Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 29 Apr 1927

Vol. 19 No. 18

ELECTORAL (AMENDMENT) BILL, 1927—THIRD STAGE.

The Dáil went into Committee.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

SECTION 3.

(3) Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 41 of the Principal Act are hereby repealed, and in lieu thereof it is hereby enacted that the poll, if any, at a Dáil election shall commence at nine o'clock in the forenoon, and be kept open till eight o'clock in the afternoon, and no longer.

Mr. P.S. DOYLE

I move amendment No. 1:—

In sub-section (3), line 48, to delete the word "eight" and substitute therefor the word "nine."

I do not think I need detain the House with any very long arguments in favour of this alteration, which was referred to on the occasion of the Second Reading. The general feeling amongst those who have any experience of electioneering is that eight o'clock at night is a very unsuitable hour for the closing of the poll and a good many people have been deprived of the opportunity of recording their votes owing to their occupations during the day. I believe that the addition of this hour in the evening will have the effect, in a good many cases, of increasing the number who will poll.

Mr. JOHNSON

I had an amendment down to the same effect. I say frankly I would prefer that the hour during the summer period should be ten o'clock rather than nine o'clock. We know, as a matter of fact, and of practice, that while the official hour may be ten o'clock the nominal hour is nine o'clock. The actual time in the public mind in many parts of the country still is the normal time. While I hope the Minister will agree to this amendment to make nine o'clock the hour of closing all over the country, I would like him to consider, before the Bill becomes law, the advisability of making the hour ten o'clock in rural areas if the election takes place during the period of summer time. It is well known, I think, to those who have had experience of electioneering in the country, especially in the summer months and more especially in the time of the hay harvest, that there will be large numbers of men unable to get into town or to get any distance away from their work before nightfall. During the June period, the official hour of nine o'clock is too early to allow of the work to be finished and the votes to be cast. While I am strongly supporting the amendment in favour of nine as against eight for the country as a whole, I make the plea that it should be normal time of nine o'clock when the election occurs during the summer period and for the official purposes in the summer time period in the country, at least, the hour should be altered to ten. I think if the desire is, as has been expressed, that there should be the largest possible poll then we ought to make this provision, which would more likely ensure a more heavy poll than would be the case if the work prevents men exercising the franchise.

Mr. BAXTER

In supporting this amendment, I want to say that I think when we consider conditions in this country, and agricultural conditions particularly, and when one knows the outlook of the ordinary farmer in the matter of going to vote, we must recognise that the case for having the hour extended to nine o'clock is very strong, and that, in fact the closing hour of the poll should not be earlier the than nine o'clock. If it were eight o'clock, the question arises whether very many of the people in the country areas will go to vote at all. They are at present carrying on their work according to sun time, and because of their conditions they have no alternative. They cannot make hay according to the clock, but rather the way the sun moves. If the farmer does not go to vote before he starts his day's work he is reluctant to break up his day and go to the polling station. If he visits the polling booth early in the day he is rather loth to go back to the fields then. On that account, undoubtedly, if we want to have the biggest possible vote recorded, we must do everything that is sensible to facilitate the people in going to the poll. I hope there will not be any reason for the Minister's refusal to accept this amendment. It is absolutely essential in justice to the people who are to select those who are to represent them for the coming five years. In our legislation we should do all we can to facilitate the electors.

Mr. GOOD

Deputy Johnson has suggested that we should have two hours—one the hour of ten o'clock for the rural districts, and nine o'clock for the municipal areas. If we take his own constituency, it comprises both municipal and rural districts, and I do not know what his solution for that problem would be. But I can see very considerable difficulty all over the country if such a proposal were adopted. Whatever hour we fix on should be a uniform hour all over the country. When speaking on this question on the Second Reading of this Bill, I was rather anxious that instead of starting at nine o'clock, for the reasons I then put forward, we should revert to the old arrangement of eight o'clock to eight o'clock. If the Dáil in its wisdom thinks it is better to open at nine o'clock and close at nine o'clock I would not object to that. but I would object to any later hour than nine o'clock.

MINISTER for LOCAL GOVERNMENT and PUBLIC HEALTH (Mr. Burke)

As regards Deputy Good's queries, our reason for changing the hour to nine o'clock in the morning is that our experience has been that there is no voting before nine o'clock, and we did not feel justified in keeping the booths open during a period when there is practically no voting done. I think that Deputy Good has answered Deputy Johnson's point about making a different hour for polling in country and in urban areas. No doubt, under the new time the farmer is at a disadvantage in having the booths closed at an early hour. On the other hand, we must remember that in the country districts there are not the same facilities for collecting the ballot boxes. Often you have only one car for collecting the boxes in quite a wide area, and, accordingly, it may take several hours to bring in all the boxes from all over the country. It is very desirable that the boxes should be brought in as soon as possible after the voting. It should be done, if at all possible, during daylight. In any case. it is hardly fair to the presiding officers to keep them several hours in the night waiting for their boxes to be collected. I think, however, there is a good case for extending the hour from eight to nine, and, accordingly, I accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Question—"That Section 3, as amended, and Section 4 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I move:—

Before Section 5, to insert a new section as follows:—

"On each nomination paper shall be provided a space in which shall be inserted any further designation or description of the nominated person, which shall be considered by the Returning Officer as necessary for the purpose of facilitating identification. by the voters and it shall be the duty of the Returning Officer to see that each nominated person has some such designation or description on his nomination paper and that such designation or description is placed on the ballot paper following the name of each candidate for election."

This amendment arises out of the statement I made the other day on the Second Reading of this Bill. I am not sure that the amendment is so drafted that it covers my intentions, but it will give an opportunity of discussing the idea I have in mind. As the Dáil knows, the government of this country is conducted through means of parties. The fiction is that it is not so conducted, and that this Parliament is a collection of individuals, each of whom gives his own ideas regarding any question which comes before the Dáil. That is not so.

I think we should have in our electoral laws recognition of the fact that the government of this country is by parties, and not by individuals. The intention of the amendment is to make a beginning in some way in that direction. It is also intended to fulfil another purpose. Nowadays, under the system of proportional representation, we will always have an election, as it is not possible for a candidate to be returned at a general election without a contest. It seems probable that in many of the elections which are about to take place there will be a large number of candidates. Very often there is considerable confusion in regard to candidates. You find a duplication of names, and the voters are often much confused when they come to record their votes.

Many old and elderly people, who are not accustomed to deal with names or figures, get confused, especially in places where they are hustled about, and frequently do not record their votes in accordance with their ideas. That fact is evident to anyone who is present at the counting of votes. One often notices a curious combination of votes. One could not believe that voters have any consistency in their political ideas, judging by the combination of their preferences. The intention of this amendment is that after each name will be marked distinctly the name of the party to which the candidate belongs. The voters will then be sure that they are voting for, at least, the party, if not for the man, they want to support. I cannot see any great obstacle to the acceptance of the amendment, which appears to me to be a sensible one.

Major BRYAN COOPER

I have been deceived in Deputy Heffernan for four years. I was always under the impression that he was speaking his own ideas—some of them very remark able. Now I am afraid he has been speaking the collective wisdom of the Farmers' Party and that Deputy Conlan, Deputy Baxter, Deputy Wilson, Deputy Gorey and other Farmer Deputies have all been skinned to provide speeches for Deputy Heffernan. I do not think that the proposal contained in the amendment is practicable and I do not see any advantage in it. I do not think that voters are as weak-minded as Deputy Heffernan thinks. If they cannot distinguish candidates by their names they will have their occupations and addresses given on the nomination paper. There may, for instance, be two candidates, say, James Kelly of Market Street and James Kelly of Knockmee Hall.

Mr. JOHNSON

Perhaps the latter might also live in Market Street.

Major COOPER

In that case I think it would be better to persuade the other James Kelly to withdraw. Deputy Heffernan suggests that the name of the party should be given after the candidate's name. Who is going to say what party a man belongs to? I know of one case in which there are two Labour candidates and both say that they are orthodox Labour candidates, but who is to decide?

Mr. HEFFERNAN

One man could say that he belongs to Deputy Johnson's Labour Party, and the other that he belongs to Deputy Lyons's Labour Party.

Major COOPER

If we follow on those lines we would be adopting the system of the United States, where the various candidates are grouped under the name of their party and you simply put a cross to mark the party you are voting for. I believe that voters have every opportunity of ascertaining who they are voting for, and I do not think that the amendment is necessary.

Mr. JOHNSON

I think that the idea. behind the amendment has something to recommend it, but I am afraid that the proposition is not practicable. If I could imagine a particular constituency where I was certain that the Farmers' Party, for instance, were sure of a majority, and if I were going forward as a candidate, I might designate myself as belonging to the Farmers' Party. I could not imagine such a constituency, but, if I could, I might choose that method. There is no machinery for officially recognising a party, so that I am afraid the returning officer would have to take the word of the candidate. There is, however, a difficulty. Notwithstanding Deputy Cooper's suggestion that the electors are fully equipped in discrimination, they may have to take a list of twenty names in a constituency returning, say, eight members, and they see two or three identical surnames, and, perhaps, Christian names; in some cases the candidates live in the same street or barony. There is, for instance, talk of two Morrisseys going up for Tipperary and one Heffernan, and there is also some talk of two James Burkes going forward. There are possibilities of duplicating names such as Byrne, Johnson, or Corish, but I am speaking of things announced and more or less publicly known, namely, that there are two Morrisseys in Tipperary and two James Burkes. That fact is going to confuse many electors, and there is something behind the idea in the amendment.

While I do not think the amendment is sufficient to remedy the evil, I urge the Minister to give consideration to the proposition and see whether some means could not be devised, even in regard to the coming elections, whereby some distinctive emphasis may be placed upon whatever differentiates one candidate from another with the same name. Let us say there are two candidates of the same name living in different towns of the county or in different streets of a town. If there is that difference it should be emphasised in the printed ballot paper. That is going a very small way to meet the point of Deputy Heffernan, but I do not think the amendment in its present form is practicable, and it would require a very much bigger alteration in the electoral law than this amendment foresees.

Mr. BAXTER

I support the amendment if not exactly in words, at least, in principle. If Deputy Johnson could draft something that would cover the situation more satisfactorily than Deputy Heffernan's suggestion, we would consider it, but undoubtedly something has to be done. If we have any duty to the electorate it is to afford voters all possible facilities for recording their votes for the people for whom they want to vote. Already we have had instances in many constituencies in which voters have gone to the poll and recorded their votes for candidates other than those they wanted to support. We had in my constituency during the last general election the very unusual situation of having two Coles as candidates. Their Christian names were different, but; without saying anything derogatory of either of the candidates, many electors were puzzled about the Christian names, and they did not know one from the other. I have no doubt that numbers, perhaps running into a couple of hundreds, of illiterate voters in that constituency recorded their votes incorrectly, and not in accordance with their intentions. I have reason to know it. I met voters who made this mistake, and I heard both candidates claiming that the other fellow got votes that should not have been his.

In a by-election in the same constituency since then we had the position of having a farmer candidate, who was supported by me, and we had the voters declaring that they were going to vote for Baxter. The peculiar position was that the Republican candidate on that occasion was also named Baxter, and the voters who wanted to vote for the farmers' candidate did the other thing when they declared that they wanted to vote for Baxter. Where confusion of that kind can exist, it is necessary that we should do something to enable voters to discriminate between the candidates where they are in the position of not knowing the Christian names of such candidates. I am sure that there arc many voters who would not be able to tell the Christian names of Deputies here, even where such Deputies have been a good deal in the public eye.

I think we are not fair to the electorate if we produce a ballot paper which is not sufficient to enable voters to identify candidates. Whether Deputy Heffernan's amendment meets the position or not is more than I can say, but I maintain that it is not sufficient for the ballot paper merely to contain the names of the candidates. These names are often read out by the returning officer rather indistinctly and in a manner not conducive to enable the voter to ascertain clearly who the candidates are. Knowing that that is the position, I think it is our duty to rectify the mistakes that have been occurring up to the present. If Deputy Heffernan's suggestion does not meet the case, I think the Minister, if he is prepared to accept the principle of the amendment, should say that he will put forward something that will meet it.

Mr. P.S. DOYLE

As regards the printing of the names on the ballot paper, I just want to say that in the case referred to by Deputy Johnson it is only by the address that you can distinguish between candidates of similar names. I think there should be some other way of making the position clear, especially to illiterate voters. One thing struck me which, I think, deserves a little attention, and it is in connection with the display of a ballot paper in a case where the number of candidates may, perhaps, reach twenty. In some cases leaded type is used and there is a good display, but in most cases more attention should be given to that matter. If the surnames and Christian names were displayed in larger type I think it would be a great advantage, especially when it is remembered that in many polling booths the light is very bad, a fact which adds to the difficulty of. ascertaining the names of the candidates whom voters wish to support.

Mr. BURKE

So far as Deputy Heffernan's amendment is directed towards having the party to which the candidate belongs designated on the ballot paper, I think he has been effectively answered by Deputy Cooper and Deputy Johnson. It would be absolutely impossible to put the proposal into effect in practice. You might draft some form of words that would look all right on paper, but when you come to work it out it would be impracticable. So far as the proposal is directed towards eliminating any possibility of confusion, which would be likely to result from similarity of names, that has been covered in the Electoral Act. It is only a question of administering the Act properly to get over that difficulty. I might call Deputy Heffernan's attention to Rule 4 in the Fifth Schedule to the Electoral Act, 1923, which is as follows:—

"Each candidate shall be described in the nomination paper in such manner as in the opinion of the returning officer is calculated to identify such candidate. The description shall include his name, his abode and his rank, profession or calling."

Rule 20 in the same schedule provides that every ballot paper shall contain a list of the candidates described as in their respective nomination papers. The specified directions given as to printing ballot papers are as follows:—"When the surnames and the first of the Christian names of two or more candidates are the same there shall also be printed in large characters so much of the description of each of such candidates as appearing in their nomination papers, whether rank. profession, occupation or abode, as will, in the opinion of the returning officer, effectively distinguish such candidates. Of course where there are no identical names the surname is printed in large characters, and the full name, address and description are printed in small characters."

Accordingly I think Deputy Heffernan will sec that his amendment is already included in the present electoral law. It is open to the returning officer to decide whether the abode of the candidate or his profession or calling would be the best means of designating him. In some parts of the country a man is better known by his trade or calling. He may be an auctioneer or solicitor, and he may be better known as such. In other cases he is better known by his residence. It is for the returning officer to see to that and where the names are similar the calling, occupation or trade, or whatever is likely to describe each candidate properly to the average voter that description will appear in large type after his name on the paper, so I think the amendment is already covered in the electoral law.

Mr. WILSON

I wish to raise a point with regard to the specimen ballot paper. A specimen ballot paper was provided in which the name of Wilson was taken in vain, but I would not object if the figure No. 1 appeared opposite it. Over each polling booth there was a specimen ballot paper with the name of Wilson marked No. 6. I think that the Minister for Local Government ought to remove my name or else change the figure appearing beside it to No. 1. A specimen ballot paper printed by the Government for the guidance of the electorate should not contain the name of a candidate for that constituency.

Captain REDMOND

Perhaps I would suggest a remedy. What about calling the Deputy Mac Uí Liam?

Mr. WILSON

Then the people would not know me at all.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I will not press the amendment at this stage, as I recognise that in its present format does not quite fulfil the intention I had in mind, but there is an idea inherent in it which is not properly carried out in practice in the electoral law the Minister quoted. I hope the effect of the amendment will be that the returning officers will take special pains to have some form of specific identification on the ballot paper. I am not surprised that Deputy Cooper took the line he did, for he may safely assume that there will not be a second Bryan Cooper on the paper. In my constituency I am not at all sure that there will not be another Heffernan or two, and, judging by the number of those who ambition to become candidates, I would not be surprised if every principal name in the constituency were not represented on the ballot paper. I would suggest to the Minister, although perhaps in my case it is a two-edged weapon, that candidates should be required to designate themselves by their customary designation. We find that men who are prominently known as O'Briens become anglicised when their names appear on the ballot paper and they become plain Briens, without the O. I suggest that the candidate be required to use his customary designation, the one by which he is known in the country. I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. BAXTER

I would like to know from the Minister what sort of an identification mark should be put on a ballot paper in a constituency where, say, you have two men of the name of James Burke, and both following the occupation of farmers. The indication of the townlands in which they live will be of no use because not five per cent. of the people going to the poll will know the townlands. That, undoubtedly, is a factor that will present some difficulty, and unless the Minister does something in the way of giving instructions to the returning officers to have the names appear on the ballot paper in such a way that the voters will, without difficulty, be able to identify the candidates, justice, I am afraid, will not be done to some of them.

Mr. CONLAN

I desire to support what Deputy Baxter has said about townlands. You have the names of some townlands duplicated all over a county, and unless something is done on the lines indicated by Deputy Baxter I am afraid great confusion will be caused.

Mr. BURKE

The difficulty that Deputy Baxter has brought to my notice is a difficulty that is inherent in the position, and I am afraid that I or anybody else cannot frame an amendment to overcome it.

Mr. CORISH

Surely it would not be too much to ask the Minister to try to do something to solve the difficulty between this and the next stage.

Mr. WILSON

Would the Minister undertake to do something in connection with the specimen ballot paper?

Mr. BURKE

I will look into that matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 5 agreed to.

Mr. GOOD

I move amendment 6:—

Before Section 6 to insert a new section as follows:—

"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Principal Act, it shall be the duty of the Minister through the local authorities or otherwise in each Parliamentary division to send to each elector on the register of electors for members of the Dáil in that Division, his or her number on the register with particulars of the place where he or she will record his or her vote; such information shall be forwarded. so as to reach each elector at least two days before any election."

The object of the amendment is that the Minister will supply to each elector in each parliamentary division his or her number on the register. The reason I put forward the amendment now is that, owing to the very short period that will intervene between the publication of the new register and the date of the elections, there is bound to be a good deal of confusion. I understand that the new register will be issued on the 1st June. The practice has been fairly universally adopted by candidates to send poll cards to each elector. The preparation of these cards, in some constituencies, is a matter of some difficulty; for instance, take my own constituency, where you have something like 100,000 electors. The preparation of the poll cards, including the numbers, will probably take four or five days, and these will be posted two days before the elections. When you multiply the one hundred thousand electors by the eighteen or twenty candidates going forward you can realise the magnitude of the obligation imposed on the postal authorities. It is necessary and desirable that these poll cards should reach the electors before the election. I do not know whether it would be desirable that this provision should remain permanently, but for the coming election I think it is very desirable. The difficulty in connection with the postal arrangements could be got over by the Minister sending out one card. If the Minister were to undertake to do that, I am sure that the candidates in all the constituencies would leave the furnishing of the numbers to him. The result would be that all this congestion that I have spoken of would be avoided.

The PRESIDENT

I would like to know if the amendment is in order, because I believe that under it it is intended to impose a charge on the Exchequer.

Mr. GOOD

I might point out that I anticipated a question of that kind being raised, and I put in my amendment that the Minister, in the event of any difficulty of that kind occurring, could do this through the medium of the local authority.

Mr. A. BYRNE

I suggest that the point raised by the President might be got over by two or three lines of a clause inserted in the Bill providing that each candidate should be directed to deposit a sum of £5 towards the cost of distributing the official numbers. I am quite satisfied that any candidate who has had experience of elections, particularly in big constituencies, would be glad to deposit that sum in order to ensure that the electors would get their proper numbers in good time. That is the suggestion I make, and I am sure every member of the House will agree with it.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

A point of order has been raised that this amendment imposes a charge on the public funds and is therefore out of order. There is no Money Resolution in connection with this Bill, and therefore it is not possible by way of the Bill to impose a charge of any kind. Deputy Good's point that he has allowed a loophole is. I think, a sound one. The amendment says: "It shall be the duty of the Minister, through the local authorities ... to send to each elector on the register of electors ... his or her number on the register." The result of that would appear to be that if the amendment were carried the Minister would be obliged to do that without putting any charge on the public funds. My own view, in connection with the amendments to this Bill, is that they should be treated with the greatest leniency because of the situation we are in. I understand they were put down from the point of view of enabling the matter to be discussed rather than as an effort to amend the Bill. I will, therefore, allow the discussion to proceed.

The PRESIDENT

I would like to know whether the purpose Deputy Good has in mind is going to be achieved, because the local authority is in some respects tied in the same way as we are in regard to the expenditure of money, and unless a sum is included in its estimate for this purpose it would not have any power to do the work. We would be actually passing an amendment asking the local authority to spend a certain amount of money which it has no power to spend.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

That is an argument against the amendment rather than against the point of order.

Major COOPER

This question of poll cards is really a very old question. They were introduced when constituencies were very much smaller than they are now, when a constitunecy had only 11,000 or 12,000 electors and when Kilkenny, as the President knows, had only about 2,000 electors. They still exist and I am afraid they are necessary. I think it was suggested on Second Reading that all one had to do was to go to the polling booth and ask the presiding officer for one's number. That might be done during the quiet periods of the day, but I should be sorry on going to a polling booth at a late hour to see a long queue of electors waiting while the presiding officer looks up a particular name and number. As it is worked at present the system is very expensive and very inconvenient. It is expensive because you have got to approach such large numbers of people and also because the law lays down the form of the card. You cannot merely send out a card with your own name. You have to print on the card the name of every candidate who is nominated. It is inconvenient, because at any election the time allowed is comparatively short and it requires a considerable organisation to prepare and distribute these cards. It is wasteful and expensive not only to candidates but to the country as a whole. The last time I received six or eight cards—one from the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, one from the Labour Party, and several from the Independent candidates.

What is the use of having cards addressed by each candidate to the electors? It involves posting to the same individual seven or eight cards, and it inflicts on the postal authorities a large amount of unnecessary work. They have not time to do that work; the delivery on some occasions extends over two or three days. It gives rise to a large amount of unnecessary work to everybody. If the Government would take the responsibility of informing the individual voter where he is to vote, I believe it would be welcomed by everybody. I would be in favour of Deputy Byrne's suggestion—though I would not bind myself to a sum of £5; I would be in favour of contributing even a little more—that a certain amount of the candidates' deposits should be deducted in order to pay for this service. I make that suggestion with hesitation. I do not know how it would affect the Labour Party. I do not know whether they are in the habit of sending out cards, and if they are not we do not want to make the thing more expensive for them. If they really do send out these cards they would have to pay only a proportion of the cost instead of paying all the cost. They would only have to pay their share in proportion to the number of candidates. I think the matter is one that might well be considered by the Minister in the interval between now and the Report Stage with a view to bringing in a Government amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON

I might inform Deputy Cooper that it is not as a matter of habit that the Labour Party does these things; it is a deliberate choice and after careful calculation. The question is, I think, important, and I believe it is sound to say that there should be an official notification to the individual voter of his number on the register and the place where he should poll, but merely to send out a notification on a poll card I do not think is enough. As a matter of fact, I think there is a certain danger implicit in it, if it is confined to the poll card. In other countries the candidates are allowed a certain number of words to be printed by the State in the way of an election address. That is sent with the notification, and I think if that were coupled with this proposition it would be quite acceptable, and the risk I fear, which I will touch upon, would not exist. The risk I am referring to is this: If the poll cards are to be sent out officially merely as poll cards, then I am pretty certain there is going to be a further change to prevent the free distribution of the one postal packet. If that were to be the immediate consequence I think we would be worse off than better off, but I do urge that there should be a reconsideration of this position regarding the free distribution by the State of the requirements of the voter. The effect of it will be really to facilitate the working of the electoral machinery, and consequently it should be part of the official charge. I do not think it is possible to amend the law in this Bill or for this coming election. It is possible, if there was the will, but it is not, I am afraid, possible to do it by the insertion of this amendment in this form without some further procedure.

Mr. BURKE

The statements of the President and Deputy Johnson have more or less disposed of the amendments for this election at all events, because it is quite obvious that local authorities are not in a position to finance such a scheme at the present moment, and it would require a Money Resolution if it were to become a charge on the public funds. This proposal, as a matter of fact, was debated for quite a long time on the Electoral Bill of 1923, and it was turned down. We should be rather slow to reverse the considered opinion of the House on that particular occasion. I think this proposal is unnecessary. No matter what steps the State takes in this matter the candidates will supply this information to the electors in any case, and it would be only so much public money thrown away. The information that it is desired to convey in this matter, as a result of this amendment, can be found in the Gárda Síochána Barracks and the Post Offices. Very elaborate precautions are taken in the way of putting up posters to inform electors where they are to vote.

This question of the number is, I think, unduly stressed. The number is not really a vital matter in elections at all. The name and address arc very much more important. In fact, the official instructions to presiding officers read as follows: "It is not sufficient for you to be told the elector's number on the register. That is how personation is carried on. As each elector applies to you for a ballot paper, ask him his name and address." As a matter of fact, I am afraid these cards would lead to personation. The tendency would be to regard the possession of these cards as prima facie evidence that the person who had one was the person described on the card. I am afraid that would lead to very great abuses. It would also be very expensive on the State, the local authority, or whoever would be charged with the responsibility of supplying these cards. Before 1918, candidates paid the full cost of the election. Section 2 of the Parliamentary Expenses Act, 1875, reads as follows:—

The returning officer shall be entitled to his reasonable charges, not exceeding the sum set out in the Act, in respect of services rendered and expenses incurred. The amount of such charges shall be paid by the candidates at the election in equal separate shares.

Now, the State is shouldering this burden, and the cost of this election, apart from the register altogether, will be over £60,000. I think it is unreasonable to expect the State to go any further in the way of footing the bill for candidates at the election. If we were to agree to this proposal, probably the next proposal would be one to foot the bill for the transport of voters, for printing election literature for candidates and covering all expenses in connection with the election.

Mr. GOOD

Would it be possible to expedite delivery of the new register? I pointed out that my reason for putting down this amendment was to try to avoid confusion. It seems certain that that will arise for the reasons I have given—the short time that elapses between the issue of the register and the day of the election. If the Minister could give consideration to the question that I have raised, possibly the result might be that the register would be issued a week earlier. Possibly some portions of the register might be issued more than a week earlier. If that could be done, it would tend to prevent the congestion that is bound to arise if this pressure is put on the postal authorities. I would be satisfied if some consideration could be given to that aspect of the question, and thus try to anticipate the difficulty.

The PRESIDENT

Every possible effort is being made to meet that situation and considerable expense has been incurred in order to secure the earliest possible delivery of the register. This recommendation is one that it would be very unwise to adopt just now. It should be a matter for consideration after an election—not immediately before it. It should be considered in the light of all the circumstances. It is quite apparent that the expense of contesting a very large constituency is very different from the expense of contesting a small constituency. A candidate may have to distribute 100,000 poll cards in one constituency as against 3,000 or 4,000 in another constituency like that which the Minister for Industry and Commerce represents. Certainly, this is not the best time to consider the question and it ought not to be considered alone. The £60,000 which the election will cost, apart from the printing of the register, is a very big item. If Deputy Good, or any other Deputy supporting this proposal, could reasonably say that the cost to the Post Office of distributing candidates packets for the election is much greater than this would be there might be some argument, but we are not escaping that by adopting this. We are still leaving them the right to distribute the packets but, at the same time, we are putting upon the State this particular cost. The Minister has certainly drawn attention to one possible abuse that might arise from this—personation. I think there is general agreement amongst the more responsible parties in the country that personation is undesirable. There was a genuine attempt, when the Electoral Act was introduced, to make it difficult, if not impossible, to have personation. There is no doubt there has been personation even since that law was passed. The best means of dealing with a matter of that sort is to get a public opinion against any such wrong practice—a practice which is defeating the electorate, no matter what party it favours. It is unquestionably a fraud on the electorate itself. I would certainly like that greater safeguards than are provided in this amendment should be provided, in the event of such a proposal being acceptable, in order to prevent any such abuse. After the General Election, if we have any responsibility for the administration, that will be one of the matters which will receive very careful consideration.

Major COOPER

Deputy Good might have strengthened his argument for an earlier publication of the register by reminding the Minister that, if the dates published in the Press are correct, the Whitsuntide holiday will intervene between the date the new register comes into force and polling day. The register will be available on Wednesday and all the literature will have to be posted by Friday, unless special postal arrangements are made. That would involve very considerable cost, and one would require a very large staff for addressing envelopes. If the register can be made available a week or ten days earlier, the same difficulty will not arise.

With regard to the general question, I was very glad to hear the President's concluding words, that the matter is to be dealt with after the elections. My quarrel with the Government is that it was not dealt with immediately after the last election, when it was fresh in our minds. I take it we are now to understand that if the present Government resume office, they propose to deal with the amendment of the Electoral Act and that it will be open then to Deputies to bring forward amendments based on their more recent experience.

Mr. NORTON

The President indicates that efforts are being made to expedite the issue of the register. Would the President say if at least portion of the register will be made available at the earliest possible date?

The PRESIDENT

There is no question about the register being later than the 1st June. We are endeavouring to have it ready earlier. It is possible in certain constituencies to have it at an earlier date. It is in the constituencies where a later date is likely we are endeavouring to have the matter expedited. It would be reasonable to expect an earlier issue of the register, certainly three days earlier, but I am not in a position to promise that at the moment. All I can state is that all possible steps are being taken, and considerable expense has been incurred in order to secure that it will be ready early.

Captain REDMOND

In the case that the President mentioned, where the register will be ready for 1st June, will it be made available there?

Mr. BURKE

The position as regards the register is that at present one-fourth of it is ready throughout the country—printed and checked. That portion of the register is available now. I have copies of one register here. It is for one particular constituency—the President's.

The PRESIDENT

I have not seen it.

Mr. BURKE

According as the register is printed it is available. We cannot say definitely at what date the whole register will be complete, but I am inclined to think that, if nothing very exceptional goes wrong, it will be ready the last week in May. In the meantime, the parties can get busy in their constituencies and see what portions of the register are available. In a great many cases, the register will probably be completed by the middle of May.

Mr. GOOD

In view of the undertaking given by the President, I ask the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question—"That Section 6 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to Section 7 and the Title agreed to.

The Dáil went out of Committee.

Bill reported with one amendment. Fourth Stage ordered for Tuesday, 3rd May.