There is another point of concern which I want to mention specifically in relation to the provisions of section 167 regarding opinion polls. If I read it correctly, this section defines an opinion poll as wide enough to actually make illegal a normal political canvass, a function of which is manifestly for the purpose of ascertaining the likely opinions of the population of the constituency. As I read that section, it seems to me that a canvass which is conducted on any sort of a coherent basis could be classified as an opinon poll, because what is a canvass other than an attempt to ascertain the way people will vote? Is that not the first objective? In rural areas you do not have to do that. You know already what way they are likely to vote — at least some of them though maybe things have changed since I left west Clare. To be fair to the Minister, he has a wider experience of these matters than I. But there are certain types of persons whose voting is clearcut and will not change. In a canvass it seems to me the one of the first things anybody will try to do is to establish how people are going to vote, and then a certain message is given. If I am not making a mistake, in the earlier days of the Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey's disdain and disregard for opinion polls— in many ways he had a point — he always, if I remember correctly, put great emphasis on what the Fianna Fáil canvassers were bringing back by way of information in relation to the Fianna Fáil vote holding and so on. All he was saying was that the Fianna Fáil canvassers were quite good at carrying out opinon polls and, in effect, that is what they were doing. I would not dispute that with the Taoiseach at all. My experience of the Fianna Fáil canvassers is they are quite sharp at figuring out trends. They may not express them in the same lingo as MRBI or IMS do, but they certainly have quite a good grasp of it. The poll is structured very systematically. I would suggest that the conducting of such a canvass, in effect an opinion poll could be considered to be at variance with the provisions of this Bill.
There are a number of items in the Minister's speech in relation to opinion polls that I want to raise with him. First of all, he talks about our people being concerned about the effects of opinion polls. I have not seen very much of that concern. The only people who seem to be concerned or bothered about opinion polls are politicians and to some extent the people who conduct them.
The second suggestion made is that opinion polls influence the way people vote. I am of the view that there is a very poor understanding of the various factors which lead people to vote in one way or another and that opinion polls are a very small factor in a whole range of factors. Certainly, there has not been any evidence produced by the Minister of the importance of opinion polls. The Minister said it was generally recognised that opinion polls are influential. By whom? One of the leading opinion poll conductors in this country, Mr. Jack Jones, wrote an article in The Irish Times shortly after this Bill was published in which he produced quite an amount of evidence suggesting that they were not influential. In particular the Minister referred to a poll which was published last June and which showed the influence of polling. Where was that poll published, by whom was it conducted and how in the name of goodness can the Minister conclude on the basis of simply one poll that opinon polls are influential in terms of how people cast their votes?
I do not accept that at all. I genuinely feel that if opinion polls are banned then we are moving back into the area where it will be much easier to mislead people and to get involved in all sorts of codology. Another advantage of opinion polls is that they clarify the significance of the various issues for the public. One other reason why I am strongly in favour of opinion polls is that if they are abandoned or banned, then I believe that will discriminate against smaller parties who have not the capacity to carry out the systematic-type canvass which the larger parties have both the money and the expertise to do.
There are a number of other points I would like to mention. There is the question of who can be present at the counting of votes. My understanding of it is that neither the candidate nor the election agent is included as a person who may attend at the counting of votes as described in section 113 (2). Of course, it is possible to have the candidate or the agent present at the discretion of the returning officer. I would like to see the entitlement of candidates and of their election agents spelled out in rather more detail than being at the discretion of the returning officer. The same comments apply to sections 125 and 153.
In relation to entitlements to challenge a Dáil election, some of the details of how a Dáil election may be challenged are spelt out in the Third Schedule. Section 132 provides that a Dáil election may be challenged in accordance with the provisions of the Third Schedule. It is conceivable that an argument could be made that the effect of that section is only that the Director of Public Prosecutions may take an electoral petition, though obviously it is clear from the tone of the Bill that that is not the intention. I raise that question in the hope it can be clarified and that we can have some details on what the situation is.
In relation to Part XIV, I am rather disappointed that there is not any clarification in relation to the voting patterns which emerged when the Dáil elections and the European elections were held on the same day in June 1989. In those elections, I am sure everyone here is well aware, some people started voting for their party on a one, two, three basis in the Dáil election; then went on to vote for the same party in the European election on the basis of four, five and six. There were subsequent court cases in relation particularly to the European election as it was conducted in Leinster, the decisions of returning officers and so on. My understanding of the court judgment in relation to that matter was that it did not clearly reach a decision as to whether the four, five or six votings would in effect be taken as one, two and three. I understand further that some returning officers interpreted the four, five and six voting pattern as in effect being spoiled and other returning officers interpreted the same voting patterns on the second paper as being a valid expression of the preferences of the voter. I ask the Minister to consider introducing some clarification in relation to the rules of how elections should be conducted where two elections are held on the same day.
Another area I wish to refer to is the provision relating to the adjudication on doubtful ballot papers. Under section 117, if I am reading it correctly, candidates or their agents are not permitted to handle ballot papers. Some may say that is a reasonable provision. However, I envisage difficulties arising in regard to disputed votes where there may be an argument about whether the seal is on the ballot paper. The resolution of that argument might be facilitated by allowing the agents of the candidates, or the candidates, to look at the ballot paper and get involved in the argument, based on the evidence available at the count. I suggest the Minister consider introducing an amendment which would allow the returning officer the capacity to permit that if he deemed it desirable or reasonable.
Section 105, which deals with regulations regarding personation and so on, provides that a personation agent must undertake in writing to prove that the applicant has committed personation before the presiding officer orders an arrest. That appears unworkable in practice. If the person making the complaint has to do so in writing I would think that all but the more dull of the double, treble or 25-time voters would have left the polling station while that was taking place. I suggest that the requirement for making the complaint in writing be abandoned.
Section 101, as I understand it, requires the elector to show the ballot paper when it has been completed and folded. There is a requirement that the ballot paper be shown to the returning officer prior to it being deposited in the ballot box. That, in many ways, is a worthy enough requirement. The difficulty I see with it, particularly in urban polling stations where there is a tremendous rush in the last hour before polling concludes, is that a very difficult and unpleasant traffic jam may be created if this requirement is enforced. The returning officer, in addition to having to issue ballot papers, mark them and ensure they have the seal on them and so on, will have to inspect ballot papers prior to them being deposited in the ballot box. That is a small technical point and I hope the Minister will look at it. Does he accept that in some polling stations at the close of poll it would create difficulties?
I have some concerns about the number of agents allowed. It appears that the returning officer is given absolute discretion as to the number of agents he may permit. I would prefer to see a requirement that the returning officer allow a minimum number of agents for each candidate, because if returning officers become difficult candidates may run into very awkward situations. That would be a way around the problem rather than leaving the matter at the discretion of the returning officer.
Section 39 deals with the conducting of by-elections and so on. It might be useful if a provision was included in the Bill to allow for the holding of by-elections on the same day if there are two vacancies in the one constituency. My understanding is that if there are two vacancies in the same constituency the requirements are that two separate elections be held. There may be very good political reasons on the part of one side or other of the political divide why that should be done, but it would be more in keeping with the notion of proportionality that if there were two or more vacancies in the same constituency the by-elections should be held on the same day rather than holding two separate elections.
I would like to make a point in relation to the format of the ballot paper. This refers to the new requirement that people who are voting are obliged to show the ballot paper to the returning officer prior to depositing it in the ballot box. I would like to see that provision deleted. If it is not deleted, then the instructions on the ballot paper should be a good deal larger than at present. That should be considered.
In relation to section 25 (10), I must confess to being confused. My puzzlement arises in regard to appeals by political parties which the Registrar of political parties feels no longer have a valid reason for being on the register. The procedure, as I understand it, is that the Registrar will announce that he intends to remove a party from the list. Then there will be time to appeal against this but, if I am not making a mistake, section 25 (4) says that where a party is registered then the appeal is not effective against them. I must confess to being puzzled by that and I wish the Minister would clarify the situation. I certainly have no objection to the general intent of that section, but it has confused me.
Finally, a Cathaoirligh, I want to mention this business of the provision for An Post. The Government are paying the postage for one letter to be sent to each elector on behalf of each party or of candidates who are not members of a party and so on. A number of difficulties have arisen in relation to this over the years. One of them is that in latter times An Post have become quite difficult and they have adhered very much to the letter of the law. What that has amounted to is that when litters are addressed to "The Resident" as distinct from Mr. Smith, then An Post have refused to deliver that mail. That creates a considerable disadvantage for small parties who are under-resourced, and it certainly creates an enormous disadvantage for independent non-party candidates who may have a valid case to argue and a valid case to put before the electorate. If An Post would deliver letters which are addressed to "The Resident" it is quite easy using modern computer technology to put together labels on that basis. However, it is rather expensive to put them together on the basis of addressing letters to, say, Mr. John Smith. That is something that should be reconsidered in relation to this Bill. I would like to see that provision clarified.
I am not too concerned about the restriction in the Bill which means that, if an individual is standing as a candidate in more than one constituency, then the capacity to do a mail shot is restricted simply to one constituency. I think in many ways that might be a sensible provision, because it will prevent somebody from abusing that provision in order to do a mail shot to the whole country. This might have a certain marketing value for somebody in a certain set of circumstances who decides to use the letter of the law as a way of advertising either themselves or some product or to use that provision as a cheap way of doing a mail shot to the whole country.
My overwhelming concerns about the provisions of this Bill are primarily directed to the provisions which restrict the conducting of opinion polls. That is the very regrettable introduction. I can see no scientific, reasonable or coherent basis for it and I sincerely hope the Minister will reconsider it. I was pleased to hear him, in his introductory speech this morning, take a very open-minded attitude to this legislation and say that he was open to suggestion. I sincerely hope that he will reconsider the restriction in relation to opinion polls.
I am particularly pleased to see the Minister take this open-minded attitude, especially on this Bill, because the reality is that, more than any other which comes before this House, everybody here is experienced in it. In many ways, everybody here is a sort of an expert on elections, and certainly that could not be said about most other Bills which come here. There is fine expertise in many areas, but I do not think you will get the same level of uniform, well-balanced expertise on any topic which would compare with the levels of knowledge and understanding which Members of this House have in relation to the conducting of elections, participating in them and, to a lesser extent, the law — certainly the nitty-gritty of the practicalities of the law in relation to how elections are conducted.
