I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.
In doing so, may I say that this is a simple, straightforward measure which, I hope, will be accepted by Deputies on all sides of the House. It sets out to make two important changes in the existing electoral law. The first change recommended is to ensure that where a mental patient is still resident in a mental hospital on the day of the election and where he or she is not considered by the resident medical superintendent to be safe to be discharged to go out and vote where he would normally vote if he were not a patient in such an institution, that person will not be allowed to vote.
Prior to the enactment of the Electoral Act of 1963, this was the case. It was the case for all long-stay patients in hospitals and homes and workhouses of all discriptions and the Joint Committee, when considering the electoral law and making recommendations, felt that was very harsh on people in county homes and workhouses and such institutions, and recommended that these people be deemed to be resident in the county homes and in these institutions because they felt that otherwise they were practically disfranchised and debarred from voting as in many cases they had no home and there was no question of discharging them home to what would have been regarded as their normal place of residence.
Even though that recommendation is given in the explanatory memorandum, I think, for the records of the House and for the purpose of further explanation, I should quote it. It stated:
A further amendment to section 1 of the Electoral Act, 1923, which the Joint Committee would like to see made is the deletion in subsection (9) of the words "workhouse, poor house". This should enable persons residents for long periods in county homes and similar institutions to be registered there. The present wording of subsection (9) in effect disfranchises them and seems to be an anachronistic survival from old poor law attitudes.
The Electoral Act, 1963, did not however restrict the residence provision to county homes but extended the recommendation to mental hospitals.
This Bill accordingly in section 2 proposes to revert the law virtually to what it was prior to the Electoral Act, 1963, but modernised by the Joint Committee's recommendation.
That is to include county homes and similar institutions but it deliberately left out patients in mental hospitals because obviously they saw the dangers and difficulties arising in these cases. They saw possible abuses which have since taken place. We had the experience of a general election in 1963 and a considerable amount of experience was gained in that election which showed that the situation was taken advantage of, that undue influence was used on mental patients in certain cases. That situation was altogether unsatisfactory. We believe that if this Bill is accepted, the possibility of further such abuses arising will be eliminated.
To indicate the type of thing that happened in the course of the election, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I should like to read a report or portion of the report of an election agent in a certain constituency to the returning officer. It is not necessary either to name the institution or to identify the people concerned but I think it is useful because it illustrates the sort of malpractice that took place during that election and which, if we do not change the law, is likely to occur again. I am not making any attempt to pin this on any particular Party because I think all sides can be and are, perhaps, guilty. It begins
On the morning of the counting of the votes in the recent General Election I, as election agent for stated to you that I would confirm the formal complaint I then made regarding the manner in which the voting was conducted at hospital. On the adjudication of doubtful ballots I pointed out to you two papers on which was written the word "cancelled" and on which were also two sets of initials. These initials I identified as being those of personation agents whom I named. I now accordingly write to state:
(1) There were two booths in what is, I understand, the Admission Wing of the hospital;
(2) I appointed one personation agent to act on my behalf for ...
The names are given. The report goes on:
(3) When I called (as a result of information conveyed to me) to visit these booths, my Agent informed me that one booth was being conducted in a most irregular fashion;
(4) He stated that on entering the booth at one stage he found several patients voting openly. He asked that the booths be cleared and that voters should mark their papers secretly;
(5) He further stated that the patients, without any regard for their wishes or mental condition, appeared to be herded in to vote. In many cases it appeared to him obvious that they were incapable of understanding what was going on. He also stated that in his opinion many of the patients were voting in names, and presenting cards, other than their own. This was obvious from the manner in which some nurses were canvassing the patients in the corridor, handing them cards and urging them to vote for certain candidates;
(6) I remained in the vicinity of the booth for some time and found conditions to be exactly as described by my Agent;
(7) At one time I heard a nurse urging a patient (who to me appeared incapable of understanding what he was doing)—"In you go, Daly, and vote." This patient presented a card bearing a name other than Daly;
(8) I concluded after about thirty minutes observation, that the patients were, in fact, being herded in to vote, in many cases unwillingly, and that the names of certain candidates were being drummed into their heads.
From the foregoing you will see that there were grave abuses. Since the total vote in the hospital could have had no significant effect on the result of the then General Election I am now taking no further steps in this matter as Election Agent for the Election now past. In view of the serious nature of the abuses, however, I must make the following objections now.
He goes on to say he is objecting to any booth being located in such a hospital for future elections and to any member of the staff of the hospital being appointed as presiding officer or poll clerk in any booth where the patients will vote. He says these objections apply to all other institutions in the county and will be renewed at the appropriate time and pursued as far as possible. The report ends:
In conclusion I would like to state that I feel sure neither you, Sir, nor your assistant were aware of these abuses. As election agent on many occasions I have always received the utmost co-operation from your office and staff. I look forward with confidence to that happy state of affairs continuing.
I read that report to indicate that, arising out of the change in the laws in 1963, certain abuses have occurred and have been facilitated by that change. I believe it is altogether wrong that these unfortunate mental patients should be subject to such abuse. It is quite easy to see how this can arise, more especially when a booth is set up in the institution and when people attached to the institution are employed in it, either as presiding officers or polling clerks, with the various members of the staff around to induce patients to vote one way or another. That pressure could be in favour of any Party; it need not necessarily be in favour of one Party or another.
It is quite obvious that people in that mental state can be induced to vote in certain ways and that it is altogether wrong that the law should facilitate that type of abuse. We are simply asking that in future, notwithstanding anything contained in the Principal Act, where on the qualifying date a person is a patient in any institution for persons suffering from mental disability, such person shall be deemed for the purposes of the Principal Act to be resident in the place where he would have been residing but for his having been such a patient.
If we revert to that situation then, if a patient is considered by the doctor to be well enough to be discharged and to be safe enough to be allowed home to his known place of residence, a vote will be waiting for him. But, if he is not well enough and if the doctor is not prepared to take the responsibility for that type of discharge, that patient will not be allowed to vote. It will be agreed by everybody in the House that such a person should not be allowed to vote. Such persons are not allowed to make their wills; or, if they do, the will does not stand in law. If a person is not capable of making a will, surely we should not have the law in such a way that he can vote?
We all know the seriousness of this and the narrow margins by which seats have been won in certain parts of the country. Nobody wants this type of abuse to continue and I would very strongly recommend the acceptance of this recommendation to the House. I believe the Minister will see the good sense of it and have the position rectified.
The other part of the Bill relates to commercial travellers. It seeks to provide that the postal vote be extended to include commercial travellers. In the course of a number of elections, I have come across many people who are commercial travellers who hold that they are virtually disfranchised because of the fact that elections normally take place in the middle of the week when commercial travellers are away from the place in which they are registered as voters so it is virtually impossible for them to vote. In some cases they cannot vote and in other cases it would involve them in a lot of expense and an immense amount of inconvenience to come back from perhaps the furthest point in the country to vote.
I understand at present there are in all about 4,000 commercial travellers. They are an intelligent body of people in touch with what is happening in the country. They are all the time on the move around the country and they should know what the people's needs are. Therefore, it is very desirable that they should vote. No Party will have a monopoly of their votes. We would all agree it is extremely desirable that they should be facilitated and should not be, as they are at present, practically disfranchised.
I know there is again a danger of abuse and a certain difficulty about ensuring that this postal vote is properly used. For this purpose we have tried to indicate that certain safeguards could be taken. There is a registered body of commercial travellers and I think the danger could be overcome by that body vouching for these people in advance. I think also pretty heavy penalties could be included in the legislation to ensure that, if commercial travellers get this vote, they would not in any way abuse the situation. We all try very hard to get the maximum number of people out to vote. It is very desirable that we should have the maximum number voting. I have come across irate commercial travellers who say that no effort has been made to facilitate them in the matter of voting. The postal vote is available for the Defence Forces and the Garda. The commercial travellers represent a significant number of intelligent persons. I am sure many Deputies will agree with me that they also should be allowed to use the postal vote, if they are able to satisfy the registration authority that they are commercial travellers who by reason of the duties of their employment, would be unlikely to be able to vote in person at an election.
It is possible to safeguard the situation due to the fact that commercial travellers are members of a registered body. There are about 4,000 of them, which is a significant number. I would recommend the Bill in its present form to the House and I hope that it will be accepted.
