Vol. 69 No. 4
I move:—
That it is expedient to authorise such charges on the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof and such payments out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas as are necessary to give effect to any Act of the present Session to regulate, for the purpose of the Constitution of Ireland lately enacted by the people, elections for the office of the President of Ireland, and to provide for matters incidental to or connected with such elections.
Might I raise a point on this Money Resolution?
It depends on the point.
Any matter I raise always is to the point. This Bill makes provision for a variety of things in connection with the Presidential election and the Money Resolution is to provide the money in connection with the expenses of putting the Bill into operation. The point I wish to raise now was referred to by me at the end of the debate on the Second Reading. In Section 21, I think it is, the Minister will find that there is power there for the candidates to appoint agents, as is the practice at the ordinary Parliamentary elections. On the last occasion I pointed out to the Vice-President that, if the Government wished that a man of note in this country, unconnected, say, with political Parties, should go up for election, there should be some machinery, other than the present method that is employed in Parliamentary elections, to cope with, say, personation. It is absurd to expect that any ordinary citizen of this State, no matter how eminent, would be able to provide agents for a nation-wide or a Statewide election. I presume that, in connection with the Presidential election, there will be at least as many booths as there were in the case of the last Parliamentary election. They may not absolutely coincide—I do not know whether the Bill makes any provision for that; I do not think it does—but it is, I think the Vice-President will admit, altogether beyond the power of an individual who may think, or whose supporters may think, that he has a good claim to be considered in connection with this high position, to provide agents to prevent personation. Even where you have a large number of candidates and a circumscribed area of election, such as a county or half a county, the Vice-President knows the extraordinary difficulty of preventing personation. If there is personation on a large scale, as can easily happen unless effective steps are taken to prevent it, it makes the election of President ridiculous. The result of an election held under these circumstances can claim in no sense to be the verdict of the people.
When we had a State election before in connection with the election to the Seanad—we tried that on one occasion: with the full register—I think the general experience was that it was extremely difficult to cope with that particular abuse. Now you are going in the case of this important election to leave it entirely to the devices of the candidate. There is only one way to check personation, unless the State itself steps in and attends to that particular business of devising machinery to prevent personation, namely, that political Parties will do it. I understood it was the intention of the Government as far as possible to remove this election from the realm of Party politics. If they refuse to make proper provision for the prevention of personation, then they are insisting, as a practical issue, that this will be merely a struggle between Parties. The only bodies who can then provide these agents—and they may find it difficult very often—will be the organised political Parties. Remember, any Party whatsoever is capable of providing agents much more effectively than an individual.
On the last occasion the Vice-President said it was the duty of the Guards to take the initiative in preventing personation. I wonder whether that is actually a duty incumbent on the Guards? I have never seen them act on it. I have been told again and again in connection with elections that all the Guards are supposed to do is to deal with cases of personation brought to their particular notice, but it is the business either of the returning officer or the personation agents to challenge those guilty, or whom they suspect to be guilty, of personation and then call the attention of the Guards to the matter. The Vice-President will easily see that if the functions of the Guards begin and stop there, you have no effective control of personation in the absence of a full complement of personation agents. I put it, therefore, to the Vice-President that provision should be made in this Bill or in the Money Resolution for expenses of that kind. We are told that this is the most honourable office in the State, that it is desirable to get men who will do honour to the position, who will not be too closely identified with Party politics, but unless effective steps are taken to see that there is a fair election, then the Government are handing it over completely into the hands of Party machines.
When the Bill was before the House on Second Reading, I drew the attention of the Minister to Section 20, the section immediately preceding that just referred to by Deputy O'Sullivan. The Minister promised to look into the matter, but I do not see any amendment down to it. We are providing money in this Resolution for the carrying out of this election. Section 20 expresses a fear on the part of the Minister that the expenses in connection with the election may be excessive, and he inserts in sub-section (2) of the section what, on the face of it, is supposed to be a kind of corrective. That is, if the Minister for Finance wishes, he may bring the accounts of the returning officer before the Circuit Court judge who sits in that county and have them referred to the county registrar for examination. On the face of it, that method appears too childish. It is no check whatever. If we want to have a check, let us have a proper check. In most cases, in fact in every county after some time, the position of sheriff, which has become redundant, will become merged in the office of county registrar, who will, therefore, be the returning officer. The supposed corrective which the House is asked to insert is, therefore, that if the Minister for Finance suspects that the expenses are too high, he is going to have the accounts referred to the Circuit Court judge who, in turn, will refer them to the returning officer for fixation. That is not sensible. I think when we are handling State moneys, when we are providing expenses for this purpose, if we feel that there is any need for security in this respect, we ought to insist on having a proper check on the figures and we should not insert a provision which provides no check at all. If we do not want to have a check, we need take no steps of this kind, but if we want a check, let us insert some provision that is sensible. The present provision is not sensible.
Deputy Professor O'Sullivan, speaking for his Party, presumably, has shown a very great change of face in regard to the question of appointing personation agents. In the case of the election to the Seanad, the election to which he referred just now, the Government of the day, constituted then of the members of Deputy O'Sullivan's Party, took the step of definitely putting it into the Act that there should be no personation agents and decided that no law should be passed to enable candidates to appoint personation agents. I wonder what is the meaning of the change of face? It is rather remarkable. At that time, at any rate no complaint could be made that those who were opposed to the then Government, and who are now Deputy O'Sullivan's political opponents here, were responsible for personation because they took no hand, act, or part in the election. If there was personation it must have been done by the friends and followers of Deputy O'Sullivan himself. The whole country will remember that, in general, not 25 per cent. of the electors of the country voted in that election, although in one famous constituency in some polling booths over 100 per cent. of the people on the register polled. Can Deputy O'Sullivan explain that, and had that any connection with the statutory regulation which was made that no personation agent should be appointed? We do not stand over nor do I think that any Deputy in this House—certainly any Minister—would consciously do anything that would promote or help to encourage personation. I believe that to be so now; it was not always so. I think everybody in the House will agree that there is not anything like the personation attempted or practised nowadays that used to be practised. I think that is true, from my experience. The number of charges in the courts after elections is evidence of the truth of what I say. Personation is uncommon nowadays. There are cases of it, but they are rare, either at general elections or by-elections.
Does Deputy Kelly agree with all that?
I am not listening to it.
Vote early and often!
Despite what Deputy Professor O'Sullivan says, it is a duty laid upon the Guards to do their utmost to prevent personation or attempted personation. That is part of their duty by law.
They can challenge?
Yes. They can challenge anybody whom they have reason to suspect is personating, and they do that. They did it to my personal knowledge, under my own observation. I do not see what other machinery would be available in an election of this kind. I cannot see what arrangements could be made other than having the Guards in the booths to do their duty. I have thought over the matter, and consulted with those who have experience in it, but other than the machinery provided at present by the law I cannot think of any more suitable, more efficient, arrangement. Perhaps it is because Deputy O'Sullivan objects to the Guards doing it——
Oh, no!
Perhaps it is that in reality he still adheres to the policy of his Party laid down in 1923 that there should not be anybody to stop personation. The police are independent officers, and whatever views individuals may have of them they do their duty. They do their duty at elections as well as at other times and I think it is the best machinery available.
And they are inadequately paid for it.
With regard to the point raised by Deputy Brennan, that machinery which is set out there for examination of the accounts is the same machinery that has always applied, and no case has ever arisen where there has not been adequate examination and adequate security for the proper discharge of their financial duties by the returning officers. In the case of county registrars, they are civil servants, and we have a double hold over them to secure the proper discharge of their financial obligations. First of all, you have the Ministry of Finance, which overlooks their accounts and examines them very closely, and I do not think that any taxing officer who ever lived would give them more efficient scrutiny than they would get from the Department of Finance. Then, as they are public moneys, you have the Comptroller and Auditor-General as the second check. I do not think the Deputy need have any doubt in his mind that if there is any suspicion whatsoever, or whether there is any suspicion or not, the accounts of the county registrars will be closely scrutinised and examined by not alone one authority but two.
I have no doubt, but the Minister apparently has, seeing what he has put in.
It is the practice at present, and must remain so as long as certain returning officers are sheriffs.
The Minister assures us that he has given thought to this matter. I must say that I cannot see the result of any thought so far as his contribution here is concerned. He quoted certain examples in the 1923 Election, but in practice I say he is deliberately following that example. He said that there was personation in that 1923 Election, and, judging from the context of his statement, it was because there were no personating agents present. I do the Minister the compliment of assuming that there was some connection between his different remarks. If the Minister is displeased with my connecting his remarks, I will withdraw it, but I take it for granted, judging from the context of his statement as a whole, that he did suggest that the polling of over 100 per cent. in certain booths was due to the absence of personating agents. He said there was not much personation in the recent election. But there were personating agents representing every candidate—not merely a Guard—and I wonder does the Vice-President think that the presence of the Guard alone would be sufficient? As a rule, I have not known the Guards actively to interfere and take the initiative in challenging. There may have been cases of certain such obvious abuses as that of a person voting a dozen times, when the Guard did interfere, but in the ordinary cases of personation, it is my experience, at all events, and that of most of those to whom I have spoken on the matter, that the Guard does not take the initiative. I should be glad if it were pointed out to them that they ought to take the initiative, and that it is their duty to prevent personating. But what are you going to have in this election? You will have an eminent person going forward, without a Party machine behind him. He will have no personating agent, or very few. The Minister must know the difficulty, in the height of a political campaign, for even organised Parties to get personating agents at every booth. Now he is asking an individual to do it. In fact, the story he told about a certain constituency, in which he says over 100 per cent. voted, is the ideal which he is in practice aiming at. All I want is effective steps to see that there are people in the booth effectively to challenge personation. The Minister has not dealt with the point.
Money Resolution agreed to and reported.
