Kevin Humphreys (Dublin South East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I apologise on behalf of the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Alan Kelly. He had intended to take this debate.

However, unfortunately, due to a heavy diary commitment today, he could not make it. Anyway, he will be taking on board the views made by Deputies as things progress. I welcome the young people in the Gallery who are looking down at this debate. Certainly, the future of democracy is important. I accept the point made by Deputy Ó Snodaigh that democracy costs and that we have to put the information in a clear manner.

The joint committee report raises important issues that are of concern to all sides of the House. I welcome the opportunity provided by today's debate to hear the views of Deputies on the recommendations of the committee. These views will inform the future consideration of the issues raised in the report by my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Alan Kelly, particularly in respect of the wording of the ballot paper for referendums.

The background to this report is the reported confusion of the electorate when they went to the polls in last year's referendum on the abolition of the Seanad. When Deputy Ó Snodaigh was talking I pulled out the ballot paper to examine it. It is clear more thought needs to be put into the ballot paper because it is easy to get confused, especially if a person is rushing in early or late in the evening and there are other referendums, European polls or local elections. There is a need for clarity and the work the committee has done is welcome.

The joint committee received correspondence raising concerns about confusion among the electorate. The committee agreed to examine the reported confusion in respect of the ballot paper, resulting in the report under consideration today. Post-campaign research undertaken by the referendum commission reflected similar concerns. This was the first occasion on which the referendum commission asked questions designed to probe possible voter confusion and ease of understanding of the ballot paper. The commission recommended that further research in this area would be worthwhile and I acknowledge the work the committee has done in this regard.

Before reflecting on the recommendations in the report it would be useful to remind Deputies of the legal requirements in respect of ballot papers at referendums and the information that is available to voters as they head to the polls. Section 24 of the Referendum Act 1994 provides that a referendum proposal must be stated on the ballot paper by citing the Short Title of the Bill, as passed by both Houses. In addition, the ballot paper must comply with the format set out in Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the Act. These requirements were met in the case of the Seanad referendum. Section 24 also provides that the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government may, by order, following a resolution of both Houses, approve the order providing for the inclusion on the ballot paper of a heading indicative of the referendum proposal. This was done on several occasions for referendums. For example "British-Irish Agreement" and "Treaty of Amsterdam" were on the ballot papers for the two referendums held together in 1998. In these cases the Titles of the respective Bills did not include any reference to the referendum proposals. In the case of the Seanad referendum, however, the need for such a heading did not arise. The Short Title of the Bill included a clear reference to the referendum proposal. It read: Thirty-Second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad Éireann) Bill 2013. This has been the style of all constitutional amendment Bills passed by both Houses since 2009.

Provision of information to voters about the subject matter of referendums is crucial. There is a sequence in the availability of information. This starts with the publication of a constitutional amendment Bill and the debates in the Houses of the Oireachtas on the Bill. The proposal for the amendment of the Constitution is final when the Bill is passed by the Oireachtas. The debate and the Bill are accessible on the website. Following that, information is provided by the independent referendum commission and a statement for the information of voters prescribed by the Oireachtas is sent to voters with their polling information card. This relates to the point Deputy Ó Snodaigh made. The information that came out was in block print. This did not encourage people to read it and we need to reflect on that. It would be interesting if Deputy Ó Snodaigh wrote to the commission to explain that. We will have further debates next year. Solid examples need to be shown because on occasion we can forget the lessons of the past because of the gaps between referendums.

Section 2 of the Referendum Act 1998 provides for the establishment of a referendum commission once a constitutional amendment Bill has been initiated in the Dáil. A commission has been established for every referendum held since 1998. 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. This was done, as usual, for the two referendums held in autumn 2013. Research commissioned by the commission indicated that 72% of the public claimed to have read at least some of their guide for the 2013 referendum. Some referendum commission reports over the years have drawn attention to the short period that was at the disposal of the commissions to carry out their functions.

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. A statement for the information of voters has been prescribed for every referendum held on the Constitution, including those held in autumn 2014. This statement is sent to every person entitled to vote at a referendum in advance of voting. It is also displayed in poster format at polling stations. 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.

The recommendations of the joint committee are set out in pages 14 and 16 of the report. I will comment first on the recommendations concerning the modernisation of the legislation and the format in which a referendum question is put to the electorate. Although the ballot paper at the Seanad referendum was in line with legal requirements, the reported confusion is of concern. No one wants a situation where people are confused when they go to mark a ballot paper. However, we need to take into account a number of factors when reflecting on changes or on the scope for improvement. The committee's report recommends that the Minister examine the legislation with a view to modernising how a question is posed. The committee noted that the ballot paper for referendums has remained largely unchanged since 1963 and that, in the same period, there have been significant changes to ballot papers for general elections. The point that we should review the legislation to ensure that it is fit-for-purpose is accepted. However, we need to guard against change for the sake of change. In his foreword to the report the Chairman indicated that 14,335 people spoiled their vote in the Seanad referendum and that this was a matter that could cause great concern. This is a concern but the evidence would seem to suggest that confusion about the ballot paper was not the only factor at play. For example, the report also refers to the 45,424 invalid votes in the European elections. This amounts to 2.67% of the poll compared to 1.16% in the case of the Seanad referendum and there was no reported confusion over the European Parliament ballot papers. Likewise, the rate of invalid votes on the Court of Appeal referendum which was held on the same day as the Seanad referendum was 1.62%. It is also noteworthy that statistics on referendum polls show that the rate of invalid votes rises when the electorate are asked to vote on more than one issue on the same day. This has been the case where more than one referendum poll is taken on the one day or where a referendum poll is taken with a presidential election or with local or European elections. The committee suggest that the legislation be examined with a view to modernising how a question is posed. In this regard, we need consensus on Article 46.2 of the Constitution.

This article requires that every proposal for an amendment of the Constitution shall be initiated in Dáil Éireann as a Bill and shall, having been passed, be submitted by referendum to the decision of the people. It is a formal process. We should not lose sight of the gravity of the decision voters are being asked to make in referendums.

Proposals to amend the Constitution can have far-reaching and profound consequences. Voters are not simply being asked their opinion on a particular subject. They are being asked to decide on amendments to the written Constitution that are set out in the relevant constitutional amendment Bill. They are being asked to say "yes" or "no" to the proposal to amend the Constitution that is set out in the Bill passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas.

At a more general level, we also need to be aware that seeking a formula of language that eliminates the scope for any possible confusion is not an easy one. The language is not very clear. There is confusion between English and Irish. We need to remove that kind of confusion. We need to consider what has happened in other jurisdictions and how they have framed their referendums for example, the Scottish referendum on independence and how the language was framed on that ballot paper. We also need to consider "plain English" and consult with literacy groups.

This was reflected in the July 2014 statement of Government priorities. A similar recommendation made by the Convention on the Constitution was accepted by Government in April of this year. The Government legislative programme for autumn 2014 provides for the publication of an Electoral Commission Bill in 2015. I have been informed that work has started on that and it is on schedule. I look forward to debating that with the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions. We want to make this an inclusive democracy, to reduce the barriers that exist for various reasons, and ensure that when a referendum is put to the people the ballot paper is as clear and simple as possible, that the information supplied prior to the referendum is simple, clear and efficient, that the block text that Deputy Ó Snodaigh mentioned is done away with, and the information is accessible to everybody. We must consider modern technology. We have developed good websites for previous referendums. We must consider how to communicate with citizens to ensure they are better informed and better able to make a decision. It is a simple yes or no on a ballot paper. Confusion does not help. Multiple questions do add to the confusion. I welcome the report. It will be an important element in the discussion of future legislation. I thank the committee for its hard work and look forward to hearing Deputies' contributions.

See this speech in context