Before the adjournment of the debate I was referring to the sections of the Bill which deal with questions that may be put to voters when they come to the poll. I referred to the fact that there was a departure from the proposal of the Joint Committee in this respect. In the explanatory memorandum issued with the Bill, that matter has been adverted to in the following terms:
The Joint Committee did not recommend the abolition of the oaths and affirmations which a presiding officer may put on polling day as to the age or identity of a voter...
Most people who have experience of elections would agree that one of the greatest safeguards against personation has been the deterrent inherent in an individual having to subscribe to an oath or affirmation. The Joint Committee, having discussed this matter very fully, considered that that safeguard should remain. I cannot see why it is proposed to remove that safeguard in Section 26 and retain it, for a different type of voter, in Section 27. One would imagine that the consideration of uniformity would have commended itself to the Minister.
Everybody agrees that the right of an individual to vote is one of the fundamental safeguards of democracy. A person who, on coming into a polling booth, finds himself deprived of his vote, feels very much aggrieved. We should not lightly remove any safeguard which has been embodied in legislation up to now. In those circumstances such a person got a tendered ballot paper. Under this Bill he will get an ordinary ballot paper. I would again indicate to the Minister that we feel very strongly in regard to this matter and consider that the oaths and affirmations should not be abolished.
With regard to the compilation of the register, the recommendations made by the Joint Committee which are being implemented in this Bill are very proper and very sensible. The local authority is the body most closely in touch with this work and the provisions maintain the chain of connection between the Minister, his Department and the local authority who have been carrying out this work through the rate collectors. The Joint Committee gave this matter a great deal of attention. The publicity given by the Department during the past year to this question of registration and what it means for the individual has been most useful. It has brought home to the public the necessity for being alive to the fact that registration is most important if a person is to retain his right to vote. Anything which the Department can do to publicise that fact would be most desirable. In the making of regulations in regard to the registration of electors I would ask the Minister to have due regard to the suggestions made by the Joint Committee in regard to administrative action. There were 11 such recommendations, contained in pages 51 to 55 of the Second Interim Report of the Committee.
The recommendation by the Committee in regard to the fee payable to rate collectors, if implemented, would lead to a better register. The best safeguard an individual can have is that the person compiling the register feels that the work he is doing will be sufficiently rewarded rather than that he should be penalised for a bad register. The power exists for penalising an individual who does not prepare a register properly. In most things in life it is far better to offer an incentive for the better type of work rather than a deterrent against the slovenly type. I would suggest, then, to the Minister that he might consider that matter in regard to registration.
In regard to cost, it would appear that it will be borne equally as between the Department of Local Government and the local authority concerned in the compilation of the register. It does strike me that the local authority enter into it inasmuch as the register of jurors is also based on the register but I would point out that the register would have to be compiled in any case and I would ask that as far as possible the heavier portion should be borne by the Department in view of the fact that the register has to be compiled in any case for Dáil elections.
The Joint Committee considered at great length the question of notification of births by the superintendent registrars in various areas to the authorities compiling a register. After lengthy deliberation, they did not consider it wise or feasible that that should be done in so far as births might be recorded in places outside the area of the local authority compiling the register, but there is no such good reason as to why, for instance, the superintendent registrars should not be compelled to supply to the authorities a list of deaths that have taken place within the 12 months. That would help in large measure to keep the register up to date. It would be much easier for the superintendent registrars to supply a list of deaths than to supply a list of births.
The count facilities are also dealt with in this Bill. I am glad that there will be uniformity under this measure in regard to ballot papers marked other than by figures. Hitherto such papers were disallowed. I think everyone with experience of counts is aware that voters often mark ballot papers with an "X" or by writing "one", "two", or "three". There was no measure of agreement on such papers as between constituencies. I am glad that under this measure provision is made for validating such papers in future.
With regard to facilities at the count, there are, of course, limitations as to the type of building which may be available in different areas. I am sure the Minister will impress on the registrars the necessity for securing the most suitable building to enable those present at the count fully to satisfy themselves as to the validity of the count at all stages.
Under this Bill, an elector will be registered where he is ordinarily resident; he will be deemed to be where he was last resident unless he notifies to the contrary. That is a wise provision. The degree of uniformity for the whole country is very desirable from every point of view. When the Minister comes to make regulations in regard to registration, I am sure he will have due regard to the dates the Committee recommended would be the most suitable in regard to registration and the receipts of claims and objections. These were very fully considered by the Committee and, for very good reasons, they recommended certain changes. I trust the Minister will give effect to these. We shall have an opportunity of discussing them again inasmuch as these regulations will have to be laid on the Table of the House for approval.
I thoroughly approve of the provisions with regard to the limit on expenses. It is time logic applied to the situation. The register of political Parties is a new departure. It was felt this would lead to more reality and give the electorate a better opportunity of making a choice. Why the Bill has departed from the recommendation of the Committee in regard to the individual who wishes to describe himself in, as the Committee said, five words is something upon which I should like to have some explanation from the Minister. Why such a candidate should be described as "non-Party" instead of being described in the five words recommended is something I cannot understand.
Self-nomination is very desirable. Everybody who has been a candidate in an election is aware of the tension which exists in case the proposer, seconder, or assentor to the nomination might turn round and fail to sign the paper in the proper way or not, perhaps, have the proper number, and so on, on it. These provisions bring the whole matter more into line with modern practice. Indeed, this Bill could serve as a model in this regard.
The section dealing with forfeiture of the deposit was considered very extensively by the Committee. The Committee, having deliberated at length, felt that the fraction ought to be reduced from one-third of the quota standing to a candidate's credit at the end of the count to a quarter. Why the Bill has departed from that recommendation I do not know. I am sure the Minister will give us some explanation as to why he has seen fit to make that departure.
There was again a lengthy discussion on the hours of polling. It was felt that a large section of the electorate did not vote because the hours did not suit. The Committee suggested the hours should be 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. all over the country. The Bill departs from that recommendation, making it not less than a 12-hour period between 8.30 a.m. and 10 p.m. A period of 12 hours is, I think, long enough and I do not believe any greater efficiency will be obtained by extending the period. Why the period should be changed to 8.30 a.m. to 12 midnight requires some explanation from the Minister.
Those are the principal changes to be noted in the Bill in regard to Dáil elections. In regard to local elections a deposit is being required of the candidates. This is an innovation and, perhaps, a desirable one. The other sections dealing with local elections are, in the main, following recommendations which have been made here in regard to the conduct of Dáil elections. They should lead to a greater interest and a greater facility in the exercise of the franchise by people in local elections. The provision whereby the candidates are free now to represent any area within the ambit of the local authority is a useful departure and does make for the wider type of representation to which the voters have been accustomed in Dáil elections.
We welcome this Bill as a simplification of the electoral law and an introduction of well worthwhile innovations into it. I regret it has not been found possible to bring all the electoral law into one piece of legislation on this occasion but at least the work of the Committee over the 12 months has not been wasted, and the Minister says this measure will be followed at a later stage by some other piece of legislation. I should like to pay a tribute to the Committee for their work in this respect and to the officials of the Minister's Department in relation to the valuable suggestions which they brought before the Committee for its consideration.