Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 25 Feb 1926

Vol. 6 No. 11

STATISTICS BILL. 1925—FOURTH STAGE (RESUMED).

Mr. BROWN

Since the Seanad rose yesterday I have had an opportunity of conferring with the President and he has satisfied me that this amendment of mine would in all likelihood interfere with the due operation of this Bill when it becomes an Act. I therefore, with the leave of the Seanad, am willing to withdraw my amendment, which reads:

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."

The President has suggested another amendment in lieu of it which I shall have very great pleasure in moving. My object in the amendment that is on the Order Paper was to protect a person who has been prosecuted because he did not comply either with the requisition in writing which had been sent to him through the post, or answer the question which had been put to him verbally. So far as the requisition through the post was concerned, the hardship and danger of it to the person who was served with the requisition is this, that under Section 8 of the Bill the mere posting of the letter was conclusive evidence that he got it. I consider that that was not fair. It put an end to the case once you proved the posting of the letter. That, of course, is not fair to the poor man in the country, or even in our towns, where the post occasionally goes wrong, and a letter which has been properly addressed is not delivered. Accordingly, I tabled the amendment that before a man could be prosecuted or convicted for not answering a requisition sent to him through the post by the officer, the latter should take the precaution of sending him a registered letter which would be an assurance that he had got it, because you have the receipt by himself or someone in his house. That is equally important, and the amendment which the President has given and which I am now proposing deals with that in such a way as to reasonably protect the person. The amendment is:—

To add in line 47, Section 8, after the words "served therewith" the following words: "unless such occupier shall satisfy the court that the document has not been received by him."

That is, the prosecution will have to prove the posting of the letter. That will only be prima facie evidence that the letter was received by the person to whom it was addressed, and the person to whom it was addressed will have an opportunity of coming up and satisfying the court that he did not get it. Then it would be for the court to say whether he is telling the truth.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I notice you left out the matter of verbal communications.

Mr. BROWN

I have, because in that case the danger is not so great, where you have the evidence of a man who put the question verbally. But the mere putting of the question verbally is not conclusive. The other side can say, "I did not refuse to answer the question," or "I gave reasons for not answering the question," or "that was not the question he put me." I therefore consider that I am justified, with the leave of the Seanad, in withdrawing my amendment.

Mr. BENNETT

I felt very strongly that a safeguard should be put in for the protection of the ordinary individual. I am not accustomed to sifting evidence and I would like to know how the matter will be dealt with. You would have one witness stating one thing, that the letter was sent, and you would have the other stating that he did not get it. Which would have the most weight? Let us take an ordinary case and the evidence produced by the Government would be that the letter was posted, but the man from whom the information was required comes up and says he did not receive the letter. What is the judge to do in that case?

Mr. DOUGLAS

It depends on the individual.

Mr. BROWN

It depends on the credibility of the individual witness.

CATHAOIRLEACH

It depends on the judge.

Mr. BROWN

I would like to press the amendment which has been suggested by the President.

Mr. FANNING

Surely if a man is worth ringing up and communicating with, his name should not be ignored. I can see no meaning in addressing a serious communication of this type with an automatic stamp of "the occupier." That is not treating the citizen with ordinary courtesy. I protest against the sending out of a letter addressed with a rubber stamp to "the occupier."

The PRESIDENT

I would like to ask the Senator to extend his range of vision and consider the possibility of addressing a letter for the purpose of this Bill to one of these houses in which there are a number of occupiers.

Mr. FANNING

I will just say this, that the man who would get a document like that would treat it in a very trivial way and as a very trivial document.

The PRESIDENT

It is a well-known established method for compiling the records of the population, and it is in that sense that the word "occupier" is used—so that a census might be taken or that such other information might be secured as is required under the Bill, where more than one person resides in a house and where, of course, the officer of statistics would have a book in which he would record the name of the person upon whom he would serve it.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Is there any provision in the Act for his having to record the name of the person?

The PRESIDENT

No, sir.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Because the civil bill officer has to enter the service of the civil bill. I do not see any provision of the sort.

I do not want to appear unduly pressing on the President in this matter, but it does seem to me that a great deal of injustice may be done under this particular clause. We all know sometimes how uncertain the post may be owing to various causes. It is not merely the question of dishonesty, which is very rare—and it is a tremendous tribute that it occurs so very seldom—but then you have cases of where it may be delivered to the wrong person, leaving it at the wrong house, or perhaps forgetting to stamp it. There is a variety of causes which make it very likely that the occupier will never get it. Then you are placing the Judge in a very big difficulty, because in one case he will have to discredit the occupier or in the other case discredit the statistical officer. All that trouble will be got over by this other proposal of Senator Brown's which will also cover what I think is the more critical case— that is, the verbal case. If the officer swears that he asked a particular question the man on the other side may say that he was never asked that or that that was not the question he was asked at all or that it was some wholly improper question he was asked. In that case you are placing the Judge in a very difficult position, whereas if you provide that the question should be set out in a registered letter, then you have the man's own receipt for the document and his mouth is closed. It would add to the expense, of course, but I do not think the expense would be prohibitive because it would only apply in the case of an anticipated prosecution. The President, I am sure, has considered this thing much more carefully than I have, but I fear cases will arise under this clause that may be very harsh.

The PRESIDENT

There are two forms. There is the case of the occupier upon whom a document is served, and there is the case of the person to whom a verbal inquiry is put. In the case of the document, if the person satisfies the Court that he has not received the document a prosecution will not lie. Let us examine the class of case that is likely to arise. An officer of statistics requires information. His main purpose is to get information. A prosecution is his only security for getting it in the event of some person desiring to withhold it from him, but his main purpose and his whole business is to get the information, and the document is his means of getting it. Suppose a person explains that he has not received it. The obvious course for the officer of statistics is to leave another document, to hand it to him, in order that he may get the information. Say that an officer required some information verbally. He is refused it and he serves the person with a summons. It is open to the person then to come along and supply the information in order to avoid the prosecution. There is nothing simpler. A prosecution can only lie when such information is being withheld as will make the compilation of statistics impossible.

CATHAOIRLEACH

But if the person withholds the information until after he gets the summons, he has to pay the cost of the summons.

The PRESIDENT

If he withholds the information until after he gets the summons, obviously he should pay the costs of the summons.

CATHAOIRLEACH

He may also get three months. The position at present is that Senator Brown has moved the amendment——

Mr. BROWN

I am asking for leave to withdraw my own amendment.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Upon that motion for leave to withdraw any Senator can speak.

Mr. BENNETT

I beg to move that leave to withdraw be not granted.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I will put the question that Senator Brown be granted leave to withdraw his amendment.

Question put and declared lost on a show of hands.

Mr. BENNETT

Will Senator Brown now move the amendment?

CATHAOIRLEACH

The original amendment is now before the House. It has been proposed and duly seconded, and permission to withdraw the amendment has been refused. The sense of the House will now have to be taken on it. It was moved by Senator Brown yesterday, otherwise it would not be necessary to ask leave to withdraw it.

The PRESIDENT

As nobody is speaking in favour of the amendment, I will take the opportunity of saying a few words against it. I do not want it to be taken that it is in the nature of a threat, but I must say that if this amendment is passed, it is unlikely that the Census will be taken this year. It is unlikely that it could be taken if the amendment were passed. Let us examine the case and see what happens. In the first place, a huge number of requisitions must be sent out. In many cases in the city alone these documents must be left under the description "occupier." Nobody knows that better than people who live in the city and who have had occasion sometimes either to visit such houses or to canvass for votes in such houses. If it be held or if it be thought that it is possible to send out in a week registered packets to occupiers in order to get that information, then I think responsibility for getting it will have to fall on somebody other than the present statistician. Those who are acquainted with the Representation of the People Act of 1885 will know that registers of voters were compiled in this city on requisition served on the occupiers, and in the case of a house in which there were flats, that they were left with one person in that building, and that in the majority of cases they were properly filled up and properly returned, and possibly not more than five per cent. of the people lost their votes.

On a given day in April it is proposed to take the Census in Northern Ireland, and it is advisable that the taking of the Census for the whole country should go on on one day. It is to be hoped that we shall be ready upon an agreed date to get the information. Documents must be left with occupiers in each particular case for a particular day over the whole country, and not confined to the city alone. It is suggested that within a given period, if not returned, the registered packet must go out in order to effect the workability of this particular Bill when it becomes an Act. I submit, and I think I explained at some length to Senator Brown, that that was impossible. One case remains to be answered. That is as to the verbal requisition. A person is asked for information and refuses. If the officer for statistics is one who desires to prosecute persons unreasonably, there is the Minister for Industry and Commerce responsible to the Dáil. He will have to answer any questions that may be put to him in regard to such prosecutions. At the present moment it is open to the Civic Guards to arrest a man whom they believe is drunk and disorderly; the man may not be drunk and disorderly, but the Guard has absolute power; he could place a Senator under arrest, but it does not happen. And you might say if we were bringing in a Police Bill for the first time, is not that an extraordinary power to give to a policeman about whom you know little or nothing?

The extraordinary power given here is to get the statistics you require. There is a very short period of time in which to get the statistics required. There is a certain method provided for getting them by serving a document, and the supposedly aggrieved person is in a position to draw attention to any officer who outsteps his duty. In the whole range of the civil service, where there are large numbers of people employed by the State, very few cases of indiscipline or of desire to do anything unpleasant when they are seeking information occur. The real purpose here is to get information and if, in order to get that, a particular officer has to serve 20 or 30 summonses in order to procure what he is sent to get—if such a thing happens it makes his superior look into the question to see whether or not that is the type of person to get the information. If it was known that an officer had a large number of prosecutions in his area, very likely his superior would suggest the need for trying a change and would see that some person would be sent who might prove better at getting such information.

Mr. BENNETT

What is the specific case against this amendment? The Census in this case is to be taken about April 8th. The particular section to which this amendment has reference deals with convictions for failure to supply certain statistics. Is it seriously suggested that between now and 8th April all cases of people who fail to supply the information can be dealt with seriatim, prosecuted and convicted so as to ensure that the taking of the Census on that date will be in compliance with the law as laid down in the section? I think it would be quite impossible within the period suggested here, some six weeks. You first make your application, and having made your application, you satisfy yourself that some person is a delinquent; then an officer of the Statistics Department, having satisfied himself that there are delinquents, prosecutes and gets a conviction. I think it would be impossible between now and the 8th April to set in order the machinery necessary for such arrangement, and having set the machinery in order, then to perfect the working of the machinery. Therefore, I say that to suggest to the Seanad that this particular amendment, dealing with the Census, will vitiate the taking of the Census is hardly fair, because I submit that the powers in Section 7 cannot be enforced between now and the taking of the Census, and, therefore, to say that they are required for the Census is hardly a reason for the withdrawal of this amendment, which, I consider, is in the interests of the citizens.

The position will be if the citizen does not get this, in spite of all that is said about the Census, any man having had a letter posted to him can be brought before a court, and evidence of the letter having been posted being given by some officer, he would make him liable to a penalty in a summary court of jurisdiction not exceeding three months' imprisonment. That is a horrible position, but apart from that horrible position, I do not think that the people of Ireland are so inimical to the taking of a Census, or to any other statistics, that they would be hostile or that they would fail to give the necessary information to enable it to be taken successfully.

The PRESIDENT

There will be no prosection then.

Mr. BENNETT

I hope there will be none, but certainly the individual should be safeguarded against the danger of getting three months' imprisonment for an offence which he did know by reasonable information was an offence. That is the position with regard to this amendment, and I think it is a reasonable position, and I think the Seanad should insist upon this amendment and pass it. There is no fear, to my mind, that the acceptance of this amendment will vitiate the taking of the Census. If the Seanad has satisfied itself that the insertion of this amendment in the Bill will not vitiate the taking of the Census, then it ought to pass the amendment.

Mr. BROWN

The individual is sufficiently protected by the draft amendment, which I intend to move, after this amendment is withdrawn. A prosection would not be effective unless the court was satisfied that the person got the document which had been sent to him. You will not only have the evidence of the post, but you will also have the evidence of the individual himself who can come up and swear that he did not get the document. I have no doubt as to the way in which a court would decide a case of that kind.

Sir JOHN KEANE

On this question of the Census return a prosecution cannot take place unless failure to supply the information at the moment has been established. I do not see what powers would help the taking of a Census if people do not wish to render a return; the harm is done by the refusal to render the return. In the case of wholesale refusal you cannot deal with the Census retrospectively. It is the essence of a Census that it should be taken simultaneously. I cannot see how these special and hasty powers of prosecution, to which we object, will in any way help the Government in regard to the collection of the Census.

Mr. O'FARRELL

In my honest opinion one of the inevitable results of the passing of this amendment would be that anybody having any objection to supply their statistics would wait until they get the registered letter, but that does not mean that before that a person can be prosecuted. He will have to get the registered letter, and he will put off the supplying of the information until he receives that letter. There are many people who hate the idea of having to supply any form of statistics. Sometimes these people act on principle and sometimes through laziness, and that type of person, if he thinks he is going to get a registered letter, is going to put the matter off until the last hour and until he gets that letter. I do not see what all the alarm is about. What is asked for here is asked for in every up-to-date country in the world, and this information which is asked for in every civilised State seems to have created more alarm than if the Bill was one that threatened the lives and safety of the citizens. This opposition has come from people who are always crying out that we should be prepared to trust the Government in every respect. These are the people who say you must trust your Government and their officials or else you cannot get on with Parliamentary institutions. We have been told over and over again that we must trust the Government when we have been speaking about the safety of the citizen. Senators who object and who oppose the withdrawing of this amendment never thought of putting down an amendment themselves. It was only when Senator Brown agreed to withdraw his amendment that we were told that if it was withdrawn the whole safety of the citizens of the State would be imperilled. Senator Bennett did not put down an amendment.

Mr. BENNETT

I suggested to Senator Brown that this amendment should be pressed and that it was essential to the Bill.

Mr. O'FARRELL

I do not know whether that applied to all the other Senators who objected to the withdrawal of the amendment. I think all citizens are sufficiently protected by the amendment suggested. Not a single case has been quoted to show there is grave danger in the Bill as it stands, or as it will be if this amendment is accepted. When it can be shown that the Bill is not sufficiently watertight in this respect I think it will be time enough to put in these cumbersome safeguards which involve delay and expense and encourage those who have been always disposed for one cause or another to withhold information that is essential in the life of any civilized State.

Mr. FANNING

My reading of the President's speech is that he evidently thinks that there is likely to be organised opposition, or a reluctance on the part of the people, to rendering such information as will enable the Government to compile essential statistics of a reliable character. I think that is a reflection on the people, and I believe that there is a better civic spirit in the country. It is an assumption that the average citizen will not respond unless under threat of imprisonment. I say that is an undeserved censure on the people of the country, and that is why I am opposed to it.

The PRESIDENT

I never heard such rubbish as long as I am alive. Take an example and see what it is like. The Senator says there is no opposition and there will be no opposition, but he is afraid of his life there will be prosecutions. Either there is a fear of prosecution or there is not. If there is good citizenship there is no prosecution. The Senator says there is good citizenship. What is the fear then? It is simply posturing before the people and pretending you are their only guardian.

Mr. FANNING

I say that the President has produced no proofs in any shape or form of this want of citizenship.

The PRESIDENT

I said there were requisitions laid down in connection with the Representation of the People Act. If the Senator does not know anything about that Act I am sorry for him. The information was got under that, but if it was known that a registered letter had to be sent the information would not have been got so easily. I have very much more experience than the Senator in connection with these matters, and I have more knowledge of the people. I am perfectly satisfied that in a case like this it is a second letter that is looked for. The Senator comes from a part of the country where there is a second bell rung for devotions or religious duties, and people wait for it. They will wait for the registered letter in this case.

Mr. JAMESON

I think the Seanad ought to be rather slow and take considerable thought before they vote on what is before the House. The matter was very carefully gone into by the Select Committee, and undoubtedly we saw the great difficulties there were in dealing with this question of the registered letter. The President disapproved of it, and so we held it over because we saw it was an amendment which the Select Committee thought they ought not to force in view of the case the President put up against it. It was held over specially for consultation and the result is the amendment which Senator Brown has agreed with the President gives all reasonable protection to anyone who is rendered liable to prosecution without having a chance of stating his case. I think in view of what we have heard from the President, and knowing the way the matter has been handled by the Select Committee, and that this amendment represents the considered opinion of those who have been studying it very much, the Seanad should very seriously consider the matter before voting against the case the President has put so strongly. Senator O'Farrell put the matter plainly. His point is that if we insist on this amendment and leave in the registered letter there will be delays which will make the taking of the Census not easy. It would be a strong action for the Seanad with that knowledge to vote against the withdrawal of the amendment.

Mrs. WYSE POWER

I think it is rather a pity that the Select Committee who went into all these details should have allowed these two amendments of Senator Brown to come up here. I think that is the trouble.

Mr. DOUGLAS

I was Chairman of the Committee, and I would like to explain the position. When the amendment was moved in Committee by Senator Brown the Committee felt there was a fair case made for some alteration in the Bill. The President made a case which convinced every member of the Committee that the way proposed in the amendment would not be the wisest way of doing it. The President undertook, if possible, to bring forward on the Report Stage an alternative amendment to meet the case. It was suggested to Senator Brown definitely by me that he should put down his amendment again. That course has been adopted again and again in this House between the Committee and the Fourth Stages to ensure that the matter would be discussed.

The PRESIDENT

I may explain that I wrote to Senator Brown stating what we were prepared to agree to. Unfortunately he did not get the letter until this evening, although it was sent at an earlier date. When this matter came up I asked Senator Brown if he had received the letter, and he said that he had not. He told me after that he had not called at the office and was not aware that it was there.

Mr. BENNETT

With the particular amendment before us, and the amendment suggested by Senator Brown, the position is very peculiar. Senator Brown smiles, but he has a facile lawyer's mind, and we have not; we simply try to gather the facts from a short statement read here at a moment's notice. What we have before us is the amendment on the Order Paper, and that amendment, in spite of talks they had in Committee, was moved by Senator Brown yesterday and seconded by one who may have been a member of the Committee. The President was in the House yesterday, and he did not produce his alternative amendment. That, to my mind, is the position. Why is it now, after all this arrangement by the infallible Committee——

Mr. DOUGLAS

That was not suggested by me.

Mr. BENNETT

We have nothing before us except the new amendment which was read out. It is very hard for us to decide whether it will meet some of our objections to the Bill.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I am sure you would be anxious to be perfectly fair. I think it is only right to state that the President stated in my hearing that he would be glad to confer with Senator Brown in this matter. He stated that in the hearing of the Seanad, and that was with a view to seeing if the Seanad could arrive at some solution which would not go so far as the amendment we are now discussing, and which would meet objections. Of course that does not bind the House. It is only fair to the President and to Senator Brown that that should be stated.

Mr. BROWN

As a matter of personal explanation, I may say that I moved this amendment yesterday in consequence of an arrangement I had made with the President at the Select Committee and for the purpose of inviting the amendment which he intends as an alternative. I was quite satisfied that my amendment went too far when I saw the President's amendment this morning.

Mr. BENNETT

But we have never seen it.

Colonel MOORE

This is very complicated.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I think it has been the constant practice here for a Minister to say off-hand: "I will accept the principle of the amendment, but it seems to go too far. I will look into it, and let you have the Government's view." That has been repeatedly done. When the Minister turns up next day the Seanad very often has accepted as a solution, and by way of compromise, an amendment which the Minister has altered. There is nothing new and nothing extraordinary or abnormal in that proceeding.

Sir J. KEANE

May I ask how any form of prosecution is going to assist the preparation of the Census?

CATHAOIRLEACH

If the Census is to be taken in April, the prosecution, in any event, must hold over. Therefore the delay cannot interfere with the taking of the Census.

The PRESIDENT

I might answer the Senator's question by asking another one. How is any census compiled, or how is any register of voters compiled? There is a notice on it stating that failure to return the document within a certain date renders the person liable to a fine of forty shillings. It does not hold it up. It simply makes it more expensive to get the Census. It is known that a particular document is not returned, and it is someone's business to see that the information which was not given on the document is given in some other way, and that the person responsible for the omission is prosecuted. Is it in order to move an amendment?

CATHAOIRLEACH

If this amendment is rejected, it will be quite competent for any Senator to move the one the President suggests.

Mr. KENNEDY

Can we know what the President's alternative amendment is?

CATHAOIRLEACH

Under the Bill as originally framed, in the case of a written demand for information, it was provided that once the fact was proved that a prepaid letter addressed to the individual, asking for the information, had been posted, that was sufficient, and the court would have to act and say: "This man got that requisition in writing because there is evidence that a stamp was put on it and that it was duly posted. Under the Act we are bound by that to assume that he got it, whether he did or not." That did not seem just, particularly in the case of a criminal prosecution. The Committee, accordingly, seeing the injustice of it, adopted for the purpose of investigation the particular amendment now appearing on the Orders of the Day. Apparently they were afterwards convinced by the President that that amendment would be unworkable and injurious to the taking of statistics and be very expensive, so they arranged that while it should be put on the Orders of the Day for the purpose of discussion, it should be put there only to see if some compromise could not be arrived at between the Committee and the Government. As a compromise the Government suggest that in the case of a written demand for information it will be open to the person who is alleged to have failed to answer, to prove that he did not in fact receive the pre-paid letter, and if he proves that to the satisfaction of the magistrate, he is not to be found guilty of the offence.

Amendment put and declared lost on a show of hands.

Mr. BROWN

I move:—

"To add at the end of sub-section (1), Section 8, the following words:

"Unless such occupier shall satisfy the court that the document was not received by him."

CATHAOIRLEACH

The result of adding these words will be that the offence mentioned in Section 7, in so far as it deals with written information, will not be the subject of conviction if the occupier proves that in fact he did not get the letter, although it was proved that it was posted to him.

Amendment put and agreed to.

The PRESIDENT

Might I ask if it would be possible to allow a shortening of the period for the passing of this Bill, as we have only a short time to dispose of it?

CATHAOIRLEACH

I am sure the Seanad will be quite willing, if we are to meet on Wednesday next to take the remaining stage of the Bill. I cannot promise that, but I imagine it will be received with a certain amount of favour.