Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 15 Nov 1922

Vol. 1 No. 28

DISQUALIFICATIONS. - SCHEDULE.

Constituency of.....................
ToA.B., of C.D.
You are registered on the Register of Electors for the above constituency, and your name, address, and number on the Register are as stated on the front of this certificate.
If you wish to vote you must sign the declaration at the foot of this form, and produce it to the Presiding Officer at Booth No....... at the Polling Station at ..................during the hours fixed for polling.
..................................................
Returning Officer.
I solemnly and sincerely declare that I am the elector to whom this card belongs and whose name appears above.
Signed......................................
Date..........................
...................................................
(REVERSE SIDE).
R. S. No. H. E.
ToA.B.
No. in Register..................
Address.................................................................

It will be within the memory of this Dáil that not very long ago they decided to appoint a Committee to deal with the question of corrupt practices at elections, in order that these corrupt practices might be brought to an end, and at the time one or two stated in the course of that debate, if the Dáil will recall it, that it was right that some essential principle should be adopted, and I am in agreement that some essential principle should be adopted without any reference to a Committee, which is different to a Commission. A Commission advises the Dáil as to general principles, and a Committee carries out general principles committed to it by the. Dáil or by the Legislature in question, and there is an important principle that I raised on that occasion that I would desire this Dáil to give its confirmation to, before the Committee should sit. There was, I believe I am right in saying, a general measure of consent for the principle to which I refer, the principle being that offences such as were complained of should be treated as criminal offences, and that criminal penalties should be attached to them. It is well known that grave evils call for drastic remedies. The offences such as we are referring to, and which are known as corrupt practices at elections, have become very grave evils in this country.

It is not my purpose to go into that matter now, as it was once before very fully debated and very fully discussed. I desire quite briefly to run through the main details, the main headings of the Clauses, that are before the Dáil now. If this were referred by the Dáil to the Committee it would be assumed by the Committee in giving them consideration, that it was bound to the essential principles that were debated, and it would be for the Committee to change the wording or change the details, or change the application or widen the application, as it thought fit, while never-the less adhering to the central principle, that all these Clauses tend to convey. In drafting out these Clauses, I have run through all the various items from the very beginning of an election to the end, beginning at registration, and continuing right through to the vexed question of personation. In the first of these Clauses, if Deputies will turn to it, there is a statement made, "it is provided that any person, who of his own application is registered, or who of his own application attempts to be registered more than once, as an elector entitled to vote at a general election, or who of his own application is or attempts to be registered without being duly qualified to be so registered, shall be liable on conviction to a penalty of £25." It is provided for in the rest of that Article, if a person having the two possibilities, desires to be registered in respect of one and not the other, he may be reminded of that fact, and there is no penalty attaching because the choice is given to him. The second Clause deals with this more important matter and one that is familiar to the Members of this Dáil: It says "Any person who causes or attempts to cause another person to be registered more than once as an elector shall be liable on conviction to a penalty of £50." The penalty in this case has been doubled because the evil itself is very much greater. One single person might in good faith apply to be registered more than once, but it is extremely unlikely that one person is going to apply on behalf of a large number of persons, but it did occur in the Constituency I represent. We know that at the last election, there were I think 680 persons who not merely did not exist, but who had never existed, who had been entered and registered by a certain political organization, and I believe it is perfectly true that of these 680 persons, who never even had life over 500 of them voted.

Is that where you got your majority?

I do not think they voted for me. That, of course, was organised corruption. We have spoken in this Dáil several times, while passing the Constitution, of diminishing or weakening the power of political organizations. In no way could it be done more effectually than by passing the principle embodied in Clause No. 2. The penalties are set out in Clause 3 in addition to the penalties already outlined. That means that any persons found guilty of these offences are not only penalised by money fines but are restricted from exercising the franchise for a stated period of years. I come now to nomination. Nomination is a matter that has been included in the consideration of this whole question and is probably one of the most important; because, as things stand at the present moment, what is before the candidate? He must apply between the hours of 12 and 1 o'clock on a given day. That is to say, any person who wishes to prevent him getting there has a limited time to watch him. Clause 4 provides for that by stating that directly the election is open such nomination papers may be handed to the Returning Officer, and nomination papers delivered a week or ten days beforehand would be assumed to have been delivered within that hour specified. In other words, it is made more difficult to waylay or frustrate any person arriving. The penalty is attached to that in Article 5. I think, owing to the conditions under which the last election occurred, that Clauses 6 and 7 are probably those that will attract most attention. They will certainly cover ground that will have to be faced at the next election, and probably at several elections in the immediate future. They deal with the freedom of electors. Clause 6 reads:—

`Any person intimidating or attempting to intimidate an elector or electors, shall be liable on conviction to be imprisoned with hard labour for a period of twelve months. Such intimidation shall include the making of public speeches or writing of articles in the press, threatening to make an election impossible, or to imperil the safety of electors before, at, or after an election, and in connection therewith; the using of threatening language, or any bodily interference at a time of elections; the placing of armed forces in the vicinity of a polling booth other than the armed forces provided by the Returning Officer for the protection of such booths; and the parading of armed forces in any constituency in which an election is proceeding."

"Where the person is convicted on indictment of bribery such person shall be liable to be imprisoned, with or without hard labour, for a term not less than six months and not exceeding one year."

The last item dealt with in the Clauses is the question of personation, and I have attached to these Clauses a Schedule. I know that several methods have been put forward by which the personation may be prevented, and this is only one method. This raises no essential principle. It is a matter that may be referred to the Committee that will be appointed. The Committee may devise some other method. What it does raise is the important question of principle in all the clauses dealing with personation in these Clauses now before the Dáil, that when a person shall be found guilty of personation a person shall be found guilty of a criminal offence. There are only two small matters to which I would draw the attention of the Dáil at the present moment. The first is in the first sentence in the Ballot Act of 1872, which is the Act now in force, and which would be embodied in the codification of law that will be brought before this Dáil at a later date; the Presiding Officer is added to the Returning Officer, and it is provided in Clause 9 that a presiding officer or a Returning Officer if he prosecutes any person on good faith believing that person to be guilty of an offence shall be held harmless before any Court, and so he will have a certain liberty of action that is not open to him at the present moment. We know that personation agents and Returning Officers have hesitated to put the powers they now have in force, for if they make a mistake, even though they make that mistake in good faith, it would probably cost them £50 on each occasion. This proposal would give them considerable freedom and enable this matter of personation to be brought within control much more easily, if either the personating officer or the candidate or the Returning Officer dealing with the matter on behalf of the State should be protected providing that he or she is proceeding in the matter in good faith. I move this with the suggestion that they be referred to the Committee that will be appointed, and that the Committee should report and change wherever it thinks advisable while adhering to the central principle, which is, that this offence shall be considered as a criminal offence and treated as such.

I second the motion. I think it is a very necessary thing and I am seconding it for the purpose of discussion, and I feel if we can by any law prevent these corrupt practices at elections we will be doing public good.

All that we are asked to do by this motion I think is to send it to a Committee to consider. I do not think that we are committed to all or any of these proposals.

And we are not confined to that. I think anything we can do to strengthen the hands of these Presiding Officers or Returning Officers at elections might well be done. If this Committee meets and considers these matters, if it does consider them. they ought to hold firmly in their minds the real penalty against corrupt practices— that where they are shown to prevail to a great extent that the constituency itself should be disfranchised for a time at all events. That is really the only way to bring home to a constituency as a whole the crime of corruption at an election for membership of any house. If corrupt practices are found to prevail to any extent in any constituency that constituency ought itself to suffer. You can never hope to catch all that are guilty of the crime, but you could bring home a sense of civic responsibility to the constituency as a whole by saying it has proved itself unfit to send members to the National Assembly. I do hope that when the Committee come to consider what penalties ought to be inflicted for corrupt practices that they will not abandon that, but rather strengthen the powers at present existing in the electoral law.

I find myself in some little difficulty over this. I agree that the proposals should be referred to the Committee for their consideration, and so far as the motion goes I am prepared to support it. But the mover wants us to do more than that, and the implication according to his argument, of our passing the Resolution is that we approve of the clauses subject to such amendments as may be put forward. I do not think that that is satisfactory at all, because we have not been able to discuss and we shall not be able to discuss these various items or clauses with the care that they require before we even pass them as a kind of a second reading of the Resolution.

The argument used by the mover of the Resolution will not be able to influence the ruling as to what the Resolution actually means.

Exactly, and it is with that object I am making this point. I am not prepared to vote for the Resolution on the understanding that the principles of the various clauses are being accepted.

I think that this is really a ridiculous motion. The Committee were appointed to advise practical measures for preventing corrupt practices at elections. Mr. Figgis will be a member of that Committee. He will have an opportunity of putting his proposals before the other members of the Committee, but before that is done he wants us, without any consideration and without having any regard to the fact that there is a Committee appointed, to consider the matter in bulk. He wants us to hallmark the proposals which he can bring before the Committee. He wants us to do all the advance work which the Committee was appointed to do. I did not remain for the discussion so that I do not know what it is about, but I think this is a ridiculous proposal.

I would like to state that there is, I think, a question involved in putting a Resolution of this sort before the Dáil. A Committee has been set up by the Dáil to deal with a matter of this sort, and it appears strange that a member of that Committee would come before the Dáil and put up to it for sanction these proposals which will be considered by the Committee. If the Committee is doing its business and considers that the various recommendations in this proposal are worthy of their consideration and of their report it is not necessary to give them a direction They are on a particular line of work. If this comes within the sphere of that why not deal with it in the Committee? It appears as if one member of the Committee uses the Dáil in order to impress the Committee. I do not know whether that is the case or not, or what special views he has on the matter. I do not think that the Dáil should really be bothered with a question of this sort when it has entrusted the consideration of the whole matter to a Committee specially appointed for the purpose.

I would like to make a personal explanation and it is this; when these motions were handed in no Committee had been appointed; the membership of this Committee had not been appointed and I received no invitation to join this Committee until a considerable time after these Resolutions had been handed in. I handed them in because I had no conception that the Committee was being formed, and because I thought that the proposals I have put forward embody a principle of some importance. I think that the President—I am prefectly sure quite unintentionally—has misrepresented the fact. I have not brought these forward as a member of that Committee. When I brought this forward I was not a member of that Committee.

I suggest in that case that the Deputy ought to withdraw them. Being a member of that particular Committee and being in a position to put them before the Committee he ought not to have proposed them. If these proposals are worthy of our baptism we will baptize them, and, if not, we will not.

I am afraid I have put myself into a predicament. I was not aware that this Committee was appointed at all. I think that the best course for Deputy Figgis would have been to drop them knowing that he was a member of that Committee.

Motion put and lost.
The Dáil adjourned at 6.50, until 3 o'clock on Thursday, November 16th.
Barr
Roinn