Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs díospóireacht -
Friday, 8 Oct 1993

SECTION 49.

Mrs. Doyle

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 30, lines 44 to 47, to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following:

"49. —(1) The local Returning Officer shall having rejected any ballot papers that are invalid, arrange in parcels according to the first preferences recorded for each candidate.".

I see no reason why ballot papers need to be mixed in a Presidential election. The reason for mixing ballot papers is to ensure a random distribution or selection of any surplus when a second or third candidate is to be elected. Given that we are electing only one candidate, there seems little reason for mixing all the ballot papers as suggested in the Bill. It would involve a considerable number of ballot papers; otherwise I would not bother with what I see as an irrelevancy.

I would appreciate an explanation from the Minister as to why thousands and thousands — hopefully a few million ballot papers — have to be mixed in accordance with section 114 of the Act of 1992 as applied by section 47 of that Act. There is also no question of a deposit being returned, so there is no real reason for mixing ballot papers as we do not have to distribute a surplus. May we have an explanation for what is in the Bill? I hope my amendment would be acceptable.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): The requirement that the ballot papers be mixed together, which is contained in section 49, is found in each electoral code. The essential purpose of mixing the papers is to ensure that as far as possible on the transfer of a surplus the papers actually transferred will be a representative sample of all the ballot papers making up that surplus. Deputy Doyle is quite correct in saying that a transferable surplus does not arise at a Presidential election and that the mixing of ballot papers is not required for that purpose.

However, I would suggest that there are good grounds for retaining that practice. Protection for the secrecy of the ballot is one of those reasons. We all know that there is a sensitivity about secrecy of the ballot. This is probably less pronounced now than in the past as people tend to be more realistic and sensible about it. Nonetheless, there could still be some unease about the idea of the ballot papers from a single box being sorted and counted on their own.

The retention of the provision is also desirable to ensure consistency of procedure as between the various electoral codes. This is particularly important in view of the fact that the same officials act as returning officers in most elections and referenda. Minor procedural differences can be a trap for the unwary and one of the objectives of the present programme of electoral reform is to iron out as far as is possible any difficulties or kinks that may arise.

Mrs. Doyle

In case they forget how to mix it for any future election which might require it the Minister will retain mixing when it is not required. That is what the Minister is saying really. I feel this was included because it is the wording used in every other Electoral Act, but there is no reason at all for it in this Electoral Bill. Would the Minister not agree it is a little superfluous? We are talking about thousands and thousands of ballot papers.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): The mixing procedure takes very little time and is not a complicated procedure. Dropping the requirement in relation to mixing of the ballot papers would not speed up the counting process. The requirement has been the Presidential election law since 1937 and all other codes, including the referendum. There are no delays or no problems associated with the mixing.

Mrs. Doyle

I am not going to waste the time of the House. I see little point for it; it seems totally superfluous, but I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 49 agreed to.

Sections 50 to 62, inclusive, agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Chairman

I propose the following draft report:

The Select Committee has considered the Bill and has made amendments thereto. The Bill, as amended, is reported to the Dáil.

Is that agreed?

Report agreed to.

Ordered to report to the Dáil accordingly.

Mrs. Doyle

Chairman, we have been discussing Presidential elections all morning. This is filler legislation. We hope, barring accidents that it will be a long time before we have a Presidential election. Urban elections are supposedly scheduled for next June and legislation is promised, threatened, suggested. Could we have an indication from the Minister about what we will do about the urban and European elections which are imminent, as distinct from an election which is many years, we hope, in the future? When could we see the legislation that has been promised for the urban elections in terms of reform of local government? That is what we should be talking about, not filler legislation that is irrelevant at this time.

Chairman

Deputy Doyle, that question would be more suitable for a parliamentary question in the Dáil. As the committee has now concluded the business referred to it by the Dáil to date, it is proposed that the committee adjourns sine die and that the date for the next meeting will be organised by the conveners in due course. I express our sincere thanks to the Minister and his officials and to the Members of the committee for dealing with this Bill this morning.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): I thank the Members for their contributions.

Mrs. Doyle

On behalf of the Fine Gael Party, I thank you, Chairman, your staff, the Minister and the Minister of State and the staff at the Department of the Environment for their co-operation. Would that it were more substantial legislation and that we were discussing the reform of urban elections which we urgently need.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): As the Chairman did not allow me to answer the Deputy’s question, I will reply to her in writing.

Mrs. Doyle

Thank you.

The Select Committee adjourned at 12.15 p.m.