Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for his comments and look forward to working with him and the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Alan Kelly on implementing as many of the recommendations as possible. As I noted in the foreword to this report the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Charles Flanagan, following the Seanad referendum expressed concern about voter confusion at the Seanad ballot paper. The matter of 14,355 people spoiling their vote in a referendum to abolish the Seanad should cause great concern. However, we need to recall that there were on that day two referendums, on whether to abolish Seanad Éireann and whether to establish a Court of Appeal and make other changes to the courts system. Was there confusion because we had multi-referendums on the same day? The joint committee considered Deputy Flanagan’s concerns and agreed that apart from the issue of multi-referendums on the same day two other issues could also have had an impact: first, the design, text and language of the ballot paper; and second, the question, was to all intents and purposes, a double negative.

The Department of Environment, Community and Local Government is responsible for the various legislative codes dealing with the conduct of elections and referendums. So in advance of meeting the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, the joint committee wrote asking him to address the problems in the design, text and language of the ballot papers. The then Minister, now Commissioner Hogan, replied and included a report prepared by the franchise section at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government on the questions raised. The joint committee considered that report which crystallised the issues in four main themes, as follows: that the format of the ballot paper has remained largely unchanged since 1963; the acceptance of the need for research and the type of comparisons used in that research; holding multi-referendums on the same day; the proofing of the wording in advance of its being put on a ballot paper; and whether the question always be put in the positive when the intention is to secure a negative.

I have a knowledge of parliamentary procedure and practice and Dáil Standing Orders. If we as parliamentarians err, we can always rely on the helpful guidance of the Ceann Comhairle. I am sure, however, that Members have experienced confusion in voting when the decision required is in the negative but the question is always put in the positive. I still have not figured out how to vote during Committee and Report Stages of a Bill. It is an archaic legalistic system. Maybe it is necessary here, and we can get assistance but it can be very confusing. If this causes confusion to politicians who vote on an almost daily basis it is easy to understand how in the Seanad referendum many of the public were confused.

The joint committee was advised that the format of the ballot paper has remained largely unchanged since 1963, the same year that RTÉ television went on air. If the same pace of change applied to RTÉ as has applied to the format of ballot papers, the Irish public would still be looking at a test card hoping that in the future, or in the new measurement of time when Irish Water is sorted, there would be a one-channel national television service broadcasting for four to five hours per day in black and white and colour TV would be for the next millennium. Today we are a far cry from 1963: we have the Internet, Twitter, YouTube, facebook and smartphones that can have apps by the million yet the auld ballot paper stays the same. Are we trying to pretend that the ballot paper is some new media form of Oscar Wilde’s picture of Dorian Grey?

In this report a number of recommendations are made and there are two key recommendations: first, the members have agreed to revisit this report within the next six to 12 months to invigilate and examine the progress made in the implementation of the recommendations, and second, the joint committee recommends a permanent electoral commission be established with a mandate to conduct research, which is vital. This report refers to 14,355 people spoiling their vote in a referendum to abolish the Seanad. However, in the May 2014 European elections there were 17,258 spoiled votes in the Midlands-North-West constituency; 6,368 spoiled votes in the Dublin constituency; and 21,798 spoiled votes in the South constituency. This is a total of 45,424 spoiled votes in an election for the European Parliament. In the local elections held on the same day there were over 19,400 spoiled votes. There should be concern at such a level of spoiled votes. Research is necessary and must be undertaken within a permanent electoral commission established with a mandate to conduct research and it must be reported on to Dáil Éireann.

As practising, professional politicians we should always be pushing for change. There should always be examination, but one cannot and should not make policy decisions without information, which we get from research. I thank the Minister of State for his response on behalf of the Government and look forward to developing this. When we finally get people to the voting booths, they are confused. The wider issue of voter turnout needs to be examined. That is another day's debate.

See this speech in context