Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Feb 1926

Vol. 6 No. 10

PRIVATE BUSINESS. - STATISTICS BILL, 1925—FOURTH STAGE.

I would like to move in Section 2 that there should be added one more matter in which the Minister may, if he wishes, have statistics collected and compiled, and that is in regard to ancient monuments. There are a great number of ancient monuments which it might be necessary or desirable to have at some time statistically tabulated, and it is the wish of certain learned societies interested in these things to have it done. That is the object of the amendment which I beg to move.

CATHAOIRLEACH

The amendment is at letter K.L.:—

To add at the end of the section the words "(1) ancient monuments."

I beg to second the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.
The following amendment stood in the name of Mr. Brown:—
Section 7, sub-section (3). To add at the end of the sub-section two new sub-sections as follows:—
"(4) No person shall be convicted of an offence under sub-section (1) of this section unless and until he has been required in writing by registered post to fill up or otherwise complete a schedule, form or other document according to the instructions contained therein or otherwise communicated to him under this Act and to return or otherwise dispose of such document in accordance with such instructions and has not within the time therein limited complied with such requisition in writing.
(5) No person shall be convicted of an offence under sub-section (2) of this section unless and until he has been required in writing by registered post to give or furnish to such officer of statistics the written or verbal information or to answer the question asked of him by such officer and has not within the time limited in such requisition in writing complied with such requisition in writing."

CATHAOIRLEACH

With regard to the amendment by Senator Brown, I think you will find, Senator Brown, if you look at what you propose that it would be inconsistent with clause 8. I do not mean to say that is any reason why it should not be inserted, but I think your proper course would be to have it inserted instead of clause 8, and for this reason: Section 7 prescribes certain obligations on persons to fill up forms and give answers, verbal or otherwise, to questions. Section 8 prescribes that there has to be a prepaid letter calling for the information, but it does not make any provision as to what is to happen in the case of a verbal communication, so that in a prosecution under Section 7 for refusing to answer a verbal communication there would be no evidence before the court save that of the officer and the contradictory evidence of the other person, whereas in regard to a written requisition you would have the document before the court, which would speak for itself. It seems to me that if you move to have your amendment substituted for Section 8 you would accomplish all you want. If you add it to Section 7 it would be inconsistent with Section 8.

The object of my amendment is in a case where a person fails to comply with a requisition, the mere sending of a registered letter would constitute evidence.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Section 8 prescribes the procedure for getting information. You want to make it better and improve Section 7 by providing that before a person is convicted the information must be asked by registered letter?

That is in the case of a second application.

CATHAOIRLEACH

You do not make that clear. If that is your view the proper thing is to put in this amendment as a sub-section after 8. Section 7 creates two offences; one is failure to give information asked for in writing, the other is failure to give information verbally. You want to protect the individual and make it certain he has got the demand for the information, and you propose that that should be done by means of registered letter?

CATHAOIRLEACH

Then you go on to do the same with regard to the verbal requisition, and you say that before a prosecution can be instituted for a verbal requisition the person must be served with a registered letter repeating in writing the verbal requisition. That is not consistent with Section 8.

These two should be put in one section after Section 8.

I communicated with Senator Brown on this question, and I suggested it might meet the point if at the end of Section 8 (1) it was provided that there was service "unless such occupier shall prove that the document was not received by him."

CATHAOIRLEACH

That would not cover the case of verbal communications, which are most dangerous, for in the case of a written communication the document is there and would speak for itself, and there could not be any dispute about the contents of it. If a man is prosecuted for refusing information at a verbal interview, there is no evidence. It depends on the testimony of the officer and the contradiction of the individual. There is no record. What the amendment aims at is having a written record in both cases.

It is as much for the protection of the statistical officer as the person required to make the return. I would suggest to the President he should adopt the amendment. It is entirely in the interest of the Department.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I think it is desirable the Minister should leave it over until to-morrow. I think the phraseology could be improved if you are both agreed that it is desirable that before a man is prosecuted for not giving information or refusing to answer questions a registered letter should be sent to him setting out the questions put to him previously verbally.

On that point there is a difficulty. In the first place a verbal request for information comes from some person, perhaps a very considerable distance away from Dublin. The office in Dublin would, presumably, send out the registered letter. It would involve very great delay in compiling information, and a very great delay in the administrative machinery in getting out these registered letters to people who had refused to give the information verbally. That is the objection we have to it. The objection is not as regards cost, which would be inconsiderable, but to the overloading of the Registration Department of the Post Office, and the administrative inconvenience.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I do not think the President has quite grasped what Senator Brown proposes. He does not propose that in every case where a verbal request is made it should be followed by a registered letter. It is only where a prosecution is to be instituted. All he asks is, that before a man is convicted for something he has said verbally, it should be repeated to him in writing, so that the particular matter would be before the court. I think it is in his own protection.

You will have a receipt for the registered letter.

A general move against giving information would make it impossible to get it in the last resort. It would mean you would only get the information by reason of a registered packet going out.

That is if there was a general strike.

Not a general strike. There is a disposition very often on the part of people not to give information. It is unreasonable in some cases, and reasonable in others. If a large number of people would not give the information it would render the Act unworkable if it were known that there was no chance of getting the information except by means of the registered post. So far as prosecutions for not complying with verbal requisitions are concerned, you have in the first place the Department, and in the second the courts. Any unreasonable application for prosecution in these cases will at once start an inquiry as to whether or not there have been unreasonable requisitions. If it is to be a success at all it will require co-operation from many sections. The number of prosecutions under the Act ought to be limited to the minimum. There should be no reason why any large number of prosecutions should take place. In the case of any Department the number of prosecutions in relation to the whole body is inconsiderable. I think in this case they should be inconsiderable. It would render the Act difficult of operation if it became known to everybody that no prosecution can take place unless a registered letter has been sent and received.

If the President does not accept the help that I was giving him I will withdraw. It is most important that the amendment should remain so far as written requisitions are concerned. Under Section 8 if a man did not get a letter that was sent to him he could be prosecuted.

I thought I was going a long distance towards meeting Senator Brown's point with the words: "unless such person shall prove that the document was not received by him."

CATHAOIRLEACH

If a man in the case of a written document is to get that protection, surely the unfortunate man who is prosecuted for something said by word of mouth should get some protection. I think the President should reconsider this in the interests of the individual citizen. It is essential that there should be some safeguard.

This safeguards them both.

I am prepared to consider the matter with Senator Brown, but, at the moment, I am not agreeable to this amendment.

CATHAOIRLEACH

The President will let us know his view to-morrow.

Further consideration of amendment postponed.

I handed in the following amendment:—

Section 7, sub-section (3). To add at the end of the sub-section a new sub-section as follows:—

"(4) No person shall be convicted of an offence under sub-sections (1) and (2) of this section if he satisfies the court of summary jurisdiction before which he is brought that he has a conscientious objection to furnishing the information asked of him."

A great many statistics are demanded which are absolutely misleading and unnecessary.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I think that point is covered by the words "No person shall be liable for conviction under this Act unless the Court is satisfied it was a question lawfully and properly put."

It would be lawfully put if the Statistical Officer obtains the right to ask it. Half the queries could not be called statistics at all.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I am greatly afraid if your amendment is accepted the amount of conscientious objections would be rapidly increased.

It may have the effect of having the demand for information amended, which is really what I want. I have been dealing with statistics all my life. Statistics are of two kinds: statistics that are reliable and statistics that are misleading. Every farmer in the country gets notification from the Department of Lands and Agriculture asking him to state the quantity of hay, potatoes and other crops that he produces on his farm. It is obvious that the only way he could arrive at an answer is by means of guess-work. That would not be so bad if it applied to himself alone, but the notice goes on to suggest that he should give the quantity produced by his neighbours in the electoral district in which he resides. My point is that it is absurd to contend that so-called statistics collected in that way could be called statistics at all. It reminds one of the famous American formula for calculating the distance of the earth from the sun. You guess quarter the distance and then multiply the quarter by four. Statistics obtained in that way are absolutely unreliable.

CATHAOIRLEACH

What you want is that a man should not be compelled to furnish information of which he has no knowledge?

And to prevent the publishing at great expense of things which are not statistics. The object of this Bill is to enable the Government to obtain information on which they can base legislation. If that is so, and if the information they get is misleading the legislation is not likely to be effective. If a man is to simply guess at what he has or what his neighbour has and if the results are published as statistics they are more injurious than anything else. That is not the object of statistics. Forms are sent out to farmers every year asking for the average yield per acre within a distance of a mile.

CATHAOIRLEACH

If a man answered "I do not know"?

He is liable to prosecution.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I do not see how a magistrate could convict if he thinks it is a question the man could not answer.

I have got those forms each year and have declined to fill them. If I do that in the future I will probably find myself, for some time, in one of the Free State gaols.

The present method of compiling statistics has been adopted after a very painstaking examination and is the method adopted in America. It is open to an attack such as Senator Barrington has made but he should look for an alternative method. The advantage of the present method can be proved, by people much more expert than the Senator and myself, to be a most reliable method of getting accurate information. The percentage of error in the aggregate is not more than decimal one per cent.

I happen to have some experience of this matter and I know that is not the way those estimates are got in America. If the suggestion I made before is adopted the errors can be obviated. There are plenty of inspectors in the country. They can take a small bit of ground and from that estimate the yield of the whole.

CATHAOIRLEACH

As there is no seconder, the amendment drops.

An amendment was inserted by the Special Committee as follows:—

1. New section. After section 10 a new section inserted as follows:—

"11.—(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 85 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, an appeal shall lie against an order of a Justice of the District Court for the payment of any penal sum under Section 7 or Section 10 of this Act or for any term of imprisonment under Section 7 of this Act to the Judge of the Circuit Court within whose Circuit the District or any part of the District of the Justice lies.

(2) The Justice of the District Court or the Judge of the Circuit Court shall, if requested by any party to any proceeding under this Act (unless he considers the request frivolous). and may, without request, refer any question of law arising in a proceeding under this Act to the Supreme Court for determination, and the determination of the Supreme Court thereon shall be final and conclusive."

I propose to withdraw that for this reason. It was intended to give a right of appeal in the case of a penalty inflicted by a District Justice as set out. The same provision is already inserted.

CATHAOIRLEACH

You are moving the deletion of this?

Amendment put and agreed to.
Debate adjourned.
Top
Share