Dáil debates

Friday, 7 November 2014

Report of Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions: Motion

 

10:50 am

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

I move:

That Dáil Éireann shall consider the report of the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions entitled, Report on the Design and Layout of Ballot Papers used in the Seanad Referendum, October 2013, copies of which were laid before Dáil Éireann on 12 June 2014.
I apologise on behalf of Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn, Chairman of the committee, for not being present to begin the debate.

This is an interesting topic. People do not take a lot of time to consider the issue of ballot papers and usually only see a ballot paper when it is put in front them when they go to cast their vote at an election or in a referendum. However, a number of complaints were made to the committee about the Seanad referendum. These complaints suggested the ballot papers had caused confusion. One of the principles of democracy is clarity and the notion that people should be given a clear choice. Therefore, the committee undertook to examine the ballot paper used in the referendum. Expert witnesses came before the committee and explained how the ballot paper had been laid out, why the question had been framed in the way it was and offered alternatives that could have been used. This is all laid out in the report.

I recall the debate we had prior to the referendum. When I went to vote, I knew the decision I had taken and how I intended to vote. However, as soon as I looked at the question on the ballot paper, I did a double take and had to ask myself if I was right and if I was voting in support of the Seanad or voting to abolish it. It should have been simple to decide this, but the question had been framed in such a way that one had to ask oneself what one was voting for if one voted "Yes". Voting "Yes" meant one that was voting to abolish the Seanad and was not an affirmation of support for it. The way the question had been framed caused me difficulty, but I was able to overcome that difficulty easily because I was a member of a political party and had a certain view and knew our slogan and choice. However, the question caused confusion for many.

What is even more confusing, not only in the referendum, is that the language used is complicated. It is not plain English but gobbledygook. It is even worse in Irish. The language used is not the type used daily by people. I am a fluent Irish speaker and know how to frame a question, but the question on the referendum papers was framed in such legalistic terms that people could not make head nor tail of it, unless they had a copy of the Constitution or another document in front of them which made it clear that the answer to the question was in the negative rather than the positive.

The report of the committee makes a number of suggestions, not in an argumentative but a helpful way. I hope they will be taken on board by the Minister and an electoral commission that will consider how we frame questions on and the layout of ballot papers. Ballot papers should be laid out clearly and if, as we had previously, we have two or three referendums on the same day, they should be in different colours. People may remember that the headline on the ballot paper in the Seanad referendum was confusing.

The Constitutional Convention also dealt with the issue of the electoral process and recommended having a permanent electoral commission. I hope that when the Government takes the convention's report on board, it will fast track the establishment of an electoral commission, whether it needs to be included in the Constitution or if can be done otherwise. Perhaps this recommendation might be implemented for any referendum we may have next spring. I hope we will have learned the lessons to be learned from the Seanad referendum by the spring. If, for example, we have the promised referendum on marriage equality next year, the proposition to be put must be made very clear in order that the public will be able to make an informed decision. Often, the difficulty and inaccessibility of the language used in the Constitution cause people to shy away from turning out to vote in a referendum. This may also be the reason there were so many spoilt votes previously. The number of spoilt votes in the Seanad referendum is referred to in the report of the committee and perhaps it can be put down to people not understanding the question put or being confused by the language used. However, in every election or referendum a spoilt vote is a way for people to make a political charge or express their dissatisfaction with the political system as a whole.

Another issue is the failure of people to turn out to vote. This is a serious concern in the case of referendums where it is proposed to change the Constitution which would bind the whole country for the future. It is a concern that citizens are not as engaged as they should be.

I encourage the Minister of State to take on board the points made in the report of the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions. He should give a commitment that the next referendum process will be accessible. The electoral commissions set up for referendums should ensure the language contained in the documentation is clear and simple. Also, the type of print used should be larger. Recently, the print used has been smaller, clearly because it is costlier to produce more pages. The functional literacy level in the country is higher than in many other European Union countries, but if the print used on information documentation is reduced to 10 point or smaller, people will just throw it in the bin because it is just a block of text. This makes no sense. The documentation used is important. Democracy should never be about cost; democracy costs money. If it means an extra €1 million to produce documentation that is clear and legible, so be it. We must also put more thought into how ballot papers are laid out, their colour, the question put and the language used.

Photo of Kevin HumphreysKevin Humphreys (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

11:10 am

Photo of Pádraig Mac LochlainnPádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

11:20 am

Photo of Eamonn MaloneyEamonn Maloney (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Mac Lochlainn and the others who compiled this report. It is interesting, and nothing much was left out. It is very specific, given the subject matter, about both ballot papers. It firmly states, with regard to the level of confusion about the Seanad ballot paper, that 55% of those who voted found it quite or very difficult to understand. On the Court of Appeal ballot paper, 47% of people who, I presume, cast their votes and were surveyed found the ballot paper quite or very difficult.

The question of what is the correct thing to do about referendums was raised. I am not the only one who followed what happened in the Scottish referendum. It is my contention that if what happened in this referendum had happened in Scotland, there would have been a second referendum. This would and could not have been tolerated. People who cast their votes on two ballot papers, each dealing with a single issue, are smart enough. We are not back in the Stone Age. Irish people have sufficient common sense to be able to work those things out. The Parliament caused this confusion; about that there is no doubt. There is no point in pretending otherwise.

The Minister of State referred to the young people in the Visitors' Gallery. They were probably scratching their heads and wondering how the people who are running the country cannot even produce a ballot paper. We did produce one, but we sent people all over the shop. Everything about it was wrong. Deputy Ó Snodaigh is perfectly correct about the typesetting and so on. Mischievous people would say it could have been done deliberately. I do not wish to end up in jail so I will not express an opinion like that, but a lot of people outside the House have their own opinions.

We have tolerated the outcome of the vote, but the Scots would not have, and I have no doubt whatsoever that Scotland would have rerun the referendum. I am happy to express my point of view. Let us be honest. Some people do not want to hear this, but during the referendum campaigns a lot of people said one thing in public while lobbying in private for the retention of the Seanad. I have no doubt about that whatsoever. It happened across all parties, mine included. The political establishment wanted to retain the Seanad and I do not need to go into the reasons for that. People can work it out themselves.

With regard to the things that caused confusion among the voters surveyed, I alluded to two figures, but it gets worse than that. Deputy Mac Lochlainn highlighted the number of spoiled votes. The figure is unbelievable, given the fact that 61% of the people stayed at home. Things have changed a lot in terms of the public's perception of politicians in this country. We still ask what the turnout was, but I do not do so any more. I talk about the other figure because it is larger. People say how precious the Constitution and the Upper House are, but if they are so precious why did they not turn out to vote?

The report is very good and a necessary part of the process. In fairness to Deputy Charles Flanagan, now the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, he was the first to acknowledge what had happened. Well, I think he was the first; no doubt Deputy Mac Lochlainn will correct me. I should have done the same myself. If you are beaten you are beaten - go on home and have a cup of tea. Deputy Flanagan was spot on, and he initiated the whole process.

Having these discussions is an important part of a democracy. That is how we learn. I do not know how much we have learned, but we are not Scots so we will carry on into the future.

Photo of Michael FitzmauriceMichael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I concur with what other Members said about referendums, especially the Seanad referendum. I remember that when I walked out of the booth that day I was not sure whether I had put the tick in the right box. Something that should have been straightforward was very complicated.

When one fills out the forms to run as an Independent candidate in an election, one is categorised as non-party. Ballot papers have a blank square beside such candidates in place of a party logo, which confuses many people who must figure out where to put the "X". This problem has been brought to my attention by people from all over the country. We have to have a different system, because some people vote for Independent candidates, party candidates or a mixture of both, but they do not know for whom they are voting. The current system will cause problems. There will be a very tight election some day, votes will be queried and some will not be included because people ticked the wrong box.

National schools are often used for voting. When I was on a board of management I had to watch the pounds, shillings and pence. I understand a school receives €15 for the day, which would not even cover the heating cost. Changing the voting location needs to be considered. Most places around the country have community centres, many of which are vacant when elections are held.

The Register of Electors is another problem. People have been put on or taken off it and do not know how it works. An accurate register needs to be introduced, because in the last by-election people who should have been on the register were not, while others who had died six months or a year ago were still on it.

We need a root and branch analysis to make it more efficient. My first point is that we should consider moving polling stations out of national schools and using community centres instead and my second is that one can still write "Independent" or whatever else in order that the box is filled in order to save confusion.

11:30 am

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

We need another report to deal with those issues.

Photo of Kevin HumphreysKevin Humphreys (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I concur with the Deputy in his final remarks. It is wrong to disturb children during the school week. We need to move polling stations, if possible. I acknowledge that this is not the subject of the report, nor can it be dealt with in this debate, but I echo the Deputy's remarks. It would make common sense to move polling stations out of primary and secondary schools, where possible, because of the impact on the school week and also on parents who need to organise child care for that day. I am listening to the Deputy's point and concur with him.

The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government has sought legal advice on modernising the language used on the ballot paper. It has written to the National Adult Literacy Association to seek its views on the current format of the ballot paper from a plain English perspective. Its views will assist in the consideration of the committee's recommendations.

I say to Deputy Eamonn Maloney that I am certain that I put my tick in the right box on the day of the Seanad referendum.

I apologise on behalf of the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government who was unable to attend. The transcript of the contributions made to the debate will be available. I will convey to the Minister the spirit of the contributions because it does not always come across when reading it.

I agree with Deputy Eamonn Maloney on the question of voter turnout and that there is a job of work to be done in that regard. It is noticeable that the turnout has been lower at every election. It is a problem which needs to be examined in detail by others, as well as by Members. We hold democracy dear, but, increasingly, citizens are not bothering to vote. We should not blame them; rather, we should examine what we are doing. These concerns are shared by all parties.

I thank Deputies for their contributions and will ensure we will have that discussion with the Minister next week.

Photo of Brian StanleyBrian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The recent Seanad referendum showed that people could be confused very easily by the way in which ballot papers were presented. The survey showed that 13% of those who had voted "Yes" to abolish the Seanad had thought they were voting to retain it. A total of 6% of those who had voted "No" said they wanted to abolish it. One could argue flippantly that such errors were balanced out, but there is a case to be made for ensuring clarity in any proposal put. This could be achieved by including in the ballot paper an explanation of the purpose of the referendum. I suggest the Seanad referendum ballot paper could have included the simple question: "Do you want to abolish the Seanad?" The Taoiseach commented after the referendum that the question on the ballot paper had caused confusion among voters.

I am not convinced that the layout of the ballot paper was responsible for the number of spoiled votes at 14,255. Presumably, most of these votes were spoiled by placing an "X" in the two boxes. However, it is difficult to explain why anyone would do this in a referendum where the choice is between "Yes" and "No". A minority of the spoiled votes included personal insults against candidates or their families or other forms of abuse. I have heard about a ballot paper on which were drawn pictures of characters from "The Simpsons", but I am unsure how one would decide whether a preference had been expressed between, for example, Mayor Quimby or Mayor Moe. However, that is another day's work.

I refer to the total of 45,424 spoiled votes in the European Parliament elections last May, a very significant number, and 19,400 in the local elections, which seem to indicate that the layout of the referendum ballot paper was not the main factor in the number of spoiled votes in that case. The proportion of spoiled votes in the Seanad referendum was 1.16% compared to 1.14% in the local elections; they are almost identical. The anomaly is the much higher proportion of spoiled votes in the European Parliament elections, 2.7%, even though the number of votes cast was only 50,000 fewer than in the local elections. It could be the case that people do not treat the European Parliament elections as seriously as other elections. I am interested in knowing the contributory factors, given that thousands were quite capable of filling in properly the ballot papers for the local elections but not the European Parliament elections. It could be assumed that in the case of the latter the spoiled votes were, in the main, deliberate.

There is a case to be made for a change in the layout of the ballot paper, given that it has remained the same since 1963. I suggest the proposition be printed on the ballot paper rather than citing the relevant section of the Bill. I commend the positive decision taken ten years ago to put candidates' photographs on the ballot paper. It was a great idea and has been of assistance.

The higher than average number of spoiled votes in referendums is significant. A random sample of referendums such as the Lisbon One and Lisbon Two referendums, the 2002 referendum on the protection of life and the divorce referendum in 1997, shows that the level of spoiled ballots ranged from between 0.33% to 0.53%. The only referendum in which there was a higher number of spoiled votes was the one on judges, when the number was 2.11%. I suggest the layout of that ballot paper should be examined to see what changes are needed. There is merit in the suggestion that ballot papers be proofed.

The report refers to extensive research on the wording used carried out in Scotland prior to the recent referendum on Scottish independence. I refer to the question which was simple and to the point: "Should Scotland be an independent country?" This is preferable to quoting sections of a Bill. It is better to put a straight question. It is difficult to imagine how such a direct question could be confusing for any voter. The number of spoiled votes in the Scottish referendum was lower than 0.09%, not even 0.1%. This evidence supports my proposition that the question on the ballot paper be phrased in a similar manner. I suggest a question such as: "Should the Seanad be abolished?" This would require legislative change.

I support Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh's proposal that there be a permanent electoral commission, which proposal was approved by the committee, with a remit covering how information is distributed and other election issues. I believe the Government has plans in that regard. The Constitutional Convention also dealt with the matter. The way forward is to have an independent commission to deal with all electoral matters.

I reiterate that having a simple, straightforward question on the ballot paper is preferable. Members exist in a bubble in that we are familiar with legislation and legislative language, but members of the public prefer to be asked straight questions. These matters need to be reviewed because of the decline in the numbers voting in referendums and elections, which is a concern.

Other speakers referred to the need to engage young people in the democratic process. A number of referendums are planned for next year. I propose that everyone over the age of 16 years be given the right to vote in future referendums and elections.

Question put and agreed to.

The Dáil adjourned at 11.30 a.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 11 November 2014.