Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Dec 1941

Vol. 26 No. 3

Pier and Harbour Provisional Order Confirmation Bill, 1941. - Electoral Bill, 1941—Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

Under the Constitution a citizen who has reached the age of 21 years who complies with the electoral law and who is not otherwise disqualified has the right to vote at an election for members of Dáil Eireann. Under Section 25 of the Parliamentary Elections (Ireland) Act of 1823, the section which it is proposed to repeal by Section 3 of this Bill, a person who has not attained the age of 21 years is declared not to be entitled to vote at a Parliamentary election. While this is the position under the Parliamentary Elections Act, and while Section 4 of the Prevention of Electoral Abuses Act of 1923 declares that nothing in that Act confers any right to vote on any person who is otherwise not so entitled, the presiding officer at a Dáil election is not permitted to query the age of a person whose name appears on the register even though he has no doubt that the person in question is under the age of 21 years, and consequently is not qualified to vote. This Bill is designed to clear up that anomalous position, and, accordingly, Section 2 of the measure authorises the presiding officer to put to a person tendering a vote the question: "Have you attained the age of 21 years?"

Unless the answer is affirmative, the person concerned will not receive a ballot paper. It is not, of course, proposed to abolish the existing provision whereby persons under the age of 21 years are not entitled to vote. It will be noted, however, that the provision in question is enshrined in a statute over 100 years old. It is felt that it would be generally convenient if the need to refer so far back for a statement of the law on this very important matter were obviated and, accordingly, Section 1 of the present measure imposes the provision afresh, while Section 3 repeals the corresponding section in the earlier statute.

Question put and agreed to.

When is it proposed to take the Committee Stage?

As the Bill is a very simple one, I should be glad if all stages were taken to-day.

Mr. Hayes

I think we could agree. We are not going to have an election before January, I presume?

No, I do not think so.

Agreed to take remaining stages to-day.

Bill passed through Committee without amendment, and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

I do not think anyone could possibly object to this Bill, and I certainly am not going to do so. It very indirectly affects us, but I am sure no member of the Dáil would care to think that he was voted for by a child or two, which I believe did occur on one occasion. I am sure we would be glad to relieve him of such a possibility in future. This is a simple measure and does not attempt to deal with other anomalies, but in the course of my experience I have noticed that there is not the same concern that people will be able to vote as soon as they are 21. Quite a number of persons who are not 21 at the time the forms are being filled in for the register will be 21 before the register comes into effect.

I know that there is a certain amount of grievance in those cases. I have never personally been able to see why, if the age is one which would show that the individual would be 21 on and after the date for which the register is being prepared, the name could not be accepted for the purpose of formulating the register. When this Bill is law, any possible danger in allowing the name to appear on the register should be obviated. It is a small point, but I thought I would mention it.

Before we pass the Final Stage, there are one or two matters to which I wish to draw the Minister's attention. Anyone engaged in election work will welcome this new provision because it will do away with a lot of trouble as regards the age limit. Another point concerns a person whose name has appeared on the register of voters in previous years, and who discovers on the day of the election that for some unknown reason the name is no longer on the list. According to the regulations, it is essential, I understand, that before a name is struck off the register, the person concerned should be so informed by registered post, but this practice is not generally adopted throughout the country. I ask the Minister, at this stage, to make provision to see that the county registrar, or the people responsible for compiling the register, would be more careful, particularly in relation to people whose names have been on the register for previous years. It is very awkward when people over the age of 21 who voted on previous occasions, go to the polling station, feeling confident that their names are on the register, and find they have no vote. This has often occurred on the morning of an election. I know there is more or less a lack of interest in elections generally, but the county registrar concerned should notify people by registered post, as the regulation requires. At some later stage, we should seriously consider the question of having compulsory voting, because I am of opinion that any person who refuses to record a vote should not be eligible for a public appointment, or for any remuneration from the public purse if he or she fail to perform a national duty.

With reference to the point raised by Senator Hawkins, it does not seem to occur to the people nowadays to ascertain in advance whether they are entitled to vote. Years ago, when the contest was between the old Unionist Party, as it was called then, and the Nationalist element, each section had to look after their own interests, so far as revision work was concerned, to ensure that they could exercise their votes. The register has to be in the hands of the public on the 1st June of each year. Very often in recent years, in the City of Dublin up to the suspension of elections, our city elections were held towards the end of June. That did not give a great deal of time to those engaged on political work for the preparation of their election campaigns. It was a matter of only about three weeks from the time the register was supposed to come into operation. I offer a suggestion to the Minister, although it may not be worthy of his attention —that it might be possible for the Minister or his advisers to start the making of the register a little earlier each year. The revision inspectors take up their work in Dublin in the months of November and December, and the lists have to be in the hands of the printers by the 30th December, and to be published by the end of January. The lists are long, and it means that the work is fairly heavy on those who have to compile the register. I wish the Minister or his advisers would consider the preparation of the register somewhat earlier, so as to give the local authority an opportunity of dealing with the matter without haste. In this city, it requires some special consideration because of the many changes of residence that are taking place. As the House is aware, a great number of the old residents have been shifted to the suburbs, where new housing schemes are springing up on all sides. Should a local government election take place before the coming into operation of a new register, it will be a very awkward situation for those entrusted with the preparation of the election campaign or the revision of the electors' lists unless my suggestion is adopted.

A number of the points raised are very interesting, and to some extent cognate to the purpose of the Bill, although not strictly within the terms of it. With regard to the point made by Senator Douglas, I think he has been very fully answered by Senator Healy. After all, this date, November 15th, has to be fixed with reference to the time which is normally required for the compilation of the register and the definitive settlement of it, and, according to what Senator Healy says, the existing period from November 15th to June 1st is scarcely sufficient for the purpose so that the argument might be that experience would seem to indicate that the qualifying date should not be the 15th November, but possibly a date earlier.

As to the point raised by Senator Hawkins, of course one would first of all have to be assured, and have definite proof that the people who complain that their names have been struck off the register improperly did not receive the prescribed statutory notice. I find it rather difficult to believe that a public officer performing his duties under pain of penalty for failure to perform them, would not meticulously comply with the statute and I could not assume, therefore, that people are struck off the register without due notice. On the other hand, it may happen, and is much more likely to have happened, that the people did receive due notice, but failed to take any action upon it. If people think so little of the vote that they will not trouble to see that their names are on the register, I do not think there is anything that other members of the community interested in public affairs should do on their behalf. That also applies to the suggestion of compulsory voting. I think that if there are public questions, and if people have not sufficient interest in them to make up their minds one way or the other, then the other members of the community might disregard their views and proceed, using their normal rational faculties to decide the questions according to their own opinions.

Question put and agreed to.
Ordered: "That the Bill be returned to the Dáil."
Top
Share