asked the Minister for the Environment the action it is proposed to take in view of the implications contained in a newspaper article concerning an open ballot (details supplied) and its potential effect on electors and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I reject completely the insinuation contained in the article that serial numbering constitutes a threat to the secrecy of the ballot. The House will recall that this whole matter was dealt with by the Supreme Court in the case of McMahon versus the Attorney-General in 1971. I would refer the Deputy to the judgment in this case and also to the debates on the Electoral (Amendment) Act, 1972, which brought the electoral law into conformity with the Supreme Court judgment.

Leaving aside the judgment, of which I have not got a copy nor will the readers of this paper have a copy, could the Minister tell me in clear and plain language whether the implications contained in the article, which I consider rather dangerous if not mischievous, are true? Can the Minister in any way allay the fears which have been deliberately aroused by the article?

I have seen the article. I am assured that the judgement in the McMahon case made it quite clear that the system adopted with regard to the numbering of the ballot papers at present is not unconstitutional. With regard to the danger that exists, I would say it is not impossible but it is most improbable. The odds would probably be millions to one.

Disregarding the constitutionality of the matter, I take it the Constitution would not preclude us as a Parliament or the Minister by regulation from ensuring that there is no danger by omitting the voter's number from the counterfoils of the ballot papers? This would counteract the possible implications which are directed at voters in a manner which could be intimidatory. It is this aspect and not the Constitution that I am worried about.

It may also be interpreted in a different way. For example if some voter found himself or herself accused of voting improperly in some form or other before the courts, the courts could utilise this business to find if there was real proof that there was improper voting. We are satisfied with the judgment given in the McMahon case.

The Minister is getting me all wrong. I am not disputing any judgment. I am asking the Minister, having read the copy of the article I submitted with my question, if he is satisfied that there is nothing he could usefully do to allay the fears which undoubtedly have been aroused by the article in the minds of rather innocent voters who may be pressurised. The weapon held over their heads would be: "We will know what you did, or what you did not do". That is the background which has to be dealt with.

I would consider replying to this article in the paper. This would allay the fears of people in that circulation area.

What happens to the ballot papers after the election? Who supervises their destruction?

That is a separate question.

It is part of it for identification purposes.

They are locked away.

For how long?

I do not know the length of time, but they are locked away under the tightest possible security. I think it is for one year at least.

Who holds the key?

Question No. 5.

It is possibly somewhere in my Department.

Question No. 5.

Without questioning your authority, Sir, it is a question of finding out can the anonymity of the voter be ensured.

The question relates to a newspaper article. We cannot go into all the pros and cons of this matter. Question No. 5.

Why are they not destroyed?

We want this information and surely we should not be denied it.

The public have not got access to the papers. In a court case the courts might have access to them.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Am I not right in thinking it is simply not possible to trace how a person voted? The person's number on the register is not put on the ballot paper or the counterfoil.

It was, before the McMahon case.

Question No. 5.

I should like to clarify my answer. Before the McMahon case the serial number was on the counterfoil and on the back of the ballot paper. There was a number on the electoral list which is not on it now.

In view of the complicated reply and of the difficulty presented by the Chair not allowing sufficient supplementaries, I wish to give notice that I intend to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of the question.

I will communicate with the Deputy. I should like to point out that the Chair is the sole judge of the number of supplementaries that may be asked, and if the Chair errs either way it is in allowing too many supplementaries and I think I must curtail them.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Because I was not allowed to ask even one supplementary I, too, wish to raise this matter on the Adjournment.