(Cavan-Monaghan): When we mention the postal strike we are regarded as being mischievous and not being very relevant. As Deputy Quinn has said, there will not be anything like an election campaign either in support of or against these referenda. Normally there would not have been a very high-powered campaign one way or the other because they are agreed measures. But it is even more unlikely—following a long drawn out Euro election and local elections campaign—that it will be possible to get much enthusiasm worked up in regard to these referenda. Also it is only right to say that these are very important Bills, particularly the adoption one to validate all adoptions that have taken place since adoption was introduced. It is very important that there be a decent turn-out and I believe people will turn out in goodly numbers because they regard this as serious, provided they get due notification. It is more important on this occasion that polling cards go out than ever before. It might well be that, notwithstanding the importance of the matter, if this wretched strike has not ended, it would be a good thing to consider putting back the referenda, I will not say for long but until the strike is ended. The point I am endeavouring to make is that polling cards will be more important in this election than in any other.
Referendum (Amendment) Bill, 1979: Committee and Final Stages.
Agreed.
I should like to say something on section 1 and about the appendix. The idea, as a general proposition is that in a referendum the gist of the proposal to amend the Constitution should be explained as simply as it can be done, in a manner such as this Bill proposes. That is an improvement on the situation that has obtained up to now. I could find no objection to the form in which the two paraphrases of the two amending Bills are set down here. The explanation of what the sixth amendment is about is fair enough and the same is true of the explanation of the seventh amendment. I should merely like to say that I hope that the fact that these amendments are being passed not only without opposition but with the agreement of the Opposition here will not be taken as a precedent in the future. We are talking now about an ordinary piece of law. What we are passing here today will not itself be submitted to the people for approval. In other words, the Government majority in both Houses can pass a law of this sort without a referendum.
What I am concerned about is that, while we could agree today that the two paraphrases here are as near to perfect as they can be made, I could see a great objection, in the case of a contentious referendum in the future, if what we are doing here today were cited as a precedent for a paraphrase of a referendum proposal which itself could be extremely controversial. In 1968 and 1959 were the two efforts—in fact it is nearly coming up to the time when we might expect a third effort—by Fianna Fáil to get rid of the proportional representation system. I could imagine that if a proposal of that kind were before the House, and if there were a proposal similar to the one before us today in regard to explaining to the voter what the whole thing is about, there could be very strong objection taken to the paraphrase which, in a contentious matter like that, the Government might put on what they wanted to see incorporated in the Constitution. In other words, if, for example, in 1968 it had been then the law that the explanation was that this amendment is designed to provide us with the straight vote—something like that—I would consider that an entirely objectional paraphrase of what was then sought to be done. I am only anxious that the mere fact that what is being done today is being done not only without opposition but by agreement should not be cited against the Opposition, or any Opposition in the House in future, if a Government should try to facilitate the passage of a much more radical and perhaps much more objectional amendment, by incorporating in a further amendment of the Referendum Acts a provision allowing them to put their interpretation on what their amendment is designed to achieve.
In this connection—in case the Minister and his Department are thinking that far ahead and there is no reason for them not doing so because a matter of this sort could arise at any time— might I suggest that, in a case where a contentious paraphrase of a constitutional amendment proposal is produced by the Government, the President might be given a role. The President has very few formal, legal functions. They could be written on half a postcard. He might be given a certain role here in consultation with the Council of State to adjudicate on the acceptability or otherwise of a paraphrase of the referenda proposals. There seems to me to be a very appropriate model for such a proceeding in Article 22.2. of the Constitution, where what is envisaged is a dispute about what is a Money Bill. The privileges of the other House are at issue here. Where the Seanad are afraid they may be short-circuited and may not get a sufficient chance to debate something, because a Bill is represented as a Money Bill which is only masquerading as a Money Bill, there is a provision in Article 22.2.3º for the President to form a Committee of Privileges consisting of an equal number of Members of the Dáil and Seanad and a chairman who shall be a judge of the Supreme Court. That would be an appropriate model to adopt in the even that we have a future referendum where the Government are seeking to make their path easier in a contentious matter by putting a favourable construction on what they are trying to do via this polling card.
With regard to campaigning, which Deputy Fitzpatrick mentioned, before the referenda on 5 July, the Deputy can be assured that this party will not fail in that respect. We look forward to the other parties in the House doing the same thing, explaining what is involved to the people. We certainly will not be found wanting in regard to that.
With regard to the point made by Deputy Kelly, I understand there was a similar debate on this matter in 1963. An amendment was brought in by the Minister which was withdrawn later after debate. The only thing that is involved here is simplification of the two matters for the electorate. This makes it easier to identify the two papers. That is really all that is involved here. We should all agree that that is the proper approach. It is not setting a precedent. We will make it clear to the people what is involved in the referenda and I trust the parties opposite will do the same.
Is the Minister aware if the Government and the Minister responsible for the adoption measure have any proposals for an information campaign in relation to this matter?
The Government will be responsible for that, not any particular Minister.
It is hardly relevant. The logistics of the referenda are the only thing before us at the moment. There will be other opportunities.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I am glad to hear the Minister say that his party will not be found wanting in bringing what is involved in those referenda before the people. I am sure it will be a refreshing experience for them to go out and be welcomed instead of being chased as they are at the moment.
We are being welcomed with open arms all over the country.
I hear they have given up canvassing in some areas their reception is so bad. They have battened down the hatches and taken cover.
I am told they are stuffing the literature into the bushes.
(Cavan-Monaghan): During one contribution from the Minister he seemed to brush too lightly aside the obligations of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs under this section. He seemed to think that, notwithstanding the postal strike, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs could still carry out his obligations under this measure, but I do not think that is so. It says in the section:
Copies of the Bills can be inspected free of charge, and purchased for two and a half pence each, at any Post Office.
The Minister simply says that only 80 post offices are closed, but he did not tell us that those are the major post offices in the country which are serving large built up areas in huge centres of population. The sub-post offices, which are still open, are to a large extent serving small communities of people. Places like the GPO and the principal post offices in the cities and the major towns are closed. I suggest that the Minister and his colleague take this matter seriously and see what can be done in regard to the various obligations under this Bill to use postal facilities for sending out polling cards with this important notice on them, for sending out postal votes to those entitled to vote by post and for making copies of the Bills available.
Those are serious obligations. I would like the Minister to take them seriously and I would like the Government to give them serious consideration and, if necessary, postpone the referenda until those matters can be brought to the attention of the people. There is no use in the Minister saying that his party or any other person's party will take this matter as seriously as they would have contested a general election or a local election. That may sound all right on the record but he is not being practical about it. He knows they will not take the matter as seriously as they would a general election, especially as this comes on the heels of a long campaign which has been going on for months.
Particularly when they are losing it.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Exactly.
I do not wish to delay the House because there are other more interesting items on the agenda for today. It would be a mistake if Ministers on the far side of the House combined support for an agreed measure with an absence of any constructive criticism on this side of the House. We reserve the right to criticise by inquiring questions.
With regard to sending polling cards if the Minister has in mind some provisional alternative arrangements for 5 July in the absence of fully functional posting services he should indicate what they might be. We are talking about the mechanics of referenda and it is the right of every member of the electorate to get a copy of a polling card with the specific two measures paraphrased in the manner Deputy Kelly referred to. If the Minister is prepared to state clearly in the House that the referenda will not take place if there is not a fully functional post service, I will be satisfied but if he is saying that the matter should be settled by 5 July and that the problem does not arise I cannot be satisfied.
I am not saying that.
I know that. I am saying that, if that is one of the Minister's options, it is not acceptable. If the Minister has some contingency plans in this regard we are entitled to know what they are. Do the Government reserve for themselves, in the situation which none of us want of disrupted postal services—the backlog of a 14, 15 or 16 weeks' strike will not be cleared in a fort-night—the right to proceed on 5 July or will they augment the postal services with some form of auxiliary system and, if so, what and how?
In the event of the postal strike continuing until 5 July, we will do what we are now doing with regard to the elections next Thursday. We have made arrangements to use the media—television, radio and national and local papers—to convey to the people that it will not be necessary to have a polling card, as it never has been. Once a person is on the electoral list he is entitled to vote. An advertising campaign will be starting today or tomorrow to make this known.
I fully appreciate that a polling card is not necessary for a local or general election. It is simply an information device. There is no political message as such on the polling card. It simply conveys the location of the polling station and so on. In this instance we are talking about a polling card which serves a totally different function. Subsection (a) states that the polling card "shall contain the statement set out in the Appendix to this section".
Are we leaving ourselves open to a court case subsequent to a referendum held during a postal dispute? If a person gets a copy of a newspaper in which he reads the appendix—which is my interpretation of the Minister's proposals—which says that if a person lives in a certain street he should vote in a certain polling station, does that information and manner in which it is conveyed, meet the provisions of this clause? I am not a lawyer but it seems to me that it does not, unless it is proposed to send a free copy of The Irish Press by special delivery to every elector in the country. A simple advertisement in the newspapers does not have the same meaning in terms of the word “sent” as delivering a polling card. That is why I raised the question.
Subsection (e) says that:
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.
That will be done. With regard to the postal strike and the effects it will have, we are carrying out two elections next Thursday while we still have a postal strike and if it continues the Deputy need be in no doubt that we will take the necessary steps with regard to the referendum.
I do not wish to be contentious about this but I am worried about the subsequent court case that may invalidate a very essential referendum.
The Deputy is raising a number of hypotheses. He should deal with the Bill as it is before us.
This is perhaps the most important section because we are dealing with a reality. There is a getout clause in subsection (e) to which the Minister referred. If the same clause was put in with regard to the point I raised it would cover us legally. The getout clause in subsection (e) states:
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:
and then it goes on to say in case something goes wrong
Provided that no referendum shall be invalidated by reason of any failure to display such copies in or in the precincts of any polling station.
That is what they are hoping will be done but if it is not done in every polling station it will not invalidate the referendum. Is there some way we can get legal cover for the words "each elector shall be sent a copy of the polling card which shall contain the statement set out in Appendix in this section"? I am not a lawyer and neither is the Minister, but I think this matter should be clarified now. I want to facilitate the Minister in getting this Bill through but this point should be clarified because we are dealing regrettably and unfortunately with the reality of a postal strike to which nobody can see the end.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I support the point made by Deputy Quinn about the get-out clause. It is significant that we have this clause providing that failure to display these notices in the polling booths and in the precincts of the polling booths will not invalidate the referendum. The fact that that proviso is absent from the direction to send out polling cards with the synopsis of the Bills on them would seem to indicate that a good case could be made in a court of law for saying that the intention of the legislator was that it was obligatory to send out these polling cards and, if that was not done, that the referendum could be invalidated. We should not put unfortunate adoptive parents, and there are many of them, at risk again. Many of them have been experiencing considerable fears since the Supreme Court decision two or three years ago that the children they regarded as theirs for years would be taken from them. We should not let the postal strike or our anxiety not to discuss it or anything else create a situation where there might be any doubt about the validity of the referendum.
Section 64 (5) of the 1963 Electoral Act covers this point. It says:
No referendum shall be invalidated by reason of any failure to send, nondelivery of, or error or misstatement in, a polling card.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I am sorry I have to come back to the secrecy of the ballot. The last day the Minister said how a person could be found out and went on to say that in certain circumstances it might be necessary for the gardaí to find out. It is never necessary for them to find out. If they are finding out impersonation, all they want to be able to do is to know that a person voted and they can find that out by looking at the marked copy of the register used by the presiding officer.
When I raised this matter today in all good faith the Minister gave a less than full affirmation that the ballot is private if the rules are observed. The ballot is private and secret. There is no point in saying "if the rules are observed". We must take it that they are observed. If any presiding officer acts in a way that would make it possible to find out how a person voted, not alone is he not carrying out his obligation as a presiding officer, but he is guilty of a breach of the Secrecy Act and could and should be prosecuted in a court of law and be seriously penalised for this breach. If it were discovered that any presiding officer, through foolishness or otherwise, put the voter's number on the counterfoil the election could be upset. If a petition were brought the election would be upset——
We cannot have a detailed debate on the secrecy of the ballot on this Bill which provides for referenda.
(Cavan-Monaghan): With the greatest respect I do not disagree with the Chair, but in view of the uncertainty created I think I could be pardoned for raising it here to put this question beyond doubt once and for all.
I made it clear when replying to Second Stage only in the event of some irregular practice occurring.
(Cavan-Monaghan): It creates grave doubts.
With regard to the point made by the Deputy if a presiding officer is guilty of an irregularity I agree with the Deputy that he should be subjected to the full rigour of the law.