Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 23 Oct 1928

Vol. 10 No. 30

PUBLIC BUSINESS. - SEANAD ELECTORAL BILL, 1928—SECOND STAGE.

Order for Second Reading read.

Question proposed:—"That this Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. FARREN

This is a Bill to give legislative effect to previous Acts passed by the Oireachtas, and to make provision for the carrying out of future elections to this House. The alterations necessary for taking away from the people the power they possessed, formerly, of electing members to this House, make it necessary that other arrangements should be made. This Bill is purely in order to make the necessary arrangement consequent upon the changes that have been made. There are some clauses in the Bill that require careful consideration. The manner in which it is proposed to hold the election appears to be anything but democratic. It is proposed that in future elections for members of this House the voters shall vote by post. I object to that principle. I think it is unfair and unjust. Members of the Oireachtas when exercising the functions they are empowered to perform should be compelled to come here and perform that work in a proper way.

There is no reason in the world why the ballot papers should be sent out by post to the members of the Oireachtas. I have read the arguments put forward in the other House by the Minister in charge of the Bill. With all respect to him, I say they were not arguments but merely excuses. I do not think that any argument could be put forward in favour of sending ballot papers by post to members of the Oireachtas. Previously, when elections to this House took place under the ordinary system of election, we expected the farmer, the labourer, the shopkeeper and all classes of electors to leave their business and suffer the inconvenience of travelling to the polling place appointed to register their votes. In some cases they had to travel many miles to do so, and the same regulations still obtain with regard to election to the Dáil and to local boards. The people are expected to do that, and have done it. They are abused when they do not go in large numbers to vote. It is said that the people who have votes should exercise them, and that they do not display good citizenship if they remain away from voting. We are all anxious that the people of the country should take an interest in the carrying on of the business of the country, but here it is proposed that there should be postal voting for the elected representatives of the people themselves. These elected representatives are not asked to make any sacrifice. If they have to leave their business, they are at no loss by doing so because they are recouped by the State. If they have to travel any distance, the State provides them with the cost of the conveyance they avail of. I submit that it is very undemocratic to institute this system of postal voting.

There is another reason why I oppose the proposed system, and it is this: If the electorate for this election do not take a sufficient interest in the matter to come to Leinster House, or whatever other venue is selected for the purpose of registering their votes, I think that they are not entitled to have their votes recorded. If they do not think it worth their while to come and ask for a ballot paper, I do not think they are entitled to get it. There is no justification, in my opinion, for sending out the ballot papers by post simply to convenience people so that they can mark them at home and send them back. Personally, I think it would be a far greater inconvenience to have to go before a Peace Commissioner and make a long declaration that I was "Thomas Farren" than to come here, or to whatever place is appointed, and record my vote. Since I became an elector I have always gone to the polling place appointed, demanded my ballot paper and marked it according to my choice. It appears to me that this new arrangement is proposed simply to suit the convenience of a few people. It is notorious that there are members of this House who never attend. I want to be quite frank about this and to say that I think it is most unfair and unjust that this arrangement should be made to facilitate people in order that they may reelect themselves, people who have been members of this Assembly for a number of years and whose record of attendance has been disgraceful. I think that is unfair and wrong and for that reason I oppose this proposal.

I have already expressed my opposition to the principle underlying this Bill and to the manner of election. We made our protest when the Bill was going through this House because we believed that it takes away from the people their right to elect members to this House. But there is no use now in crying over spilt milk. On account of the changes made in the earlier Bill, it was necessary of course that other alterations should be made. In my opinion the greatest blemish in this Bill is this proposed system of voting by post. I hope that on the Committee Stage members of the House will take the necessary steps to have alterations made in the Bill so that those qualified to vote at the election will be obliged to do what the humblest citizen of the State has to do in an election to the Parliament, and as was the case up to this as regards the election of members to this House, namely, to come along and ask for his ballot paper and get it at the venue appointed where he would then record his vote. As far as I can see, the other matters dealt with in the Bill are matters of detail. This question of postal voting is in my opinion the one blemish in the Bill, and on the Committee Stage I propose to take steps with a view to remedying that.

Mr. O'FARRELL

I desire to support what has been said by Senator Farren, and I hope that the change that he has indicated will receive support when the Bill is in Committee. The practice of postal voting has not been justified, and no very serious attempt has been made to justify it. The first Seanad, or that portion of it that was elected by the Dáil, was elected by direct vote. The Deputies had to be in their places to vote. It was much more dangerous and inconvenient in those days, in December, 1922, to come to Leinster House and vote than it is to-day, or will be, I hope, in the future. The panel for the 1925 Seanad election was formed by the direct vote of members of both Houses of the Oireachtas and not by postal voting. That was an important vote because a candidate could not go forward for election unless he was placed on the panel, so that, in effect, you had a preliminary election of a rather wide kind on that occasion. Still, that was not done by postal voting. The voting for the formation of the panel for future elections under this Bill has to be by direct vote also. Members of either House cannot vote by post. They will have to come here and vote in order to put a candidate on the panel for election. It is quite possible that that vote for the panel may be the final and decisive vote. What is there to prevent each interest represented putting on the panel only just so many candidates as it feels it will be able to elect when it comes to the final election? On this occasion, instead of having 38 candidates nominated, you might have only 19.

I would like to know from the Minister on whom does the responsibility lie to see that two candidates are nominated for each vacancy? I can quite conceive a position in which the Seanad would put on the panel only 7 or 8 candidates, and the Dáil might only put on 11 or 12. You might find that when the panel was formed there were only 19 candidates for 19 places. I would like to know as a matter of law and procedure who, in the opinion of the Minister, is responsible for filling the panel in the event of such a position arising which is not very probable, but at all events is possible. The point that I am putting shows that the election for the panel is just as important as the final election and might, in effect, almost prove to be the final election. Yet, it is to be done by direct vote, whilst the final election is to go through the formula of postal voting. That may mean sending ballot papers to all parts of the world, wherever the roaming birds of either House may find themselves when the election comes along. The election is to be by members of the Oireachtas, and the voting should take place in the Oireachtas. Fancy when it comes to electing a president of the Executive Council sending out ballot papers by post to Deputies, and not asking them to turn up to vote. The election of a President and the election of an Executive Council are surely important matters, and yet if Deputies are absent through illness, accident or public business, or through any other cause, no account is taken of that, because then they are voting as trustees for their constituents and they have to come and exercise their votes in person. I cannot imagine, for instance, this House taking a decision, when we proceed to elect officers of the House, that we would have voting by ballot. It would be absurd.

This election is different to an ordinary election where each man acts for himself, for on this particular occasion he is acting as a trustee for the people who placed him in the position to vote. As such, he should be here to vote and not vote by ballot. Some arguments were advanced to the effect that it might mean unnecessary expenditure to bring Deputies and Senators to Leinster House, that the time may arrive when there would be no autumn sessions, and that it would be incurring unnecessary expense to bring people here to Dublin. As matters stand, they have to come in any case for the formation of the panel. If voting is direct they could place the members on the panel, and the next day they would have the final election without going home.

If the State has to pay their expenses it is saving considerably by the new method of election. The last Seanad election cost £44,000, and, according to the President, the cost of preparing the register was £4,000 or £5,000 additional, so that this method of election saves nearly £50,000. Now, we have the economy ramp when it comes to a question of saving a few hundred pounds. The Seanad election should be important enough in view of the powers possessed by the Seanad to bring people here to vote even though it should cost a couple of hundred pounds. I cannot hold with this mania of trying to avoid inconveniencing members of the Oireachtas. Surely they realised that a certain amount of inconvenience was involved in becoming members of the Oireachtas? If they come once in three years to Dublin, when otherwise they might not come, I do not think they have any real cause of complaint. Senator Farren has referred to the question of the chronic absentee, and that is certainly a very burning aspect of this question. I agree it might not be a very keen one in the future, and that the new Seanad may comprise none but good attendants, but it is possible we may have in the future people elected for nine years or less who would feel they could take things easy, or circumstances may turn up to prevent them from attending. It is setting a bad example to find that a person who comes here only once in the year, or less, can exercise such vital influence in electing his own successor, or re-electing himself, or otherwise reconstituting the House.

This applies to the other place as well as to the Seanad. Speakers elsewhere seemed to think that the only danger lay in connection with this House. We had the case of a Deputy some time ago — he is not now in the Dáil — who for a whole year did not attend the Dáil. His case was called attention to on a good many occasions. Such a Deputy on this occasion would have the same voice in electing members to the Seanad without turning up. The argument will be used that the absentees would be present when it comes to an election, but we would like to put them to the trouble of attending at any rate. We would like to see some of them here. They come so seldom that they would brighten the monotony of the place. If they come no more than once in three years we will be glad to meet them. I am opposed to the postal section of the Bill, and I will try to bring about a more democratic method. There is plenty of time for inserting amendments if the postal voting is done away with. If not, we are rushed for time. If the postal voting is insisted on there need be no such long interval as a fortnight from the time the ballot papers are sent out until they are returned. I hope the House will remember that when discussing the merits and demerits of postal voting on the Committee Stage.

MINISTER for LOCAL GOVERNMENT and PUBLIC HEALTH (General Mulcahy)

Senator O'Farrell objected to certain nonsense talked in the other House. On the other hand, Senator Farren takes a lot of it to his bosom, and he asks us to discuss this matter on the plea that this particular form of election is to facilitate a Senator in Monte Carlo who is anxious to return once in three years and perpetuate himself in the Seanad. I suggest you ought to get rid of ideas such as that and discuss the proposals in the Bill upon the issue of whether they are the best kind of proposals to enable members of both Houses to do their business in the most satisfactory way, whether from their own point of view or from the point of view of people who pay most attention to their work here. It is said that Deputies and Senators are paid for attending to their business and, therefore, they ought to be prepared for all the inconveniences likely to arise. I think we ought to realise the very great amount of labour Senators and Deputies take on themselves in attending to discharge their duties, and we ought to convenience them and make matters as easy for them in the discharge of their duties as we possibly can. It is also suggested that Senators have to come here in any case in order to form a panel shall be formed in whatever way the Dáil and Seanad by regulation say, so that ought not to influence us. I submit that we ought to accept the postal voting on the grounds that it is the most convenient method. As I said, the question of democracy does not enter into it. I would feel as democratic in the case of a general election if I got my voting paper by post, marked it at home, and sent it back again.

Mr. FARREN

Why not do that?

General MULCAHY

Because of the difficulties in dealing with the bigger electorate it is not feasible and practicable. The more practicable way is to have the individual voters go to the poll. It is not correct to say that voters have to go a long distance to the polls. During the last four years everything possible has been done to reduce the size of the voting areas. I doubt if it would be possible to point out any place where a voter has to go more than three or four miles to vote. If it would be possible to bring the voting paper into his home I would not see anything undemocratic in it. It is right to say that the Oireachtas may not meet in the autumn, and it is undesirable that Deputies or Senators would be brought from different parts of the country to do work as electors which they could do as effectively and as conveniently at home.

Mr. FARREN

That was not done in the election to the Parliament in 1922.

General MULCAHY

I think that is beside the point. We have not carried out an election like this since 1922. I ask that the matter be discussed on its merits as to whether this is not the most convenient way for Senators to deal with it.

By arrangement of the Cathaoirleach a Committee of the Seanad met to consider the matter during the Recess, and I think the Committee in their report recommended that persons who were sick or who, for other solid reasons, were not able to assist at the voting here might be allowed to vote by post. I suggest that the considerations that made the Seanad Committee make that recommendation in their report are considerations that should make postal voting be adopted as a way for voting. I do not see in what way you can make special arrangements for people who are sick or people who had really important reasons for their inability to be present to vote by post if you do not extend postal voting generally. When the Seanad comes to the Committee Stage the matter can be discussed generally. I want to say that there is no necessity for coming together to form a panel if the Oireachtas is not meeting in the autumn. The two Houses can form their own panels and make their own arrangements. But the panel can be formed by post. It will mean that you will have to set up two ballot papers, but there is no great difficulty about that compared with the difficulty of coming to Dublin and attending here twice. I do not think it is feasible to come to Dublin one day to vote for your panel on that day, and then to vote for your candidate on the following day. That is a matter that I would like to look into seriously from the point of view of the officers who are dealing with the elections.

I think that the convenience of the Senators, as well as keeping down expenses, are matters that ought very seriously be taken into consideration, and we ought not leave out of consideration in this matter the question of costs. The people we wish most convenienced in this are the Senators who are giving the best attention here to the business.

Colonel MOORE

The Minister has said so much about postal voting that I suggest that in future all the business should be done by radio down through the constituencies. We can send out the speeches by radio, and the voting can be done by radio, and all those expenses can be saved. I think that is a splendid idea.

General MULCAHY

I think if the Senator considers that a splendid idea he might apply it to the discussion that has taken place here to-day on the Forestry Bill and see whether it is practicable or not.

Mr. JAMESON

To my mind, a very important factor about this Bill is the question of time. I heard Senator O'Farrell's remarks about postal voting, and the Minister's reasons for adopting it. As regards this method of election in electing the Seanad, I am afraid we are making just the sort of blunder we made originally when the method of election to the Seanad was put on the whole country. That was first mooted when a few of us met over in London and adopted it and put it into the Constitution. I doubt if the various objections to it, the pros and cons, were sufficiently debated. If they were it probably never would have been adopted. In saying this, I am accusing myself, because I was one of those who thought a reasonable argument might be put up for it. I admit now, on my own part, that that was a blunder.

Here now in this Bill we are up against the question of very short time. I agree with a great deal that Senators Farren and O'Farrell stated as regards postal voting and the advantages of the Senators being here present, except perhaps for some reason, sickness or otherwise, when a Senator could not be present, he should be allowed to vote by post. I say that because I do not think any Senator should be deprived of his vote for these reasons. I think that in regard to a small House like this, where we are trying to elect new members, and where the electors do not know the men to be elected very well, that we ought to attend here and take care that our power in the election is not weakened in any way. I am aware that there may be cases where a man or woman may not be able to attend, but though not attending he or she may know a great deal about what is going on. I do not think it is wise for this House to take any steps that would deprive any Senator of his or her right to vote. So that, to a certain extent, I do agree with postal voting. There are a great many reasons against it. Ordinarily the members of the House should be able to attend. Therefore, I agree with the two Senators who have spoken. The difficulty I see in this matter is this—it is a difficulty to which the Minister has not referred—suppose we pass an amendment doing away with postal voting and that the Dáil stands to its guns, then a deadlock arises, and what are we going to do?

CATHAOIRLEACH

You need not ask the Minister that; sufficient for the day is the evil thereof. We are now on the Second Stage. That amendment that you referred to may never be carried. The Senator asked the Minister what may happen in a purely hypothetical case. I think the Senator ought wait until that happens.

Mr. JAMESON

I want to say in regard to that that it does make a difference to us to know as to whether there is time in that event for getting agreement between the two Houses and be in a position to carry out the election at the proper time.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I can answer that. I have looked into the question, and if the contingency that the Senator refers to arises there is not time, but that is not the fault of the Seanad. I should mention here that before the adjournment of the Oireachtas to the 10th October, I caused my opinion to be conveyed to the Government that a meeting on the 10th October would not give this House reasonable and proper time to consider these Bills. However, the Government thought differently. We are now in the position that if an amendment is inserted in this Bill at the Committee Stage, an amendment that would form the subject matter of disagreement on the part of the Dáil, then this particular Bill would not be got through in time to enable the election to be carried out in the manner and on the date which the Bill is providing for. That is really a matter for consideration when the House comes to the Committee Stage of the debate. Nobody has challenged the principle of the Bill. It is on the Committee Stage that this matter can arise. Then these details can be discussed more properly in Committee.

Mr. JAMESON

It is of some importance to us in the preparation of amendments. I do not know if there are many Senators here who would at this stage raise a question which would upset the Bill, but apart from that, it is more or less a waste of time to take the trouble of introducing amendments knowing that if we get the Seanad to agree with us in these amendments we are creating a situation which we do not want to create. It is quite reasonable to raise the question and emphasise the fact on the Second Reading that we must more or less swallow this Bill as it is here, for this time. But I do think that this Second Reading debate is of use in letting it be seen that this Bill establishing a method of election, seems to be much the same as the provision that was put into the Constitution. It is tentative, and it is an experiment, and I think the Seanad would be wise in adopting this attitude. We have no line in any other country to guide us. But I believe this Bill is quite tentative and, with that in our minds, I do not think it would be wise for the Seanad to push forward amendments to stop the Bill.

It is for that reason I am making these remarks because, although I feel strongly in favour of the points raised by Senators Farren and O'Farrell, I doubt if it is wise to force them to their logical conclusion. I think we should get a clear expression of opinion from the House as to whether or not they are in favour of the postal arrangements for the convenience of members of the two Houses, which is the solitary reason that so far I have heard. There are a great many reasons which could be brought forward showing why the meeting of the members of both Houses for consultative purposes, so as to select right men for Senatorship, is very advisable. Anybody can see how desirable it is to have a meeting of Senators and Deputies to discuss matters and compare notes as to what men are best qualified. The presence of as many Deputies and Senators as possible for the purposes of the election is of the vastest importance and it would be far and away more convenient than the system of staying at home and filling up election forms. These are the things that have not been given sufficient weight to in the preparation of the Bill. I do not think we have time to give consideration to all those matters at the present time. I believe we ought to let the Bill go through, perhaps with some technical alteration. I am afraid we shall have to adopt this postal arrangement and swallow it whether we like it or not. To a good many of us, at any rate, it is most distasteful and we do not think it is the right thing to do.

Mr. BENNETT

I agree entirely with Senator Jameson in his remarks against postal voting. I do not go so far as he does in feeling that we could not at any hazard take the risk of holding up the Bill. Why should we not hold it up? After all, there is a very easy method suggested in this Bill of taking a plebiscite of the electorate, the electorate being the Seanad and the other House. If this House with its sixty members says that this method of voting is not the method which ought to be adopted, and if a large section of the other House agrees, then it is obvious that the electorate is against the system of postal voting and that ought to be a direction for the Government that postal voting is not, in the opinion of the electorate, the system which ought to be adopted. It would then be up to the Government to take the opinion of the electorate and rearrange the Bill accordingly.

General MULCAHY

I feel that a very large number of people are making up their minds on the question of postal voting based on the case of the Senator who lives in Monte Carlo; I am quite convinced of that. Do not also let a decision be taken on this matter on the ground that the Minister or the Government is to blame for the fact that there has been delay and that you are to a certain extent caught up in the matter of time here. As far as I and the Government are concerned in this question of the Seanad election and things arising out of it, we have gone as far as we possibly could to meet the Seanad.

It will be remembered that when Senator O'Farrell introduced a motion asking that a Committee of the two Houses be set up to consider the changes in the Seanad, I urged on the Seanad the inadvisability of setting up that Committee. I said that I was prepared to introduce legislation which could be thoroughly reviewed in plenty of time and I suggested that it was a reasonable way to approach the question. The Seanad did not agree with that, and then I supported the setting up of a Joint Committee. The question arose in the Seanad on the 18th February and the Joint Committee was set up on the 1st March, but it did not report until the 15th May. The Government had the necessary legislation actually introduced into the Dáil on the 7th June. Senators will realise that with the strain the members of the Executive Council worked under they needed a Recess.

We met earlier this year than in any other year; we re-assembled on the 10th October. We re-assembled at the earliest possible date that some of us could manage and in sufficient time to meet the various matters that have been met in connection with the Seanad election. Senators want to give a certain amount of consideration to this matter, quite naturally. Amendments to this Bill are ready and there ought to be very little difficulty in discussing them to-morrow, so that very little time will be lost in that particular way.

Mr. BENNETT

The point with regard to postal voting is that the advocates of that system are imbued with the idea that it will give better results than the other system.

Question put and agreed to.