Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On behalf of the committee I welcome the officials from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, Mr. Ger Deering, assistant secretary, and Mr. Enda Falvey, assistant principal.

I remind members and our guests to switch off their mobile phones or turn them to aeroplane, safe or flight mode depending on their devices to ensure that mobile phone interference with broadcasting equipment is kept to a minimum. It is not enough to simply put phones on silent mode.

Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence you are to give this committee. If you are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and you continue to so do, you are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of your evidence. You are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and you are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, you should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of a long-standing parliamentary practice or long-standing ruling of the Chair to the effect that Members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House, or any official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite the witnesses to make their opening statements.

Mr. Ger Deering:

In the Chairman's letter to the Minister following the autumn referendums last year, he informed him that the committee had considered correspondence raising concerns about confusion among voters in respect of the design, text and language of the ballot papers used at referendums. The letter noted that the committee agreed it would be useful to examine the issues raised as part of the brief. As a preliminary step the Chairman asked the Minister to outline the Department's role and responsibilities and those of the Referendum Commission and other bodies in respect of the referendum process and format of the ballot paper.

In response the Department sent a report to the committee addressing these issues, and I note from the committee's letter of January to the Minister's office that the report was noted by the committee at its January meeting. I understand that at that point the committee felt the format of ballot papers should be reviewed in line with the findings of the Referendum Commission, and invited the Department to appear before the committee to brief members on the issues highlighted. We are very happy to attend before the committee today. It might be helpful if I summarise some of the key points and outline some of the issues that might inform discussion on the reported confusion over the format of the ballot paper.

The format of the ballot papers in the autumn 2013 referendums was in accordance with the law, as set out in section 24 of the Referendum Act 1994. The two key requirements in the context of the present considerations are compliance with the form of ballot paper set out in Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the 1994 Act, and that the referendum proposal is stated on the ballot paper by citing the short title of the Bill as passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. Section 24 of the Act provides that the Minister may by order, following a resolution of the Houses of the Oireachtas approving that order, provide for the inclusion on the ballot paper of a heading indicative of the referendum proposal. This was done on a number of occasions for referendums. For example "British-Irish Agreement" and "Treaty of Amsterdam" were on ballot papers for two referendums held together in 1998. In these cases the titles of the respective Bills did not include any reference to the referendum proposal. The format of the ballot paper for the autumn 2013 referendum on the Seanad complied with these requirements. The need for a heading, indicative of the referendum proposal, did not arise as the Short Title of the Bill included a clear reference to the referendum proposal, "Abolition of Seanad Eireann".

It is worth noting the format of the ballot paper has remained largely unchanged since 1963. Since then the text of every referendum proposal has been prefaced with the question "Do you approve of the proposal to amend the Constitution contained in the under-mentioned Bill?", followed by an instruction to mark either the "Yes" box or the "No" box. We have had 35 referendums since 1963.

The referendum Acts provide for the dissemination of information to voters. This is done in two main ways, namely, through the independent Referendum Commission and through the statement for the information of voters circulated to voters with their polling information card. Section 2 of the Referendum Act 1998 provides the Minister may establish a referendum commission once a constitutional amendment Bill has been initiated in the Dail. A commission has been established for every referendum held since then. The statutory role of the commission includes the preparation and publication of one or more statements explaining the subject matter of the referendum and the text of the relevant Bill. An independent guide drawn up by the commission is sent to each householder. The Referendum Commission research indicated that 72% of the public claimed to have read at least some of the guide for the 2013 referendums.

Section 23(1) of the Referendum Act 1994 provides that a statement on the referendum proposal may be prescribed for the information of voters by resolution of each House of the Oireachtas. A statement for the information of voters has been prescribed for every referendum held on the Constitution. This statement is circulated to every person entitled to vote at a referendum with their polling information card. It is also displayed in poster format at polling stations. It can be used by presiding officers in assisting voters who have sight or reading difficulties. Another source of information for voters is, of course, the record of the Oireachtas debates on the particular constitutional amendment Bill. These information sources are the formal or official sources of information for constitutional referendums. They are additional to the campaigns that might be run by political parties and third parties with an interest in the subject of the referendum.

As I mentioned earlier, I understand the committee received correspondence expressing concern that the ballot paper at last autumn's referendums was confusing. The Department also received a small amount of correspondence and telephone calls, approximately ten letters and 20 calls. This is a small number relative to the 1.2 million people who voted on the referendum.

The Referendum Commission research indicated that 55% of the respondents stated it was quite difficult or very difficult to tell what they were being asked to vote for with regard to the Seanad ballot paper. The comparable figure for the Court of Appeal referendum was 47%. The research also showed that 13% of respondents who stated they voted "Yes" on the Seanad ballot paper meant their vote to be a vote for the retention rather than the abolition of the Seanad; while 6% of those who stated they voted "No" meant their vote to be a vote for the abolition rather than the retention of the Seanad.

In any consideration of ballot paper wording, it is important we do not lose sight of the gravity of the decision voters are being asked to make and the need for precise language in legal matters. Proposals to amend the Constitution can have far-reaching and profound consequences. In a constitutional referendum voters are not simply being asked their opinion on a particular issue. They are being asked to decide on amendments to the written Constitution that are set out in the relevant constitutional amendment Bill.

A question on constitutional amendment is significant and deserving of appropriate consideration and reflection by the people who are deciding on whether to amend the Constitution. This is why significant resources are assigned to informing voters about the subject matter of referendums. A "Yes" vote for a proposal at a referendum has the immediate and direct consequence of changing the law of the land. For this reason these are a number of key considerations that must be taken into account on the design, text and language of the ballot papers used for the referendums, including the use of language. We have been advised in the past by the Attorney General that the use of precis or paraphrases of the proposal which is the subject of a referendum could cause legal challenges. In addition, the question needs to be asked as to whether there is a formula of language and approach to ballot paper formatting that eliminates all possible scope for confusion. According to UK Electoral Commission research, an approach that may be completely understandable to one group of people may give rise to confusion in another group.

It is important the information available to voters is adequate. The provision of information to voters by the independent Referendum Commission is a fundamental aspect of the referendum process. As already outlined, the format of the ballot paper has been by and large the same for the past 35 referendums and 40 years. People have built up a level of familiarity with the format of the ballot paper. Any proposals for change to the design, text or language of the ballot papers used at the referendums would need to take account of these considerations. I thank the committee for the opportunity to provide this summary and we look forward to hearing the views of committee members and engaging with them.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Deering for his presentation. I am a little disappointed the presentation did not reflect the gravity of the research. He is absolutely right that any referendum is an important matter and the language ought to reflect this, but the research suggests a huge number of people found it difficult or very difficult to understand and a considerable number of people apparently voted the wrong way.

The fact we have been doing something for 50 years is probably not really terrifically beneficial when one considers we used to send children up chimneys and export children to the United States. Unspeakable things happened many years ago which we do not do any more, so longevity does not cut it for me. In a modern world we need to state the possibility of legal challenge absolutely exists, and I do not at all diminish its importance, but we have the capability to find language which is appropriate.

My daughter came with me to vote in the referendum and she had to ask me which choice was correct. That was my experience of confusion. I did not report it, but there were only two of us and 50% of us was confused. I hope we can move on and acknowledge the importance of this research and state it needs to be changed. We need to keep in mind what is important not only to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government but to the people and state we can do better than this. I hope the witnesses will tell us this is what will happen and that the Department is seeking a positive way to change it so we do not have to come back after the next referendum and have another conversation in which somebody states we have been doing it this way for 50 years so there is no way we can change it.

Mr. Pat Deering:

We are not stating we have been doing this for 50 years so it cannot be changed. We are stating it has been considered on a number of occasions over this time, but this does not mean it cannot be changed or does not need to be changed. The Referendum Commission stated what it felt was required was further research. It is important that in examining this we include the widest possible research, including the considerable research in the UK which I mentioned in my presentation.

We must do our own research and examine our experience in that regard. The point I was trying to make is that when people vote "Yes" or "No" they are deciding on legislation. The Seanad Bill is a good example, as there were a number of consequential changes. Therefore, people were voting on whether they wished to change the Constitution to insert all of these other changes in it. In that case to have simply have put a question such as, "Do you wish to abolish the Seanad?", would not have stood up legally afterwards.

We are not saying it cannot be changed but that it is important to hold onto the legal aspects and find a way of removing the confusion that exists to the greatest extent possible. We believe there are two elements to this. A key element is the information people are given in advance of and during the campaign beforehand.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is never as simple as people sitting in a pub might say, that they ought to have been asked one sentence. However, there is still some mystery surrounding the papers. One does not see the paper until one gets there, so one has no idea. It is not fair to say that there is not enough information because a great deal of information is given to people, but they do not read it. Would there be a way of giving a leaflet or having it present in the polling booth when people are engaged with the vote? I do not know what the legal standing of that would be. The UK does not have referenda, or not very often, but I am sure some research has been done and I wonder what it contains. While we may have discussed changing it from time to time, I would have thought that the research that shows the confusion that arose is sufficient to propel us into a position where we need to change. The issue is what to change to and that we are not defending the status quo.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Both witnesses can respond.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What I want to hear is whether we are defending the status quoor are going to move. That is my key question.

Mr. Enda Falvey:

Our role here as well is to look at some of the facts before we move anything in any particular direction. I wish to make one or two points that might be relevant. The Senator spoke about information at the poll. There is the statement for the information of voters that is passed by the Oireachtas, which is available at a poster in polling stations. That information is available to people as they vote if they wish to read it.

With regard to the wording used, we must be particularly careful because there are constitutional constraints that will have to be borne in mind. If one looks at the words used in Articles 46 and 47 of the Constitution, they give very little manoeuvre for changing what one might put on a ballot paper without being subject to some type of legal action. Article 46.2° refers to "Every proposal for an amendment of this Constitution..." - note the word "amendment" - and 46.3° refers to "An Act to amend the Constitution", while 46.5° refers to "a proposal for the amendment of this Constitution". Against that background it is very difficult to come up with a question that might pass legal muster other than the one that is there, "Do you approve of the proposal to amend the Constitution?" It is quite constraining. It is part of our job to point out these difficulties to the committee, so they are taken into account in its consideration of what it believes must be done.

On the point about research and the UK research, it is quite instructive to look at them. The Senator said the UK does not have referenda, or does not have them very often. That is indeed true, but it is facing one about its membership of the EU and Scotland is also facing a referendum about its proposal to break away from the UK union. Quite extensive research has been done in both areas regarding the wording. It is interesting to see it because it reflects some of the difficulties that can arise with regard to the use of language. The European proposal started as, "Do you think that the United Kingdom should be a member of the European Union?". This was the initial question but it was found to be a bad question. It appears fairly straightforward to me, per the average Joe Soap; I do not know what the Senator thinks of it. It is asking whether one wishes to be in the European Union or not. However, they found two things wrong with that. They found that the phrase "do you think" should be changed to "should" for a number of intellectual reasons that we need not go into here. Then they encountered difficulty with the phrase "the United Kingdom should be a member of the European Union". The difficulty was that some people did not realise that the UK is already a member of the European Union, so how was that to be addressed? It had to be put into a neutral phrase, "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?"

I mention these to show there are immense difficulties and it is very complex to come up with a wording that will keep everybody right.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there an acceptance that the research that was done is significant?

Mr. Ger Deering:

The answer to that is "Yes". In fact, it is part of what we hope will come out of today's meeting, and the committee's deliberations on this would be factored into wherever we move forward on this. Our opening statement was meant to be more informative than defensive. It was not meant to be defensive of the status quo. In fact, if one looks at how it finished, we said that if there are changes we need to be careful. I would be worried if there was a perception that there is a simple solution to this and that we can simply go into plain English. Any solution to this will not be that simple. That is the message we are giving.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Deering and Mr. Falvey for attending the meeting. I have two questions. What type of comparisons were there in the research work relating to this referendum and previous referenda regarding the confusion issue, which is at the heart of what is being raised here?

Mr. Ger Deering:

This was the first time the Referendum Commission asked the confusion question. It would have looked at a number of other issues in previous research, but that specific question was not asked previously. That is one of the reasons the commission has raised the issue and says it now requires further research.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it possible to proof the wording formula by the Supreme Court in advance of it being put on a ballot paper?

Mr. Enda Falvey:

The legislation does not provide for that.

Mr. Ger Deering:

Currently, it is very specific in the Constitution and in the legislation what one is required to put on the ballot paper.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no provision in the Constitution to do it.

Mr. Enda Falvey:

The legislation provides, and I am not suggesting it might not be reviewed in years to come, that the Short Title of the Bill must appear on the face of the ballot paper. In years gone by there was something of a problem with that, in the sense that it might just read, for example, "The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution Bill", and one could well imagine somebody going to the polling booth and wondering what the fifth amendment is about. There was a provision in the legislation, as was said in the opening comments, about including a heading which helped. In more recent years, however, if one thinks of the last amendment, whatever its number was, it included the abolition of the Seanad in brackets, so one got an indication, at least, of what was involved. That is the law. There is no provision in the law for subjecting the wording to examination by the courts before it appears on the ballot paper.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think 55% is particularly high. There are different levels of confusion - serious confusion, less confusion, mildly confused.

Mr. Ger Deering:

Apart from whether the ballot paper needs to be changed, and that requires legislation and serious thought, there are other issues in terms of information. As Senator O'Keeffe mentioned, sometimes the first time people see a ballot paper is when they are voting. Perhaps more can be done in the area of the advance information, whereby people would see ballot papers.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. Falvey and Mr. Deering. Having listened to them, the first thing one could say is that it is now very easy to get offended or indignant in the ballot box. One can build up a head of steam.

I shall not feel embarrassed about doing so anymore having listened to what has been said about people getting annoyed.

A point was made about seeing the information or question for the first time. Is there a way to get around the matter? A referendum is not like a local, general or European election where one can clearly vote for people and parties and one has sight of what one votes for. The general rule of thumb, down through the years, has been that when the question is put,that the Government favours a "Yes" vote. Therefore, if one supports the Government then the decision is simple and one votes "Yes". However, if one does not support the Government then one can vote "No". I am being very simplistic about the matter but a lot of people would say "This is what such a party is saying yet I belong to another party or no party" and vote accordingly.

The research remains unclear to me even though the delegation talked about what happened in Britain and what will happen in Scotland. I also worry about holding a number of referenda on one day which has happened a lot in recent times. From what we have heard from the Constitutional Convention there may be a proposal to hold a multi-referenda one day between now and the next general election. I would like to hear the views of the delegation on the matter. For the children's referendum we had one question on one day so the process was a bit more clear.

Reference was made to the design of the ballot paper but I am not sure what it was based on. There has been talk for years of having a circular ballot paper for a general or local election. I am not sure how its design can help the matter. I would like to know the views of the delegation on all of the issues I raised.

Mr. Ger Deering:

With regards design, in more recent years separate and different coloured paper has been used in an attempt to eliminate confusion in cases where one has more than one referendum. We know that when there are multiple referendums the number of spoiled votes tends to rise in comparison with a single referendum. As Mr. Falvey mentioned earlier, there was a time when the title of the referendum did not include what its purpose was. That led to a lot of confusion because one might have to vote on three different referendums just using the number of the referendum but all of them were on the same paper. To remove that confusion we now use a separate paper with the title included. The statistics have shown that one tends to have more spoiled votes in a multiple referendum.

Mr. Enda Falvey:

Absolutely.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Government's proposal always be signified by a "Yes"? When a question is put is it always the Government's proposal that one is asked to vote "Yes" on?

Mr. Ger Deering:

The legislation dictates that. One is asked the question "Do you want to amend the Constitution in line with the Bill or legislation proposed?"

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I presume that it will always be a Government proposal.

Mr. Enda Falvey:

We presume it will have gone through the Oireachtas. It will have been passed by the Oireachtas.

Mr. Ger Deering:

Technically, it is an Oireachtas proposal.

Mr. Enda Falvey:

To return to the Deputy's question on what sight a voter will meet when he or she arrives at the polling station on the first day. There is a strong correlation between the information that is available to the voter and how he or she performs when voting. Let us look at the information that the Referendum Commission circulated about the abolition of the Seanad. It was upfront and said that in the referendum one may vote "Yes" or "No" to the proposal to abolish Seanad Éireann. It also listed what would happen if the referendum was passed and stated that if the referendum is not passed "The Constitutional position of the Seanad will not be changed.". To me that was clear information but I accept that some people may find that it was not clear enough. There may be scope for looking at the information package that people receive. Perhaps graphics showing the ballot paper and what happens when one ticks each box would help. There is a balance to be drawn and it is something that the committee might want to think about.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Mr. Falvey suggesting that one could see that information before going to cast one's vote?

Mr. Enda Falvey:

Yes.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there anything to preclude us from providing such information?

Mr. Enda Falvey:

There is nothing to preclude a body like the Referendum Commission considering the matter as it is an independent body. If it felt like providing such information then a commission could go down that road, if it so chose.

Mr. Ger Deering:

The Deputy may have noticed that the Referendum Commission, in its report, stated that it was the first time it felt that it had enough time to carry out a campaign. The aim would be to ensure that the commission has enough time to present information in a way that is most beneficial, we hope.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise to the Chairman and the officials for my absence during the presentation but I have had time to read a copy of it that was circulated. I thank the officials for their attendance. It is a belated thanks because it is some time ago since we raised this important issue. However, I am pleased that they are here and hope that we can satisfactorily deal with this real issue. We are practitioners and have first hand experience of the matter and I get annoyed when I hear replies such as "there is no provision in law". If there is no provision in law then it is up to us to work towards a change.

I am concerned that 14,355 people spoiled their vote on the Seanad referendum. I do not know the reasons for them doing so but I know from my first hand experience of being out and about on the day that I have never had so many people complain about the structure and format of the ballot paper. The same format was used on other occasions but the double negative was an issue. The matter was well put by Mr. Falvey a moment ago when he iterated the question and then pondered the confusion. Anytime one is asked a double negative there will be confusion. We need to make the ballot paper more user-friendly without interfering with the gravity of the questions, as Mr. Deering has rightly said.

We will have a number of further referendums before the lifetime of this Government expires. From the Constitutional Convention, which Deputies Mulherin, Ó Snodaigh, Kirk and myself are on, and along with Senator Susan O'Keeffe, we will recommend more referendums are held. The likelihood is that more than one question will be put on the one day which will present a challenge. It will not be sufficient to say "we will do it as we did it before and let the consequences fall wherever".

The ballot paper is confusing. The last referenda was the first time that my 18-year old daughter voted and the ballot paper left her quite confused but I can see why. I do not believe, for example, that the Irish and English versions should be together and I advocate separate boxes for them. We could have the Irish version on one side and the English version on the other side.

Let me turn to the language used, which was as follows: "Do you approve ... to amend the Constitution contained in the undermentioned Bill?" Words like "undermentioned", "aforesaid" and that sort of stuff is more for the Dáil Chamber, the courts or a tribunal than for people exercising a "Yes" or "No" decision. I could go on but I am not going to.

The Referendum Commission was very quick to pass the buck when we initially raised the issue. The phrase "none of my business" was given to us by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government but we have before us the two officials whose business I assume that it is.

Mention was made of the colour of the papers. That was fine but people did not know beforehand that the pink paper referred to the Seanad and the other option was blue or whatever. The colour code could have been adverted to by the Referendum Commission in its advertisements displayed in the weeks before polling day.

The matter of the language used by the Referendum Commission is not for today but it is worth remarking that the previous referendum on the Lisbon treaty had a condescending actor on behalf of the Referendum Commission saying that he was not very good at counting but that he could count calves. He said it with a rural accent as if this was, in some way, going to bring farmers out to vote. Let us not treat people like fools but treat them in a way that is understanding of the world we live in. It is no issue to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government officials or to the Referendum Commission if people do not turn out to vote but it is up to us, as public representatives who have been elected by the people. We have a duty. If we make recommendations, the recommendations should be taken on board. If we are told there is no provision in law, let us have such a provision. I am looking for change although we may not decide on the type of change today. I ask Mr. Falvey and Mr. Deering to accept that 14,000 people spoiled their votes, having taken the trouble to drive, cycle or walk to a polling booth, not to mention the 70% of the electorate that did not bother to vote. Research does not advert to the reasons behind this. I thank the officials for attending. I am a little disappointed with the replies and there is too much legal jargon and confusion. The Irish and English language elements need to be separated. If there is colour coding, we should know before we go in what colour to look for. In the leaving certificate, it used to be pink or blue papers for pass or honours level exams and people used to know the one they wanted. Let us make this a little more user-friendly and let us not be surprised if people are turned off by the outdated process, which has not changed since 1963, if we do not make it user-friendly. That is beyond the lifespan of some people in the room.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Just some.

Mr. Ger Deering:

I am not sure if there was a particular question. We hear what people are saying and it is in line with the research of the commission. In pointing out how it has been for the last period, we are not saying it must remain that way. However, changes must be carefully considered.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can I clarify something? The witnesses said it is not provided for in legislation but the question is whether it is prevented in legislation.

Mr. Ger Deering:

If it is not provided for, it is not possible to do it because it is ultra viresto present it in a way that legislation does not. It is a matter that requires the Oireachtas to change legislation.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is feedback from the Referendum Commission and research to the effect that 55% of people were confused and 13% wrongly voted "Yes" and 6% wrongly voted "No". That is serious. Has anyone thought about coming up with a proposition at departmental level? Have the departmental officials thought about making changes and making proposals to the Minister internally?

Mr. Ger Deering:

Proposals have not been made and the deliberation process of the committee will form part of what will be considered in light of this. We acknowledge that it is something that needs further consideration and further research. It will be examined.

Deputy Charles Flanagan alluded to the fact that we understand there will be no referendums this year. Two major referendums are coming up in the next weeks in terms of elections and we are focused on them. We expect referendums will not take place until next year. After focusing on the two elections, we will turn our attention to this area.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps we will revisit the matter after the election.

Mr. Enda Falvey:

Interesting points were made by Deputy Charlie Flanagan but I kept hearing about the need for further information. I agree on that point. For many reasons, the Deputy has difficulties with the ballot paper but we are saying there is a need to exercise caution in examining the ballot paper because of the legal context. The other issue concerns information. There is great flexibility in what can be provided by way of information through the Referendum Commission while leaving the ballot paper alone. That is a point that strikes me.

I understand the point about the double negative. Trawling through the various referendums we have had in the past, people have voted on complex issues before and the issue has not risen. The fifth amendment was a negative proposal to the people. At the time, perhaps people did not question things but there is no suggestion that people were confused then or are confused by detailed questions.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will make a quick observation because I must speak in the Chamber. I agree with Deputy Kitt. We should get information beforehand and see what it looks like. There was confusion in our literature where we mentioned voting "Yes" and an X in the box. When people see X, they think of "No". What is handed out beforehand can make a big difference. If the literature was handed out beforehand, people could see a snapshot of it.

We do not want to have different referendums on different days because people give out to us, saying that we are wasting taxpayers' money by holding them on separate days. If they saw what was coming up beforehand, it might make it easier. We could send out circulars saying that this will happen if people vote one way.

Mr. Ger Deering:

There is a major role for information.

Michelle Mulherin (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am looking at the specimen ballot paper. Referendums differ and giving too much detail may be prejudicial to the matter being put to the people. Underneath, we could ask whether people approve of the proposal to abolish the Seanad. There were multiple parts to it but that is what would have happened. People would have been clear in that situation. It is always an issue of legalese. It is a bit like the rabbit in the headlights when people see sections quoted and they wonder what they must do. I agree with Mr. Falvey. Over 50% of people talk about confusion. The confusion is compounded when they see the ballot paper. As citizens, people see it as their duty to vote and vote on everything. They are confused coming in. I go to polling stations and I hear commentary from presiding officers that people are making comments about being unsure. That points to what has been discussed generally by people, that there is a need for more information. Is there a fundamental problem?

I agree with the point made by Deputy Micheál Kitt. I have never seen a referendum where people have not said they were confused. It may be about the ballot paper or about how they were going to vote. When they vote on council elections, Dáil elections or European elections, unless they have a particular objective to spoil a vote, they vote because they connect with the person. One can question whether they really know us and whether they know what the referendum is about. It is very confusing.

In the children's referendum, the rule guaranteeing equal coverage to those for and against meant that clarification could have been provided by me but, because media could not find someone to argue against the referendum, what I had to say could not be in the paper or presented on radio. It borders on the ridiculous. There will always be issues with referendums. Unless it is a clear-cut question like whether to join Europe, going into topics like a court of appeal means that it is confusing. People argue strongly on each side, which is good because we are in a democracy. There will always be confusion about referendums. That is the issue and we must clarify as much as we can with the information. We should make people feel comfortable.

I think that is what Deputy Charles Flanagan was saying. We need to ensure people do not feel overwhelmed when something is put in front of them. When they see references to sections of legislation, etc., they wonder what it really means. They feel like they are on the spot. They feel like they are doing an exam. That is what it is like. People bring that confusion with them when they are not clear from the outset about how they want to vote in a referendum. They might trust me or Deputy Ó Snodaigh and decide how to vote on the basis of what one of us has said. That is the truth. I hope people will continue to do that.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for missing part of the meeting. I had to attend a meeting of the Whips at which we discussed what the Dáil will do during the extra week with which we have just been landed.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Was this issue discussed?

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. It is a pity, because it should have been. We discussed some referendums and by-elections which are not yet on the calendar.

I am a firm believer in the use of plain English or Irish. We should not forget that 25% of the public in our society is functionally illiterate. There is another volume of people on top of that who are afraid of forms and officialdom. If we couch anything in official language or take a convoluted approach, it makes it difficult for them. When ballot papers are being prepared, we need to join the officials in doing whatever we can to prevent people from spoiling their votes. If there are people out there who want to spoil their votes, that is fine in some ways.

I do not believe the outcome of the referendum that has been mentioned related solely to the form that was used. The same kind of question was put when the death penalty was overwhelmingly rejected. The people were asked "do you agree to remove the death penalty?" or something like that. People were not confused about whether they were voting for the death penalty or against it. They understood what to do. Part of the onus to get the message out there in a proper format is on us. I believe there is nothing to prevent us from producing the wording and detailing the format at an early stage.

I heard what was said about the use of a headline, but there is nothing to prevent the use of a headline term like "Seanad Éireann" or "Death Penalty", which would not involve taking a position one way or the other. I think it would end a certain form of confusion when there is more than one referendum. Some people want to vote in one referendum and not in another. The Referendum Commission probably has figures to show that people have left ballot papers blank in some cases because they were unable to make up their minds. When we voted on the abolition of the death penalty, two other referendums were held on the same day. Some people were confused about the other issues, or did not engage with them.

I suggest that this debate points to the need for a permanent electoral commission that could deal with these issues on an ongoing basis. As this is a political question, I do not expect the officials to answer it. Perhaps such a commission could try to promote voter education in schools and in wider society so that this kind of confusion is less likely to arise. In any democracy, there is always a discussion about ballot papers. Concerns have been expressed about the shape of the normal ballot paper. I understand that up to 28 candidates are running in the forthcoming local elections in some areas, which will necessitate the use of a long sheet of paper. The difficulty with folding over the ballot paper, as is done in some countries, is that the candidates on the back page will complain that they are not accessible. Similarly, there have been complaints that the use of alphabetical order when listing the candidates in an election means that some of them receive preferable treatment simply by virtue of having a surname that begins with a certain letter. Obviously, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government has grappled with such issues. I suggest that the Referendum Commission should be allowed to make decisions on them.

I encourage those involved to look at the layout of referendum ballot papers to make sure the language is clear. I appreciate that some of the language comes from the legislation we pass to provide for the referendum. An additional complication is the fact that the Irish-language version of the Bill is on one side and the English-language version of it is on the other side. When such Bills come before us, it can be very confusing to work out which section to try to amend. There is much to be said for straight talking and plain English. I am sure the Plain English Campaign is still out there.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I invite Mr. Deering to conclude.

Mr. Ger Deering:

We agree with the strong focus that has been placed today on the need for information and clarity. Deputies Ó Snodaigh and Mulherin both made points about what appears on the ballot paper. As Deputy Ó Snodaigh said, it is actually decided by the Oireachtas in the context of the Bill that promotes the referendum. That governs what we are required to do from a legal perspective. As I said earlier, there is more openness with regard to the information that can be provided. There are two approaches to this. We will be interested to hear the views of the committee on them. One approach relates to information and the other approach relates to further clarification.

I emphasise that the Referendum Commission does not claim that its research, which is a very welcome opening salvo in this process, is definitive. We need to be very clear on the issues that are confusing people. It is important to note that resounding decisions have been made, in one direction or another, when other referendums have been held in similar areas. This tells us that it is not always necessary to focus on the language - we may need to look at other things as well. All we are saying is that the manner in which we proceed in this respect needs to be carefully considered.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Falvey and Mr. Deering for attending this useful and helpful meeting. The committee will conclude after a brief discussion in private session about what we will do next.