deputy remarked to me privately a few nights ago that there were too many ballot papers in one box; in other words, the box had been stuffed with ballot papers or the certificate of the presiding officer was wrong, but I am not saying which was the case. The Deputy told me that another person in the discussion said to him: "Why not do something about it?" He replied that this would mean the people would be put to the expense of another election and nobody wanted that. Even if someone puts some extra ballot papers into the polling boxes, an individual candidate will not bring an election petition.

That is not the only place that ballot papers are handled.

Is the Deputy talking about a count?

I am talking about the whole process right to the end.

The Parliamentary Secretary must be more precise if he is suggesting that ballots can be put in. In fact, it is extremely objectionable to have the papers numbered and we have said this on many occasions. The Minister spoke about "a stretch of the imagination". I have never heard such stretching of the imagination as was displayed by the Minister in his statement when he spoke about the different sizes of type. Anyone would imagine that it was some kind of miraculous event but any person who has written the smallest pamphlet knows about the sizes of type.

I told the Deputy that this kind of type is not available just now.

It is available for the phone book.

That is not the same. We are dealing with serial numbers.

What is involved here is the repetition of numbers and a little machine which works upwards from number one. This is not what is involved in the printing of the phone book because only one line is set.

One would need a large magnifying glass to read the type in the phone book and I think this is the point Deputy Hogan was making.

It is impossible to use the small type in this instance. It will not work.

I consulted a printer this morning about the matter and I got the exact opposite information to what the Minister got. I do not know who the Minister consulted but I will tell the Minister the printers I consulted; they are a most reputable firm of printers. I have here a card on which there are four different sizes of type.

These numbers are just typed on. I know about this because I have been dealing with such matters all my life.

A numbering machine and type-setting are two different matters.

From the way the Minister and some Deputies speak, one would imagine that we were idiots. The Minister is not correct in what he has said. It is not correct that if you have large print for the name on the front it is necessary to have large print on the back for the number.

I never said that.

I am sorry to contradict the Minister but he did say that. If he denies that he made this statement, can he tell us what he did say?

He mentioned many matters.

If we had one speaker at a time it might be possible to follow what is being said.

If the Parliamentary Secretary says I have not correctly repeated what the Minister said, would he mind telling me what the Minister did say because he was present also? I heard the Minister say that and I am sure Deputy Hogan did also. This whole business is a storm in a teacup and it is simply that the Government will never take any amendments from the Opposition. I am not going to accept the Minister's statement that he talked to printers. On one occasion in this House since I returned I accepted the word of a Minister that he would do something about a matter in the Seanad but he never even mentioned it, never mind doing anything about it. I will not take this kind of nonsense from any Minister. Furthermore, we will not give the Report Stage today as well as other Stages unless some reasonable accommodation is provided for us by the Minister; I am sure the Minister knows what I mean by "reasonable accommodation".

As regards the ridiculous story about the contract being placed until 1977, nobody will swallow that. What relevance has such a contract? All that is involved, if the contractors maintain we have changed the terms of the contract, is that they are entitled to some compensation. At one time the Minister said it would cost £2,000 for the city of Dublin and then he said it would cost 20 times that amount. Will the Minister make up his mind what it will cost? The truth is that he does not know; in other words, he is stretching his imagination, as he has accused us of doing. We want to ensure that there is nothing on the ballot paper except the name of the candidate with such description as is proper.

Deputy Hogan was quite right regarding the phraseology that has been used. It is stated that "the number on the back of the ballot paper shall be printed in the smallest type as is compatible with legibility". Of course, that is not law; it is merely a piece of writing. It is impossible to define the smallest size of type compatible with legibility. Material I could read when I was 30 I would find very difficult to read now. If I were as young as Deputy Andrews I could read very different type from what I read now. Who is to judge in this matter?

Is the Deputy speaking about six-point type?

Six-point type is the smallest type. In fact, it is used on the back of every bill of sale to set out the conditions. There is pretty bad six-point type used by the Revenue Commissioners on the back of the certificates they give about income tax——

And by the insurance companies.

It is completely illegible. One of the reasons is that it is printed in a kind of dark yellow on off-white paper, with the result that one would need a magnifying glass to read it. The Minister made a point which appeared to have some relevance, namely, that if this type is used the ink would blot and the numbers would not come out. If that is the case it is a reflection on the type of paper that is used and in that event it is only suitable for another purpose.

Where it is necessary to use a numbering machine, repeating many times, it is inevitable that the ink will blot. It is impossible to get that size for the numbering job.

Deputy Browne is a printer by trade and he knows what he is talking about.

I think Deputy Browne is first of all a member of Fianna Fáil and secondly he is a printer——

I would not accuse the Deputy of being a bad professor because he is a member of the Labour Party.

It just happens that only occasionally do my professorial duties conflict with my work as a member of the Labour Party. For all I know the same is true of Deputy Browne.

Six-point type is only used by the papers for death notices and similar type of notices but they are very difficult to read.

I have here a card with six-point printing and it is quite clear. Would the Deputy like to see it? There is six-point, eight-point, ten-point and twelve-point type on the card. If you cannot read the six-point type on that——

I can read the name of the Deputy——

Do not mind what is on the card; we are only talking about the size of the print which runs from six-point to 12-point. Anybody could read it. The fact is we did not make this suggestion out of a desire to create difficulties. It is the Minister who is creating difficulties in the sense that he talks about the referendum coming up. I do not give twopence whether the referendum is coming up or not. If the ballot papers are going to be printed for the referendum in a way in which they should not be printed, I am all against it. I do not mind, personally, how long we wait for the referendum: I think it runs a fair chance of being thrown out anyway.

The Minister knows that with the case decided in the courts he had no option but to bring in this Bill—he has hung certain things on to it—and instead of listening to us with care and making some effort to meet us, he gives out a lot of polite language but at the same time shows no sign of having listened to the arguments made here on the last occasion. He said he did give good reasons. I do not believe he gave any reasons at all on the last day. I think he was surprised that the matter came up at all. He says the purpose of the numbers is for the security of the ballot. How does that give protection? I know what the Parliamentary Secretary's view is but that is a different matter—to secure that no false ballots are allowed into the count—but numbering will not secure that false ballots do not come in.

We are not blind and we have all seen small polling booths in the country where 98 or 99 per cent of the people vote, but does anybody believe that is correct when a good percentage of them would have emigrated and some of them would be dead? The business of voting for dead people is well known. There is this pretence that having the number on the ballot papers does something. The purpose of having the registration number of the voter on the counterfoil was to try to prevent that very thing. But that is what the courts ruled out. There is now no method of cross-checking between the voter, the dead voter, and whether his vote is in the box or not. There will be no benefit. Granted that on the register of voters when a man votes, a stroke is drawn through his name by the presiding officer and the personating agent, meaning that he has voted. If somebody else comes in and says: "I am Tom Sullivan" he is told "Sorry, but Tom Sullivan's vote is gone." This is what he is told even though they might well know that the man who had voted was the wrong person. Sometimes they give a special colour of ballot paper.

The Minister also talks about the breach of secrecy. How many actions have been taken in the courts, not alone for breaches of secrecy, but for personation? Was there any action taken for personation in the whole country after the last election or the one before that?

Yes. After the 1969 election.

And after the 1965 election also.

It is a most rare thing even for personation, never mind secrecy.

It was not based on the numbers on the back of the voting papers.

It certainly was not.

It was based on personation.

I am leading up to the untenable nature of the Minister's case and the arguments he is making. He gives the example of five votes between two candidates and says that, in fact, if a petition was made on the basis of one candidate being elected rather than another it might be decided on the basis of the numbers on the back of the ballot papers and that the votes in dispute could only be identified by the returning officer indicating what the numbers were. There are various other methods of identifying votes. A, B, C, D and E could be written on the front of them in ink. These are the five notes. This is just nonsense. It is absolutely infantile to say you could not identify the votes in dispute without having a number on the back.

The Deputy should know that you may not write on ballot papers.

Let me draw on my imagination. Suppose you turn it over, are you quite sure you are looking at the same ballot paper?

That sounds very like the three-card trick.

I am talking about using imagination, and giving an example. The Minister knows it is just nonsense to talk about identifying the ballots in dispute by the numbers on the back. The Heavens will not fall if the Minister is foolish enough to dig his heels in and make a stand on a matter of this sort but he will have to wait a while for his Bill.

The Minister has made a purely hypothetical defence in respect of the necessity to have these numbers on the backs of the ballot papers. He mentioned that if a petition went to court there would be no means of identifying a particular vote unless there was a number on the back and if five votes were questioned as regards their embossing it would be necessary to identify them. That situation does not arise. Votes are accepted or rejected on the basis of their embossing, if it is good or bad and if the assessors are satisfied or are not and no notice is taken of the number on the back. In the case of every vote questioned by the assessors—and there are four sitting around a table—do they refer to the number on the back? They look at the embossing and ask: Is that right or wrong? What would a reasonable person think of it? Is it a fair job? They agree among themselves: "We will let that one through and we will reject this one". That is how it is done in practice. There is this hypothetical court case which the Minister envisages but he has not given us one example.

The law provides for it.

But no single case has arisen in 15 years and if something to which there are objections has been in operation for 15 years and it has never been utilised what is the purpose of continuing it?

Does the Deputy want to scrap the right to petition also?

We should scrap the numbering on the back. I do not know what the average number in a polling booth would be, perhaps a few hundred. Some polling booths are very small with perhaps 100 or 200 votes. In my constituency, I suppose 300 or 400 would be the highest.

About 500 at a table and then it depends on how many tables in the booth. In the whole polling booth there would be perhaps 1,000, 1,500 or 2,000 votes. I do not know how the ballot papers are numbered. Do they run from, say, one to 100?

They are numbered from one up to maybe 50,000 or 60,000 or whatever is the number of voters on the register for the constituency.

One area could have the numbers one to 400 while the next could have the numbers 500 to 1,000.

The numbers must run from one to whatever is the number of constituents.

Why is it necessary to have the name of the constituency on the reverse?

There is a provision in existing legislation which makes it obligatory.

I fail to understand why it is necessary to put the number of the constituency on the back of the papers when the papers are numbered already in accordance with the number of constituents. Even if we accept that numbers should appear on the back of voting papers I find it difficult to understand why it is necessary to have the numbers on the side in 14-point print. That is not compatible with what is said in the Schedule to the Bill, which is that the back of each ballot paper shall be numbered consecutively and the back of the counterfoil attached to it shall bear the same number. It says that the number on the back of the ballot paper shall be printed in the smallest characters compatible with legibility. They are not to be compatible with the smallest machine that is available. At column 387 of the Official Report for the 25th January, 1972, the Minister said:

It requires an extreme stretch of the imagination to imagine that such a system could be applied successfully. The requirement that the number on the ballot paper should be as small as is compatible with legibility would greatly reduce the possibility of anybody being able to read the number easily.

Although it is laid down in the Bill that the numbers shall be in the smallest characters compatible with legibility we are told by the Minister that this is not technically possible, that the ingenuity of man has not yet devised in this computerised age a system by which we could print a matter to conform to the directions in the Schedule to a Bill.

That is a complete misrepresentation. I did not say what the Deputy is now trying to insinuate. We could get machines. I have said how much they would cost. I do not know how long it would take to get one but it would probably be a few months.

It would appear that the Minister is out of touch completely with the technological age. He has told us that he could not get machines to perforate ballot papers. Now he is unable to get machines that would print small characters on the back of ballot papers. I do not know whether the Minister conducts all his business in Galway but it is obvious that he is not moving into any sophisticated society in making his inquiries. It must be possible to overcome these two difficulties he has mentioned. How could it take 12 months to acquire a few perforators?

The Deputy is amusing himself now.

The Deputy is repeating what the Minister said.

To have it written into the Bill that the numbers on the back of the ballot papers shall be printed in the smallest characters compatible with legibility is a very unscientific way of detailing legislation. Surely some system of measurement should have been stated, whether the point system or some other. The terms used here are very flexible. We can only guess at what is intended. The example I have here of six-point print is perfectly legible. This is Deputy O'Donovan's visiting card.

The Deputy will admit that it is very difficult to read six-point print.

It is very easy to read.

Even I can read it easily.

I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary could read it at a distance of a few feet.

Fourteen-point print is about one-sixth of an inch. Six-point print is about the size of a pinhead.

The pin would have a very fat head.

All we can do is to ask Deputy O'Donovan to give one of his visiting cards to the Minister for inspection.

The English law requires only that the number be printed in small characters.

The position there is different. They have no Fianna Fáil Party.

The Deputy was very keen to ascertain what the British were doing. Of course, this would influence him more than me.

The great nationalist.

Can Deputy O'Donovan say how many of these cards he uses each year?

Can we have one Deputy at a time?

I am sure he does not issue as many of these cards as Fianna Fáil issue of Christmas cards.

And at public expense.

The Deputy issued them at one time, too.

As Deputy Oliver Flanagan said before, we paid for our own and paid the postage, too. All that was changed.

As the Minister for Finance said, there are low standards in high places.

Deputy Hogan on the amendment.

I was endeavouring to outline the incompatibility between what is laid down in the Schedule to the Bill and what the Minister has told us regarding the acquisition of printing machines. He has told us that it is not possible to get a mechanism that will turn out voting papers with numbers in a serial fashion.

I did not say that. What I said was that they were not available in the country at the moment.

Surely this is an investment for the remainder of time. Why is there so much fuss about a matter of a few thousand pounds?

The Chair must endeavour to maintain order in the debate. Speakers will be able to follow in rotation but we can have only one speaker at a time.

This particular proviso has been in legislation here for several years. I thought it had been there since 1923.

Surely it does not make sense to have that proviso written into Electoral Bills one after another and for the Minister to come to the House in 1972 and say that machines to print in accordance with this are not readily available. In other words, since 1962 this has not been carried out because the machines presumably are not there now and have not been there since this proviso was introduced into legislation in 1964. This seems to be just a pious hope to write something like this into a Bill. This numbering has been in operation since the State was founded and has never been utilised. If you go to the trouble of getting this kind of thing placed on voting papers and in 50 years the numbers have never been adverted to on one occasion, what is the point of continuing it, particularly when the objection has been raised? One can say there is still suspicion as regards the secrecy of the ballot. It still leaves the matter open to intimidation. Suppose somebody took this case to court in the morning and said: "The marking by the presiding officer of the number of the voter on the counterfoil has been done away with by your High Court ruling, but we contend it is still not a secret ballot and that it is still unconstitutional." Left as it is, its constitutionality could still be challenged in the High Court, as much of our legislation could be challenged if people were so disposed or if people had the money to spare.

I am not satisfied with the arguments the Minister has put up as to the necessity for continuing this numbering on the back of the ballot papers. I am not so concerned about the numbering on the block. Deputy O'Donovan has another amendment dealing with the numbering on the back of the ballot paper. That is the crucial issue. If that goes all our objections here would be met. It is pointless for the Minister to introduce a hypothetical case, saying: "If this happened...." Since 1922, something should have happened in the many elections we have had. If this number is removed from the ballot paper it will allay the fears of the public if we can say to them beyond yea or nay: "This is a secret ballot. You cannot be intimidated."

In this imperfect world of ours no matter what you do you will not prevent some trick being performed in an election booth. The ingenuity of man will get around numbering or any other such device. There still have to be the courts and prosecutions for departures from orthodox practice. It is ridiculous to think that numbering is a safeguard. If a local printing office wants to print bogus ballot papers at the next election there is nothing to prevent them putting a number on the back of the ballot paper. It will be a question then of which ballot paper is right, the one the presiding officer has opened or the one the person doing the stunt has pushed into the ballot box. Numbering on the back of the ballot paper will not stop that. I can, for example, go into an election booth, get my voting paper and on the way out say to somebody "My number is so-and-so". He can watch the next person going in and say his number is so-and-so, and so on down the line. The papers are given out in sequence. Once I vote and give my number everybody else's voting number is open to any person in the polling booth. Therefore they are open to be checked on afterwards at the count, and the secrecy of the ballot box has been breached. If anyone wants to put in a false voting paper he can get the agent to print it. I can take the number on the back of the ballot paper and say: "This is 25. I voted early. From 25 on you will be quite safe. They will be duplicated in the ballot box but you can pass them in." Nobody ever looks at them afterwards. Under proportional representation it is difficult enough to count the votes. I do not think the sequence of numbers is ever checked in a serious fashion in any part of the country. Unless there was some mechanised method it would be simply impossible to go over the numbers on the back of the ballot papers. Therefore I do not see any purpose in continuing that numbering.

As I say, the numbers on the counterfoils of the voting paper could be left. It might be of some use to the presiding officer in checking the number of papers he has given out. If the Minister is so anxious to ensure the validity of votes I can see nothing objectionable in getting the presiding officer to put a signature on every vote he hands out. In the polling booth from 9 a.m. until 10 p.m. perhaps he hands out 200 voting papers. Surely it is not asking too much that he would put a careful signature on every voting paper he hands out. That would be a good method of identification and as near as you could get to having everything in order in a polling booth.

I agree entirely with Deputy Hogan. There should be no ambiguity about this. The vote should be secret and the people should be let know it is secret. If the numbers are left on the back of the ballot paper a person's vote can be traced. Any personation agent or tally clerk can sit down beside the presiding officer, as he does, at an election and can take and mark on his register the first person that comes in and votes No. 6. If the block starts at the No. 500 all he has to do with every person that comes in after that is to number them according to how they voted. It can be traced and it has been traced in the past. The Minister knows that as well as everybody else.

In the past unscrupulous canvassers went around the country and called on voters at the dead of night. They told them: "We can trace how you vote and if you do not vote the way we want you to vote you will lose your work on the road; you will lose your social welfare benefit; you will lose your blind pension; you will lose your disablility allowance." This has happened throughout the length and breadth of the country. This has been done by unscrupulous politicians and their agents and it is time an end was put to it. We want to ensure that the secrecy of the ballot box is absolute and that no one can find out how any constituent voted. Voters are entitled to that. There must be some reason why the Government are insistent on maintaining this practice of having numbers on the backs of ballot papers. As Deputy Hogan said, none of us would have any objection to numbers on counterfoils.

On the point of counterfeit ballot papers, the fact is no one can get hold of the stamp used by the presiding officer. Last week the point was made that very often the stamp does not mark the papers properly and, as a result of that, arguments took place at the counts. I have known arguments to go on for hours, arguments as to whether or not a ballot paper was properly stamped. Now the Minister promised he would introduce a machine to have ballot papers perforated. Even if it were possible for a counterfeiter to get hold of the presiding officer's stamp, surely there could be a secret stamp issued on the morning of the election to every presiding officer. That would meet the objections to the present system. To stop the intimidation it is imperative that the number should be taken off the back of the ballot paper.

I reject Deputy L'Estrange's allegation that there has been intimidation in elections.

Voters were told they would lose their old age pensions if they did not vote for the Government and the unfortunate people believed it.

The numbers must appear on the back of the ballot papers to prevent abuses and the Minister in reintroducing this provision is helping to put the minds of Deputies who are suspicious at ease. The Deputy's allegations are completely unfounded. We have a democracy. We do not intimidate electors. They are free to vote whatever way they like.

Provided they vote for Fianna Fáil and the Minister in reintroducing this provision——

Order. Deputy O'Leary.

Deputy L'Estrange is completely off beam when he suggests the Minister is wrong in reintroducing this provision. In actual fact the Minister is ensuring proper control and alleviating the fears expressed by Deputy L'Estrange.

I should like to put the last speaker on beam. He accused Deputy L'Estrange of being off beam.

I never was in my life and I am not now.

The numbering on the back of the ballot paper will in no way prevent improper or illegal voting. It therefore serves no purpose. Its preservation will have a bad effect in that it violates secrecy and can give rise to intimidation. It should be removed. I fail to see what purpose it serves.

Listening to some speakers one would imagine that voting takes place in a church-like atmosphere. Nothing of the sort happens. You go along to the polling station and you have there the presiding officer and the personation agents. You are handed a ballot paper with a number on it. I cannot understand why the court held that the registration number on the counterfoil was a violation of secrecy; it is easy enough to put the two together, the number on the back of the ballot paper and the number on the counterfoil. That is why the court insisted that the number should be written on the front. Actually it is entirely against the spirit of the secrecy of voting that there should be any number at all and I cannot understand why the court did not hold that the entire thing should be scrapped. However, that is for the court to explain, not for me. I had nothing whatever to do with it.

The Minister's whole approach is quite illogical. If there is a number on the back it does not matter whether the votes are counted face upwards or face downwards. The votes are put together in bundles and they are then counted face upwards. At the counts there is a good deal of confrontation. It is only someone from Kerry, with a smile in his eyes, who would maintain that no trouble arises. Of course it does. Anyone with any experience knows what happens and the kind of thing that goes on. Deputy Hogan referred to the long hours spent by senior representatives of the parties examining doubtful votes.

How can you prevent personation unless you have a number on the back of the ballot paper?

The number has nothing whatever to do with it.

Personation is detected by the person being asked to swear that he is who he alleges he is. Very often, when challenged, that person walks out. If a voter goes in and says he is Tom O'Donnell, he is then challenged and the personation agent puts him the question. Putting the question means making him swear that he is the man he says he is. If he is personating he turns on his heel and walks out. He is not arrested. He just walks out and this is the proof that he was trying to personate.

That does not happen in Kerry.

It happens in Dublin.

They take the oath there. I am sorry but the Deputy left himself open.

They take it with a smile in their eyes. One of these oaths that is not an oath.

It is still an empty formula there.

Yes, purely a formula, just as the number on the back of the ballot paper is purely a formula.

It is necessary.

As I said, I was told by a Deputy that there was a box of papers in his constituency in which there were many more ballot papers than there should have been. I asked him why he did not do something about it and he said: "What would I do? Why would I do anything about it?" He was quite right. Why would he have the election condemned and be put to the expense of having another election? If a man is beaten it is all the worse. He has spent his money and got nothing in return. At least if he is elected he might have something with which to fight the new election.

(Interruptions.)

Let us keep to the numbers on ballot papers.

I cannot understand what objection the Minister has. I do not believe he and his advisers have seriously considered that matter.

The Bill says:

The number on the back of the ballot paper shall be printed in the smallest characters compatible with legibility.

Deputy Hogan showed us a ballot paper in which the numbers were not printed in 14-point type but in at least 40-point type. This was supposed to be the smallest number compatible with legibility. This is in here as a note. Will the Minister tell me is this part of the law? We all know that marginal notes are not part of the law. This note is printed right across the page. It occurs three times in the Bill. What is compatible with legibility? What was legible to me 20 years ago is not legible to me now. Is this note part of the law?

It would become law if the Bill was passed and became an Act.

Is this not void on the basis of uncertainty? What is legible to one man is completely illegible to another. This is just a piece of verbiage that was put into the original Act. The Minister told us that in England they say it shall be printed in small characters. That is more certain than this phrase because small characters are something that are not dependent on the eye power of a particular person.

It is a concept of measurement.

I cannot understand why the Minister is digging his heels in. He has not been able to give us one instance where these numbers have counted, even in the long counts in Dublin North-East and in Longford/Westmeath in the 1965 election. He has not been able to give us a single example of where this counted in 50 years. Yet he insists on sticking to it. Of course, the real reason is that the Civil Service must prevail, the administration must never be held to be wrong. Unless the administration choose to change their minds and persuade their Minister to go with them they are in no circumstances to be upturned in public here in the House. Rule No. 1 in this country today is that the Executive is always right and in this case the Executive means the Civil Service.

The Deputy should direct his remarks to me, through the Chair.

I am directing my remarks to the Chair. I have not said "you" once today. If the Minister wants to be rough I can be rough with him, as rough as he likes.

I might be fitter.

Intimidation again. It is breaking out again.

County Galway coming out once more.

If you do not do what we want you to do you will be downed.

Briseann an dúchas tré shúile an chait.

Tá mé bródúil as mo dhúchas.

Ní fheadar. The Executive predominates but there are certain sanctions open to Deputies and one of them is that on Committee Stage of a Bill we can speak as often as we like and for as long as we like. No man ever gave a better example of that than the former Deputy MacEntee on the Greyhound Bill in 1955 when he talked at length and read out huge chunks of stuff. On these amendments I could read the 1923 Electoral Act from start to finish if I wished to filibuster. I am not doing that but we can prevent the Minister from getting this Bill today and that is what we will do if the Minister does not behave reasonably. We have given the Minister a specific way out, that is that the numbers on the back of the ballot papers should be printed in six-point type. They would then be legible but could not be read from a couple of yards away.

The Minister is raising unreasonable objections. These are all technical objections which I am not in a position to counter because I am not an expert on printing. Neither is the Minister, but he is assuming that mantle. He explained to us with great pretensions the last day that it was impossible to provide any form of marking other than the embossing which we were inclined to criticise. This side of the House was quite open to any new suggestion that could be made as to any method of marking voting papers which would be pretty foolproof and could not be imitated easily. The Minister has made the point that the embossing is quite satisfactory if the presiding officer will use it. The same could be said of any system introduced. No matter how perfect it is, if the presiding officer will not use it, it falls down. When we suggested to the Minister that perhaps some other system might be useful or might be an improvement on the embossing, he immediately came back on us and said that he had made inquiries into this, that it would cost so many thousands of pounds and that it would take a year to introduce a system of perforating the ballot paper. There are chaps going up and down in the buses here and they have simple perforating machines which you can buy in Woolworths.

The House has disposed of that amendment.

I am sure it would not be beyond the ingenuity of our local engineering service to introduce some kind of simple perforators.

We cannot reopen discussion on an amendment that has already been disposed of.

Today the Minister comes along again and suggests that it is impossible to get printing done on the back of the ballot paper in a sequential manner and of such size as to fulfil the conditions of the Bill that it shall be printed in the smallest characters compatible with legibility. There is nothing in this country able to provide that service. We are about to enter the Common Market. We have become greatly advanced in the technological sense in the last decade and yet we cannot do this.

The Minister said that it would cost £2,000 to adapt each machine and that there are 22 printers. Therefore, we must multiply that £2,000 by 22. It would be quite impossible to go to one printer and give him the £2,000 and let him do the whole lot. It would be quite impossible to make any effort to meet the situation. The Minister makes a phone call and finds out that all this is impossible or expensive or difficult and takes such a length of time.

The printers can print any of these numbers. They have every size.

We had an expert in here earlier and the expert said that this kind of printing here on a visiting card, with numbers on it, cannot be done in a sequence, that the little machine breaks down when the number gets too small and, therefore, you must have a big machine with big numbers and then the big numbers are not compatible with the Bill. I am not convinced. These are all spurious objections. They seem to me to be red herrings.

We have no amendment here suggesting that the smallest possible number compatible with legibility should be introduced. It is not necessary to put in an amendment to that effect. That is in the Act. That is laid down. Yet we are told that this is not physically possible, that it costs too much.

You were not told that, now.

We were told that by the Minister. I do not know who told the Minister. He has not produced an affidavit. He has not given us any evidence except that he had made a phone call and that phone call is something that we must accept, we must not question. The Minister made a phone call, God knows to where, and he tells the House that in this country, in present circumstances, we cannot produce this type of printing on the back of ballot papers. In other words, in reference to a legal direction laid down first in 1964 and incorporated in any Electoral Bill we have passed since then, and in operation in all our polling booths, he tells us today that not alone has this never been acceded to—and I showed a ballot paper here that was rejected and which was not acceded to on the last occasion—but that it is impossible to do so, that the necessary machine is not available in this country. Apparently, since 1964, no effort has been made to fulfil the direction of the legislation passed by this House.

The Minister is charged, and his predecessors were charged, with the responsibility of laying down proper conditions for elections. Yet, this Minister has failed and his predecessors have failed to fulfil the terms of the legislation. They have not made a reasonable effort to provide the necessary marking on the back of the ballot papers compatible with legislation which we have passed. Yet he had the effrontery to come in here and direct Deputy O'Donovan as to how he is to address him, that he is not to speak directly to him, that he is a man apart. He has failed in this respect to see that the marking on the back of the ballot papers has been carried out in accordance with the legislation that he has presented to us today.

When a Minister comes in here and has that affirmation on a Bill, he should either take it out or else it should be something that can be carried into effect. Otherwise, it makes nonsense. I would ask the Minister to repeal the section rather than leave it in the Bill if the position is that the next election must be carried out with that affirmation at the bottom of the Bill which cannot be carried out in the polling booths. I would ask him what is the constitutional position arising if elections are carried out and the numbers are not on the ballot papers in large sizes such as 12-point or 14-point, or whatever the size may be, such as appeared on the ballot paper which I produced here on the last occasion?

It is only fair, in the public interest, that the Minister and the Government should be allowed to alleviate the fears of Deputy L'Estrange, Deputy Hogan and Deputy O'Donovan as regards personation and this section should stand.

That does not alleviate our fears. It aggravates them.

Could I quote, as a final comment from the Official Report for 25th January, 1972, Volume 258, at column 348.

The removal of the voter's number from the counterfoil of the ballot paper will remove all doubts regarding the secrecy of the ballot.

I quote from column 349:

I think it is only fair to say that voting is now untraceable, even though there is the same number on the counterfoil and on the back of the voting paper.

Is this from last week's debate?

I am quoting Deputy Hogan. That is all I have to say.

Is amendment No. 3 withdrawn?

The Deputy wants his amendment put?

Does Deputy O'Donovan want his amendment put?

Yes. You will appreciate that Deputy Hogan and I are ad idem in the sense that what we want is the number off the ballot paper.

If Deputy O'Donovan seeks a decision, the Chair must protect his right to a decision and therefore the question must be phrased in a certain way.

I think both amendments should be put to the House.

Question: "That the entry relating to the counterfoil number on the front of the ballot paper stand part of the Bill" put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 62; Níl, 57.

  • Allen, Lorcan.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Boylan, Terence.
  • Brady, Philip A.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Brennan, Paudge.
  • Brosnan, Seán.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Carter, Frank.
  • Carty, Michael.
  • Childers, Erskine.
  • Colley, George.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Connolly, Gerard C.
  • Cowen, Bernard.
  • Cronin, Jerry.
  • Crowley, Flor.
  • Cunningham, Liam.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Delap, Patrick.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Dowling, Joe.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
  • Flanagan, Seán.
  • Foley, Desmond.
  • Forde, Paddy.
  • French, Seán.
  • Geoghegan, John.
  • Gibbons, Hugh.
  • Gogan, Richard P.
  • Healy, Augustine A.
  • Herbert, Michael.
  • Hillery, Patrick J.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Hussey, Thomas.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Kitt, Michael F.
  • Lalor, Patrick J.
  • Lemass, Noel T.
  • Loughnane, William A.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • Lynch, John.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacSharry, Ray.
  • Meaney, Thomas.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Moore, Seán.
  • Nolan, Thomas.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • O'Connor, Timothy.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Malley, Des.
  • Power, Patrick.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Timmons, Eugene.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

  • Barry, Peter.
  • Barry, Richard.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • Belton, Luke.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Burke, Joan.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Burke, Richard.
  • Burton, Philip.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Clinton, Mark A.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Collins, Edward.
  • Conlan, John F.
  • Coogan, Fintan.
  • Cooney, Patrick M.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Crotty, Kieran.
  • Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
  • L'Estrange, Gerald.
  • Lynch, Gerard.
  • McLaughlin, Joseph.
  • McMahon, Lawrence.
  • Malone, Patrick.
  • Murphy, Michael P.
  • O'Connell, John F.
  • O'Donovan, John.
  • O'Hara, Thomas.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Dockrell, Henry P.
  • Donegan, Patrick S.
  • Donnellan, John.
  • Dunne, Thomas.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
  • Finn, Martin.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Fox, Billy.
  • Governey, Desmond.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hogan, Patrick.
  • Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
  • Jones, Denis F.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Keating, Justin.
  • Kenny, Henry.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F.
  • O'Reilly, Paddy.
  • O'Sullivan, John L.
  • Spring, Dan.
  • Taylor, Francis.
  • Thornley, David.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Tully, James.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Andrews and Meaney; Níl: Deputies R. Burke and Kavanagh.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

I move amendment No. 4:

In subsection (j), page 3, to delete "No. ..." from the back of the form of ballot paper.

Is the amendment withdrawn?

No, but it has been fully discussed with amendment No. 3.

Then I will put the question.

Question "That the entry relating to the number on the back of the ballot paper stand part of the Bill" put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 57.

  • Allen, Lorcan.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Boylan, Terence.
  • Brady, Philip A.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Brennan, Paudge.
  • Brosnan, Seán.
  • Browne, Patrick.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Carter, Frank.
  • Carty, Michael.
  • Childers, Erskine.
  • Colley, George.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Connolly, Gerard C.
  • Cowen, Bernard.
  • Cronin, Jerry.
  • Crowley, Flor.
  • Cunningham, Liam.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Delap, Patrick.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Dowling, Joe.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
  • Flanagan, Seán.
  • Foley, Desmond.
  • Forde, Paddy.
  • French, Seán.
  • Gallagher, James.
  • Geoghegan, John.
  • Gibbons, Hugh.
  • Gogan, Richard P.
  • Healy, Augustine A.
  • Herbert, Michael.
  • Hillery, Patrick J.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Hussey, Thomas.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Kitt, Michael F.
  • Lalor, Patrick J.
  • Lemass, Noel T.
  • Loughnane, William A.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • Lynch, John.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacSharry, Ray.
  • Meaney, Thomas.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Moore, Seán.
  • Nolan, Thomas.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • O'Connor, Timothy.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Malley, Des.
  • Power, Patrick.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Timmons, Eugene.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

  • Barry, Peter.
  • Barry, Richard.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • Belton, Luke.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Burke, Joan.
  • Collins, Edward.
  • Conlan, John F.
  • Coogan, Fintan.
  • Cooney, Patrick M.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Crotty, Kieran.
  • Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Dockrell, Henry P.
  • Donegan, Patrick S.
  • Donnellan, John.
  • Dunne, Thomas.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
  • Finn, Martin.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Fox, Billy.
  • Governey, Desmond.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hogan, Patrick.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Burke, Richard.
  • Burton, Philip.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Clinton, Mark A.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
  • Jones, Denis F.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Keating, Justin.
  • Kenny, Henry.
  • L'Estrange, Gerald.
  • Lynch, Gerard.
  • McLaughlin, Joseph.
  • McMahon, Lawrence.
  • Malone, Patrick.
  • Murphy, Michael P.
  • O'Connell, John F.
  • O'Donovan, John.
  • O'Hara, Thomas.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F.
  • O'Reilly, Paddy.
  • O'Sullivan, John L.
  • Spring, Dan.
  • Taylor, Francis.
  • Thornley, David.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Tully, James.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Andrews and Meaney; Níl: Deputies Kavanagh and R. Burke.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

This raises the same question as we have discussed already, that is, the placing of a number on the back of a voting paper and on the counterfoil. The same objection can be put forward in respect of this system both in relation to a Presidential election and to other elections.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 5, before section 5, to insert the following section:

"(1) At a constitutional referendum in relation to the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1971—

(a) a polling card sent under section 64 (1) of the Electoral Act, 1963, shall contain the statement set out in the Appendix to this section,

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

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

(i) shall indicate that it is for a postal voter and shall accordingly not state the number and place referred to in the said section 64 (1),

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

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

(d) subsections (3) to (6) of the said section 64 shall apply in relation to polling cards sent under paragraph (b) of this section,

(e) copies of the statement referred to in paragraph (a) of this section shall be displayed by a presiding officer in and in the precincts of his polling station:

Provided that the referendum shall not be invalidated by reason of any failure to display such copies in or in the precincts of any polling station,

(f) in applying Rule 18 (inserted by the Electoral Act, 1963) of the First Schedule to the Referendum Act, 1942, the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (5)—

‘(5) (a) Where a ballot paper is to be marked pursuant to paragraph (3) of this Rule, the presiding officer may assist the voter by reading out in full from the ballot paper the proposal stated therein and asking the voter ""Do you approve of or do you object to that Bill becoming law?"" and shall then, unless it is a case to which subparagraph (b) of this paragraph applies, mark the ballot paper in accordance with the answer of the voter, but he shall not act on any written instruction.

(b) Where the voter fails to understand the import of the said question, the presiding officer—

(i) shall read out to the voter paragraph 1 of the statement set out in the Appendix to section 5 of the Electoral (Amendment) Act, 1972,

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

(iii) shall then mark the ballot paper in accordance with the answer of the voter, but shall not act on any written instruction.'

(2) This section shall be construed as one with the Referendum Acts, 1942 to 1968.

APPENDIX.

1. The Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1971, proposes to add the subsection here following to Article 29.4 of the Constitution.

3º The State may become a member of the European Coal and Steel Community (established by Treaty signed at Paris on the 18th day of April, 1951), the European Economic Community (established by Treaty signed at Rome on the 25th day of March, 1957) and the European Atomic Energy Community (established by Treaty signed at Rome on the 25th day of March, 1957). No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State necessitated by the obligations of membership of the Communities or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the Communities, or institutions thereof, from having the force of law in the State.

The purpose of the proposal is to allow the State to become a member of the communities commonly known as the European Communities.

2. If you APPROVE of the State's becoming a member of the European Communities, mark X opposite the word YES on the ballot paper.

3. If you DO NOT APPROVE of the State's becoming a member of the European Communities, mark X opposite the word NO on the ballot paper.

4. A copy of the Bill can be inspected free of charge and purchased for two and a half pence at any Post Office."

With amendment No. 7, No. 14 may be discussed, as it is consequential.

The purpose of this amendment is to assist voters at the referendum on the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1971, by providing that a special polling card containing a statement relating to the proposal for amendment of the Constitution would be sent to each elector, including postal voters. The statement will also be displayed in and in the the precincts of polling stations, and presiding officers will be authorised to assist blind, incapacitated and illiterate voters by reading out the statement to them and asking them whether they wish to vote in favour of or against the proposal and then marking the ballot paper in accordance with the voter's answers.

These arrangements are similar to those made by the Referendum (Amendment) Act, 1968, in relation to the referenda on the Third and Fourth Amendment to the Constitution Bills, 1968. Similar arrangements had previously been made by the Referendum (Amendment) Act, 1959, in relation to the 1959 referendum. Under existing law the proposal which is the subject of the referendum must be stated on the ballot paper by citing by its Short Title the Bill containing the proposal passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. Our legal advice is that there is no alternative to this. It would be impracticable to set out the proposal itself on the ballot paper. It would be extremely undesirable that the ballot paper should contain a summary or a paraphrase of the proposal because of the possibility of litigation to restrain the President from signing the Bill, even after a referendum, on the grounds that the proposal as stated on the ballot paper and, accordingly, as approved by the people was not identical in its legal effect to that contained in the Bill.

In the circumstances I think the House will agree that it is desirable that a statement relating to the proposal for amendment of the Constitution should be circulated for the information of voters as was done in 1959 and in 1968. Copies of the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1971, will be available for inspection free of charge and can be purchased at all post offices at a cost of 2½p.

Do I understand from the Bill that the ballot paper we will get in the referendum will just have two words on it "Yes" and "No" or "Tá" and "Níl"?

That is right, and the Short Title of the Bill.

Just the Short Title, that is, Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill?

Can we take it that those in favour of entry into the EEC will vote "Yes" and those against will vote "No"?

It is given in the Appendix: if you approve of Ireland becoming a member you vote "Yes" and if you do not approve you vote "No".

"Yes" for entry and——

"Yes" for entry and "No" against entry.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.

Amendments Nos. 8, 10 and 12 in the name of Deputy Hogan, and Nos. 9, 11 and 13 in the name of Deputy John O'Donovan, were discussed with amendment No. 3. Amendments 8 to 13, inclusive, not moved.

Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."

Does section 6 govern the Schedules?

I want to give the Minister notice that I propose to move an amendment to these Schedules on the Report Stage to replace the words "the number on the back of the ballot paper shall be printed in the smallest characters compatible with legibility" with the words "the number on the back of the ballot paper shall be printed in six-point type".

All right.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 11, subsection (4), line 8, to delete "and 6" and to substitute ", 5 and 7".

This amendment was discussed with amendment No. 7.

Amendment agreed to.
Question: "That section 7, as amended, stand part of the Bill" put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.

Could we take it now?

No. I protested yesterday about this procedure. The Government can decide when they are going to take it but it will not be now.

Would the Deputy agree to take it tomorrow?

I would agree to take it tomorrow. I take it my amendment will be accepted. That is the main thing.

It will be on the Order Paper and it can be discussed.

Report Stage ordered for Thursday, 16th March, 1972.
Top
Share