Committee on Finance. - Electoral Bill, 1962: Committee Stage. – Dáil Éireann (17th Dáil) – Wednesday, 27 Mar 1963

Committee on Finance. - Electoral Bill, 1962: Committee Stage.

Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 7

Question proposed: "That Section 7 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Jones

Subsection (9) (b) of the section says:

The Minister shall, by arrangements made with the sanction of the Minister for Finance, secure that the total cost of preparing and publishing the register of electors, shall be borne in approximately equal proportions by the State and by registration authorities.

As I suggested previously on the Second Reading of this Bill this ought to be a central fund charge and the expense involved in the time taken in calculating the proportionate expenses as between the local authority and the central authority could be offset against what the expenditure would be without letting it fall on central funds alone. I may be told that the register contains the list of jurors and that this is a matter for the local authority but the question of jury service and the details of making up the list of jurors is something which is of benefit in the administration of justice. Therefore, this charge should be borne by central funds, either under the Minister's Department or under the Department of Justice, rather than by the local authorities.

Mr. Blaney

Up to the present twothirds of the total cost of the preparation of a register and registration duties was borne by the local authorities. Under the present proposal that proportion is being reduced to one-half and on the nearest calculation we can make we reckon that in all there will be a saving to the local authorities of about £10,000.

On top of that, the method of compiling all the general work that will be entailed in future under the new proposals will be less onerous and as a result probably less costly than it has been in the past. While we are not proposing to carry the entire burden of such expenditure we are reducing the amount that is to fall on the local rates, which is a considerable improvement. I should also point out that these registers and registrations are not solely for use in general elections, that they also have their uses in local elections.

In regard to difficulties about calculations I cannot see how they should arise. There will have to be a final bill drawn up, possibly authenticated and put properly before somebody or other. When the sum total of costs has been calculated for any area, it is only a matter of dividing it by two and I do not see any real difficulty in that regard.

Mr. Jones

While I appreciate what the Minister has said, he admits the lists as now drawn up will deal with electors for local elections and also with juries. Therefore, the purely local interest will be confined to those matters.

The Minister mentioned relief of rates. Only a small amount is involved in this matter but it would be very much appreciated if the Minister could see his way to take this charge. Some of it should be borne by the Department of Justice. I do not suggest that it should all be borne by the Minister's Department. The jurors list comes under the administration of Justice. It should be paid from the Central Fund rather than from local authority finances.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 8 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 11.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 1:

1. In page 11, lines 24 to 56, and in page 12, lines 1 to 36 to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following subsection:

"(2) (a) Where a constituency does not consist of the whole or part of a county or county borough, the returning officer may appoint the appropriate officer to be assistant returning officer for part of the constituency.

(b) The exercise of the power conferred by the foregoing paragraph shall be obligatory if the appropriate officer requires its exercise.

(c) In this subsection the ‘appropriate officer' means the county registrar for the county or county borough in which the part of the constituency is situate or if there is a sheriff for that county or county borough, such sheriff."

This amendment is the substitution of this shorter form of words for what is already contained in subsection (2) as circulated. As the House can see, the amendment shortens the subsection very considerably and it was our wish that this should be done, where possible. I understand that what the amendment contains is what was contained in all the lengthy verbiage of the original subsection. In other words, this short subsection says exactly what was said in the long subsection (2), as drafted. For that very good reason, I recommend it to the House. It is very much shorter and has the same substance as the subsection as drafted.

Mr. Tully

For which we are truly thankful.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 11, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 12 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 15.

Question proposed: "That Section 15 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Jones

The section provides that the Minister may by regulations specify the forms named in subsection (2) of this section. There is no reference here to the 21 days for having regulations under the Acts laid on the Table of the House for the purpose of having these annulled, if necessary. Might I ask the Minister why it is that such reference is not made in this section?

Mr. Blaney

These are merely forms, as the Deputy is probably aware, and I think it is better that it should be done in this way rather than in the manner according to which in the past these forms were prescribed by statute and therefore were absolutely unchangeable without a change in the law. I should add that in this case the Joint Committee recommended that we should do this in the manner now proposed rather than in the manner prescribed by statute in the past.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 16 to 20, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 21.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 2:

In subsection (1), page 19, line 41 to insert "and 12 noon and between the hours of 2 p.m." before "and."

This amendment is quite a simple one. As will be seen from the original subsection, it was proposed that the returning officers should be at their designated places to receive nominations between the hours of 10 and 5 o'clock. On its being drawn to our attention that, naturally, they would like to eat something during these hours, we proposed to amend the provisions so that they will have a break between 12 noon and 2 p.m. That is really all that is to it.

Mr. Jones

That is a very reasonable amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney

I almost forgot to bring to the notice of the House that I might wish to have another try to make a part of this section conform more closely to what is suitable and might bring in an amendment on Report Stage. It has to do with the delivery of the nomination papers, the closing hour for the receipt of nominations and the time within which nominations might be withdrawn. As now framed, the time made available for withdrawals might not be sufficiently long.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not want to interrupt the Minister but supposing we dealt with amendment No. 3 first and then the Minister could make his statement on the section.

Mr. Sherwin

I move amendment No. 3:

In subsection (1), page 20, to delete lines 40 to 48 and substitute:

"(b) Where the candidate is not the candidate of a political party registered in the Register of Political Parties he shall be entitled to enter after his name on the nomination paper the expression ‘Independent' or ‘Non-Party' and two other descriptive words, and if he does so, the returning officer shall cause a statement of that expression and such words to be specified in relation to the candidate on all ballot papers and on notices."

This Bill gives the best opportunities to Parties. Whereas up to now a nonentity in a Party might not get a vote at all because the supporters of the Party would be thinking in terms of personalities and might miss a nonentity on the panel, this Bill enables a nonentity to have alongside his name "Fianna Fáil", "Labour", "Fine Gael". A nonentity will not miss a vote in future. This Bill ensures that.

This Bill tries to tie us down and roll all non-Party candidates into one. There is the difference between chalk and cheese between Independents. There are Independent Ratepayers, Independent Tenants' Representatives. They may be out for each other's blood.

In the fashion world, fortunes are charged for distinctive hats and gowns. The whole idea is to be distinctive. Everybody who goes to a racecourse will see what I mean. The owner of a certain hat will be furious to find somebody else has the same thing. It must have individuality. People devote their campaign to that distinctiveness.

Mr. Corish

And some people wear ridiculous hats.

Mr. Sherwin

I knew a man who wore an old hairy hat and a hairy waistcoat and he said his reason for doing so was that when they saw him once, they would always know him again. Individuals are entitled to be distinctive and not be in a herd. Surely nobody is jealous about that?

In going over this matter again, I felt the arrangement we have in regard to the latest time for nominations and the length of time for withdrawal of nominations is probably too short, particularly where it would concern a person nominated without his consent. The proposal in the Bill is that the latest hour for receipt of a nomination by, or through a candidate in person, or through his agent or somebody representing himself to be an agent, would be 12 o'clock and that three hours later is the time in which to withdraw. While I am not fully convinced, there is the point that the three hours may not be enough in the type of case I have mentioned where the returning officer is being "codded" by somebody for an ulterior motive, which I shall leave to Deputies' imagination. I think three hours in that case is too short and I would propose to have the latest hour for nominations a day earlier and the latest time for withdrawals a day later, thus giving 24 hours in which to deal with all withdrawals, whether of this or any other type. Instead of having two times, one for nominations handed in personally and one for those handed in on behalf of somebody, we could have just one time by lengthening it to a point where it will be possible for a returning officer to notify the prospective candidate nominated in his absence by an alleged agent, by telegram or otherwise in writing so as to give him an opportunity of knowing he has been nominated and an opportunity of withdrawing before he goes into the list and becomes a candidate without knowing anything about it.

I feel this is something that we should consider further. I think we can arrange it so that it will not disturb the present procedure in regard to the date of the writ, the announcement and publication of the writ and the acceptance of nominations and polling day. If we can do that, I propose to come to the House on Report Stage with such an amendment, primarily for the particular purpose I have mentioned and I think it will also be useful to all concerned to have a longer time between the closing date for nominations and the time for withdrawals.

Mr. Tully

It is provided that where a candidate does not nominate himself, his consent must be obtained. What has the Minister in mind in regard to such a person? If the consent must be obtained before the nomination is submitted, surely that solves the problem?

Mr. Blaney

Unfortunately, the consent has to be in writing. We have no way of determining in the space of the three hours that, in fact, it was written by the man himself. It could happen that a returning officer would be misled.

Mr. Tully

Somebody is nominated by an agent and the returning officer is not satisfied. He writes to that person and gets a reply that the person has not consented. The returning officer then withdraws the nomination but all the time that person may have been willing to go forward. Does it not really mean that the returning officer will have to see every such person personally?

Mr. A. Barry

Does the Minister not think the money deposit sufficient?

Mr. Blaney

I do not think so.

Mr. A. Barry

If I want to make a fictitious nomination, I will have to find £100 to put down.

Mr. Jones

Subsection 6 says that the nomination paper should be delivered to the returning officer not earlier than on the second day for nominations and not later than 12 noon on the last day for receiving nominations. In subsection 9 (1), the returning officer is required to rule on the nomination paper within one hour after its delivery. It strikes me that if a paper is delivered at 12 noon on the last day for receiving nominations, the returning officer will find it very difficult to rule on the validity of that paper within an hour.

The second point that strikes me is the fact that, as everybody knows, nomination papers are frequently left in the returning officer's office in his absence. Somebody receives that nomination paper in good faith, intending to show it to the returning officer when he comes back, but, in fact, the paper will not be deemed to have been delivered to the returning officer until he accepts it himself and the person may have forgotten to show it to him. There is the danger that in such a case the candidate might find himself not properly nominated. I should like to put these points forward for the consideration of the Minister in regard to these sections.

Mr. Dillon

I should like to say a word on the Minister's suggestion which, prima facie, appeals to me. Sometimes, if you try to take precautions against every possible contingency, you may create new difficulties. If an agent produces to a returning officer a properly authenticated document, to the effect that he has been nominated an agent by a candidate, he may then lodge nomination papers on behalf of that candidate and with those nomination papers, he must lodge £100 in cash or irrevocable cheque.

If a malicious person goes to the returning officer with a completed document of agency and presents a false nomination, he will be guilty of the criminal offence of forgery and along with that, he will lose £100. What better evidence in writing can a returning officer have than a formally executed document of authorisation of an agent? If you proceed to the precautions suggested by the Minister, the returning officer, on receipt of the nomination paper and the deposit from the authorised agent, will then send a letter or telegram to the person nominated asking for confirmation and if he does not receive that within 24 hours, he will declare the nomination void.

We are all living in a new age. At any moment the Minister might find himself in Geneva at a meeting of some international body. Any one of us, but particularly members of the Government, might find ourselves attending some essential duty in Geneva, Washington, Paris, Rome or Strasbourg. The telegram is addressed to the home address of the prospective candidate who is abroad and it never reaches him. The returning officer is faced with the fact that there is no confirmation and he declares the nomination invalid.

Alternatively, the candidate is in the country and he writes to the returning officer. He will not have time to do that in 24 hours. Unless he can attend personally to confirm the validity of the nomination, the returning officer will be left under the impression that it is invalid. However, suppose the returning officer gets the letter, is that any better evidence to the returning officer than the formal agency appointment which the agent displayed before the returning officer accepted the paper?

While I admit that the Minister's proposal seemed to have much in its favour, on reflection I suggest to him that the existing safeguards are sufficient because if a situation arose against which the Minister wishes to make provision now, the agent would be guilty of a criminal offence in presenting a forged instrument; the agent would lose £100 in order to play the joke and the agent would have committed a further statutory offence, probably under the existing Electoral Acts, in having attempted to put in the nomination of a person for whom he was not authorised to speak. There are certain limits of precaution beyond which one cannot go. The existing safeguards are probably adequate but the additional safeguard the Minister has in mind would, in my judgment, create dangers greater than the danger against which he wishes to provide.

I would, however, like to associate myself with the problem raised by Deputy Jones. I remember on two occasions in my own personal experience nominations being handed in to the returning officer within five minutes of the last available hour. The Deputy has a very valid point: in those circumstances how can the returning officer proceed to rule on the paper within the hour because if he is free to rule within the hour, it automatically extends the period of nomination for an hour beyond the statutory limit for nomination? It is probably true that the time of three hours for withdrawal is too short and prima facie I cannot see any objection to extending the period for withdrawals to 24 hours.

I have known cases, again in my personal experience, where people have been nominated and have elected to withdraw. It is administratively convenient — and one must not forget the urgency that attends getting out all the election literature, getting ballot papers printed, and so forth — to allow a period of 24 hours for withdrawal. That would be a sensible precaution, but if administrative problems make that extremely difficult, I would consent to a period of 12 hours from the last available hour at which it is legitimate to make a nomination but I prefer a period of 24 hours. If that is administratively possible, I suggest to the Minister he should content himself with extending the period for withdrawals to 24 hours and with examining the problem posed by Deputy Jones as to how the returning officer can in fact rule on the validity of a paper an hour after the last hour laid down in the statute for accepting valid nomination papers.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

It is true that it is special treatment in a sense but it would be only to those who would be going forward. That is what I want to get. We want to prevent the situation that people will be nominated who do not wish to stand. In doing that we must be careful that we do not prevent people from going forward who would wish to stand. If we had to take a decision at any time as to which of the two things we most wished to avoid we would come down on the side of ensuring that everybody who might want to go forward would get there rather than excluding somebody who in fact should not be accepted. It may be that these things overlap slightly but, again, I would say to the House that it is my intention to go into this matter further. I would appreciate any further comments by Deputies between now and Report Stage and, as a guide, I have given my idea of what change I feel might be necessary and, if administratively feasible, I will probably come back on Report Stage with the proposal that we do it somewhat on the lines I have indicated.

In so far as Deputy Jones is concerned, he raised on the Second Stage this matter about withdrawal. Regardless of what the number of hours that may be allowed for withdrawal, he was concerned about the ease with which somebody might withdraw a candidate's name and probably might withdraw it wrongfully. That really is what was concerning Deputy Jones on Second Reading. The only thing I can say is that it is part of this whole section that we have so far being talking about. I intend to see whether or not we can in fact meet to some degree the point of view put by Deputy Jones and to come with a fairly open mind again to the House with something that we can discuss at greater length. There are certain arguments for and against any change in the form we have here. Since we are likely to discuss this again at length, I do not think I should go into it any further at this moment.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 22 agreed to.

SECTION 23.

Question proposed: "That Section 23 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Jones

Subsection (1) of this section provides:

Where a poll is to be taken at a Dáil election in a constituency, the returning officer shall send to every elector whose name in on the register of Dáil electors for the constituency and is not on the postal voters list a card (in this section referred to as a polling card) in the form specified by regulations made by the Minister informing him of his number (including polling district letter) on the register of Dáil electors and of the place at which he will be entitled to vote.

Would the Minister tell me under what section of the Act does he propose to make these regulations?

Mr. Blaney

Under this section. My advice is that it is not necessary specifically to state it in so many words.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 24.

Question proposed: "That Section 24 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Jones

Under subsection (1) (b), it is provided that polling

shall continue for such period, not being less than twelve hours, between the hours of 8.30 a.m. and 10.30 p.m. as may be fixed by the Minister by order, subject to the restriction that, in the case of a general election, he shall fix the same period for all constituencies.

Does the Minister contemplate under this subsection hours from 8.30 a.m. to 10.30 p.m.? It says not less than 12 hours, but it could be more than 12 hours. Is it the intention to extend it for more than 12 hours?

Mr. Blaney

I should not think it is the intention to extend much beyond 12 hours. We have, of course, experience of polling for 12½ hours under the existing law—that is, from 9 a.m. to 9.30 p.m. The whole idea of extending the hours is to give some little flexibility. If we felt 13 or 14 hours were an advantage we might make it 13 or 14 hours. The present intention, however, is not to extend it. This is designed to give more flexibility in regard to starting and finishing.

Mr. Tully

We are thinking now of the candidates. We should also think of the staff. The trouble is one does not find many people coming to vote early in the morning, except, perhaps, in the larger towns and cities where the office workers may avail of the facility. Opening at 8.30 in the morning is of no use to manual workers, all of whom start work at 8 o'clock. Only a very small section, therefore, will be facilitated by this earlier opening. It seems rather absurd to suggest that the polling station should remain open until 10 p.m. in the middle of winter— in the months of October or February —in the heart of the country where there is no proper lighting. The Minister should have another look at this. I can understand the desire for some flexibility but there is the danger that, having the provision there, we might wake up and find ourselves in the winter months with the polling stations open from 8.30 a.m. to 10.30 p.m. That would not be desirable.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

There is just one small point with regard to subsection (b) where it is stated the Minister shall fix the same period for all constituencies. Does that mean an identical period as to date as well as time? I have in mind some of the islands off the coast — the Minister's own constituency enters into the picture here—where special arrangements have to be made because of rough weather, and so on. I am wondering if the Minister is quite safe in this subsection. Will he be able to make whatever special arrangements may be necessary for these island voters?

Mr. Blaney

We deal with that in a later section, Section 34. With regard to Deputy Tully's point, the very fact that we can start earlier in the morning means that where it is desirable not to go on as late as 10.30 p.m., by starting at 8.30 in the morning we can stop at 9 or 9.30 p.m. This can be an advantage. It is there to be used advantageously, not to discourage people from coming. The whole idea is to encourage the greatest number to come.

Mr. Jones

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 24, before subsection (4), 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 on 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.'"

All down the years, as we know, the oath was always retained in the conduct of parliamentary elections. When the Committee on Electoral Law Reform considered this matter very exhaustively, it was decided to leave the oath there for the purpose of preventing personation. On the Second Reading, I mentioned this matter and the Minister said we were providing increased penalties. I then pointed out that while that was so, these would come after the fact. One of the greatest deterrents to the person who does not give much thought to the seriousness of what he is doing in coming into the polling station to personate a vote, is the fact that he is made to subscribe by way of oath or solemn affirmation that he is the person whose vote he claims and also that he has not voted already in the election.

It is well known that despite the meticulous care that may be given to the drafting of the voters lists, it will happen that a person's name appears in two different polling areas within the constituency. In modern times, it is quite feasible for a person to move from one area to another and to claim these votes. I am sure nobody wants to see that happen. The personation agents in the booth have a solemn duty to see that polling is carried out as laid down by the Oireachtas and that the result which comes from the election shall be genuinely the will of the voters. We should take every step to ensure that nothing untoward will occur.

No matter what penalties you may impose for an offence, there are always people prepared to take a chance. I believe that apart from monetary penalties, the one thing that will act as a deterrent of which there can be no evasion is the fact that these people must submit, if challenged, to being sworn in regard to this matter. We feel very strongly that the Minister should not remove this provision which has been in the legislation since the electoral laws were first drafted and that he should not remove it now, particularly having regard to the fact that this matter was considered at length by the Joint Committee on Electoral Law.

The Minister said in his Second Reading speech that he had thoughts on this matter and that the Committee was not the only body that was giving thought to it. I am prepared to accept that but I am not prepared to accept that the report of the Committee which left in this form of oath and affirmation should not be implemented in the Bill and that we should take the oath, which has been so long in existence, out of our electoral law. It could happen that personation would take place and I believe that a solemn affirmation or oath is a greater deterrent than any monetary penalty imposed after the offence is proved. I believe it is much more desirable that we should use the deterrent in the first instance by imposing the obligation to affirm or take the oath.

Mr. A. Barry

I should like to support Deputy Jones. From my experience, I have found that the oath is a real deterrent and it prevents personation at the right time. I have known cases where would-be vote-stealers have run out of the booth when they were challenged and asked to swear. Most Irish people regard the act of taking an oath as something very grave. I believe we should put that protection at the right side of the vote, not after the vote has been cast. The Minister will be stepping backwards if he takes this provision out of the law.

Mr. Blaney

Mr. Tully

The Minister has been talking about two matters on which I do not agree with him. One is that persons have been intimidated from voting because they were afraid they would have to take an oath. Surely the presiding officer would not be doing his job if he allowed the personation agents to challenge everybody going into the booth? The other question is that of the penalty. It has never been £100 or anything like it; it has always been the minimum. It has been pleaded that the poor fellow did not know or that he was carried away by enthusiasm. He usually gets away with a fine of £5 and I understand that on one occasion that £5 was made up to the person concerned by his Party. He did lose his right to vote for a while but that did not matter because there was no election in the intervening period.

It has always worked out that way. A man who steals another person's vote and then casts his own vote can get away with a fine of £5. The same thing can happen under the existing law. I am afraid I shall have to agree with Deputy Jones that the oath is the only deterrent as far as these smart fellows are concerned. It at least makes people declare they are the people referred to and does not allow the smart fellows to chance their arm. Unfortunately, the fellow I am talking about was not challenged.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

The Minister is making a mistake in his attitude with regard to this matter. He referred, as I understood him, to the person who used to regard the oath as a formality. I think most of us will agree that, in the normal Irish constituency, whether it be a city or a rural constituency, the ordinary Irish person does not regard the oath as a formality.

The Minister's description of how the powers that were there were misused in his constituency—he spoke of people blackguarded by being threatened they would have to take the oath and that, for that reason, they stayed away from the polls— emphasises the argument that those people and the average Irish person do not regard the taking of an oath as a formality. They regard it for what it is—calling on God to witness that what they are saying is true.

Most people who go into the polling booth, no matter how enthusiastic they are politically, no matter how misguided they are in their political enthusiasm, and maybe quite prepared to do so—as they might regard it as part of the game or part of the war if you like, to go in and endeavour to personate another voter—will not do it if they must swear. They are brought up against it straight away and will stop doing it if there is any risk that they may have to take a false oath in order to cast the vote. I think most Deputies will assure the Minister that that is the reaction of the ordinary Irish voter.

The Minister is mistaken in his attitude to this. I believe the amount of personation done in elections nowadays is very small.

Mr. Blaney

It would not get you a seat on a town commission.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

The one thing that gives a person courage is the card. Around election time, I know that there are certain people—they are all members of the Party—who are professionals at this business. They turn up at election time and offer their services, as I know. The one thing they want is a card. Once they have the card, they go in with courage. They know the fellow sitting at the table will be afraid to challenge them. Do not forget that. What is to be done about that? It is the card. If they had no card, they would not chance their arm. It is the card which is important. The election agents are looking on. Their attitude is: "We might be brought to court." What about the false card? Would the Minister think that over? If you can cope with that, you will end personation. Very few people will have a chance unless they have a card: remember that.

The Party agents might have their suspicions. They might ask a man to be sworn and that might act as a deterrent. The person will make excuses and refuse to be sworn and get out. There is that point of view. The agent is not too certain. He has a suspicion. He should have that right. He might be afraid to challenge a man in case he might be sued in the courts.

Here is a further point. Will the Minister do something about protecting agents because the one thing the agents are afraid of is that if they make a mistake, they might be sued in court. Protect the agents and deal with this problem so that fellows with cards belonging to other people will be afraid to come in and you will end personation. There is a little point in the oath. Where an agent is not too sure, he will risk demanding that an oath be taken. That would put the wind up the other fellow because he would not know what would be coming. There is a point in it.

Mr. Jones

When replying to this point the Minister said that when this Committee sat, its object was to tidy up the legislation. I agree that was the object of the Committee. I was a member of that Committee and what was hoped was that a piece of legislation would be brought in which would be forward in its thinking and that the Bill which would result from the labours of this Committee would be an agreed measure and could be recommended as such. The weakness of the Minister's case in this regard is that while the Committee recognised the necessity for simplicity, for bringing the law up to date and for all the other provisions which ought to be made in regard to the conduct of elections, they still thought it was worth while to keep the provision in regard to the oath in the legislation.

Deputy Tully mentioned that some man he knew was fined £5 and lost his vote for so many years. The losing of the vote is now gone by the board under these proposals. That £5 fine would be one-twentieth of the old maximum. If he were fined one-twentieth of the new maximum, then that would be £25. If instead of depriving him of his vote for four or five years, it is decided to give him a few days in jail, it should be a great deterrent. Of course, if the court so decides, it can impose a sentence of up to six months. The House does not fully appreciate how severely these people would be dealt with when they feel this offence will continue and that the form of oath is a better deterrent than the fine and the possible jail sentence. I do not think the courts will treat this matter as lightly as has been suggested here. To my knowledge on the few occasions on which I have seen people prosecuted in my own constituency, they were dealt with pretty severely. They were fined and disqualified from voting. The disqualification does not arise now but I do feel the fine and the jail sentence is the real answer, provided the personation agents will continue to act in the future in the polling stations, because of their local knowledge of the people on the list of voters, in the manner in which they are there to operate. If they will challenge and point out these people where they have reasonable grounds for believing they are attempting personation, they can have such people arrested.

General MacEoin

The Minister is telling us something as if he believed positively what he is saying. I should like to see a penalty of £50 and a month in jail rather than £500 and six months.

Mr. Blaney

Would the Deputy make that obligatory on conviction?

General MacEoin

That should be the maximum. When you are asking a personation agent to bring a person to justice, you are asking him to bring that person to justice for this very large sum and it is a very serious penalty. I do not know any personation agent who is just that tough in the country or anywhere else. If it were a reasonable fine, he would be covered. It is essential that the oath should be administered. I am supporting the amendment and the Minister should consider it. The Minister should allow the oath to be administered in order to protect the person from the penalty of £500 or six months. Because of the oath, he will not personate. To charge him with attempting to personate will not be regarded as so serious an offence by the court. At least a defence can be made for that. In a case in which 18 people were involved in personation, the Attorney General said it was only a frivolous prank by youngsters.

The administration of the oath is important. The personation agent should be authorised to request the administration of the oath. In that way, he would not be running any risk of false arrest or imprisonment. As the law stands, he is not protected. The presiding officer, the tally clerk and all the officials are protected, but there is no protection for Deputy Carter's agent or my agent in the polling booth. If, in perfectly good faith, he gets a person arrested but an error is made, the defendant has a right of action against the personation agent. If the agent had the right to request the administration of the oath, it would help to prevent personation; the agent would be protected; and we would have a smoother working of the system than will be provided by the section. Since the Committee recommended that the oath be retained, I am astounded that the Minister should leave out that recommendation. I could understand his defending his action if the Committee had rejected that proposal. Instead, the Minister is imposing his opinion on theirs.

Mr. A. Barry

The Minister has undertaken there will be regulations about the publishing of notices. The official notice published by a returning officer in the newspapers is not sufficient. People do not read these things. The Minister should devise a notice of standard size and exhibit it close to every ballot box.

Mr. Sherwin

The agent can be "done up" afterwards by the friends of those whom he may accuse. The Minister will have to give this section further consideration, if he wants to stop personation. If the agent is not absolutely sure of protection, he will be afraid to challenge. He must be protected, even if he makes a mistake. In that way, he will frighten people from taking a chance. If he is not protected, he is wasting his time trying to protect the electorate from this form of offence.

Mr. Blaney

Secondly, as I have already pointed out to the Minister, without being prosy about it, there is no doubt that, particularly today, the badge of the free man is his right to vote. An illiterate person or blind person is entitled to vote if he is on the register of electors. The Minister is saying to him: "If you claim to be blind or if you claim to be illiterate, no matter what badge of freedom you wear, you will not be allowed to vote unless you swear to it."

I want to put it to the Minister that there are two different types of personation. There is the question of the person who is going in to vote in another person's name. There is also the question of a person who is registered as a voter, either twice in the same constituency or, in the case of a general election, in two or three different constituencies. It can happen. A person who is a business man in the city of Dublin and who is residing in Wicklow or Meath or Kildare will be on the register in the constituency where his office or business is in Dublin and he will be on the register for his home address in Wicklow, Kildare or Meath and it is an offence for him to vote twice. How can that be established except by the person himself and if he is not to be required to swear as to whether or not he has previously voted in the election, how else can it be established?

The Minister may say to me that you can ring up the booth in Donnybrook and find out if Mr. AB has voted there. You might, but is that any proof that AB in fact did vote, even though his name is crossed off the presiding officer's register? The only person who really knows and can give adequate evidence as to whether or not he has already voted in the election is the person who comes in to cast the vote and who, we suggest, should, if challenged, be required to swear to the position. The Minister says "no", that it is enough simply to ask him the question. I think the Minister is all wrong.

While, as I said already, I believe the amount of personation that goes on at the moment is very little, if the Minister pushes this through the House, it will be an encouragement to the person who wants to personate votes in the future and this effort at personation may become rampant.

Mr. Sherwin

I should like to put one more question. The Minister is depending solely as a deterrent on a heavy fine and sentence. That is all right if that is applied but, if the boys know that it is not to be applied, then there is no deterrent at all. The fact remains that when a person is charged with personation, he is a member of one Party or the other and if by chance he is a member of the Party in power, the Attorney General will have a vested interest in that person's personation and will just drop the charge, as has been done, and if it happens that there is a sentence, will reduce the sentence. Nothing will happen. Once it is known that the deterrent will not be applied, there is no deterrent at all.

Will the Minister ensure that there is a minimum sentence of a week in gaol? As long as it is known that there will be a sentence of seven days in Mountjoy, we will get some results. Will the Minister consider taking the question as to whether a charge is to be brought or not out of the hands of the Attorney General and provide that it will be solely a matter for an inspector or superintendent of the Garda? So long as the bringing of a charge rests with a person who has a vested interest in the person who personated, the whole thing fails.

In the light of the Minister's undertaking to reconsider, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 26 agreed to.

SECTION 27.

Question proposed: "That Section 27 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Jones

I take it the Minister will reconsider this also?

Mr. Blaney

I do not see how that is possible.

Mr. Jones

Subsection (4) provides:

A request made by an elector within four hours before the hour fixed for the closing of the poll to have his ballot paper marked for him under this Rule otherwise than by a companion may be refused by the presiding officer if, in his opinion, having regard to the number of electors then coming in to vote or likely to come in to vote before the close of the poll, his acceding to such request would interfere with the proper discharge of his duties or would unduly obstruct the voting of other electors.

This is something that should be brought to the notice of the electorate. The ordinary publication of a notice in the newspapers, or the statement by the presiding officer at the start of the poll that he does not intend to allow such voters to record their votes after a certain time, has in it an inherent danger that this may not be as widely known as it is desirable that it should be. I strongly urge the Minister to use every medium of publicity under this section—television, radio, and everything else—so that the electorate will be properly informed. The procedure in the various constituencies and in the various polling districts varies considerably. There is no uniformity. I ask the Minister to ensure that whatever regulations he makes, or instructions he issues to the registration authorities and to the returning officers, are properly publicised well ahead of election time. That is very important in regard to those people who may have to have their votes marked or who may be of the types likely to be dealt with under this section. I am afraid that some voters may find themselves unaware of the facts. All possible media of communication and publication should be used to get the result desired.

Mr. Blaney

We will agree to do as the Deputy suggests.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 28.

That is why I am not saying any more about it. That has always been so.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 29.

Question proposed: "That Section 29 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Jones

There is just one minor point. I do not like the way the section commences with inverted commas and a small letter. I suggest the words "the phrase" might be inserted there. It looks rather slovenly at the moment.

Mr. Blaney

That is the way it has been drafted in order to achieve the purpose we wish to attain. Who am I to quarrel with the draftsman?

Mr. Jones

I suggest that the sentence might begin with a capital letter.

Mr. Blaney

The draftsman might have an answer to that, too.

Mr. Sherwin

I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that in my area at the last election at least 300 papers were not stamped and it so happens that about 150 of them were mine. The Minister should ensure that the stamp is in the form of a die so that there will be some sort of mark, even if the stamp is defective. It is a shame that 300 voters should lose their votes. If they were aware of the situation, they would be entitled to sue someone for heavy damages. If the Minister wishes to investigate, he can do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 30 agreed to.

SECTION 31.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 6 in the name of the Minister has related to it a number of other amendments—Nos. 36, 38, 39, 40, 42 and 43 — and perhaps, by agreement, they could all be discussed together. They deal with the same subject — local, presidential, and other elections.

Mr. Jones

Yes.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 6:

Mr. Blaney

Yes.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 31, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 32.

Question proposed: "That Section 32 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Jones

Subsection (2) of this section deals with the death of a candidate who dies after the commencement of the poll. I should like to ask the Minister what provision is made for the return of a deposit to the relatives of such a candidate? Ordinarily, if the candidate's name remains on the ballot paper and he is included in the count, then unless he has secured one-third of the votes before elimination, his deposit is forfeited. The Minister should look into this and see what provision he intends to make about the return of the deposit of a candidate who dies before the commencement of the poll.

Mr. Blaney

We have it in subsection (3) of Section 20. I think it covers it fairly fully.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 33 to 35, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 36.

Question proposed: "That Section 36 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Sherwin

Section 36 says that the vote becomes invalid which does not bear the official stamp. Why? People go into a polling booth. They are handed a ballot paper and they mark it properly and, because of someone else's stupidity, they are denied the vote. In my constituency, 300 people had their votes made null and void because of someone else's stupidity. If they knew it, they would cause a riot and they would be entitled to do that. Surely the counterfoil would be there and it could be easily shown that these were not votes just shoved into the box. The returning officer must hand the paper to his clerk before it is handed to the voter and it ought to be the clerk's duty to see that it is properly stamped.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I do not know if the Minister can do anything about this problem. It does create a most unfair situation from the point of view of the voter, if, through the fault of the official, the vote is disqualified. It does happen from time to time that because the official overlooks stamping the ballot paper or, as used to happen, he tries to stamp a number of them together and the stamp does not come through them all, the vote is lost. For one reason or another, ballot papers do slip through without the official stamp. That is not the fault of the voter. He has done his duty and when they come to count his vote, it has to be disqualified. I find it difficult to see what the Minister can do about it in this legislation, except by providing some kind of penalty which would attach to the presiding officer if a number of unstamped papers were found in boxes for which he was responsible.

Mr. J. Brennan

Surely the onus is on the voter to see that he gets the properly stamped paper?

Mr. Cunningham

Might I suggest that instead of the embossed stamp, which is not clear and visible to voters, we should have a coloured rubber stamp printed in ink for the ballot paper? The voter would see it clearly and if it was not there, he would know at a glance that the paper was invalid.

Mr. Rooney

The ordinary elector is not familiar with the ballot paper before he goes into the booth and possibly he may be a person who is voting for the first time. I cannot see that it would be possible to tutor electors and to warn them to be on the lookout for either the coloured stamp or the official stamp. A remedy ought to be found for this problem. When the papers are taken out, one paper which may be properly marked but not properly stamped is disqualified while a paper which may be marked doubtfully can be considered again and, if the intention of the elector is clear, it is allowed. Although the voter has marked the unstamped paper properly, his vote cannot be counted.

Mr. Blaney

Mr. Dillon

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 37 and 38 agreed to.

SECTION 39.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 31, line 39, to insert "by him or his election agent" before "for".

Mr. Dillon

We agree to this amendment.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Is it intended that it should be only the election agent?

Mr. Dillon

A candidate or his agent.

Mr. Blaney

Yes, the candidate or his agent, to ask for a recount.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I have no objection to that but we all know of cases where this kind of situation is likely to arise when possibly neither the candidate nor his election agent, that is, in the strict sense the person who has been appointed as his election agent, may be present. As a general rule, there are authorised agents present at the count with the permission of the returning officer on behalf of the various candidates? I have not thought this out but in the absence of the election agent, would it be going too far to allow one of the other agents to demand the recount?

Mr. Blaney

A sub-agent may seek only a recount of the immediately preceding count and I think the general idea here is that in the mean time the main agent or the candidate himself could be sought in case they wanted to go any further back and to request a bigger recount.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney

Yes.

Section 49 agreed to.

Sections 50 and 51 agreed to.

SECTION 52.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 13:

In subsection (1), page 38, between lines 18 and 19, to add, to the section substituted for section 27 of the Principal Act, the following subsection:

"(2) The presidential returning officer shall be responsible for the printing and procuring of a sufficient quantity of ballot papers."

The purpose of this amendment is to incorporate in Section 52 of the Bill the requirement in Section 27 of the Presidential Election Act, 1937, that the presidential returning officer shall be responsible for the printing and procuring of a sufficient quantity of ballot papers. The change does not affect the existing law in any way. This is simply a clarifying amendment and nothing more.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 52, as amended, agreed to.

Section 53 agreed to.

SECTION 54.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 14:

In subsection (1), page 38, line 49, to insert "9, 10," before "11".

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 14, 24 and 37 seem to be related.

Mr. Blaney

The purpose of these amendments is to repeal Sections 9 and 10 of the Prevention of Electoral Abuses Act, 1923, and the application of those sections to presidential elections and referenda. Section 9 provides that:

Any person who votes or induces or procures any person to vote at any election knowing that he or such person is prohibited, whether by this or any other Act, from voting at such elections, shall be guilty of an illegal practice.

The only persons prohibited from voting are those under 21, and voting while under 21 is made an offence under Sections 26, 51 and 70 of this Bill, which provides that a person who is not registered or who is not entitled to be registered may not vote at an election. A person under 21 is not entitled to be registered. Section 9 of the 1923 Act is therefore unnecessary. For that reason, we are moving this amendment to wipe it out.

Section 10 of the 1923 Act provides that:

Every person who votes at an election while he is, by or under this or any other Act, declared to be incapable of voting at that election, shall be guilty of an illegal practice.

Under the Bill, all incapacities for voting are being removed. These incapacities were part of the penalties for certain offences. I think we had one of them already. For example, conviction in respect of corrupt practices at an election; conviction of treason or felony, sentences of death, penal servitude or imprisonment with hard labour and so on. These are being dispensed with, along with many of the other incapacities we have mentioned. The remainder of Section 10 provides that every person who votes more than once at an election shall be guilty of an illegal practice. These are practices for which penalties are provided under Section 6. We have different views about that at the moment. The remainder of Section 10 provided that the court may in certain instances mitigate or remit any incapacities imposed by the Act by reason of a conviction. No incapacities may be imposed for any offence as a result of the proposals in this Bill and the remainder of Section 10 is, like Section 9, unnecessary.

Amendment agreed to.

In page 42, lines 52 to 57, to delete "(which consent shall not be given unless the Minister is satisfied that there is not, within the constituency, any place available and suitable for the counting of the votes)".

Amendment agreed to.

Section 61, as amended, agreed to.

Section 62 agreed to.

SECTION 63.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 17:—

In page 43, line 28, to insert "by him or his principal agent" before "for".

The amendments to this section, again, are related to Nos. 7, 8 and 9. I may also reconsider this under Section 63 for Report Stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 43, line 29, to delete "papers," and substitute "papers, and upon being so requested the presidential returning officer shall re-examine and recount the parcels of papers accordingly."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 43, line 32, to delete "If" and substitute "Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this paragraph shall make it obligatory on the presidential returning officer to re-examine or recount the same parcel of papers more than once, but if"

Amendment agreed to.

Section 63, as amended, agreed to.

Section 64 agreed to.

SECTION 65.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 20:

PART V

In page 43, after line 53, to insert before subsection (2) the following new subsection:

"(2) A polling card shall contain—

(a) in the case of a constitutional referendum, a statement approved of by Dáil Éireann of the proposal which is the subject of the referendum, and

(b) in the case of an ordinary referendum, 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."

This amendment will enable a statement of what a referendum is about to be incorporated on the polling cards. In other words, it will be for the guidance and information of voters as to what a referendum will be about and that will be put on the polling cards prior to the referendum.

Mr. Jones

In this amendment, the Minister is proposing that the subject matter of the referendum shall be set out for the information of the voter. Under Section 13 of this Bill, a provision is made for the setting up of a board in regard to the register of political Parties which will decide matters in regard to any dispute that may arise. We have had the experience in this House already of a dispute in regard to a matter which was being referred to the electors and the words which should be used to designate the matter being referred. In this section now, again, we should make use of such a board as is mentioned in Section 13 subsection (8) (b), which says that the board would consist of a judge of the High Court, the Chairman of Dáil Éireann or in his absence the Deputy Chairman, the Chairman of Seanad Éireann or in his absence, the Deputy Chairman. Such a tribunal would give a fairer judgment, perhaps, on what is being referred to the electorate than a majority of this House pushing through their view as to what was being submitted. That would be particularly applicable in regard to subsection (2) (b) of the Minister's amendment. There may not be agreement in the House as to the proposal that is to be stated in writing but if such a tribunal were set up to deal with the matter, its findings would secure greater acceptance in so far as it would be an impartial tribunal. I would suggest that the Minister might consider adopting that procedure.

Mr. Blaney

There is a certain amount, probably, to be said for the view expressed by the Deputy in this matter but the board or tribunal it is suggested should be set up might not report in time to allow the referendum to be held and a new situation could develop before the report of the tribunal was obtained as to what should be stated in writing.

In the case of a constitutional referendum, the statement inserted on the polling card would be subject to the approval of this House before being put on the card or allowed to be circulated. That procedure is more likely to be successful in having something put to the people on the polling card than submission of the matter to a board or tribunal would be. Such a board or tribunal might not be so keenly concerned as this House would be about the urgency of the matter on which it was considered in the national interests to hold a referendum and to hold it quickly. To have to refer the matter to a body outside the House would probably be wasteful of time and there would be the danger that the procedure would be too slow in certain circumstances. I think the House is quite competent to deal with a matter such as this, if and when such cases arise and do not think they will arise very often.

Mr. Jones

The Minister may consider this a cumbersome method of procedure but it may equally prove a cumbersome method of procedure where the register of political Parties is concerned. The Minister will recollect that there was a good deal of controversy here on a previous occasion in relation to the matter which was to be submitted to the electorate by way of referendum. The matter was debated for quite a long period here. Eventually an agreed form was found for submission to the electorate. Perhaps no arguments will arise but, if they do, I think we would be much more likely to get an agreed form to be put before the electorate from such a tribunal as we would by debating the matter here in this House. It might be debated at considerable length.

Mr. Blaney

The very fact that it is debated here serves a very useful purpose, a purpose which a tribunal could never serve. We start here hammering out what we feel should go on or should not go on. The fact that we discuss the matter here and get publicity for it is surely an excellent way of getting across to the people a fairly balanced view; really our discussion here can be an advantage rather than a disadvantage. It has that edge on a tribunal which would sit down privately and try to get something we would all more or less agree and to which none of us would agree in the finish. There is a great deal to be said for having any matter discussed openly here.

Mr. Jones

I agree. Certainly we can have as much publicity as we like in the House. I am only pointing out what may happen in the case of a dispute.

Mr. A. Barry

On one celebrated occasion, we spent a great deal of time persuading the public to mark "No" when they meant "Yes".

Mr. Dillon

Over and above what Deputy Jones has said, I should like clarification in regard to clause (b) of this amendment:

"... in the case of an ordinary referendum, 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."

I do not know how that is arrived at. Who will determine the statement of the proposal which is the subject of the referendum "in the same terms as nearly as may be"? Who will determine what is "as nearly as may be" to what was stated in the writing under the hand and seal of the President sent by him to the Taoiseach? I cannot clearly envisage what will happen. Does the President take the initiative in proposing a matter for a referendum? I understand this has reference to the power of the President to refer to referendum certain Acts passed by this House. Where he doubts their constitutionality, he can elect to send such matters to a referendum.

Mr. Corish

Surely the constitutionality of an Act passed by Dáil Éireann would be a matter for the courts?

Mr. Dillon

I have quite forgotten. In what circumstances can the President refer a proposal to an ordinary referendum? What does this envisage? What does clause (b) of this amendment cover?

Mr. Blaney

First of all, although we have not utilised the ordinary referendum in the past, I take it the Deputy realises this is an ordinary referendum arising under Article 27 of the Constitution which provides:

A majority of the members of Seanad Éireann and not less than one-third of the members of Dáil Éireann may by a joint petition addressed to the President by them under this Article request the President to decline to sign and promulgate as a law any Bill to which this Article applies on the ground that the Bill contains a proposal of such national importance that the will of the people thereon ought to be ascertained.

That is all right. That is quite different from the all-embracing statement.

Mr. Dillon

I am talking about referenda referred to in (b) which we are now discussing. There is a great danger in them because the whole basis of Parliamentary democracy, which is in my submission to the House an exquisite instrument of individual liberty and enduring freedom, is put in very real jeopardy if there is the standing claim to refer the decisions of Parliament to ad hoc referenda, thus by implication, abandoning the appropriate remedy of the free people, that is, if Parliament is not carrying out their will, to change the membership of Parliament. If an Executive are not carrying out the will of the people by the process of Parliamentary elections, you can change the Executive, but if you create a situation in which Parliament itself is reversed by a popular referendum, the whole authority of the Oireachtas appears to me to be greatly abridged and open to challenge.

We are the sovereign authority in the country and our obligation, when we come here as Deputies, is to do what our conscience directs us to do and not what any vested interest thinks it has a right to command us to do. Acting in that capacity, we are the sovereign authority for good or ill and there ought not to be any authority set up against us. These are important considerations.

Mr. J. Brennan

Surely the referendum is the voice of the people.

Mr. Dillon

Here now is the very heresy. We can have government by mob rule or we can have government by Parliament. We can have legislation by calling the people together in the Phoenix Park and saying: "Those in favour, say ‘aye'; those against, say ‘no'." The result is that you have government without discussion, legislation without deliberation, Executive action without argument or challenge. The whole purpose of Parliamentary Government is that the Executive sit here in the presence of Parliament subject to question and to censure if the representatives of the people do not like what they are doing, and having arguments with them across the floor of the House. There is no question of putting simple issues which do not truly reflect the matter requiring consideration at all.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach falls into a very common error. There may be some sacrosanct quality in a reference by referendum to the people at large which is not inherent in the decisions of a demo-cratically-elected parliament but I regard the decisions of a democrati-cally-elected parliament to be much more helpful and sacrosanct than the decisions on any referendum can ever be. Decisions taken here are taken after full discussion and argument in which the Ceann Comhairle and Leas-Cheann Comhairle will insist on every Deputy having his right to speak and be heard. These are decisions which civilised men and women can live under, whether they like them or not, because they know they have means at their disposal to get them corrected without having to resort to violence, by climbing up on their barrel at the corner of the street and advocating the election of themselves or somebody else to replace Deputies who they believe have failed them in the Parliament of the country.

When I come to deal with the type of referenda referred to in paragraph (b), I want to be certain that the ordinary and sacrosanct deliberations of this House shall not be lightly set aside by referenda proposed by our people in deceptively simple terms. I suggest that we must do all in our power now to determine that if subjects are to be decided by ordinary referenda as defined by the context of this Bill, those subjects will be presented to the people in as objective a manner as it is possible to do it.

In as much as these referenda must derive from some conflict between the President and the Oireachtas, I suggest that in putting the question to the electorate, the President should be sustained by the advice of the two heads of the judiciary, the Chief Justice and the President of the High Court, in formulating the question that is to be proposed to the people. In any case, where fault may have to be found with what is drafted, it will be a fault which nobody can attribute to the person of the President because it will be universally known that the question was not formulated by the President alone but by him in consultation with and on the advice of the Chief Justice and the President of the High Court.

Mr. Leneghan

I think most members of this House know that I hate the sight of Deputy Dillon and that it is unlikely that I will normally agree with him. On this occasion, even though I would not vote for his proposals, I must agree with him. There is a great deal of common sense in what he has said. We have seen an example of this thing in France where Parliament, as a result of various types of referenda, has been practically wiped out. It is important that it should be made clear that under no circumstances shall the elected representatives of our people lose their power to legislate. It should be entirely as a last resort that under any circumstances our powers are taken from us. If we are to have referenda, it must be made clear to the people what the issue is to be.

I move amendment No. 21:—

In page 45, before section 67 to insert the following new section:

"Where—

(a) a person is entitled to vote at the poll at a referendum,

(b) he is employed by the local returning officer for the constituency in which he is entitled to vote, for any purpose in connection with the poll in the constituency, and

(c) the circumstances of his employment are, in the opinion of the returning officer, such as to prevent him from voting at the polling station at which he would otherwise be entitled to vote,

that officer may authorise him in writing to vote at a specified other polling station in that constituency, and the polling station so specified shall, for the purpose of Rule 8 of the First Schedule to the Principal Act be deemed to be the polling station allotted to him."

This amendment corresponds to Section 30 of the 1959 Referendum (Amendment) Act. The purpose of it is to make provision to enable persons to vote who are prevented from voting in their own districts because they are employed in the actual voting processes.

Mr. Tully

It is only within a constituency that can happen.

Mr. Blaney

I do not see much of the employment being given outside the constituencies.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 67, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 68.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

With amendment No. 22, we have already discussed amendments Nos. 4 and 12.

Mr. Blaney

I do not propose to move this amendment for the reasons I gave in respect of amendments Nos. 4 and 12.

Amendment No. 22 not moved.

Section 68 agreed to.

Sections 69 and 70 agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 47, before section 71 to insert the following new section:

"(1) At a constitutional referendum—

(a) every ballot paper shall be in the form set out in Part I of Fourth Schedule to this Act, and

(b) the proposal which is the subject of the referendum shall be stated on the ballot paper by citing by its short title the Bill containing such proposal passed or deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas.

(2) At an ordinary referendum every ballot paper shall be in the appropriate form set out in Part II of the Fourth Schedule to this Act and—

(a) in the case of a ballot paper in respect of one referendum, it shall contain 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

(b) in the case of a ballot paper in respect of two or more referenda having the same polling day, it shall contain, in respect of each referendum, 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.

(3) In applying, in the case of a constitutional referendum, paragraph (1) of Rule 3 of the First Schedule to the Principal Act, the following subparagraph shall be substituted for subparagraph (b) of that paragraph;

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

(4) Subject to the next subsection, where the same day is the polling day at two or more ordinary referenda, separate ballot papers shall not be issued, but every ballot paper shall be so framed that the voter is able to record a separate vote in respect of each referendum.

(5) Where the same day is the polling day at two or more ordinary referenda and the Minister is of opinion that it is for any reason impracticable or inexpedient to comply with the foregoing subsection—

(a) the Minister may direct that separate ballot papers shall be issued for one or more or all of the referenda, and such papers shall be issued accordingly,

(b) where the Minister directs as aforesaid and the direction does not apply to all of the referenda—

(i) if there is only one of the referenda to which the direction does not apply, separate ballot papers shall be issued for it,

(ii) if there are two or more of the referenda to which the direction does not apply, the foregoing subsection shall apply to them."

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There are two other related amendments— Nos. 41 and 45. Perhaps, by agreement, they could be taken together— Nos. 23, 41 and 45? Amendment No. 41 is consequential, I understand, and No. 45 is related.

Mr. Blaney

Section 71 of this Bill provides for the form of a ballot paper at a constitutional referendum and includes certain changes, such as the provision of a special space for the official mark on the ballot paper and the counterfoil, for the voter's number on the register. The purpose of amendment No. 23 is to enable corresponding changes to be made in the ballot papers for ordinary referenda. This amendment, No. 23, in fact consolidates the provisions of Section 15 of the Referendum Act, 1942, and Section 1 of the Referendum (Amendment) Act, 1959. Amendment No. 41 provides for the repeal of Section 15 of the 1942 Act which will no longer be necessary and amendment No. 45 prescribes the forms of ballot papers at both constitutional and ordinary referenda.

Mr. Dillon

I am still at a loss to understand how amendment No. 23 is linked up with amendment No. 45 which deals with the Fourth Schedule. The Fourth Schedule deals with the form of ballot papers at referenda. How do you link up these two?

Mr. Blaney

Amendment No. 23 has to do with ballot papers for ordinary referenda. Amendment No. 45 then prescribes the forms of ballot papers at both constitutional and ordinary referenda. That is really the point.

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Section 71 deleted.

SECTION 72.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 24:

in subsection (1), page 47, line 20, to insert "sections 9 and 10," before "all".

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We have already discussed this amendment with amendment No. 14.

Amendment agreed to.

Yes, in the same context as the others relating to it.

Question put and agreed to.

I quite agree.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 81.

(a) "quinquennially" and "five" shall continue to stand substituted for "triennially" and "three"....

That means we have provided for fiveyearly elections and we are preserving that?

Mr. Blaney

It is really a consolidation of that section.

Mr. Dillon

It is merely consolidating the existing law?

Mr. Blaney

Yes.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 82 agreed to.

SECTION 83.

Question proposed: "That Section 83 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Sherwin

Are there any details of the regulations that may be made under the Bill?

Mr. Blaney

The intention of taking the power at all is to fix one day for the whole country.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 86 and 87 agreed to.

SECTION 88.

Mr. Jones

I move amendment No. 27:

PART VI.

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

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

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

In Section 88 as the Minister has drafted it, he is proposing to take power to form various electoral districts within the cities of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford without reference to the elected representatives of the people in those areas. I am proposing that regard should be had to the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 7 of the Limerick City Management Act, whereby the city is one electoral area, Section 6 of the Waterford City Management Act whereby the city is one electoral area and Section 4 of the Cork City Management Act, 1941, whereby the city is one electoral division. It was open to the elected representatives of the council in these areas to request the Minister to make the changes if they so desired. On Second Reading I said we ought to be very careful in the Oireachtas in passing legislation not alone to give effect to the popular will but to be seen to give effect to the popular will. We must jealously guard the democratic right of the elected representatives in these council areas to seek from the Minister an order setting up the ward system, if they so decide. Until such time as the councillors request that, the Minister should not take unto himself the right to create within those areas different electoral divisions from those existing at present. In certain areas, there have been difficulties because of the large number of candidates standing. There may be confusion inasmuch as the voters may not proceed to put a mark opposite all the names of the candidates appearing on the ballot paper.

In taking the decision envisaged in this section, the Minister would create areas within those cities corresponding to the old ward system. He is taking power to do that without being requested to do so by the people elected by the voters in those areas. All I want to ensure is that the rights of the councillors democratically elected by the people in those areas will not be taken from them, and that it is they, and they alone, who have the right to request the Minister to make this change.

This is a right we have often referred to here. It is a right put in jeopardy in other parts of this country and in areas outside this country. The democratic process we profess to follow here ought to ensure that nothing will be passed in the Legislature which will in any way take away that right from the locally elected people. I seek to have that preserved by offering this amendment to the House.

Mr. Blaney

Deputy Jones seems to have overlooked or conveniently forgotten that since 1941 the Minister for Local Government has had the very power it is suggested here he should be denied in respect of Limerick, Cork and Waterford. Apart from these three cities, he has had that power in respect of every county council and every urban district in Ireland since 1941. This therefore is merely an effort to bring those three cities into line with the rest of the country. It is no more and no less than that.

The dangers Deputy Jones sees are not real in view of the fact that we have had this power since 1941. I am aware of nothing happening to justify the fears the Deputy has. There does not seem to be any great reason why these three cities should not be brought into line with the country generally.

Let us have a look at the situation in Cork city when they fought a local election as one constituency with everybody up in a free-for all. We had 72 candidates, 63 counts and five days' hard work for a big staff, not to mention the severe strain on the nerves of the candidates. We had 72 names on the ballot paper, out of which 21 were to be selected. The idea of having 63 counts, or even 20 or 30 counts, does not help to bring about the kind of result the people intend. The idea that that is possible under this system is fantastic.

Mr. Dillon

What was the total poll?

Mr. Blaney

I could not tell you. Cork is the most extreme example of the situation, but even in the city of Waterford, we had in the 1960 election 41 candidates for 15 seats. The whole 41 were on one ballot paper. There were 34 counts in order to find 15 councillors from the free-for-all.

Mr. Dillon

If the poll was a large one, 34 was not a lot.

Mr. Blaney

Why should we not declare every county council election an open forum and let all 25 or 28 councillors go up for the whole county? Surely if the system we have in relation to the county councils and urban areas for all these years makes sense, it should make sense in these three cities as well? The present system in those cities is absolutely crying out for revision.

I think the fears expressed by Deputy Jones are not well grounded. The fact that the Minister for Local Government has had this power for all these years and that it has not been abused by any Minister should bring about a change of mind on the Deputy's part in regard to opposing the idea of giving power to the Minister to make these three cities conform with the general law. It is not something new or radical. There is nothing hidden behind it. It is merely conforming with what has been there for the past 22 years.

Mr. Jones

In contrasting the procedure in county council elections and the procedure contemplated here, the Minister is over-simplifying the matter. All the time the county councils have exercised their right of producing a polling scheme and submitting it to the Minister. In this instance, however, the Minister is proposing to take a power which the Council have not requested. All I want is that the elected council should be allowed to request the Minister to do this. The county councils make polling schemes and submit them for approval. All I am asking is that the rights of the councils in Limerick, Cork and Waterford should be equally preserved. If they so desire, they can make a request to the Minister to divide up the city as they require it.

Mr. Blaney

I think the Deputy has in some way misinterpreted the position. He mentioned a polling scheme coming up from counties but that is different from what he has in mind. It is entirely different because a polling scheme in that form has nothing whatever to do with the division of a county into electoral areas. For instance, any county may have its existing electoral areas rearranged by the Minister for Local Government without any request whatsoever from the local body in that county. Likewise, urban council districts, again, can and may be divided, rearranged and so forth by the Minister for Local Government without any request from the local council. Even Dublin city and the boundaries of its various divisions can and may be divided by the Minister for Local Government without any representations from the corporation in the City Hall to the effect that it should be done.

Mr. Jones

That is what I wanted to provide against. That has been done in another part of the country and it is called gerrymandering.

Mr. Blaney

What is the Deputy talking about? Where is the gerrymandering in such a scheme as would give cause for worry? If it was done, was it done in my time, in these local areas? If it was not done during my time, why did our predecessors not make right any gerrymandering that was done when they were there? I do not think there is any substantiation for any allegation of gerrymandering.

Mr. Dillon

Our whole approach to this Bill has been very rational. Deputy Jones's point is well taken and I am surprised that no Deputy from Cork city or Limerick has intervened.

Mr. Tully

The Limerick man has not got time yet.

Mr. Dillon

I hope he will come in. Deputy Jones's point is only this: the present position exists in Cork, Waterford and Limerick. The Minister thinks, looking at the picture of the country as a whole, that it is a rational and sensible thing to bring Cork, Limerick and Waterford into line with Dublin for its electoral procedure because, looking at it from the point of view of the Custom House or Donegal, it seems to him extremely inconvenient to have long lists of candidates and everybody elected as a candidate at large. That is the way it may seem to him but it may not seem so to the people locally. Surely it is a sensible suggestion to take power here, at the request of the existing local authority, to change the electoral procedure if the local people want it changed? If they do not, if they prefer this system of electing their councillors and aldermen at large, why should we interfere?

Manifestly, the people of Dublin prefer to elect them in wards. I have no deep conviction one way or the other. Where you have a relatively small city, there is a great deal to be said for electing the aldermen and councillors at large. If the city reaches a size which makes the mechanical problem of counting the votes unduly onerous, all reasonable men will combine to divide the city up into suitable subdivisions to facilitate the process of conducting the count but they will sacrifice something, or it could well be that they might sacrifice something, which is at present valuable.

At present we do not have in this country the very intensive organisation of wards in local elections but anyone who has any experience of residence in an American city knows the astonishingly powerful organisation that is built on so small a political unit as a municipal ward. I admit at once the situation obtaining in American cities represents one extreme but I am not prepared to admit that electing councillors and aldermen at large in a small city or a relatively small city is the other extreme. In a city like Waterford and Limerick, it may very well be the ideal method.

I should be inclined to feel with the Minister for Local Government that when a city had reached the size of Cork, if they were prudent, the local authority would reach the conclusion that the time had come to ask the Minister to approve a scheme of wards there, on the ground that the city had grown too big to elect councillors and aldermen at large. I am not at all sure, if living in Waterford or Limerick, I would take a similar view. I think that is a reasonable approach and that the Minister is going beyond where it is necessary for the Oireachtas to go in interfering with the local affairs of the people of such cities as Cork, Waterford and Limerick, if he arrogates to himself, not only the ultimate decision, but the initiative in such a matter. Deputy Jones thinks, and I agree with him, that the appropriate provision here is that he should take power, at the request of the local authority, to divide the city into wards but leaving the situation that unless and until he is moved by the local authority to do so, he will leave things as they are.

That may sound utterly unreasonable to the Minister but I want to put it to him that this is an Electoral Bill and, hopping and trotting, by way of Committee and discussion here, it has reached a pretty reasonable degree of virtual unanimous consent amongst us. Electoral law is always a touchy matter. I suggest to the Minister that the difference between his position and that of Deputy Jones is very narrow. This is not the last Electoral Bill we will ever pass but I suggest to him that he may with propriety leave the initiative in this matter to the cities concerned, with the result, I believe, that he will get a request from Cork and he probably will not from Waterford or Limerick. If he does, if that is the way it turns out, then the only real problem will be resolved at the request of the local people and the other two cities will comfortably carry on on their present basis, it may be for years and it might be forever.

Mr. Sherwin

I do not agree with Deputy Dillon, because his suggestion does not give the small man a chance. If the small man who is known only in his own locality has to fight in a large area, he is severely handicapped. Those already in have the advantage. It would be wrong to leave it to those who are already in position to decide as to how others should get a chance of election. If it is left to people who have a vested interest, naturally, they will look after their own needs first. Imagine the position if Dublin were one constituency. In that case only people with money, only political Parties, could fight elections. A poor man could not fight an election. The poor local man must be given a chance. Otherwise, the machine will always be in possession.

Mr. Coughlan

The present situation has prevailed in the city of Limerick for a long time and no voice was ever raised against the procedure up to now. It is a good thing that we should have so many runners for so many seats in any local authority. It is a healthy sign that the people are anxious about affairs. In Limerick, there are 17 seats on the council. The area of Limerick city does not lend itself to divisions of the kind there are in Dublin and that perhaps one may expect in Cork.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 28th March, 1963.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 27 Mar 1963

Committee on Finance. - Electoral Bill, 1962: Committee Stage.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 27 Mar 1963