The motion is "That this Bill be read a second time."
LEAGUE OF NATIONS (GUARANTEE) BILL, 1923. - THE PREVENTION OF ELECTORAL ABUSES BILL, 1923.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Could it not be arranged that when an important Bill like this comes before us, even if we were capable of understanding it, many of us have not the time to read it, it should be very shortly explained by some Minister on behalf of the Government? Even if it were only explained that some of the provisions of the Bill imposed new features, it would help us and enable us to study it for the Committee Stage.
The Minister was here the last day for that purpose.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I am afraid the fact of his presence here on Friday is not very helpful.
No, but it shows that he meant well.
I support the suggestion of Sir John Keane in this matter. It is desirable that some responsible Minister should be here for important Bills.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I feel that myself so strongly that I have always gone out of my way to facilitate the convenience of Ministers so as to guarantee, if I could, that there would be a Minister here who will explain the provisions of a particular Bill. I can do no more than that.
I move that we pass to the next business in order to give the Minister an opportunity of attending here to-morrow.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
To-morrow will be devoted to the Committee Stage of the Land Bill.
I actually have a statement from the Minister on the Electoral Abuses Bill.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Perhaps the Seanad would be very glad to hear it.
The Minister explains that this Bill contains 58 sections, all of which, with the exception of four sections, represent a codification of the existing law relating to corrupt and illegal practices at elections, the general principles of which do not require any alteration. These principles have in the Bill been applied to Seanad elections and to Referenda, with such slight modifications as are necessary. The new sections deal with questions affecting Seanad elections and Referenda, and provide for the number of persons who may be present at a Seanad count, for cases of Seanad candidates becoming disqualified before the completion of the counting, and for the appointment of a sponsor and challenger at a Referendum. The existing law has been varied in the following matters: :— (1) A false statement of withdrawal is a more serious offence at a P.R. election than at former elections. This is now regarded as a "corrupt practice." (2) No limit is placed on the amount a candidate at a Dáil election may spend, so long as a full disclosure of expenses is made. (3) Certain small matters, such as hiring of hackney carriages, bands of music, payments for flags, ribbons, etc., will not now mislead electors, and are not regarded as being in any way illegal. A method for the better enforcement of the penalties for corrupt and illegal practices is provided in the Bill, and for the more serious offences a minimum punishment is provided. Trial will generally be by summary jurisdiction.
Could you give me the numbering of these four sections in the Bill which I have before me?
They are spread out throughout the Bill in different places. There are not definite clauses dealing individually with these four clauses.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I read the debate on this Bill when it was going through the Dáil, and I think the Minister in charge, Mr. Blythe, called attention to a provision directly affecting this Seanad. That is the provision which deprives candidates at a Seanad election of the power of appointing personation agents. You will observe that Section 24 provides that candidates at Seanad elections are not to be allowed to appoint personation agents. The Minister gave very good reasons for that. He said he would like the Seanad to express an opinion on it when it came before it. If we are not going to take the Committee Stage of the Bill to-day I would recommend Senators to look into the matter, and perhaps read the debate on the subject in the Dáil. The way the matter stands is this. At the first Seanad election there will be 45 candidates, and, inasmuch as the constituency covers and includes the entire electorate of the Free State, there will be 5,000 polling booths, and if the unfortunate candidate appoints a personation agent at each booth it would mean 5,000 personation agents, so Senators will have some idea what it means. In addition, if each candidate appoints a separate personation agent there will be 45 such agents in each booth. The thing is impracticable.
What is a personation agent?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
He is the candidate's agent who prevents persons voting in wrong names who are on the register.
He does not personate the candidate?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Probably he does occasionally, but he is not supposed to do so. There were two alternatives. One was that the State should have an agent there of its own to prevent persons personating, but he said that that would be futile, because he could not get anyone who knew the persons in the locality and who could challenge anyone attempting personation. He said that the matter was one for the Seanad, and that he would welcome an expression of opinion from it on the matter when it came before it. I suppose the proper time for discussing that would be in Committee.
On that point, it just occurs to me that, as all human affairs are getting more highly organised, and even politics are not escaping, it is conceivable in the organisation of parties it might be necessary, in the unfortunate event of this Seanad crystallising into parties, for a party of this Seanad to nominate personation agents. That would be a different aspect of the case to individual appointment. I should like to have an opportunity of thinking that over. I do not think that there will be any fear of any individual Senator going to the trouble of appointing 5,000 personation agents. I suggest it is rather fantastic.
I think personation agents can be appointed by groups.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
What Section enables personating agents to be appointed by a group?
Senator MacLysaght was apparently referring to the fact that groups could have representation at the counting.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
If I am right, there is no such provision with regard to personating agents.
No, it would be unfair to the individual independent candidate if groups appointed personating agents.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
There is a suggestion, which is well worth considering, whether the entire candidates might not agree to be represented by one agent. Supposing there are 45 candidates. Instead of having 45 personation agents it might be left open to the candidates that the 45 should combine to have a personating agent.
The system provided is that there should be a policeman of the locality there to watch the interests of all candidates.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Mr. Blythe pointed out that it would be improper and unwise to impose upon the police officer the duty of challenging individuals. It would be an invidious thing to ask the Civic Guard to originate objections to voters. It is another thing to invoke the Civic Guard to get the name and address of a person who is personating another. This discussion shows that there is some importance in the matter.
Colonel Moore
There is a question of the people losing their money if they do not get one-third of the quota. That is quite reasonable; but I think what would happen in those elections has not been considered where there are a great number of candidates. In Dublin County, with eight seats, for instance, you might have twenty candidates. It is quite a different thing to get one-third of the quota when there are ten or twelve. A great difficulty may arise with this great number of candidates.
I think the Seanad is very much obliged to you, sir, for having explained this very difficult clause. I noticed these words, "each candidate at a Seanad election, or any group of such candidates, may appoint a person, etc." If you accept the Bill, there is a way of getting out of the difficulty, but it is a cumbersome thing to deal with indeed, and I do not see, with regard to this Bill. how you are going to get over the difficulty now before the Seanad. You have created this Assembly, and you have got an election on your back, and if you begin to amend you will find that the elections will be on you before you have made up your mind to do anything serious. Therefore, if I had to be elected to this position in this way, I should certainly, if I took the question seriously, go around and ask my friends to form groups and get over the difficulty in that way. You really cannot expect the Seanad and the Dáil to do everything, and the public must try and do something for themselves. We are a new country at this game, and I think it is much better to take the circumstances as they arise and to deal with them. The Bill is well drafted and put together. I have read it and it looks practically a consolidation Bill except for this particular clause pointed out by the Minister acting for the Minister in charge of the Bill.
There is a rather dangerous omission from this Bill which was always in previous Bills, and that is fixing the maximum amount that a candidate for the election to the Dáil would be entitled to spend. I think it is an omission that should receive very serious consideration, because I think it is desirable not to allow persons who may have unlimited supply of money to use that money for the furthering of their candidature. It is pretty generally known that you often find people with a tremendous amount of money who have not the greatest amount of commonsense. The Earl of Mayo said he was rather new to this game. I am not so new. I know a little about elections, and I have been engaged in election work in Dublin for the last twenty-five years, and I think this is rather a serious omission from the Bill.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think the Senator must be under a misapprehension. I have not read the Bill very closely, but looking at Section 8 of Part 2, it appears that there must be some maximum, because it says in Sub-section (2) "subject to such exception as may be allowed in pursuance of this Act, no sum shall be paid by a candidate at an election or by his agent for any purpose in relation to the conduct or management of such election in excess of the maximum amount authorised by this Act." There must be a maximum amount somewhere.
I understood the Minister to say there was no maximum fixed.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Well, he must be wrong, if you look at Section 8.
That Section refers to the fact that he can only spend up to £100 himself.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Where is that provision? The section speaks of the maximum amount authorised by this Act. The maximum must be in the Bill somewhere. It rather seems to me as if it was omitted.
Is it covered by anything in the repeal clauses?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The curious thing is that the section says, "in excess of the maximum amount authorised by this Act," but I cannot find the section which deals with the maximum amount.
I think there are maxima fixed for various items, such as Committee Rooms, etc., but there is no maximum for the whole.
If you refer to Section 36, it says, "The candidate at the Dáil election may pay any personal expenses incurred by him on account of or in connection with or incidental to such election to an amount not exceeding £100, but any further personal expenses further incurred by him shall be paid by his election agent."
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That does not dispose of it at all. It only limits the amount the candidate himself can expend, and it says the rest of his expenses are to be paid by his election agent, but it does not fix any maximum, and I think there must be some omission in this Bill.
There is only a maximum as to the amount he can spend himself. With regard to his general expenses there is no maximum.
That is very serious.
I think, as a matter of fact, it is very undesirable.
I think the Minister distinctly stated in one part of his speech in the debates in the Dáil that they had struck out the maximum and minimum, and that there was no restriction.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
But how does that agree with Section 8, which speaks of expenditure in excess of the maximum amount authorised by this Act? Probably the way it works out is this, that maxima are fixed for certain items of expenditure, and that this section refers to these particular items and that there is to be no payment in excess of the maxima so fixed, but I am not prepared to say that that is correct.
I think it is right, but possibly this clause may have to be re-drafted.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Very well; perhaps you will communicate with the Minister in charge, and we can have his explanation on the Committee Stage.
I will do that.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I would like Senators also to consider this other question about personation agents. My own view is that it would probably be found that the best solution of it is to leave it alone, that is to say to have no personation agents at all. The local interest in the election, which runs for the entire 26 counties, is not likely to be so great as to stimulate much personation, and probably the best solution is the one that the Minister himself approved of, that is to make no provision for the appointment of personation agents in the case of a Seanad election. The alternative, I think, would be to allow candidates by groups or as one body to act in the matter. There will be an opportunity later for Senators to consider this matter, and I think that probably they will agree that we had better adjourn the question to the Committee Stage, which, I think, we might take on Wednesday.
Are we to understand that the suggestion is made now that maxima should be inserted in the Bill, or simply that the words relating to a maximum amount should be deleted from that clause? In other words, is the suggestion made that maxima ought, or ought not, to be fixed in the Bill?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That is a matter for the Seanad. Senator Sir Hutcheson Poe, in his speech, stated that he read in the speeches delivered in the Dáil by the Minister in charge of the Bill that under this Bill a candidate could spend as much money as he liked.
That is actually so, and the reason of it is that in the past the returns furnished in connection with election expenses were never accurate. I think that Senator Farren, who knows something about elections, can bear witness to that. A candidate legally could spend up to £400, but actually he usually spent up to £1,000, and he failed to show in the return he furnished how he spent that money. We think the insertion of this clause would encourage candidates to make a full disclosure of the sums spent by them, and in cases where there were any abuses it would enable a careful scrutiny of the accounts to be made afterwards.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I do not think it is fair to ask Mr. Fitzgerald, because he would hardly be in a position to tell us, what are the payments in respect of which maxima are fixed in respect of this Bill.
The only one I know of is the personal payment by a candidate, which may be up to £100.
The amount allowed for legal expenses in rural constituencies is £75, and in borough areas £50. On the general question, I do agree that there should be a maximum fixed, notwithstanding the fact that heretofore there have been some little abuses as regards furnishing correct returns. We have entered a new era now, and I hope that whatever regulations are laid down by the Parliament of the nation, they will be adhered to by the citizens generally. I hope, even though there may have been electoral abuses in the past, that now under a native Parliament the elections will be conducted on clean lines, and that they will be a credit to the citizens of the Saorstát. The franchise has been extended as far as possible, and I hope that, in all the circumstances, the elections will be conducted in a clean and honourable manner. Hence I think that a maximum should be fixed as regards the amount that a candidate can spend at an election, because I think it would be undesirable to put people with unlimited means at their disposal in such a position as to enable them to be able to buy votes. We know from experience that unless some provision such as I suggest is made candidates with unlimited means could do that. Under all the circumstances, I think the Seanad would be entitled to recommend to the Minister in charge of the Bill to have a maximum fixed of the total that a candidate can spend at an election.
I beg to support the proposal of the last Senator. I regard this proposal from a democratic point of view, which is what we have got to accept now. I think if a maximum is not fixed the clause in the Bill as it stands is reactionary, and highly reactionary.
I could not quite follow the argument of the Minister who suggested that, by removing all restrictions as regards the furnishing of accounts, you would necessarily get true accounts. If there is any item which brings the candidate into the illegal zone, he is not going to include that item merely because he has got freedom to include anything he likes in the accounts. I may be stupid, but I have not been able to follow the arguments of the Minister in that respect. It is highly desirable, I think, that that provision should be examined very closely by the Seanad; and, moreover, in view of the fact that it has been adopted in other countries as a precaution against the unbridled action of a plutocracy, and has been found effective. Whatever may be said here, a provision of that kind has been found effective in other countries. I do not ask the Seanad to take my personal views on that, but I have had an opportunity of meeting people who have actually seen the provision working elsewhere, and, so far as their opinion goes, such a provision has been found to be in the interests of the candidate who has not got the control of unlimited means. I hope, therefore, the Dáil will examine this new proposal very closely.
One can quite understand the admission of the Minister who introduced the Bill, of the ineffective nature of the existing machinery to prevent abuses regarding the amount of money expended on elections, and it is here that I think this Bill is weak also, because I cannot find that it stipulates who shall be the person who will draw attention to a false account, who will try to investigate whether the accounts are falsified or otherwise. During the last election, which, of course, was not a normal one, to say the least, but was symptomatic of what may occur again, we had the most fantastic returns made regarding election expenses. We had cases of bunches of candidates returning their total expenses at £45 each, though everybody knew they were nearer to as many hundreds, and when they got every vehicle that could be bought or hired in Dublin, and which were paid for at exorbitant rates. The Returning Officer or the Sheriff accepted that statement, and it was not questioned in the least. Evidently no inquiry was made into it. Somebody suggested to some of these candidates that that was an absurd statement, and the reply was: "We only put down personal expenses; the Party we belong to paid the rest." If they could get over the restriction of amount of expenditure in that way, and if it were left to a private citizen, or one of their own opponents, to raise a question, then I say restrictions in regard to expenses are a mere farce.
I agree with Sir John Keane that it is an exceedingly retrograde step and is a confession that the law cannot be enforced in regard to matters of this kind. I hope that we shall have some time to consider the introduction of amendments of a suitable nature into this. I am surprised that when the Bill was passing through the Dáil there did not seem to be very much objection to this, what we would consider, serious omission. Regarding the question of personation agents in the case of Seanad elections, I am personally entirely in accord with the provisions of the Bill. I believe that it is utterly impracticable and undesirable to try to find thousands of personation agents. I think one stands a better chance really of getting something like justice or equitable treatment by this arrangement. It may not be very desirable to have the local Civic Guard challenging people in the first instance, but I do not think that they are going to win any unpopularity by acting in that way, and, in any case, the presiding officer will, under this Bill, have the right to challenge any person whom he looks upon as being engaged in an attempt to personate. The provision regarding disorderly conduct at meetings is a very desirable one and should be particularly enforced outside polling booths. It was very regrettable at some of the recent elections to see the manner in which would-be voters were intimidated on the way to the polls, women and others being actually carried in by a lot of robust young men and told whom they were to vote for, thereby being frightened and confused. Many people turned back, women particularly, when they heard of the scenes that were being enacted outside some of the polling booths. The local police authorities should have very strict instructions to see that nothing of that kind goes on at future elections. Canvassing should be confined to the homes of the people and not to the polling booths where people are expected to vote in the way they are intended to vote and not have them intimidated into doing something they never intended to do just as they arrive at the polling booths.
I understand that the Minister has undertaken to re-cast portion of the Bill.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Do not put him in that position. I do not think he has done that. I think he has said that he will confer with the Ministers and mention what has been said here, but I do not think he has given any undertaking to re-cast the Bill.
Only the portion referring to the maximum.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I do not think he has even gone that far.
Would it be desirable for the Seanad to pass a resolution that in their opinion it would be desirable to fix the maximum?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The obvious course would be for some Senator to put down an amendment in Committee, and therefore I suggest to the Seanad that in view of what has occurred I think it should confine itself to the Second Reading of this Bill to-day, and then all these points mentioned could be disposed of on the Committee Stage.
It is quite possible that the Government itself will introduce an amendment, and I think we could leave it to the Minister.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Quite so They will have an opportunity of considering it, at any rate.
Question put: "That the Bill be read a Second Time."
Agreed.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday.