Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 are related and both may be discussed together.
Death of Former Member. - Electoral (No. 2) Bill, 1991: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 76:
In page 53, subsection (1), lines 34 and 35, to delete ", in the presence of a member of the Garda Síochána,".
—(Senator Upton.)
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 82 agreed to.
Section 83 and 84 agreed to.
SECTION 85.
I move amendment No. 77:
In page 55, subsection (1), line 17, after "island" to insert "(other than the island of Ireland)".
This is basically a minor technical amendment. It relates to the term "island". The fact is that all of this country is an island. We have sought, therefore, to include the words, "other than the island of Ireland" in order to clarify the position. As it is written there, it could apply to the whole of the country and that is not the Minister's intention. It is a fairly minor and straightforward point, and I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.
We are referring there to an island other than the island of Ireland because, of course, Ireland is an island. The second amendment refers to the "island" and "the mainland". What is the mainland? Indeed there has been a certain degree of ambiguity in relation to this in recent times. The Taoiseach himself referred to the mainland of Britain which is a terminology that perhaps is not appropriately applicable. We normally refer to the mainland of Europe. Here we have a reference to the mainland and to the island. We need a certain amount of clarification and it would be best in the second instance to say "to and from the island" which would make it clear what we are referring to.
Section 85 relates to polling on islands. It enables the poll on an island to be taken before the appointed polling day and the polling period to be shortened if necessary because of weather or transport difficulties.
Amendment No. 77 proposes that the word "island" should be defined as excluding the island of Ireland. Amendment No. 78 proposes to delete the reference to the mainland which in this context means the mainland of Ireland. I suggest the amendments are unnecessary.
The meaning of the expression used in each case is clear. The expressions have been used in electoral law since 1963 and have not given rise to any problem. If we were to accept the amendments we might be creating difficulties. If the word "island" was defined as proposed, where would it leave areas such as Achill, Valentia and even the North Bull, all of which are officially listed as islands? If we adopt the expression "transport to and from the island" somebody is likely to ask, from where? I trust that the amendment will be withdrawn.
I am confused by the Minister's reply. I find it difficult to understand why he is so firm in his view that it is unnecessary. I think it is clear. It guards against confusion and misinterpretation. I cannot see the difficulty in accepting the amendment. However, the Minister seems to have taken a position on it but I do not understand the reason.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 78 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 79, 80 and 81 are related and all may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 79:
In page 55, subsection (2) (b), line 39, after "hour," to add "but in this instance close of poll shall (if possible) be postponed to such later time as would compensate for the delay in commencement of the poll,".
These amendments refer to arrangements made in relation to conducting polls on islands in the event of inclement weather and difficulties with transportation. What particularly concerns us is the provision where the amount of time available for the casting of votes on an island can be shortened at the discretion of the returning officer to ensure that the votes from the boxes on the island will arrive on the mainland so that the count can be completed on the day on which the count takes place. It seems wrong that the priorities should be as implied in this part of the Bill. I would have thought it would be more important to allow people on the islands the same amount of time to cast their votes as is available to people on the mainland. If the count has to be delayed because we are waiting for a few boxes to come from islands, that is something we can live with.
I imagine that the essential political reality is that if one knew the island one could make a fairly good guess at the number of votes. In any case, it would only be in exceptional circumstances that the votes cast on an island would influence the outcome of an election and any of the more experienced political people at a count could tell you who would be getting the votes on various islands. Indeed, in the Dáil either the Taoiseach or Deputy Sheehan corrected a misinterpretation of the number of votes which somebody got on one of those islands off the Cork coast.
What we are proposing here is a reasonable amendment because there is no provision for not having a poll on an island; a poll must take place on the island. What we are doing is defining a period by which the discretion can be exercised to terminate it if there are weather problems. Since that is the case it would seem that the priority lies in ensuring that a reasonable period is made available taking weather conditions into account as far as possible and taking into account the time in which the election is to take place so that there is a balance.
The section provides that after polling has continued for not less than four hours and the presiding officer is of the opinion that weather conditions are bad, he can terminate the poll. This type of nit-picking provision is unnecessary where the law says that the polling must take place, for a certain period and, if conditions worsen the presiding officer can, at some stage in the midde of the poll, terminate the poll without any intention to compensate. It would seem that one should put the emphasis on the earlier stage ensuring that there is a reasonable period of time and, at the later stage, ensuring that everybody on the island has the opportunity to vote. If necessary the count may have to be delayed for a short period to ensure that everybody has the opportunity to exercise their franchise.
Section 85 and 86 enable the poll on an island to open late and subject to continuing for a minimum period of four hours, close early should this be necessary because of weather or transport difficulties. This group of amendments would curtail the discretion of the returning officer and the presiding officer in this regard.
Amendment No. 79 would require that where the poll opens late, the time loss must be made up if possible. Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 propose to delete the provisions which enable the poll to be closed early.
The provisions enabling the poll on an island to be shortened are important. I do not have to remind Senators how difficult conditions can be off the Atlantic coast and how quickly they can change. It is essential that the presiding officer, as the man on the spot, should have discretion to close the poll at any time after four hours of polling if he feels it necessary in order to ensure that the ballot box reaches the count centre on time. Failure of the ballot box to reach the count centre by the time fixed for the commencement of the count would hold up proceedings at the count because, under our system, counting could not proceed until all ballot boxes were opened.
It is clearly desirable, in order to ensure the normal and efficient conduct of the count, that these provisions be retained. Obviously we could tolerate a delayed count but it would be intolerable if the Oireachtas were to put at risk the safety of polling staff, boatmen and the Garda in the interests of a false uniformity.
I would like to assure Senators that these provisions are used only in exceptional circumstances. The general practice is to allow a full day's polling. However, use of those powers may be unavoidable in some of our more isolated islands, particularly in the winter. I suggest that the amendment be withdrawn.
It seems as if much of the thinking process behind the Minister's response is derived from the earlier part of the century when people rode out to islands in curraghs dressed in Báinín jackets. In these days of helicopters I would not have thought that a báinín clad helicopter pilot and his entourage would have any difficulty getting ballot boxes back from the island in the space of a half an hour or so. I am puzzled as to why the Minister will not accept the amendment.
The intention, as the Minister has indicated, is to curtail the discretion and the powers of the presiding officer in relation to this matter, and this is proper. Everybody has the right to exercise their franchise and we should make provision to ensure that that takes place. The counting of the votes is another matter.
The first and most important matter is a person's right to vote and the second is the arrangements for the counting of votes. I agree that the practicalities must be addressed, but as Senator Upton said, we are inserting a provision in this legislation that applies to a different area. This is consolidating legislation, but we seem to be going backwards. It is unlikely that bad weather conditions could prevent transport, particularly helicopters, from reaching outlying islands and bringing the votes onshore in time for the count. In my view, we should not legislate for exceptional circumstances. The case made here today may have arisen in the past, and might arise in the future, but the right to vote is paramount and that is what we should enshrine in the legislation.
To put this matter in perspective, it must be recalled that the island electorate is very small: the largest is Inis Mór with an electorate of 664 and the smallest is Inishfree with an electorate of 11. I recall that for many years an island off Donegal had an electorate of two. I understand that on the smallest islands all available electors normally cast their votes within a short time of the arrival of the ballot box. Therefore, instead of insisting on a full day's polling perhaps we should be moving in the other direction and providing for a maximum of four hours polling wherever the electorate is under, say, 100.
I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 80 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 85 stand part of the Bill."
It is understandable that some years ago it was important that polling on islands took place earlier than on the mainland. The Chair and Senator Ó Cuív will be aware of the difficulties that can exist for island communities casting their vote, particularly at certain times of the year. However, I would respectfully suggest to the Minister that the period between voting on the islands and voting on the mainland be tightened up considerably. My attention was drawn to this in the recent Maastricht Referendum when island communities were asked to vote before the final broadcast and appeal by political parties. That put those island communities at a disadvantage.
In this age of modern transport — helicopters, etc. — it is unacceptable that island communities should be asked to vote before the campaign is concluded. Two days before polling day should be adequate for island communities to cast their vote and the ballot papers to be returned in time for counting. I ask the Minister to consider this. We cannot ignore the statements made by island communities when they were asked to vote before the campaign on the Maastricht referendum had been concluded.
On the question of island voting, we must be clear that all islands are different. I do not understand why voting on the Aran Islands must take place two days in advance of an election. At present there is an air and boat service to and from the main island which has a population of 800. A boat service operates to that island 364 days of the year — Christmas Day being the exception. There has never been a problem transporting goods to and from the island. It is important that on the larger islands to which there is a regular transport service, polling would take place on the normal polling day, or, at the earliest, one day before. However, there are some small islands which tend to be forgotten. There is one in my constituency where there are four registered electors — I understand that they voted two for and two against on the Maastricht referendum.
Very balanced.
When everyone on the register of electors has voted I see no purpose in somebody waiting for people who are not there to vote. On the small islands there might be a case for giving people special votes and getting a returning officer to go to the house, to get the votes and then go home. The operation of the Bill must take into account changes in technology. On the large islands polling should take place either on the day of polling on the mainland or, one day earlier.
This section needs to be reconsidered. Modern technology should enable us to alter the way we deal with the franchise on the islands. The Minister said in reply to an earlier amendment that this terminology was used in the past and it is now being used for the future. The legislation would be imposed if the Minister reconsidered this section having regard to the remarks made here.
I support Senator Costello's suggestion that the Minister should reconsider this section. I would like to add one point to what Senator Ó Cuív said in relation to the Aran Islands. With the present capacity for forecasting weather changes, weather conditions can fairly accurately be predicted two or three days in advance of polling day. There should be flexibility when it comes to those living on an island as big as Aran casting their votes. They should be treated in the same way as the rest of the population. It is unacceptable that a campaign should not be concluded before people are forced to cast their vote, particularly when a large number of people are involved.
Acting Chairman
Is section 85 agreed?
Could we hear the views of the Minister on the points made by a number of Senators?
I have covered a number of the points already, but I want to refer to advance polling. This is a matter for the local returning officer to decide. I will bring to the notice of returning officers in the areas concerned the views expressed by Senators on this section.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 86.
Amendment No. 81 not moved.
Section 86 agreed to.
Section 87 agreed to.
SECTION 88.
I move amendment No. 82:
In page 56, subsection (2) (a), line 33, after "names" to insert ", photographs".
This amendment proposes that photographs of candidates appear on the ballot paper. At one time it was difficult to have photographs printed but because of technology it should be simple to have a photograph printed on ballot papers. The provision of a small photograph on the ballot paper would be of great assistance to certain members of the public when casting their vote, especially those with reading difficulties.
Many people may be confused about candidates with the same name who stand for different parties or even for the same party. In other words, a certain type of Fianna Fáil supporter goes to the polling station to vote for Fianna Fáil and it might help those who have a preference for one particular candidate to be able to recognise candidates by their appearance. The same is true of all parties. This provision would ensure that people would cast their vote for the candidate they prefer rather than being confused because of reading difficulties, etc. This is particularly relevant when there are people of the same name contesting elections for the same party or for different parties. I hope the Minister will accept this amendment.
I have no objection to this amendment, in fact it is a good idea. I would like to ask the Minister for some details. Would the candidate whose photograph appears on the ballot paper be allowed to wear a red rose in their buttonhole——
Or a báinín jacket and trousers.
——báinín jacket and trousers, or would they be allowed to have "FF" on their lapel? If so, some regulations will need to be laid down as to what they may wear. The Senator spoke about the Fianna Fáil look. Would that mean a mohair suit? At one time the mohair suit was the flagship of Fianna Fáil, if a person wore a mohair suit it was assumed he was a member of Fianna Fáil. In that regard, some difficulties may need to be teased out. Would it be a black and white or a coloured photograph? I presume it would have to be a standard size. Would a photograph be obligatory, even if a person was ugly or had some feature he or she did not like?.
We would expect that this would be dealt with by regulation. If one belonged to the Upper House one would have to adopt a certain decorous dress, and I am not sure that báinín would be permitted in the photograph. A different form of dress would apply in the Lower House; Non-Party people might have less demanding standards with, perhaps, no obligation to wear a tie. Presumably, it would be a passport size photograph — head and shoulders — that bore a good resemblance but would not cover dress.
The purpose of the amendment is to enable voters to distinguish one candidate from another. People who stand for election are public representatives providing a public service. They are constantly in touch with people. One of the reasons people choose to vote for one candidate rather than another is that he plays an active role in their constituency. The provision would assist the voter in making a decision. A name does not have the same impact as a face. If the voter can identify the face, it will assist him in making his choice. We should do all we can to facilitate the person exercising their franchise, and that is the purpose of this amendment.
This amendment to section 88 proposes to insert a requirement that the photograph of each candidate should appear on the ballot paper. The purpose of the amendment is, apparently, to assist illiterate voters and those with impaired vision. Under existing law, restated in this Bill, a voter whose sight is so impaired that he is unable to vote without assistance may have the ballot paper marked on his behalf by a companion or by the presiding officer.
A voter who is illiterate may ask to have his ballot paper marked by the presiding officer. Under this provision, the presiding officer may assist the voter by reading out in full the details in relation to each candidate on the ballot paper and then mark the ballot paper as instructed by the voter.
While the inclusion of the photographs of candidates on ballot papers might assist some voters, the effectiveness of the measure overall is likely to be limited. Under our system of proportional repressentation which allows the voter to vote for the candidates in the order of his choice, certain categories of voters would still require assistance in marking the ballot paper.
The inclusion of photographs would give rise to practical difficulties and Senator Hederman covered some of those points. For example, it would put extra pressure on the resources of the returning officer at a time when he is already operating under presure. At an election, very little time is available for preparing, printing and issuing ballot papers. Ballot papers have to be printed as soon as practicable after the close of nominations to ensure maximum time for delivery and return of postal ballot papers. The extra time required for checking photographs, ensuring that they are of suitable standard and quality and making certain that the photographs match the names on the ballot paper would add considerably to the demands on the resources of the returning officer. It would, of course, also increase the cost of elections.
Photographs on ballot papers could assist some electors in identifying the candidate they wish to vote for but only, of course, if they already know what the candidate looks like. Thus, there would be a built-in bias in favour of well known candidates at the expense of lesser known ones, particularly first time and non-aligned candidates. It also misses the point that most electors vote on the basis of party, with preferences for individual candidates being a secondary consideration.
Our electoral system is already criticised for putting undue emphasis on personality rather than on policy. Including photographs would exaggerate this tendency and could have the effect of trivialising elections and turning them into a kind of beauty contest.
Having carefully considered the implications of the proposal contained in this amendment, I consider that adopting it would not be feasible. I would ask the Senators not to press the amendment.
I cannot see photographs on the ballot paper turning an election into a beauty contest; in some instances, it might turn it into an ugly contest.
In national and presidential elections in other countries the photographs of candidates appear on the ballot paper. This may give rise to certain practical difficulties, but they are not insurmountable. Well-known candidates will benefit but the reason they are well known is that they are active in their constituencies and they should be rewarded for that. The purpose of putting the candidate's name on the ballot paper is that people can identify them; the purpose of putting a photograph and party affiliation on a ballot paper is that people can further identify them. If a photograph can assist in identifying somebody who has been active in the public arena, that should be recognised and reflected in the ballot box.
The Minister's objections do not stand up and I ask him to reconsider the matter. Many organisations, in terms of internal elections as distinct from politics, operate this system on the grounds that this is what their members want. They want to see precisely who is putting themselves forward for election and if they can identify them. Therefore, I believe it would be beneficial to take this step towards identification.
In theory, this is a good proposal but what would stop a candidate using his confirmation photograph? Some of us have changed a great deal since our confirmation day and such photographs would present unfamiliar characters and cause confusion. This amendment was probably proposed with the best intentions but it would be impossible to legislate for it.
The Minister's interpretation of this amendment and what the Senators have in mind are different. The Minister is of the view that this amendment was proposed to help people with impaired vision, but having listened to Senators Upton and Costello, that is not what they have in mind. They seem to hold the opposite view. They believe that by having a photograph on the ballot paper people would be able to identify those candidates who got work done on the parish pump, the lights, the sewers, etc. Having listened to both sides I do not support this amendment.
What would happen is the candidate whose photograph is most often in the papers would be easily recognised by their photograph on the ballot paper. We are all aware that some politicians have a very high profile with newspaper people and some political parties support certain newspapers. Consequently, such politicians get their photograph on the front page of the papers regularly. They could probably afford to have their photographs in the paper in the form of an advertisement. This would put other candidates at a disadvantage.
Furthermore, I do not agree with Senator Costello that the candidates who have contact with the people most often necessarily make the finest or the most suitable Members of Parliament. The late Deputy John Kelly, who was a good friend of mine, did not rush around his constituency and meeting people; nevertheless, he was a fine parliamentarian. He was held in high esteem by people on all sides of the House. We should not debase the attributes of a public representative by advocating that if they are active in their constituency that, in itself, is a good reason for voting for them.
Councillor Sadhbh O'Neill, who was unknown in her constituency went forward for election, she then went to America but was elected. She stood for The Green Party, the policies of which were endorsed by her electorate. That is an example of somebody who was unknown to her constituents and is now a fine city councillor, as I am sure Senator Costello will agree. I agree with the Minister in this regard. However, I am disappointed that, once again, the Minister is resorting to the idea that most people vote along party lines; he is probably correct. That is regrettable because, in my view, they should distinguish between what the candidates have to offer and voting on party lines. For many people it does not matter who the candidate is as long as they have "FF" or "FG" after their name. To that extent, I disagree with the Minister, but I too oppose this amendment.
Obviously, Senators have not heard of the case where a Member was convassing for the Seanad, left a blank square on his advertising literature and stated that was where his photograph should be, but he believed by excluding the photograph he was not putting himself at a disadvantage.
We tabled this amendment in the hope that it would make life easier and would facilitate people in voting for precisely who they wished. I would have thought that technology would help.
There has been a great deal of talk about the factors which influence people when voting. There is a great deal of confusion in that regard and we would all be spared a lot of trouble and expense if we knew more.
I want to refer to a point Senator Hederman made about the late and distinguished Professor John Kelly. I understand when Professor Kelly was the Minister for Industry and Commerce he used to walk home at night, much to the consternation of his security people who were driven demented trying to keep an eye on him as he walked down Donnybrook and went into Madigans for two pints before making his way home.
Acting Chairman
That has nothing to do with the amendment.
There has been a spate of representations seeking to have each candidate's photograph included on the ballot paper. It is alleged that this would help people with literacy problems and poor eyesight, in particular.
There may be a case for making the ballot paper more user-friendly and making it easier for electors to find the candidates they wish to vote for. People tend to vote primarily for the party and regard the selection of candidates within the party's list as of lesser importance. The fact that this is so is borne out by the pattern of spoiled papers. A substantial number of papers are rejected because the voter marks the first preference for two or more candidates of the same party. Obviously the voter is quite clear about his choice of party but he has no particular preference between the candidates of that party.
Consideration could be given to changing the way candidates are listed on the ballot paper. As in the case of Malta and the Australian Senate — where the STV system is used — the candidates of each party could be grouped together. The party's logo or emblem might be included on the paper in addition to the party name. This would make it easier for electors to select the party of their choice and enable them to find all the candidates of that party, and should be of assistance to the type of elector on whose behalf ballot papers with photographs are sought.
The order of names in each group could be alphabetical, it could be decided by the party concerned or by lot. This approach has much to recommend it, but progress in this regard could best be made on a consensus basis. The amendment should be withdrawn.
Would the Independents be consulted?
The Minister's reply has opened a Pandora's Box of possibilities which we could explore and tease out for the rest of the evening. However, we will not dwell on it.
It is interesting that the Minister said he got a spate of representations to have photographs on ballot papers. That reflects what we have been saying: organisations are now in favour of having photographs included on ballot papers because their members want that extra element of identification to enable them recognise the candidates for whom they will vote. It is one thing to say that most people vote according to party affiliation; a minority are members of political parties but a much greater number are party supporters. Many people change their political affiliations from election to election and do not necessarily vote according to party affiliation. The party is only one identifying characteristic, many people vote for Independents or, as we are now forced to describe them, Non-Party candidates, and I am sure Senator Hederman is none too happy with that designation.
Secondly, we have names of people to help the public identify the candidate they are voting for. We have the party, the name of the individual and, thirdly, we are suggesting that another meaningful way of helping the electorate to identify the candidate they wish to vote for is to have a picture of the person, whom they may or may not have contact with on a daily or monthly basis, or at all, or may have seen in the newspapers. Certainly, in local politics activity on the ground is an element that is extremely important; it may be parish pump politics but at least the electorate can identify the person and can make their choice and, if they want to vote for such a politician, so be it. We are not concerned so much about that but we are concerned that the three elements of identification are there — the name, the party affiliation, if there is one, and a photograph to identify the person more fully.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 83:
In page 56, subsection (2) (a), to delete lines 36 to 41, and substitute "shall be arranged by the returning officer in an order chosen by lot,".
It is fairly well established that there is a significant bias in favour of those people whose names begin with letters which are close to the top of the alphabet. There have been a number of studies done on the results of elections in this country which show there is a worthwhile bonus in having a name which begins with A or B, there is a worthwhile bonus of having your name close to the top of the ballot paper. That is true within parties, as indeed it is also true between parties.
In my own case I should declare an interest in as much as I am pretty likely to finish up at the bottom of the ballot paper. Perhaps it can be said I am speaking from a position of self-interest in this matter, although I expect the Minister will agree with me in as much as he has even got a worse problem if that is possible as regards his place on the ballot paper and he will be invariably guaranteed to be at the bottom of the paper. I am very interested in what type of a disinterested non-person response he is going to make to this amendment.
There is a significant discrimination against people whose names begin with letters which are well down the alphabet. I think that should be redressed and it would be much more if the order in which the names appear on the ballot paper was determined by lot. That would mean that people who contest a series of elections on a random basis could expect to get fair treatment over a period of time. In any case you would not be talking about somebody suffering from a built-in systematic bias. Despite the fact that my own name usually finishes up at the bottom of the ballot paper, in many ways you are nearly better off being at the bottom of the ballot paper than being about one third from the last. That is an absolutely terrible position to be in because it is very difficult at that stage to explain to anybody just where you will be on the ballot paper. There is a significant discrimination against people whose names are well down the ballot paper and that is a bias which should be removed. I think the best way of doing that is to have the names drawn by lot.
I think the amendment which Senator Murphy and I have tabled is entirely the same as this. I will be interested to hear the Minister's reply because in section 88 (2) (a) it is clear that if there were two or more candidates with the same surname they would be put in the alphabetical order of their other names "or if the surnames and other names are the same, in such order as shall be determined by lot...". There can be no inbuilt objection to having the names selected by lot because the Minister himself has decided here that it will be by lot if both the first name and surname are the same.
There has been a study done on this matter; I do not have it here but I am sure the Minister and his officials are well aware of it. There was a character who went forward for election on a number of occasions in many different areas and in one election he figured in every area in Dublin. I think he was what Senator Costello would refer to as a no-hoper. I never like to refer to people as no-hopers because you never know; there are occasions when no-hopers get in and people who have big hopes do not get in. In the case in question he adopted the name Abbot of the Holy Cross Fitzsimons. That was the name under which he ran and I am sure many Senators know him——
And you saw how well he did.
We saw how well he did. The point is that he did select the name Abbot, and you could hardly go better than that in getting first place on the ballot paper. I suppose his real problem, as the Minister will probably tell us, was that he was not in a political party. I am a genuinely disinterested contributor on this matter because my name is eighth down in the alphabet, so I am well up in the first lot and it would not necessarily suit me. Nevertheless, I hope the Minister will accept this amendment.
I am a little bit closer to the top of the alphabet than some of the previous speakers, but it is amazing how candidates seem to get ahead of one all the same. There seem to be many candidates whose names begin with A and B — C seems to be right down in the middle even though you think you are very close to the top. I would have thought that this amendment would have been right down the line the Minister was following earlier on: that people voted for party affiliation.
If people vote for party affiliation, obviously the party candidate whose name is first alphabetically is the party candidate who will consistently get the greatest number of votes, because they are first on the paper. I would have imagined then that the larger parties would feel there would be an element of fairness in having the decision by lot rather than by having it set for all time, that a person highest in the alphabetical order would retain that order all the time and would be in a position to benefit from people voting the party line, one, two or three. I think it would be more fair to have it by lot rather than by the alphabetical method.
As Senator Hederman has indicated, this has given rise to people coming up with all sorts of ways of getting their name in first alphabetically. Certainly, one of the more successful ways in the past has been to put their names forward in Irish. Indeed, at present we have the leader of a political party who would otherwise be at the bottom of the alphabetical order but who is now quite close to the top because of the fact that his name is in Irish rather than in English. To stop people from attempting to vary their names from that by which they are commonly known, going back to an earlier provision of this Bill, and in the interest of fairness, I think the Minister would be well advised to accept this amendment.
I am wondering if there is an element of juxtaposition here in that with the photographs there was no difficulty at all in terms of alphabetical order and here we are concerned about alphabetical order. I wonder is there an element of contradiction here? From what I heard of the debate to date, there certainly seems to be.
We are always talking about the intelligence of the Irish electorate and I just wonder about this amendment. Does it deem the electorate to be fools, that when they go into the polling booth they do not know exactly whom they want to vote for and the choice they want to make? I suggest that the electorate should be given more credit than the Labour Party, the Senator, and Senator Hederman, are giving them.
There is a lot of intelligence out there. Take the example quoted of the famous "Abbot" who wanted to come to the top of the ballot paper. On one ballot paper with which I was concerned, did the individual concerned get even 80 votes in total? I cannot see any difficulty with it at the end of the day. I think it is just an idea people have that if you are at the top of the ballot paper you are going to win. In practice, the system does not operate that way. I come back to the situation that people going into the polling booths know what they are at. Whether the name is at the top of the list or, like Minister Wallace, at the bottom, the electorate will find them if they want them and if they think they are good enough to vote for.
Finally, Senator Costello mentioned the leader of another political party changing his name to Irish in order to reach the top of the ballot paper. I would not have thought that Deputy Proinsias De Rossa would change his name from Frank Ross just to be at the top of the ballot paper. I would have thought that his intentions were purer than Senator Costello gives him credit for.
While it is the normal procedure of the House on any legislation to have amendments, I think the Senators moving these amendments underestimate the intelligence of the voting public. These days there are very few gombeens. Anybody interested enough to go to a polling station and cast their vote has assessed the situation, and generally the issues are hotly debated in the media. I have found from my electoral experience that it is not a disadvantage to be in the middle of a ballot paper.
In the local elections in Donegal a man with a very prominent name nationally, Harry Blaney, was a candidate for the county council. His running partner was Eddie O'Donnell, and Eddie O'Donnell beat Harry Blaney. Surely the people did not vote for the first candidate and say "He is Blaney, he is well known and I will vote for him". and then vote for the other fellow. A certain amount of intelligence has to be assumed.
Today we should be looking forward, but I suggest the Senator is looking backwards. I do not mean to be sarcastic, but the Senator is going back to the days when people might have been illiterate. That is not the position now. The Irish voter is highly intelligent and capable of assessing the ballot paper regardless of whether the name starts with "Mc", "P" or whatever.
It is delightful to listen to my colleagues on the other side waxing eloquent about the intelligence of the Irish electorate. It is a wonderful conversion and is in contrast with the way they pitch their case from time to time, which would not be aimed at the more cerebral aspects of Irish politics and the more heavy aspects of policy matters.
Essentially, I am rising again to point out that studies have been carried out by reputable statisticians, demographers and economists in the form of Professor Brendan Walsh, University College, Dublin, and Dr. Brendan Whelan from the Economic and Social Research Institute. The results of those studies have been published in reputable journals, as far as I am aware, and they show clearly that there is a certain small advantage — and I emphasise small — to be had by having your name close to the top of the ballot paper. I am not suggesting for one minute that the Irish people are so spaced out politically that they simply start at the top of the page and work their way down, that is not correct, but there is a certain small advantage and it is that small advantage that we are seeking to balance by way of this amendment. It is as simple as that. The advantage is, relatively speaking, small but it is there and it is a bias which is unfair to people whose names are in the second half of the alphabet.
In support of what Senator Upton has said, the essence of the argument is that it has been shown by reputable people who have examined the situation over a long time what the outcome has been. The evidence is adduced that there is a tendency to vote down the party line. Obviously, somebody with a very high profile can impinge more strongly on the minds of the electorate, but it was shown that in the normal order, there is a certain bias towards voting down the party line — starting at the top and going down.
In the case of those who are not very intent on politics, who do not follow everything from day to day but who have a particular party affiliation, the person first in alphabetical order tends to get a larger proportion of the votes. This is largely the area where the bias tends to occur. We are not drawing this example out of the air. This is a statistical fact and the legislation should reflect that. The normal response would be to determine the order by lot rather than by alphabetical order.
Section 88 (2) (b), as drafted, provides that the names of candidates shall be arranged alphabetically on the ballot paper in the order of the surnames; or, where two or more candidates have the same surname, in the alphabetical order of their forenames. If the surnames and forenames of two or more candidates are the same, the order shall be determined by lot by the returning officer.
Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 propose that the order of the names should be determined by the returning officer by lot. Electors are long accustomed to the alphabetical list of names on ballot papers and to change it to the arrangement based on the lottery as proposed in these amendments would be likely to confuse voters, particularly those with less than perfect vision or with a relatively low level of literacy.
What about these intelligent voters we heard about from the other side of the House?
We can go down that road if we want to but I do not think it is necessary. The alphabetical arrangement of candidate's names on ballot papers was the subject of a High Court acton in 1986. The High Court took the view that the alphabetical system of arranging candidates' names provided for in the Electoral Act, 1963, was a reasonable one. In the course of his judgment Mr. Justice Murphy referred to the advantages of the alphabetical system. The voter can quickly find any particular candidate and, as it is an established procedure in so many fields, it is seen as being a reasonable practical solution to selecting or preparing any list of names. While the alphabetical arrangement may not be a perfect system, I feel that determining the order of names by lot would do nothing to remove the advantage claimed by some to exist in favour of those on the top of the ballot paper. It would merely lead to a transfer of the alleged grievance from one set of candidates to another. In terms of confused electors and spoiled papers, I suspect that the cure could well be worse than the alleged disease. I ask the Senators to consider withdrawing the amendment.
We have already overthrown the Supreme Court decision in relation to the test case taken by the students in Waterford as to whether they would be entitled to be registered at home and at college. That was dealt with by the Supreme Court as recently as two years ago or less. We should have no qualms then about overthrowing a High Court decision in relation to this matter.
The Minister in his response to our suggestion certainly does not seem to have taken much note of the discourse on the intelligence of the Irish electorate on their capacity and ability never to be fooled by minor matters. Certainly there seems to be some degree of difference of emphasis.
I was very heartened to hear Senator McGowan and Senator O'Keeffe speak in such glowing terms about the intelligence of the electorate and that we must not dream of underestimating it. I hope they feel the same way when they are dealing with paragraph (2) (b) under which you are allowed to put in the name of a political party. If the electorate are as intelligent as we have heard and not be underestimated surely we do not need to have "FF" or "FG" or "Lab" after the names. Surely if their intelligence is as great as you make it out to be, they will not be confused.
(Interruptions.)
It is good crack here and I intend to respond in a lighthearted manner. Thirty five years ago a council member — we will call him James — had a young councillor sitting beside him. The young councillor nudged him and asked "Which way will I vote this time?" He replied, "The Bs and the Cs will vote first and you vote the opposite to them." We have moved away from that. I compliment the Minister for introducing simple, straightforward legislation that is capable of being interpreted in a very clear manner. I honestly do not know why you are using the horse comb on it. The people out there who elected you here would not be very proud of your contribution, and I do not say that in a derogatory manner. It is not forward thinking and it is not capable of being interpreted as doing a service to the voting public.
I certainly would have considerable sympathy for the sentiments expressed by Senators Upton and Costello with regard to candidates being chosen by lot. There is no doubt that the candidates in the first half of the alphabet have a distinct advantage. If one looks at the representation, the most common names in Dáil Éireann are surnames beginning with "A" and the great majority of Deputies have names which come from the first half of the alphabet. That out of the way, however, I can see major difficulties with the lot system in so far as people are traditionally used to going down the alphabet and are accustomed to the list of candidates being presented in alphabetical order. As one of those who comes from the lower half of the alphabet, like the Minister, I would not mind being at the top of the list once in a while. I have seen people alter their names, whether by adding O's or dropping Os, to get a particular slot on the ballot paper. Nevertheless, I think that on balance the lottery system could undoubtedly cause problems and the present system, while it may not be perfect, is probably the best system we know.
Is amendment No. 83 being pressed?
Yes.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand".
Votáil.
The question is: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand." On that question a division has been challenged. Will the Senators calling for a division please stand in their places?
Senators Costello, Harte, Hederman and Upton stood.
As fewer than five Senators stood in their places I declare the question carried. The names of the Senators who stood will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Seanad.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments No. 84 and 85 not moved.
Can we vote on amendment No. 85?
It cannot be moved. It was discussed with amendment No. 61, which was defeated.
I move amendment No. 86:
In page 57, subsection (2), lines 9 to 14, to delete paragraph (d).
This amendment seeks to delete paragraph 88 (2) (d) because of the effect of the provisions in this subsection on the secrecy of the ballot. Each ballot paper will be numbered and, accordingly, it will be possible for somebody to work out how an individual has voted. By noting the number on the back of the ballot paper which an individual elector obtained, a person who had enough resources, could possibly see that number at the count and identify it as the ballot paper on which the individual had voted. If one were particularly interested in the voting intentions of a number of people, by paying an appropriate degree of attention during the polling day, it would be possible to note or to remember the numbers on the back of the relevant ballot papers. That would be possible in small polling stations, particularly in rural areas where everybody would be known to everybody else. It would be possible then at the count to send in a person to observe the voting papers as they were taken from the boxes and to note the numbers and also to look at each one of those ballot papers during the checking of votes to see whether ballot papers were spoiled and so on.
The provision contained in this subsection would allow somebody who was sufficiently interested to work out how an individual actually voted. If the ballot papers are numbered in sequence then the tenth person to obtain a ballot paper would obtain No. 10. It would not be difficult to observe the number on the back of the ballot paper. You would then know that a person had voted on a ballot paper with a specific number. At the count you would know which box contains the ballot paper and by careful observation as it is being emptied, you would see how the person voted. That is our concern.
We are concerned that this provision may be unconstitutional because the Constitution provides that the ballot should be conducted in secrecy.
I am wholeheartedly behind this amendment. A number of years ago the case outlined by Senator Upton was taken to court; it was considered that it was no longer a secret ballot, the case was won and as a result, the numbers had to be eradicated from the back of the ballot paper from now on. Perhaps we will wait to hear what the Minister has to say and, then make a further contribution.
I am in sympathy with this amendment. I can recall one small rural polling station where it was well known for one party activist to be the first to cast his vote when the polling station opened. By recording who went into the polling station thereafter, he could subsequently go to the count and he got a fair idea — and in some cases knew exactly — how certain people had cast their vote. That is contrary to the spirit of the secrecy of the ballot box to which we all subscribe. I am sure the Minister would subscribe to the need to maintain the secrecy of the ballot box.
I can see why papers might have to be marked in some way, because of the possibility of abuse. Papers could otherwise be lodged in a ballot box by a person or persons unknown if there was no way of identifying or marking one paper differently from the next.
I have very serious doubts about the need to implement the measure proposed in the Bill. It is unquestionable that in a small rural station it is possible to know, with a degree of accuracy, how people have voted. That has been the case over the years, It is incumbent on us to ensure that the secrecy of the ballot box is absolute and that nobody can know how anybody voted. That is their privilege. It would be very unsatisfactory if a party activist could tell a person he knew how he had voted. That would be undemocratic. I ask the Minister to look at this provision and I await his reply with interest.
When we were discussing Part XV — Polling on Islands — we were informed that on one island four votes were cast in the referendum — two for and two against. In that case, if we followed the provision in section 88 (2) (d), that the ballot papers be numbered consecutively, it would be very easy to find out who voted for what and, in a general election, who voted for whom. The issue at stake here is the secrecy of the ballot. Numbering ballot papers consecutively can lead to abuse because those involved in political parties may be able to determine who voted for whom. I am not sure whether it has been tested in the courts to date but, if not, it will be before long.
The best procedure would be for the Minister to look at this again. If he feels there is a need for enumeration, he should at least reconsider the question of papers being numbered consecutively. It is a very dangerous provision to introduce into legislation. I would suggest the Minister accept this amendment or, if he is not prepared to accept it in its present format, he should look at it at a later stage.
It has been alleged that it is possible to identify an individual's vote.
The serial number was introduced to eliminate counterfeiting. When the question of counterfeit votes comes up, the serial number can be checked. It also makes it possible to distinguish one vote from another. Would the Minister confirm that there is a provision in the legislation specifically prohibiting polling staff from noting on any register the serial number of a vote cast?
In relation to the counting of votes, does the legislation not provide that those who are counting votes must show them face upwards so that at no time can the serial number be seen by anybody? The safeguards would seem to suggest that there is no way an individual can say they know how another person voted.
Section 88 (2) (d) provides for the printing of a serial number on the back of the ballot paper and on the back of the counterfoil. The numbers must be printed in the smallest characters compatible with legibility. Amendment No. 86 proposes to delete this requirement. The effect of the amendment would be that no serial number would appear on the ballot paper or counterfoil.
The serial number serves a number of important purposes at the election. First, it is an essential part of the security precautions against the introduction of forged and counterfeit ballot papers. By reference to the serial number it is possible to establish whether a particular ballot paper is genuine. It is, therefore, an important safeguard and re-enforces the security provided by the official mark.
The serial number is the means by which one ballot paper can be distinguished from another with absolute certainty. This could arise, for example, where the returning officer's ruling on the validity of a paper is being questioned. An election petition could be based on the grounds that the returning officer was incorrect in ruling in or ruling out ballot papers bearing serial number so and so.
The serial number is an essential part of the control system in regard to issuing and accounting for ballot papers at an election. The returning officer is required under section 94 (6) to maintain a record of the numbers of the ballot papers provided by him at each polling station. Thus, a tight control on the security system is maintained. For example, if ballot papers are rejected at the count for lack of the official mark, by referring to the serial numbers the returning officer will identify the station at which the papers were issued and will be able to take appropriate action in relation to the presiding officers concerned.
I want to say quite categorically that there is no way in which the ballot paper used by an individual elector can be identified. The serial number constitutes no danger whatever to the secrecy of the individual ballot. In the case of McMahon v. the Attorney General 1972 Irish Reports, page 69, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision for marking the elector's number on the counterfoil of the ballot paper was contrary to Article 16 of the Constitution which provides that the voting shall be by secret ballot. The court was also asked to declare unconstitutional the requirement that serial numbers be printed on ballot papers and counterfoils, but did not do so. The serial numbers are an important part of the security system and accounting arrangements at an election and cannot affect the secrecy of the ballot. It is important that the system be retained and I hope the amendment will be withdrawn.
It seems to me that much of what the Minister has said supports the case we are making. It speaks very clearly of the possibility of identifying ballot papers and so on. The fact still remains that there is a legible number on the back of a ballot paper. As Senator Dardis has said, if one is setting about this in an organised systematic way one simply records the order in which people go into the polling station. That can be done perfectly legitimately. A candidate's personating agent, who is sitting at the table, in all probability, will be able to remember the numbers on the relevant ballot papers.
For the most part the voting tendencies of large numbers of people, particularly in rural areas are a matter of public knowledge. There is no difficulty about that. However, a certain number of people want to keep their voting patterns to themselves and there are also people who change voting sides in elections. A specific box is emptied out on a table in front of the tally people and if you know who voted first and who voted last you will be able to pick out the paper you are interested in. If one wished to find out how a small number of key people, who would be considered to be marginal, had voted it would be possible to do so. In other words, it is possible to get around the provisions in regard to a secret ballot.
On the Minister's statement in regard to the matter which has been tested in the courts, my information is that the courts have not ruled on the provisions of this subsection. It would be a matter of considerable concern if this should lead to another court case. In the past, before the court case was taken, elected representatives simply went into county councils or other appropriate place and worked out exactly who people had voted for. If one is to believe the folklore, there were people canvassing, vigorous supporters of certain politicians who were elected but who did not give them the number one vote when the crunch came. It would be better for that kind of thing not to be known publicly because it creates a bad impression of the people who did something which they were entirely entitled to do.
The Senator should not believe folklore.
It is a very important part of the way we are.
I would like to assure the House that there are adequate safeguards built into the system to prevent any infringement of the secrecy of the ballot arising from the number on the back of the ballot paper. The polling staff are specifically precluded by section 101 from noting on the register the serial number of the ballot paper issued to an elector. At the counting of votes the returning officer is required by section 114 to ensure that ballot papers are kept face upwards while the votes are being sorted and counted to prevent those present from seeing the numbers on the back of the ballot papers.
There are stiff penalties for offences in relation to divulging details of the serial number on the ballot paper. Section 137 makes it an offence to attempt to ascertain the number on the back on the ballot paper or to communicate such information obtained at the issue of the postal ballot papers and the opening of postal ballot boxes. Similar offences in relation to persons present at a polling station or at the counting of votes are also provided for in section 137. Penalties provided in section 157 for these offences are a fine of up to £2,500 or imprisonment of up to two years or a combination of a fine and a term of imprisonment.
It is vital that some method be available to ensure that forged or fraudulent ballot papers can be identified. The serial number on the back of the ballot paper is the method provided for. This has the advantage that it is easy to administer and makes for ease of controlling the ballot papers for a constituency as a whole. I hope the House will agree that the correct balance has been struck in this case to ensure the protection of the integrity of the ballot by the existence of strict controls and penalties to protect the secrecy of the serial number on the ballot papers.
Acting Chairman
Is amendment No. 86 being pressed?
Yes. I refer to section 101 in which the polling staff are precluded from taking down any information in relation to those who are voting. As Senator Upton said, folklore has it that such information has been noted in the past. We are making provision to prevent that from happening in the future.
In relation to section 114 on placing ballot papers face upwards, when the boxes are emptied the ballot papers are thrown out in the middle of the counting area on the table. They are facing in all directions and there is no question of the papers being face upwards until they are put together. Obviously there is a possibility of inspecting them at that point.
Essentially, on the one hand the Minister is trying to put in a provision to prevent forgery or counterfeiting taking place, to ensure that no extra ballot papers are put in and to prevent anyone from interfering with the system but on the other hand, he seems to be leaving it open to abuse from another direction. The numbers have to be consecutive and have to be legible. Perhaps even worse the Minister must be in the middle of the ballot paper, so that a person looking for it knows where to look.
Perhaps the Minister would consider using some of our modern technology, if he feels that a serial number of some description is necessary to prevent forgery or counterfeiting. Perhaps he could think in terms of bar codes which are used in supermarkets at the present time. He could consider using enumeration by ultraviolet methods that would not be perceived by the naked eye. To have readily identifiable legible marks in consecutive order is leaving the door open to abuse. A question will continue to hang over the secrecy of the ballot paper while this enumeration continues. Perhaps the Minister might consider using modern technology in order to deal with this matter?
I think I have covered all the points. I do not agree with the Senator's final comments. There are good reasons for having the serial number and I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Acting Chairman
I will not hear any further discussion on this. It has been exhausted. I will allow a brief question, Senator Hederman.
Is the official stamp that must go on to the paper not a safeguard in itself? I understand that if the ballot paper does not have the official stamp it will not even be counted. I feel most apprehensive about having a number, no matter how small, on the back of the ballot paper. I did not understand what the Minister said about McMahon v. The Attorney General in 1972. Perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to elucidate on that again.
Senator Hederman seems to be making the Minister's case. The official stamp is a further step in making the system foolproof; the ballot is in fact secret. There is the stamp and the serial number and, in my view, the Senator is making the case that the——
Why do we need a serial number if we have a stamp?
Acting Chairman
Does the Minister wish to comment?
I already covered that point when I referred to the McMahon case.
What did the Minister say about the McMahon case?
In the case of McMahon v. The Attorney General, 1972, Irish Reports, page 69, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision for marking the elector's number on the counterfoil of the ballot paper was contrary to Article 16 of the Constitution, which provides that the voting shall be by secret ballot. The Court was also asked to declare unconstitutional the requirement that serial numbers be printed on ballot papers and counterfoils but they did not do so.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 88 stand part of the Bill."
I would make a final plea to the Minister. We discussed line 44 on a previous occasion and I will not go over it, but on the question being allowed to have the word "Independent" included on the ballot paper, since our last discussion on this I was overwhelmed by the number of representations I had from people all over Europe, members of Fianna Fáil and members of all political parties. They said they had sympathy for people on the Independent Bench who are not allowed to call themselves "Independent". The Minister has had time to reflect on those observations and I wonder if he is prepared to give this a more sympathetic hearing? Has he taken on board the very strong comments made today by Senators McGowan, O'Keeffe and others about how the electorate are so intelligent that they do differentiate between people in political parties, and do not need all these additions on the paper? If the Minister insists on "Independent" candidates being called "Non-Party", would he agree that party people should refer to themselves as "party"? I ask the Minister to reconsider this section and come back to us at a later stage.
Acting Chairman
Senator Hederman, because it is widely known that this was of particular interest to you, I have allowed you a great deal of latitude. However, I would remind you that the point was more than adequately discussed when the House debated amendments Nos. 61 and 85. The House voted on amendment No. 61 which was lost. In the circumstances, we cannot re-open the debate and I would like to press ahead.
We can ask the Minister——
Acting Chairman
The Minister has already adequately dealt with this. I was in the Chamber at the time. This is repetition. Under the rules of the House, I feel I have given you enough latitude and I do not think the Minister has anything further to offer.
As a new Senator in the House I want to ask for your guidance in the matter. Is there anything to prevent the Minister thinking about the points I put forward and, if I might say so, by your good self also?
Acting Chairman
That is within the gift of the Minister. He may, as you are probably aware, introduce any amendment he wishes on Report Stage. As this matter was dealt with in minute detail, I am ruling that nothing new can now be added to the debate at this time. I am sure the Minister has taken note of your position and I am not allowing any further discussion.
I accept your ruling.
We in the Labour Party support the Independent Sentor Hederman on this issue.
Acting Chairman
You have already made that point and all you are doing is repeating it. There has been an adequate airing of it in the House and I am not allowing any further discussion.
We are discussing the section.
Acting Chairman
We are not. Only if it is a new point can it be discussed and with respect this is not a new point. This is something we have gone over in great detail. I am asking that section 88 be agreed.
This section has much in common with section 52 where we are seeking to ensure that a name is one whereby the candidate is commonly known and that there is nothing misleading and likely to cause confusion. In that context we feel it is appropriate that somebody be identified not by the term "Non-Party" but by the more commonly used non-confusing and non-misleading term "Independent" and that the Minister could take a look at this at a later stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 89 to 91, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 92.
I move amendment No. 87:
In page 57, subsection (1), line 49, after "place" to insert "(and the address of the place)".
This is a minor amendment. It seeks to have the address of the location of a polling station contained in the polling card sent to electors. That is a very worthwhile provision. For the most part, it would not be necessary for voters who have been going to the same polling station over the years. However, for those who have not originally come from Dublin and who find themselves in the city, it would be of considerable help to have the address at which the polling is taking place.
The second instance where this would be of importance is when polling is changed from one location to another. This happened in my own constituency during the recent referendum when, instead of taking place in St. Damien's in Beechfield, polling took place in Crumlin Village. This caused a certain degree of confusion for some people. It would be important to ensure that the address of the polling station is contained on the polling card. As I said, essentially this is a minor point.
I support this amendment; it is a very minor amendment by any standard. I agree with Senator Upton that there has been confusion among people from rural areas voting in Dublin. However, I can assure Senator Upton that this also causes problems among people who have moved to rural areas and are not familiar with the area and do not know the correct address of the polling station. It is very little extra to add and I appeal to the Minister to take the amendment on board.
Generally polling stations are located in prominent public buildings such as the town hall, the national school or the community centre and I wonder what is the necessity to include an address. Whether people come from Mayo, Sligo or Dublin, surely they know where the town hall is in the community in which they are living and one has to presuppose they have been living in that community for a fairly long time, certainly 12 months or more. I make the point that these public buildings would be well known to them.
There is also the difficulty of the card. The card if quite small and the returning officer would have difficulty furnishing all this information on it. I honestly think it is sufficient to give the location of the polling station which is usually a landmark. I cannot visualise anybody having any difficulty in identifying the location from the information on the polling cards.
Last Thursday a person approached me in the polling station in Clareville Road, Harold's Cross, to ask me where was the polling station designated on that card. There is a certain problem in the city of Dublin which arises partly because the official names of certain schools etc. differ from those by which they are commonly known in the area. The situation can also get quite confusing; for example, in Donore Avenue there is St. Catherine's national school, Donore, and CBS, Donore, both being polling stations within a few hundred yards of each other. It is a very minor point and I hope the Minister will accept it. I do not particularly want to labour the point because it is not of any great fundamental importance but it would make life easier for a small number of people who may be confused about the location of the station.
The Minister should accept this amendment. It is a fairly minor amendment but it would facilitate those voters who would not necessarily know the location of the polling station. We must remember that whatever about the problems in the country there are enormous problems in areas in the city. Many of the electorate are students. There are literally thousands of youngsters studying in the city and they would not necessarily know where a scout's hall or a community hall or a primary school might be, as is the case in my own constituency where there are approximately 30 polling stations. Many people are living in rented accommodation where there may be a fairly steady turnover and they may be in a different area from where they were when the last election took place perhaps four years previously.
Once one has to put down the name of the place where the polling is going to take place it seems a fairly straightforward matter to give the actual address. The purpose of these amendments, and indeed the purpose of the legislation, is to facilitate people in the exercise of the franchise and if that can be done without any great difficulty we should accede to it.
Section 92 provides for the issue of polling information cards to reach an elector informing him of his number on the register, the place at which he is entitled to vote and also containing a statement in relation to documents which may be required as evidence of identity. Amendment No. 87 proposes to insert the provision requiring that the address of the polling place should be shown on the polling card.
Clearly the provision as drafted would oblige the returning officer to provide sufficient information to enable local electors to find a premises at which the voting is to take place. Polling stations are normally located in prominent public buildings and the name of the building will usually be a sufficient guide. For example, in most cases the town hall, the courthouse, the local school or whatever are usually well known to the electorate in the area.
I consider that this is a matter which is best left to the judgement of the returning officer. I belive that under the provision as drafted the returning officer will be required to include on the polling card as much of the address of the polling station as is necessary to identify the premises in question.
I think the amendment is unnecessary and undesirable. I would, however, like to assure Senators that I will bring to the notice of the returning officers the views expressed here and the concern, particularly in some areas, in relation to this matter and ensure that he or she will be of assistance as much as possible in relation to this matter.
The Minister seems determined not to take on board even the most insignificant amendments. We are not asking him to change on a matter of principle as in the case of having "Independent" in place of "Non-Party". I can understand his ideological objections to that. In this case what are the movers of this amendment asking? They are asking what in essence Senator O'Keeffe said himself when he said the card gives the location of the polling station. That is precisely what this amendment seeks to do. It seeks to give the location of the place where the person can go to cast his vote. If the Minister is going to bring all this matter to the attention of the returning officers and bring all our words of wisdom to their notice, what is the objection to putting in the place and the address of the place.
I fully concur with speakers who have spoken of confusion. I know of the confusion in Milltown where there are a number of schools. At one election the voting was in one school and at a subsequent election it was in another school and there was confusion because everybody went to the first school where they were used to voting. In that instance, if a little information had been given of the location of the polling place, it would have saved all this trouble.
Those of us who have tabled amendments have been fairly consistent. At all times we are only trying to assist the electors. We are not going on the basis that the electors are stupid, blind or anything else. We are simply trying to make it easy for people who go out to vote perhaps on a wet night at 8.40 p.m. and it may not be easy to find the polling station. In rural places perhaps they meet friends and neighbours who will tell them where to go. I have seen people down in Sandymount and in Milltown wandering around in the rain late at night trying to locate their polling station.
If the Minister has a genuine interest in trying to facilitate the electorate rather than make life difficult for them, he would agree to this minor amendment.
The trouble with the amendment is that it is going to put the returning officer in a straitjacket. I believe that in 99.9 per cent of cases there is no problem and where there are problems I will communicate with the returning officers in the areas in question. We can all quote our own experiences. I have heard very few people complaining that they could not find a polling station. All I am saying is that if there are problems in certain areas I will certainly ensure that the returning officer in those areas will give every assistance and cooperation to make sure that people are aware of the location of the polling station.
I understood that the purpose of this Bill coming to the Seanad and the Dáil was that the Members here could put their experience, knowledge and concerns at the disposal of the Minister. Everybody here has, presumably, had experience of some sort of election and most of us have had the experience of the kind of election which we are dealing with here. The principles are the same in any event. None of us is here to make life difficult for the Minister, to thwart the Minister or to try to introduce petty amendments just to keep us here. God knows, we all have plenty of things that are more pressing to do. We are not trying to string out the debate. We are simply trying to assist. The Minister says he has not had problems. I do not know what part of Cork the Minister lives in or where his constituency is located.
The intelligence of the Cork people was already well demonstrated by Senator O'Keeffe.
Fair enough. It may well be. I do not agree but if the Minister feels that the Cork people are more intelligent and have a better sense of direction and can find places easily, I want to say to the Minister that in Pembroke which I represent, people have had trouble whatever the election, whether it is a presidential election or the election of a Member to the European Parliament. The Minister says people have not had trouble in his area but we are saying they have in our area. Does the Minister believe us or does he think that we are just making this up to prolong the debate? If he does believe us, is there any reason he could not accept this little amendment? I do not think you, a Chathaoirligh, were in the Chamber when somebody said this debate is being strung out because of the Minister's stonewalling, because he simply refuses to listen.
There is repetition, Senator Hederman, and you will have to accept that too.
There would be no need for repetition if the Minister would listen and lets us know that he is taking on board what we are saying or that he has something in mind.
I agree with the Minister on this. I do not see the need to print the address. We could wind up giving them a map and compass and they still would not get to the right place. We all know of cases of people who made mistakes and putting the address on the document they receive will not help. I think there would still be just as much confusion. If we could find some way to improve the situation it would be welcome.
We talked a lot about the good sense of the Irish electorate. They are sensible enough to ask people where the polling station is if they get lost. In one large provincial town with which I am familiar there are two schools at either end of the town where people vote and people regularly turn up at the wrong school to vote in elections and have to be redirected. However, I am not so sure that putting an address on the paper would improve that situation. Therefore, I believe the Minister is correct.
As we explained earlier, this is not a major amendment in terms of what is required, but it is significant. The one point the Minister has not addressed so far is the impracticality or difficulty of doing what the amendment requires. He said that in 99 cases out of 100 there is no problem. However, in the section dealing with voting on islands, we have made provision for exceptional circumstances.
The Minister may be talking about country areas but I do not think it is a problem in those areas but it is a problem in the city and we all know that. We have all stood for election and we know the problem some members of the electorate have finding the polling station to which they are designated. It would be a simple matter to include the address of the polling stations so that the electorate will not find themselves wandering on a dark winter's night, perhaps in the rain, looking for directions. We are asking the Minister to facilitate us and the electorate.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 88:
In page 58, lines 5 to 7, to delete subsection (3).
This is where the gremlins got into the system. The amendment says we want to delete subsection (3). In fact, we intended to delete subsection (4). Since this — and the báinín jacket problem— could be another major political item, we will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 92 stand part of the Bill."
We were concerned about subsection (4). Basically subsection (4) gives the returning officer carte blanche. It says:
no action or other proceedings shall lie against a returning officer in respect of any failure to send, non-delivery of or error or mis-statement in a polling information card.
That is a very sweeping statement and an unacceptable way to do business. I would have thought that the usual sanctions against people who misbehave and make errors should apply. What is the position in relation to a returning officer who makes deliberate errors or who is totally negligent in the carrying out of his duties? It is for those reasons that I find this provision unacceptable.
Subsection (4) provides that in the event of a non-delivery of a polling card or any error contained on a card, the returning officer is not liable for any action. Section 23 (b) of the 1963 Act provides that no election shall be invalidated by reason of any failure to send, non-delivery of or error or mis-statement in a polling card. This provision is not reproduced in the Bill because it is considered that the matter is adequately and appropriately covered by the general provisions in section 132 (5) which provides that an election may be questioned on any grounds likely to have affected the result of the election and rule 4 (3) of the Third Schedule which provides that no Dáil election shall be declared invalid by reason of non-compliance with any provision contained in this Act or any mistake in the use of forms if it appears to the court that the election was conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Act and that such non-compliance or mistake did not affect the result of the election.
I am sure what the Minister said is correct, but why is this subsection included? If the items I have raised are already adequately covered I can see no purpose in this section being included, and I can see no purpose in the sweeping nature of the section — there will be no action or other proceedings. That is giving them a licence to do whatever they like.
In support of what Senator Upton said, this is a catch-all statement. It means the returning officer can be negligent without any fear or redress. That is not the way to do business. We are not talking about a Dáil election being invalid; we are talking about the fact that no action or proceeding can lie against a returning officer for any failure. What we say is that there should not be a catch-all escape clause, irrespective of whether negligence was the reason for an error. It would be reasonable to include wording such as "in the reasonable performance of his or her duty," but a catch-all phrase that allows an escape under any circumstances from the consequences of any form of negligence by a returning officer should not be in legislation of this nature.
It is an existing provision in law for the protection of the returning officer in the case of, for example, the polling card not being filled out properly through no fault of his.
Is it not our intention to improve the legislation? This is a consolidating Bill and its intention is to update existing legislation in relation to Dáil elections as well as other matters. Surely if we can improve on the situation we should do so. Should we not be intent on tightening procedures to ensure that there is no abuse of the system by any sector? We discussed other abuses at length and that is why, according to the Minister, we have serial numbers on every voting card. Surely we should not allow the continuation of a situation where there is a sweeping escape clause, irrespective of the circumstances.
I do not agree with Senator Costello. The provision is there because it is necessary. It is there as a protection and it is not sweeping. I do not see any reason we should change it.
Sitting suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.
The final point I wish to make relates to line six. I do not wish to make the mistake that Vice-President Dan Quale made, but I think there is an "e" on "therefor" in line six.
As I have already said, subsection (4) repeats an existing provision. It provides a degree of protection for the returning officer in the event, for example, of a polling card not being delivered for some reason outside his control. It is not a wide sweeping provision; it is limited but it is necessary and desirable. I cannot see how it could be regarded as objectionable.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 93.
I move amendment No. 89:
In page 58, lines 23 to 32, to delete subsection (4).
The thinking behind this amendment was primarily inspired by the provisions in the Constitution and the fact that we should separate the functions of church and State. The section seems to smack of an element of theocracy; in other words, special provisions have to be made in relation to schools which adjoin churches. I do not want to encourage the setting up of polling stations behind churches as this creates an inconvenience for people worshipping in the churches. I thought the ideas might have been covered by broader terminology than that used in the subsection. The thinking in this subsection seem to derive from the thinking which existed in this country in the earlier part of this century. I am not in favour of inconveniencing, annoying of disturbing people at worship. However, the provisions in the subsection should be framed to minimise and prevent inconvenience and annoyance to people, for example, in a nursing home. It is the linkage of church and state which I find unacceptable.
This section restates, with minor amendment, the law authorising the use by a returning officer, free of charge at a Dáil election, schools and public premises in connection with the election. Subsection (4) re-enacts the provision entitling a person in charge of a school adjoining or forming part of a convent or other religious establishment to object to the use of the school for election purposes. An objection under this subsection may, on application of the returning officer, be over-ruled by the Minister. Unless the objection is over-ruled, the school may not be used by the returning officer.
Amendment No. 89 proposes to delete subsection (4). The effect of this would be that a returning officer would be entitled to use any school with or without the consent of the community living on the premises. Some schools form part of a convent or other religious establishment. The community are actually resident there. It is their home. They may be elderly or infirm and it is possible that a member of the community may be under medical care, possibly in a life endangered situation. The religious community could reasonably be expected to be concerned at the disruption and extra noise generated on polling day.
It is reasonable to expect that a returning officer will use sensitivity and common sense in such a situation. In practice, resort to this provision is rarely necessary; nonetheless it is important to retain some safeguard for those who live in either a convent or monastery. I suggest that the amendment be withdrawn.
I have no problem with what the Minister said. I do not wish to cause annoyance to religious orders, whether the members are ill or in the full of their health but I would expect the same privileges and consideration to be extended to the wider community. I hoped the Minister would express the sentiments which he has just expressed in broader terms. It is hard to see why it is necessary to talk in terms of churches or convents when the ideas he is putting forward could be covered in broader terms.
Nothing in the amendment seeks to interfere with or discriminate in any way against a church, convent or a religious establishment. This provision refers specifically and exclusively to that category of establishment. It does not refer to the people who inhabit it. Our primary concern is that people should not be discommoded unnecessarily by others exercising their franchise.
The subsection is indelicately worded. We are not concerned about the religious nature of the establishment but with the people who might be in a home, whether it be an old folk's home, a hospital or convent who might be discommoded. The Minister should ask the parliamentary draftsman to have a look at rephrasing the subsection so that it would effect the same purpose.
In no other situation can the home of an individual or group be requisitioned by a returning officer under electoral law. The activities at a polling station generate much traffic and noise and it is to be expected from time to time that the interests of the returning officer and the occupants of the premises may be in conflict. In such a situation, a provision such as that found in subsection (4) is necessary.
The provision, which has been in our legislation since the foundation of the State, has been used only very rarely. I reject the notion that citizen who have taken religious vows are any less entitled to have their privacy respected than any other citizen. I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
The Minister said this provision has been in our legislation since the foundation of the State and it has all the signs and symptoms of that. Nobody wants to inconvenience people who live in convents or similar institutions. If the concern is about inconvenience the Minister should have broadened the provision. There was an election not so long ago when leaving certificate students were sitting their examinations and there was a considerable degree of annoyance and irritation among the families of those concerned because of what was going on at polling stations. I hoped such considerations would be covered in a section similar to this rather than having a specific designated provision for the religious. I emphasise I have nothing against religious orders and I am all in favour of attending to their needs and making provision to ensure that they are not annoyed or subjected to discomfort but I would like to see the provision broadened to cover more people.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 93 stand part of the Bill."
In relation to the use of schools, over the past ten years a considerable number of community centres have been constructed and all of them received substantial public funding. It strikes me as peculiar that where there is a school and a community centre on polling day the school is closed and the school children and teacher's lose a day at school, while the community centre lies idle. That is stupid. I cannot understand why a greater use is not made of many of the new community centres to facilitate the carrying out of the poll. There are better parking facilities than outside school buildings and I cannot understand why greater use is not made of community centres. I ask the Minister to convey to the returning officers that where such buildings are available, rather than closing down a school they should be used for the poll.
The provision in existing law in relation to Dáil elections which provides that where no room in a school is available the returning officer shall hire a building or room for the purposes of taking the poll has been dropped as this has been taken as a requirement on the returning officer to use a school if it is available when he may find it more convenient to use hired premises such as a hall. Where the school available is not suitable for the polling place having regard to its population and the number of polling booths proposed for the station, the returning officer will have discretion to hire a hall rather than requisition a school. This should lead to a reduction in the number of school closures at election time. I will bring this to the notice of the returning officers.
Is it correct to assume the Minister will bring to the notice of the returning officer that where there is a community centre available it should be used instead of the school.
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 94.
I move amendment No. 90:
In page 59, line 7, paragraph (d), after "necessary" to insert "(being at least equal to the total number of persons on the register allotted to the station)".
This is a minor amendment. It seeks to change the provision where the number of ballot papers that will be available will be whatever is considered necessary by the returning oficer. It suggests that instead the number of ballot papers that would be available would be at least equal to the total number of persons on the register allotted to the station. In other words, it tightens up the section somewhat. It is a sensible suggestion.
Under section 94 (5) the returning officer is required to furnish in each polling station the necessary furniture, equipment, ballot boxes, ballot papers, registers and other materials required for voting. Amendment No. 90 would make it a statutory obligation to provide in each polling statin at least as many ballot papers as there are electors assigned to the station. Subsection (5) as drafted makes it clear that the returning officer shall provide in each polling station such number of ballot papers as he considers necessary. This clearly obliges the returning officer to supply enough ballot papers for persons registered for the polling station and or electors authorised under section 100 to vote at the station together with enough ballot papers to cope with electors who may inadvertently spoil a ballot paper and request a further paper under section 102. The amendment is unnecessary and should be withdrawn.
This section leaves it to the absolute discretion of the returning officer to determine without regulation or criteria such number of ballot papers as he considers necessary. Section 92 (4) stated that no action or other proceedings shall lie against a returning officer in respect of any failure to send, non-delivery of, error or anything else. If there is no action or proceeding at all, we should set out clearly the duties of the returning officer. We should leave as little as possible to his discretion because mistakes can be made. It would seem reasonable that we should prescribe to the returning officer as a minimum guideline that there should be ballot papers for everybody who is on the register of electors. Otherwise he may make a judgement perhaps based on past experience and it may not coincide with the situation that might arise at a particular election. A large number of electors could turn up on a particular occasion but because he based his judgement on a previous election he might take considerably fewer ballot papers than would be required. It would be reasonable to accept our amendment that there should be a prescribed minimum number to coincide with the number of electors on the register.
I have some sympathy with what Senators are saying but none at all with the amendment. The amendment would be extremely dangerous. Effectively it would mean that so long as a returning officer provided ballot papers at least equal to the total number of persons on the register allotted to the station, he could then argue that he had fulfilled the specific requirement which might not be anywhere near sufficient. In practice, I do not think the situation has ever arisen.
One of the great difficulties is knowing how many extra papers to have. It is very easy to decide on the number of ballot papers if one just relates it to the size of the electorate, but that is what the amendment is intended to avoid. I urge the Minister to keep the wording we have here.
I wonder if Senator Conroy is reading the same paper we are because the amendment talks in terms of inserting the words after "necessary". We are saying that the returning officer would have to have a minimum of one ballot paper for each potential voter on the register whereas his concept of "necessary" may be that he would require fewer than that. We must also keep in mind what Senator Costello said. There is no come back or remedy if returning officers get things wrong. That is the reality.
The other aspect is that it is consistent with a certain philosophy in this Bill, and that philosophy seems to centre around the notion that returning officers are infallible and that their judgement is beyond the control of the Houses of the Oireachtas. That seems to be the implication in many of the provisions in this Bill. It is left to the opinion of the returning officer, and that must be seen in the context of not having any remedy or comeback when the returning officer gets it wrong. Like the rest of us, I am sure returning officers are subject to the failings of being human.
To accept what is suggested in the amendment would have the contrary effect to what the Senator intends. We are very fortunate that our returning officers usually have considerable experience and conduct the process at our polling stations exceptionally well, sensibly and efficiently.
The amendment implies that we should not rely on the returning officer but instead we should provide a minimum number of ballot papers — the same number as on the list; this would provide an excuse if something went wrong. At the moment we place the responsibility where it should be, with the returning officer to ensure that the job is done well as it has been in the past. This sort of nitpicking amendment would not help the Bill.
The requirement to provide materials in polling stations is in addition to the general duty of a returning officer under section 31 to do all such acts and things as may be necessary for effectively conducting a Dáil election in his constituency. In practice, common sense prevails and the returning officer satisfies himself that sufficient ballot papers are supplied to cope with any eventuality. I might add that ballot papers come in books of 50 or 100 so, in all cases, multiples of those numbers of ballot papers are provided at polling stations.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 94 agreed to.
Section 95 agreed to.
SECTION 96.
I move amendment No. 91:
In page 60, subsection (1) (a), line 4, to delete "day" and substitute "Sunday".
This amendment provides for the holding of elections on Sundays. I hope I am speaking to the correct amendment. Given the earlier experience, where we hit the wrong key on the typewriter, anything can happen.
I accept that.
There are a number of reasons for suggesting that elections should be conducted on Sundays and the most basic is that I believe there would be a larger turn out. This would greatly facilitate those who are away from home on polling day when elections are held during the week. On Sundays most people do not have to work and the likelihood is that commercial travellers or those who have to travel would be more likely to cast their vote if an election were conducted on a Sunday. Elections are conducted on Sundays on the Continent and this practice seems to work well and it does not appear to create any difficulties.
I make the suggestion in the context of our earlier amendments to the effect that postal votes be granted to commercial travellers and similar groups being rejected. Sunday voting would help a significant number of people who feel very frustrated and annoyed because they are not able to cast their votes at present.
I support the sentiments expressed in this amendment. As I understand it, it is a question for the Minister for the Environment of the day to decide the polling date and there is nothing to preclude him from holding a vote on Sundays. I favour Sunday voting.
Senator Upton has rightly pointed out the situation of commercial travellers who are away during the week and find it very difficult to cast their votes and they are merely one group. People from the country who work in Dublin find it extremely difficult to get home mid-week to vote after their day's work.
If Sunday voting were introduced the number of people casting their votes would increase. We should examine more carefully the possibility of having a Sunday poll. As Senator Upton pointed out, that has been the practice on the Continent for some time. It is something we should consider. I do not think this amendment has to be taken on board to introduce it but it is a matter for the Minister of the day. I repeat, I would like to see Sunday voting.
This is a reasonably important amendment. It would bring us into line with the practice that operates on the Continent. It is not sufficient to say what the Minister for the Environment may choose any day of the week. To my knowledge, we have never had a Sunday election. I can be corrected on that matter but the practice seems to be that we do not hold elections on Sundays. That is why we specify Sunday as the day to hold an election.
As has already been pointed out by Senators Upton and Naughten, this would facilitate a greater number of people voting. It takes an extra effort when one is working eight hours a day to come out again to vote. Sunday is a day of rest and, therefore there is the likelihood of a greater turnout on a Sunday.
Another matter which I may not be thanked by my colleagues in the teachers unions for adverting to is that schools are closed on Sundays.
And Saturdays.
We can make the same argument in relation to Saturdays. Perhaps Senator Fitzgerald may wish to amend our amendment. Schools are closed an election day and there has been a certain amount of controversy about the fact that the children are at home on a school day. Indeed we had a little controversy about the referendum that has just taken place. It took place on a Church holyday when the school would be closed in any event. There was a question about whether teachers had gained or lost as a result. Saturday voting would leave schools available without any disruption of the teaching programme. That would be of benefit to the parents and children involved.
The option should be made a little more specific than it is at present. If the day is not specified then I have no doubt we will continue along our merry way of holding elections on weekdays which militates against the maximum number of people exercising their franchise. Everything we have said in relation to the amendments is to facilitate the greatest number of people to exercise their right to vote.
The Senator mentioned options. This amendment ensures there is no option, that an election has to be held on a Sunday. That is the reality of it and there is no option about it whatsoever.
There may be arguments in favour perhaps of having polling on a Sunday. As the Bill stands, Sundays can be used for polling. It is open to us to do so but if we accept the amendment we can only have polling on a Sunday and that is it. There are some arguments against holding elections on a Sunday. It is a day when most people are not at work. It is also a day on which many people, for one good reason or another, such as in this very good weather, might well be away for a weekend in the countryside or with their children at the seaside. It could be a holiday weekend and polling day could be declared for the Sunday of that weekend.
I have considerable sympathy for the idea of polling on a Sunday. There is a lot to be said for it but let us leave the position open and not have yet another would-be restrictive amendment.
Section 96 provides that the poll at a Dáil election shall be taken on a day appointed by the Minister by order. Amendment No. 91 proposes to make it obligatory to have the polling day on a Sunday. Under existing Dáil electoral law, the Minister is precluded from appointing Sunday as polling day. However, under section 96 it will be open to him to appoint Sunday as the polling day should be consider this appropriate. The Minister would, of course, have to take all the circumstances into account, including the known reservations of minority Christian churches. The section makes it possible to appoint Sunday as polling day but it would be wrong to make it obligatory.
As the Senator said, we should have some discretion, and we are doing that here. We are changing the existing law. The Minister will have discretion in regard to the polling day. The amendment should be withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 92:
In page 60, subsection (1) (b), line 11, after "restriction" to insert "that it shall conclude not earlier than 10 p.m. and".
There is a slight printing error in that amendment. It should read, "that it shall conclude at 10 p.m. and not later than 10 p.m." I believe that having the polling station open from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. gives everybody an opportunity to cast their vote. We saw that last Thursday. It was the first time I recall the polling stations being open until 10 p.m. and I do not think there is any great need to extend it after that time. In the Bill it says 10.30 p.m. but when one considers that the boxes must be sealed and transferred to the counting centre, it is quite late by the time people are finished. I think 10 p.m. would be a reasonable time to close the stations.
I would like in many ways to support this amendment but I have slight concern about restriction. I am sure Senator Naughten saw last Thursday that there were not all that many people arriving between 9 p.m. and 10 p.m. but it gives people the opportunity to do so. I agree with Senator Naughten that it is very important that people get the maxim opportunity to vote. I am sure if we were to keep the polling stations open until midnight we would still find somebody at three minutes past midnight tearing up asking to be let in.
In the Bill it is suggested that polling stations open between the hours of 8 a.m. and 10.30 p.m. and there would be a lot to be said for ensuring that they open at 8 a.m. rather than at 9 a.m. Many people travelling to work would be able to cast their vote between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. Most people have to be at work between 9 a.m. and 9.30 a.m. and, in practice, it can be very difficult to vote before going to work. Life being as it is, the only real opportunity people may well have to vote is in the evening but for some reason or another they may not get out to vote in the evening. The Minister might care to bear in mind the suggestion — that polling stations in urban areas — and it would have to be consistent everywhere — could open perhaps closer to 8 a.m. rather than 9 a.m.
Ten o'clock is a reasonable compromise and I would be quite happy with that. The only point I would make is in relation to political activists. It is a very long day from 8 a.m. to 10.30 p.m. and some of us were beginning to feel the pace in a very minor match on Thursday. That is my only reservation.
This amendment proposes to insert a provision in section 96 requiring polling stations at Dáil elections to remain open until 10 p.m. Section 96 (b) as drafted provides that a poll at a Dáil election shall continue for not less than 12 hours between the hours of 8.30 a.m. and 10.30 p.m. Thus, it would be open to the Minister of the day to keep polls opened until 10 p.m. or beyond should he consider it appropriate in the circumstances.
The normal period allowed for polling at Dáil elections is from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Of course, we had the occasion last week where polling stations were open until 10 p.m. Polling has taken place from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. and there have been representations to have the polls open earlier to give people an opportunity to vote before going to work. The section as drafted will allow the Minister to consider this request.
I could not agree to enshrine in law a requirement that the poll should continue until 10 p.m. Elections sometimes take place in mid-winter and on two recent occasions general elections have been held in the month of February. We would not be justified in requiring a poll to remain open until 10 p.m. when weather conditions may be hazardous. In this regard, it is not only the voters who have to be taken into consideration but the polling staff who may have to travel long journeys after the close of poll and staff engaged in transporting ballot boxes to counting centres who would obviously wish to commence their journeys as early as possible if weather conditions were bad. There is also the returning officer who must stand by at the counting centre to check the ballot boxes, often well past midnight, in large rural constituencies.
I accept the Senator's point that an extra hour of polling may be desirable particularly in summertime. However, to require polling stations to remain open until 10 p.m. at every Dáil election irrespective of the time of the year or prevailing weather conditions would be unreasonable and would unnecessarily tie the hands of the Minister in deciding on the hours of polling. I feel that the provision, as drafted, iis the correct formula, allowing the Minister to fix polling hours according to the circumstances at each election. I will bring the Senator's recommendations to the notice of the Minister. I ask the Senator not to press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,
Section 96 agreed to.
Section 97 agreed to.
SECTION 98.
I move amendment No. 93:
In page 60, line 38, paragraph (i), before "persons" in insert "other".
I am sure this will be classified by Senator Conroy as one of the better examples of a nit-picking amendment.
It surely is.
In the absence of Senator Doyle I will not be tempted to make a ten hour speech on it. I acknowledge that one is not supposed to speak about one's colleagues when they are not here. This amendment will improve the wording of that part of the BIll. It is as simple as that.
Despite what I have just said, I agree with the Senator. I hope that does not give him too much of a shock.
The amendment clarifies the paragraph. It refers to a range of people who shall be admitted or not admitted and then other persons to make it clear that it is not referring to those who have been referred to originally. It has a certain validity and should be included.
I accept the amendment.
Amendment agree to.
Section 98, as amended, agreed to.
Section 99 and 100 agreed to.
SECTION 101.
Amendments No. 94. Amendments Nos. 95, 110 and 114 are related and all may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 94:
In page 61, subsection (3), line 30, to delete "shall" and substitute "may".
It appears an elector is not entitled simply to take his ballot paper, leave it blank and put it into the ballot box. I would have thought that is an option which should be left open to electors. When people spoil their votes they seek to give a certain message to the political system and to the political parties. That is a valid enough way of doing things politically and I would like to see as many options as possible left open to them when they go to the polling station. There has been a tradition of certain elements of the public persistently spoiling their votes. There was a gentleman living in Kimmage and invaribly he spoiled his vote by writing "Aiséirigh abú" across the ballot paper. It turned up at quite a number of counts where I was present.
Section 101 sets out the procedure for voting at a polling station at a Dáil election. Subsection (3) provides that an elector on receiving the ballot paper shall go alone into a voting compartment and shall secretly record his vote on the ballot paper. Similar provision exists in section 103 (3) and section 103 (5) in relation to the marking of a ballot paper on behalf of a voter by a companion and presiding officer respectively.
Amendment No. 94 and 95 propose to amend section 103 (3) to make it clear that the voter may either mark his ballot paper or that he may spoil it or write nothing on it. Amendments No. 110 and 114 propose to amend subsections (3) and (5) of section 103 to provide that in having a ballot paper marked on his or her behalf, a blind, incapacitated or illiterate voter will have the choice of having the ballot paper marked, left blank or spoiled.
What a person does with the ballot paper in the secrecy of the polling booth is, of course, his or her own business. We live in a free democracy where everybody is free to vote or not to vote as he thinks fit. We would, of course, hope that he or she would use the ballot paper to express a reasoned and intelligent choice between the different candidates presenting themselves. We would hope that he or she would participate in the democratic process and play his or her part in choosing the Parliament to represent us and the Government to conduct the affairs of the nation in the coming term.
We hope that the elector will bear in mind that the right to participate in free elections and the right to freely choose our own rulers did not come cheaply in this or in any other country. He might perhaps spare a thought for the citizens of eastern Europe who for 50 long years were deprived of this right. As legislators, we must assume that electors are responsible citizens, as indeed the vast majority are, that they understand the serious purpose of elections and play their part in the democratic decision-making. If they do not like the rang of candidates, they can offer themselves for election. After all, we have probably the most open system of nomination in the world. Elections are a deadly serious business and we must do nothing to trivialise them. We are certainly under no obligation to make things easier for the spoilers and the opters-out. I think the amendment should be rejected.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 95 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 96 and 111 are related and both may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 96:
In page 61, subsection (3), lines 32 and 33, to delete "show the back of the folded paper to the presiding officer so as to dislose the official mark".
In subsection (3), lines 32 and 33 there is an obligation on electors to show the back of the folded ballot paper to the presiding officer to disclose the official mark. In manu ways that seems to be a very reasonable provision. The difficulty I see with it is when polling stations are crowded. Near the end of polling day, one can get a rush of people coming in to cast their votes and if that provision were to be followed conscientiously it would create a great deal of difficulty and cause something close enouth to chaos at certain parts of the day in polling stations. I do not think it is desirable that this provision should remain. It is quite easy to envisage large queues of voters lining up to show their ballot papers to the presiding officer who may be busy giving out ballot papers to other people.
The general idea behind the provision is a worthwhile one but I do not think it should be obligatory. In many ways I would see it as desirable to do that if it is convenient and possible., but it could generate a set of circumstances which could approximate quite closely to a chaotic situation particularly in large polling stations when there is a rush of people to vote. That would be particularly relevant as the close of the poll approached.
I regard this amendment as positively dangerous. I take the Senator's point in relation to there being a crowd of people at the polling station but there are other measures that could and should be taken to deal with such a situation. I was involved in elections where a number of ballot papers were disallowed because there was no official mark on them. That can be a very serious matter. I can think of at least one election in which I participated where a very small number of votes separated two candidates. There was a series of polling papers which did not have the official mark on them and, therefore, were not valid polling papers. The electors who had put their mark on those papers were under the impression that they had cast a valid vote but because the ballot paper was not properly marked and had not been checked, effectively those voters were deprived of their vote.
We are very fortunate that, compared to other countries, very high standards are maintained here on all sides in relation to elections. However, from a democratic point of view it would be a dangerous precedent not to have an official mark on a ballot paper and not to have it checked.
I am opposed to this amendment and urge the Minister not to accept it.
In section 101 (3) a voter after marking his ballot paper is required to fold the ballot paper so that his vote is concealed. He is then required to return to the presiding officer's table and to show the back of the folded ballot paper to the presiding officer so as to disclose the official mark on it before putting it into the ballot box. A similar provision exists in section 103 (3) in relation to voting by a blind or incapapcitated elector who has the ballot paper marked on his or her behalf by a companion.
Amendment No. 96 proposes to delete the requirement in section 101 (3) that a voter show the back of the folded ballot paper to the presiding officer before putting it into the ballot box. Amendment No. 111 proposes to give the companion who marks a ballot paper on behalf of the voter the choice to fold the ballot paper before showing the back of it to the presiding officer. The official mark is a mark placed on the ballot paper by the presiding officer before handing it to the voter. It may be perforated or embossed and the same mark is placed on the ballot papers for the constitutency at an election. Under section 89 the mark must be visible on both sides of the paper.
The purpose of the requirement that the voter show the back of the folded ballot paper to the presiding officer before inserting it in the ballot box is to ensure that what is being put into the box is the official ballot paper and not some irrelevant document. I do not wish to take Senator back into electoral history, but this practice was originally introduced to deal with what was known as the Tasmanian dodge — a simple mechanism to make sure that electors who were bribed delivered on their side of the bargain. Elector No. 1 put the relevant paper in the box——
There are other ways now.
He brought this ballot paper to the candidate who maked it appropriately. This paper was inserted in the ballot box by elector No. 2 who then brought out his paper for marking and so on. I ask that this amendment not be pressed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 101 agreed to.
SECTION 102.
I move amendment No. 97:
In page 61, line 37, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
This is a minor technical amendment. The section states that a voter who has inadvertently spoiled his ballot paper may, on returning it to the presiding officer, be given another ballot paper. I suggest that the term should be "shall" given that we have already taken care of the fact that all necessary ballot paper, I cannot see any reason they should not be given an alternative ballot paper rather than leaving it to the discretion of the returning officer. It hings on the term "inadvertently". If the spoiling was inadvertent, then I cannot see why the person would not be entitled to an alternative ballot paper rather than leaving the matter to the discretion of the presiding officer.
I know the Senator's argument but if the word "shall" was linked to "inadvertently", in practice would it be very difficult for the presiding officer to maintain an orderly poll? The amendment is well meant but I am not sure if its effect would be grossly abused if it were accepted.
Senator Conroy is saying we can have it both ways. I say it should be only one way — either it is inadvertent or it is deliberate. If it were deliberate, then the person spoiled his or her vote, and that would be the end of it. He would not get another ballot paper. However, if it were spoiled inadvertently, he should be entitled to another ballot paper and no blame would rest with the elector. Either we leave out the word "inadvertently" and give discretion to the presiding officer or we leave the elector free from blame. I do not think we can combine "inadvertent"with "may"; we can only combine "inadvertent" with "shall". Our amendment is reasonable in the circumstances.
I appreciate the Senator's logic and in a perfect world that would be the situation. However, in practice this is what happens at present. If a person inadvertently spoils their ballot paper, the presiding officer issues them with another ballot paper and immediately marks "spoiled" on the previous one.
Elections are tense times. We have already heard about the Tasmanian dodge. If one were to accept the word "shall" coupled with the word "inadvertently", one would have the reverse effect of having it both ways. The presiding officer would have to prove, and possibly be challenged in a court of law, on his interpretation of "inadvertently". An extreme example would be where a group of voters, determined to disrupt a polling station, kept spoiling their ballot papers and coming back to the presiding officer requesting fresh papers. Once again, I think we are taking something out of the very capable hands of the presiding officer and putting in a restriction which could have very onerous effects.
I have sympathy with the sentiments behind the amendment.
Section 102 provides that where a voter inadvertently spoils his ballot paper he may, on returning to the presiding officer, be given another ballot paper. This amendment proposes to change the word "may" to "shall", thus making it obligatory on the presiding officer to give a replacement ballot paper in every circumstances.
The intention of this section, as drafted, is that the presiding officer would have discretion as to whether to give a replacement ballot paper. If, for example, the presiding officer had any reason to believe that the spoiling was deliberate rather than accidental, he could refuse to give a replacement paper.
I thank Seantors for bringing my attention to this aspect. I must confess that the section, as drafted, does not make the intention absolutely clear. I intend to have this section further examined for Report Stage. I believe the meaning could be made more clear by, for example, inserting after "presiding officer" in line 38, the words "and satisfying him as to the inadvertence" or words to that effect.
Amendment No. 97 would remove any element of discretion on the part of the presiding officer. I cannot accept the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 102 agreed to.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Will the Leader of the House say when it is proposed to sit again?
It is proposed to sit tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.