Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Mar 1945

Vol. 29 No. 17

Electoral (Dáil Eireann and Local Authorities) Bill, 1945—Committee.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Mr. Douglas

I move amendment No. 1:—

Delete all words from and including the word "that" in line 29 to the end of the section and substitute the words:—"the age that person will be, if living, on the 15th day of April next after the qualifying date".

This amendment does not require very much explanation, but I should like to give my reasons for putting it down, and to point out that it is provided in the Constitution that every citizen, without distinction of sex, who has reached the age of 21 years who is not disqualified by law, and complies with the provisions of the law relating to the election of members of Dáil Éireann, shall have the right to vote at an election of members of Dáil Éireann. The Act of 1923, which this Bill seeks to amend, disqualified all persons of 21 years of age from ever being able legally to vote in elections for Dáil Éireann. That seems to me to be unconstitutional—not strictly, of course, because the Constitution provides for disqualification—but it is clearly outside the spirit of it, and there has been no suitable opportunity of drawing attention to what has seemed to me to be a mistake.

As the law stands, a person must be 21 years and six months before he can vote, and in many cases he will have to be 22 and almost six months. The period is slightly lengthened by the Bill as it stands, because the period from what is called the qualifying date to the date on which the new register comes into force is slightly lengthened. It has always seemed to me that when a householder is filling in a form for the 15th November—now it is to be the 15th September—they could fill in the actual age, and when the register is prepared a vote could be given to those who are 21, if still living on the date on which the register comes into effect. I know that if this amendment is accepted it may mean some consequential amendments in other parts of the Bill.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. Childers)

I am afraid the Government will be unable to accept this amendment, because this Bill is to a large degree, if not almost wholly, a machinery Bill, and it is felt that this is a constitutional issue. As Senator Douglas pointed out, the Constitution does say that a person who is 21 may vote provided he conforms with the law, and the Electoral Act of 1923 is the Act upon which this present measure is based. I think that we could not discuss this problem on this particular Bill. There is nothing more I can say about it except that this Bill deals with machinery, and not with the principle, in regard to those who are qualified to vote from a fundamental point of view. On this occasion we could not consider it.

Mr. Healy

I take it we are dealing primarily with Section 3?

An Cathaoirleach

We are dealing with amendment No. 1, Section 3.

Mr. Healy

And I cannot deal with the section itself now?

An Cathaoirleach

You may deal with it later on.

Mr. Hayes

Surely, the position is this—that people who are 21 have the right to vote? The machinery devised for preparing the register in 1923 actually had the effect of depriving them of that right for a certain number of months, sometimes for nearly a year, and seeing that they were deprived of the right, if one might say, by machinery—and there can be no doubt that the right existed, and that there is nothing unconstitutional in the amendment—I can see no reason why we should not in this machinery Bill rectify the defect which occurred in an early machinery Bill. We are not asking for an amendment of the Constitution. We are asking that the machinery may be so adjusted that people will attain their right to vote at an earlier stage. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary is right in his argument that this is a constitutional matter. It is a machinery matter, just as this Bill is a machinery Bill.

Mr. Childers

I have a certain amount of sympathy with what Senator Hayes has said, but if we started to think about the electoral law in general, we might find a number of miscellaneous matters we could discuss which might need reform. It is simply a matter of where we should draw the line. It is a matter of opinion. We feel that we must draw a line between machinery and constitutional matters, and that the question of the proposed alteration is constitutional, rather than mechanical. One could continue the argument for a long time, but all I have to say is that the Government cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Douglas

The Parliamentary Secretary said that he had sympathy with Senator Hayes. I have sympathy with the Parliamentary Secretary in having to make a bad case. In fact or in law, how on earth is this House going to draw attention to this defect in the machinery of 1923, if it is not done in a Bill altering that machinery? It is not practical politics to argue that it cannot be done in this Bill, unless the Parliamentary Secretary would undertake to bring in a simple Bill for the purpose of doing it in a different way. In that case I would be satisfied. What he tells us is that he is not seeing his way to do it in this Bill, and, therefore, it will not be done in this Bill. If he had argued that the people should not have votes until they were 22 or 22½ there might be something to be said for it, but I have never been able to see why they should provide votes in the Constitution for all persons at the age of 21, and provide by law that they will never be able to exercise them at that age.

I have children of my own and I have some experience of filling in the forms. My children could not understand why they had to wait a year. In cases where a person became 21 just before the qualifying day he had to wait a year and a half after. This Bill makes the period a year and 7½ months, therefore this Bill is definitely altering the position. Despite their fear of interfering with the Constitution, they did not hesitate to make the period longer for the purpose of machinery. I am going to press this so that we may have an expression of opinion on it. I do not think we will fight with the Dáil, but we might send a message back to the Dáil, intimating that an amendment could be made to this Bill to enable people to vote at the age of 21. It is not a Party issue. I have not the remotest idea whether persons of 21 are Fianna Fáil, Labour, or Fine Gael.

Mr. Hayes

They are nothing.

Mr. Douglas

They are no more misguided than older people. Therefore I cannot see any political gain. It is always the same anomaly which I have been up against. This is something upon which we may express an opinion. If we were to send this back to the Dáil it might lead to the Government taking action in some other way.

Mr. Hayes

I take it there is no difficulty of any kind in inserting this amendment, except the well-known one which we all understand, that when a Department has settled on doing a thing in a particular way it does not want to do it in any other way. I suggest that that is the difficulty. I thought that the Parliamentary Secretary would take the line that certain difficulties would arise. I do not think any will. Seeing that no difficulties will arise, I think the Parliamentary Secretary might take a chance and accept this amendment.

Mr. Ryan

I think that this amendment is out of order on this Bill.

Mr. Hayes

Surely that is an extravagant thing to say.

Mr. Ryan

I would like to point to the Title of the Bill.

An Cathaoirleach

The point of order, Senator, should have been raised before the amendment was moved.

Mr. Ryan

I withdraw the words "out of order" and say inapt.

Mr. Hayes

Or inept.

Mr. Ryan

Because if the Title of the Bill is read it will be seen that this Bill is "An Act to amend the Electoral Act, 1923, and the Local Government (Extension of Franchise) Act, 1935, by substituting the 15th day of September for the 15th day of November as the qualifying date for Dáil electors and local government electors, respectively, and to provide for certain other matters consequential upon the said amendments". The amendment opens up a very big question. I quite agree that under the Constitution every person, without distinction of sex, who has attained the age of 21 years is entitled to vote in an election for members of the Dáil. How that can be carried into effect is a matter which would require a good deal of consideration. We must remember that this is a Bill to amend the Electoral Act, 1923, and the Local Government (Extension of Franchise) Act, 1935, merely in the manner mentioned in the Title. I have not the Constitution of Saorstát Eireann before me, and I am not quite certain whether that Constitution provided expressly as the present Constitution provides expressly that every citizen who has attained the age of 21 years should have the right to vote.

Mr. Douglas

It did. It is the same.

Mr. Ryan

Assuming that it is the same, I suggest that the matter of giving effect to the Constitution would require more serious consideration than we could give it at the present time. I think that consequential machinery would be required to carry this amendment into effect. I suggest that this matter should be deferred but should not be forgotten.

Mr. Douglas

I am very much surprised at the last speech. In the first place, you, Sir, always put the Title of a Bill to the House, which means that we can amend it. Therefore, that point is gone. It is put last so that if it be necessary to amend it as a result of any action taken by the House it can be so amended. If that were not so it would completely stultify the House as a revising Chamber. I do not think this is a constitutional matter, because the Constitution makes it clear that citizens can be deprived of the right by law. The Act of 1923 set up machinery and this is an Act to amend that machinery. We can do so, if we like. I also profoundly disagree with the last point made by Senator Ryan. The Senator said that we could not give the matter proper consideration.

If Senators did not read the amendment there might be difficulty, but it is perfectly clear. It does not mean that because the amendment is passed on the Committee Stage that that is its final form. Sometimes the only way we can get a thing properly considered by the Government is to send it back to the Dáil. Lately we have got out of that habit, although we used to do so. On the last occasion the Minister was not pleased, but after a while he decided that it was a good idea and accepted it. That might happen again.

Mr. Hayes

Take my own case. All I am asked to do is to write down my son's age on the 15th April instead of the 15th September. I fill up the age on the 15th April, 1946, instead of the 15th September, 1945. I take it Senator Ryan will not say that any constitutional issue arises in that. It is merely a matter of date, a matter of machinery, that is to say entirely relevant to this Bill. It can be done without difficulty.

Mr. Baxter

And therefore is perfectly in order.

Mr. Childers

I should like to say in reference to Senator Hayes' statement that I do not think it is quite as simple as he thinks. I made considerable study of the electoral code in connection with this Bill, and this might involve more complication than can be seen by mere examination of the amendment. I did not want to make that point, because the Government is quite genuine in its insistence that the Bill deals with another aspect entirely. I do not think it is quite so simple. The Government is not prepared to accept the amendment.

An Cathaoirleach

Is the amendment being pressed?

Mr. Douglas

Oh, yes, certainly. It is quite a serious matter.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 21; Níl, 19.

Tá

• Baxter, Patrick F.
• Butler, John.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Counihan, John J.
• Douglas, James G.
• Duffy, Luke J.
• Fearon, William R.
• Hayden, Thomas.
• Hayes, Michael.
• Horan, Edmund.
• Keane, Sir John.
• Kennedy, Margaret L.
• Kyle, Sam.
• Madden, David J.
• Meighan, John J.
• O'Donovan, Timothy J.
• O'Reilly, Patrick John.
• Parkinson, James J.
• Nic Phiarais, Maighréad M.
• Smyth, Michael.
• Sweetman, Gerard.

Níl

• Clarkin, Andrew S.
• Corkery, Daniel.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Healy, Denis D.
• Hearne, Michael.
• Hogan, Daniel.
• Honan, Thomas V.
• Johnston, Séamus.
• Kehoe, Patrick.
• Kelly, Peter T.
• Lynch, Peter T.
• McEllin, John E.
• McGee, James T.
• Magennis, William.
• O Buachalla, Liam.
• O'Dea, Louis E.
• O Máille, Pádraic.
• Ryan, Michael J.
• Stafford, Matthew.

Tellers:—Tá: Senators Douglas and Sweetman; Níl: Senators Corkery and Hearne.

Amendment declared carried.

Mr. Sweetman

On the section, I have never quite understood why it is necessary to carry on to a new register the name of somebody who, as everybody, including the returning officer, knows, is dead. Surely it would save everybody a great deal of trouble, if a person dies between the qualifying date and the completion of the register, to have the name struck out at the time for objections.

Mr. Childers

I understand that the person's name is struck out when objection is made under those circumstances.

Mr. Sweetman

In fact, that does not happen.

Mr. Douglas

It is quite certain that that does not always get done. I am not doubting what the Parliamentary Secretary says, but we all know from personal experience that it does not always get done, and we should like to know whether any action can be taken to draw attention to this matter and to see that proper steps are taken in regard to it.

Mr. Childers

During the intervening period, the officers concerned, such as the rate collectors, could draw attention to it.

Mr. Sweetman

As a matter of actual practice, the rate collectors do not do so; and if that is the practice, perhaps the Department could arrange to have them circularised in future and have an instruction on the matter sent down to them.

Mr. Childers

I should like to have evidence of that, first of all, because I understand that that is not the practice. I understand that they are supposed to make the most careful inquiries as to the persons on the register, with a view to seeing that there would not be included on the register persons who have become deceased in between the two registers.

Mr. Sweetman

I think the Parliamentary Secretary has missed my point entirely. If the person concerned is dead before the 15th November, of course, the rate collector makes the necessary inquiries, but if the person dies between the 15th November and this period in February which, I understand, is the last date, I think the practice is not to strike him out.

Mr. McCabe

With regard to this matter of the rate collectors not doing their duty, I wish to bring to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary——

An Cathaoirleach

I am afraid, Senator, that this is widening the discussion too much. It would mean that we would have to go into the general question of the duties of rate collectors.

Mr. Childers

I have nothing more to add, except to say that I think Senator Sweetman is wrong in the point he has made and that I should like to have any evidence that he has in his possession to substantiate that. As I understand the matter, in the case of the officers concerned, the practice to which he refers does not take place and, if any person's name is left on the register— that is, in the case of a person who is presumed to have died in the meantime —the revising officers themselves can act as objectors.

Mr. Hearne

I may say that from my own experience of the constituency I represent, and for which the Parliamentary Secretary himself is a member, the returning officer does act as an objector and that, in the event of a person dying after the qualifying date, his name is struck out. Possibly, the answer might be made to me that the returning officers in other places are not as exact as they should be, but that is the case in my constituency.

Question—"That Section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

SECTION 4.

Mr. Duffy

I move amendment No. 2:—

In sub-section (2), page 2, to delete the figures "15th" in line 37 and substitute instead the word "first".

This amendment is not of tremendous importance, but I think it is of some importance. Hitherto, when the qualifying date was the 15th November, the new register came into force on the 1st June following; that is to say, there is an interval of six and a half months for the preparation of the register. Under Section 4 of the Bill, that interval is extended to seven months, and, personally, I cannot see why that should be so. I cannot see the need of extending the interval between the qualifying date and that on which the register comes into force.

Accordingly, the purpose of my amendment is to maintain the interval which has hitherto existed. Apart from that, I think it is more convenient for everybody that the register should come into force on the first day of the month than at any other day in the month. One can understand that the old register goes out of account on, say, 31st March, but if there were an election on the 1st April, or the 10th or 15th April, that election would be held on the new register, and I think it would be more convenient for everybody, and particularly for those concerned with making preparations for the elections, if the new register were to be enforced on the 1st of the month instead of the 15th. The purpose of the amendment is to secure that the new register would come in on the 1st of the month instead of the 15th. I do not see how the Parliamentary Secretary can object to this proposal. After all, he is given quite a long period—6½ months.

Mr. Healy

I should like to ask Senator Duffy, Sir, does that foreshadow a continuous Lord Mayor in the City of Dublin?

Mr. Sweetman

It would seem to me, Sir, that Senator Healy is reading the wrong Bill.

An Cathaoirleach

I am afraid, Senator, that your question is hardly relevant.

Mr. Childers

I am beginning to think, Sir, that there is something rather significant in the date—the 1st April—suggested by Senator Duffy. While, I suppose, from the point of view of ideal theory, it would be best to maintain an exact interval, as was the case before this Bill was introduced, the extra fortnight has been allowed deliberately in order to give the officers concerned, and also the printers, more time to complete the revision of the register. That has been decided by the Government, on the basis of statements put forward by local authorities, that they would like to have two weeks more, both for the printing of the register and also for the purpose of final revision, in order that any claims that might be put forward may be heard.

Mr. Duffy

Is it not a fact that the register would be completed and printed on 29th January?

Mr. Childers

No. I think that the particular printing that the Senator is referring to is what is known as the long list; that is, the first, preliminary printing that is put in a public place so as to enable people to make claims. The final list is not printed until later on, and I think that if the Senator will look at a later section in the Bill he will find that the final date is the 31st January, and that in the case of any claims after that the registrar sits in an appointed place to hear objections, and then the final list is prepared so as to enable it to be printed by the 1st April.

Mr. Duffy

I may tell the Parliamentary Secretary that I have frequently seen those long lists and have subsequently compared them with the final list, and that I have found that the number of corrections in the final list is infinitesimal. The number of objections, after the publication of the first list, is very small. That has been my experience. Nowadays, there are not many of these objections because everybody who is 21 years of age is entitled to register. It is not like the old days where voters had to have a large number of qualifications, each of which had to be examined. Nowadays the only question that arises is whether a person is 21 years of age and resides in a particular place on the qualifying date. Once these two points are established, there is no ground for objection, and I cannot see the case that is being made for extending the period between the qualifying date and the date on which the register comes into force. We have had a similar discussion earlier on this Bill. A person as the Bill came to us, might be 21 years of age on the 15th September, and the proposal is that he cannot have a vote until the 15th April following. I am endeavouring to bring that date forward by two weeks, and I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that there should be no real difficulty in doing that, because the big problem is to get the first compilation printed and the intervals previously allowed for the different operations which follow should be quite sufficient.

Mr. Childers

I can only say that, as I understand it, the scrutiny is anything but slight. Every single name is very carefully gone through, and when we ask for this extra period of two weeks, we do so because of very specific requests made to us. It is in no idle mood that we make this suggestion for an extra period of two weeks. We have very definite information on the matter. We have received representations from local authorities requesting the extra period. There is a very definite and a very long scrutiny of the names and the extra period is required for the purpose of carrying out that scrutiny.

Mr. Hearne

As one who has a fairly considerable experience in electioneering, I would not at all agree with Senator Duffy that the changes made in the register from the first date of publication are infinitesimal. They are anything but that. I know that in my own constituency the list of those who qualify in the intervening period and of those who are no longer qualified is pretty long. I know that in my own county at different times there has been a great number of complaints as to the inadequacy of the time allowed, and in view of my own experience I think that the proposal of Senator Duffy to shorten the period allowed for printing is altogether wrong. I know that the general feeling was that the period allowed for compilation and printing should be lengthened rather than reduced.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 3 not moved.

Section 4 agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Amendment 4 not moved.

Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Hayes

One of the effects of this section is to reduce the time available in the City of Dublin for the preparation of the register. I wonder whether the city authorities were consulted before these particular dates were inserted and whether they are satisfied with them now because the effect of the section is to increase the period of time all over the country and to decrease the amount of time allowed to the Town Clerk of Dublin for the performance of these duties. Seeing that Dublin has the biggest electoral roll in the State, that seems to be rather unfortunate.

Mr. Childers

If Senators examine the dates they will find that the incidence of Christmas has to be allowed for in connection with the printing, and in actual fact the same amount of time is allowed as before. From the point of view of administration, we have done our best to ensure that the time allowed to the Dublin City Council under the arrangements for printing and revising the register will be such that they will be able to carry out their work expeditiously and that they are not in any way impeded by the dates arranged.

Mr. Hayes

The amount of time for printing is increased.

Mr. Childers

Yes.

Mr. Hayes

What is the procedure in the Department, I am just wondering? When this kind of Bill which involves machinery which other people have to operate is being prepared, are the people who have to do the work consulted beforehand or does the Department plant these dates on top of them and let them argue the matter when they have seen them?

Mr. Childers

The Senator can be assured that there were conferences before the Bill was brought to the Dáil. The matter was discussed and the new arrangements were discussed. I think he can be assured that there will be no difficulty in revising the register expeditiously in Dublin.

Mr. Hayes

Then I must be labouring under a misapprehension. My impression was that the particular people concerned only heard of these arrangements when they saw them in the newspapers. I hope I am wrong, but I do not think I am wrong.

Mr. Childers

The Senator may be assured that they were given an adequate opportunity of discussing this measure. They made certain statements to us.

Mr. Hayes

Was that not after the Bill had been brought in?

Mr. Childers

That does not arise on this Bill.

Mr. Hayes

It is just an attitude of mind in which I am interested, but I do not want to argue it. But when something is being done as a result of which other people have to do certain work, one would imagine that before certain conclusions are reached the people concerned would be consulted, particularly when it is a matter of consultations between people who are separated only by the distance between the Custom House and the City Hall. It seems to be quite simple, but apparently it is not done.

Mr. Baxter

Was not the Senator a Minister?

Mr. Hayes

When I was, I was a great lad at consulting.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 6 to 9 inclusive and the Title agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach

When is it proposed to take the next stage?

Mr. Douglas

As far as I am concerned, I have no objection to the Bill going through now, but if it is necessary to amend the Title of the Bill we shall have to do it on Report.

Mr. Ryan

I should like to point out that the Bill cannot go through now without some consequential amendments resulting from the amendment which has been carried because Section 4 provides that one register of electors shall be prepared in every year of persons who are qualified as electors on the previous 15th of September. The amendment which has been passed means that there must be another register.

An Cathaoirleach

That is so. Shall we say next week—Tuesday next?

Mr. Hayes

Say the next sitting day.

Mr. Douglas

But not to-morrow.

Mr. Sweetman

The first sitting day next week.

An Cathaoirleach

In all probability the House will sit on Tuesday next, so I suggest that that date be fixed.

Ordered: That the Report Stage be taken on Tuesday, 13th March.