Private Business. - Electoral Bill, 1962—Second and Subsequent Stages. – Seanad Éireann (10th Seanad) – Wednesday, 10 Jul 1963

Private Business. - Electoral Bill, 1962—Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Blaney)

Senators will recall that the recommendations in the first Interim Report of the Joint Committee on the Electoral Law, were implemented, with minor modifications, in the Electoral Act, 1960. This Bill continues the work begun in that Act by implementing, also with some modifications, the recommendations in the Committee's remaining reports, except those in regard to eligibility for membership of the Dáil and Seanad, which will be the subject of separate legislation later. The Bill also contains some proposals not dealt with by the Joint Committee and applies the changes proposed in the Dáil code, where appropriate, to presidential elections, referenda and local elections. The proposals in the Bill are summarised in some detail in the Explanatory Memorandum circulated with it, and this sets out also the principal departures from the Joint Committee's recommendations.

The Bill does not deal with the Seanad elections code, principally because that code differs fundamentally from the other ones. It has a different electors registration procedure, a different electorate, and a different nominations procedure and it uses the postal, instead of the personal, voting method.

Before introducing the Bill, I gave serious thought to the question of whether we could get the whole process of consolidation done at one bite, as it were, but the difficulties were too great. The Joint Committee, I think, also recognised this, for in their Second Interim Report the Committee said clearly that consolidation must be a long-term objective, and it recommended specifically that the interim legislation, of which this Bill is a part, should repeal all relevant statutes in full, avoid legislation by reference and be self-contained. We have followed the Committee's recommendation in this respect. The results are a longer, but, I hope, a more comprehensible Bill than would otherwise have been the case. The length of the Bill is further increased by the necessity of keeping the presidential elections, referenda and local elections codes in step with the modernised Dáil code. I do not think anyone would question the desirability of this. Uniformity will avoid confusion on the part of the public, candidates, returning officers, agents, and election staffs generally.

The Bill sweeps away seven centuries of pre-1923 electoral legislation. Most of this is obsolete, spent or otherwise inoperable, but its existence is a constant source of doubt and confusion. The post-1923 legislation dealing with elections is also trimmed very considerably. The statute law dealing with the registration of Dáil and local government electors will be contained wholly in Part II of the Bill. The conduct of Dáil elections will be governed by Part III of the Bill and by a very small number of statutes enacted in 1923 or subsequently. Presidential elections will be governed by the 1937 Act, Part IV of the Bill, and the applied provisions of the Prevention of Electoral Abuses Acts, 1923. Referenda will be governed by the 1942 Act, Part V of the Bill and the applied provisions of the 1923 Abuses Act. Local elections will be governed by regulations to be made under Part VI of the Bill instead of by the collection of Acts, Orders and Regulations, which contain the existing provisions. The new regulations will be laid in draft before each House of the Oireachtas and will not become operative unless they are formally approved of by the Dáil and the Seanad.

Not only has the number of Acts dealing with elections been reduced as far as possible, but procedures have been simplified and streamlined.

At present, a person who is not an Irish citizen can be registered as a local government elector only if he has occupied property in the area of a local authority for six months (or is the wife of such an occupier) and is a British subject. Under Part II of the Bill, every person aged 21 years or more on a prescribed date, who normally resides or occupies property in the area of a local authority, will be registrable there, irrespective of whether or not he is an Irish citizen. The number of non-citizens affected by this proposal will be small, but a simplification in procedures will result.

Further, the provision for the registration of Dáil electors where they occupy business premises, which serves only to complicate registration, will be abolished.

The disfranchisement of persons as part of the penalty for certain electoral offences will also be abolished, and instead the more tangible penalty of heavier fines or longer imprisonment will be provided.

The result of these changes will be that every person over 21 years of age on the prescribed date—apart from soldiers, certain inmates or patients in hospitals, county homes and prisons— will normally be registered where he was ordinarily resident on the qualifying date. If he is a non-citizen he will be registered only as a local government elector. If he occupies, for a qualifying period, property elsewhere he will also be registered as a local government elector there but nobody will be registered more than once as an elector for the same local authority, no matter how many properties he has.

The responsibility for registering electors is shared between officers of local authorities, for most of whose functions I am the appropriate Minister, and county registrars, for most of whose functions the Minister for Justice is the appropriate Minister. The Bill proposes to end this divided responsibility by making local authorities alone responsible for registration. To safeguard the rights of electors, county registrars, most of whom are returning officers at Dáil elections, will adjudicate on claims for corrections in the register. This concentration of responsibility will enable some further rationalisation to be effected.

Another step in the same direction is the proposal to replace the complicated arrangements for dividing costs between the State and local authorities by a 50-50 sharing of expenses. The saving to local authorities is estimated, on the basis of the figures for a recent year, to total about £10,000 annually.

Part III of the Bill has for one of its principal proposals the abolition of the requirement, dating back to the Ballot Act, 1872, obliging a candidate seeking nomination to obtain the sponsorship of ten electors. In future, a candidate can nominate himself, or can be nominated by any elector in the constituency for which he proposes to stand. Severe penalties are proposed for nominating a candidate without his consent and these, together with the £100 deposit, should ensure that there is no abuse of the new and simpler nominations procedure. The procedures for ruling on nominations will also be simplified and, to discourage the nomination of unqualified persons, nomination papers may contain a brief summary of the principal qualifications and disqualifications for election and a candidate or his proposer may be required to subscribe a declaration that he has read this statement and that he believes the candidate to be qualified.

The name of a candidate's political party will appear on the nomination paper and on the ballot papers. A further change in the ballot papers will be the inclusion of a space for the official mark. Short instructions to voters will also be inserted on the paper, including a warning to ensure that the paper does, in fact, bear the official mark. This will help to do away with the particularly irritating situation where a ballot paper, otherwise valid in every respect, must be rejected at the count because it does not bear the official mark. The instructions will also enable the long and cumbersome prescribed forms of "Directions for the Guidance of Voters in Voting" of which nearly 30,000 are used at a general election, to be dispensed with.

Another proposal which, I feel, will be generally commended is that for the elimination of the pink tendered ballot paper given to voters who have been personated. Although only a hundred or so of these papers are used at a general election, tens of thousands of them must be printed and distributed to presiding officers. They are not counted except in the event of a petition. The new arrangements will cut out this waste and will provide for the inclusion of the tendered ballot papers in the count.

It is also proposed to do away with the form of declaration of secrecy, of which about 60,000 are issued at an election for signature by returning officers, candidates agents, election staffs, and others. The forms will be replaced by notices which will be displayed at all appropriate locations. The penalty of up to six months' imprisonment for breaches of secrecy will, of course, remain and there will be no relaxation in the precautions for preserving the secrecy of the ballot. In fact, the new provision that the number on the back of the ballot paper should be in as small a type as is compatible with legibility will strengthen the security arrangements.

It had originally been proposed to do away with oaths for voters as to their age, identity, or whether they had voted already and also to do away with oaths for blind and incapacitated voters. Under the Bill as it now stands these oaths will, however, remain and, in addition, oaths will be provided for illiterate voters on the same basis as for blind and incapacitated voters.

The most striking change proposed in Part VII of the Bill and in the First Schedule is the abolition of the limitations on the amount of the expenditure which a candidate may incur or the number of persons he may employ in furthering his candidature at a Dáil election. These limitations were introduced a century ago when the electorate was much smaller than at present, illiteracy more widespread, and means of communication less developed. The limitations are now a useless anachronism.

The changes made in the Dáil code will be incorporated where appropriate, in the law relating to presidential and local elections and to referenda. A new proposal included in the presidential elections code is that for a special tribunal to consider objections at nominations, other than objections to the form of the the nomination paper.

Part VI of the Bill sets out to codify and modernise the law relating to local elections. It is visualised in section 84 that local elections will be held on the same day throughout the country. This should lead to a greater interest and, possibly, a higher poll than under the present system, which permits local authorities to fix as the polling day any day between 23rd June and 1st July, inclusive. Greater public interest in local elections should be prompted also by the power to be given to local authorities by Section 83 to issue polling cards. To curb the nomination of candidates who could have no reasonable hope of being elected, candidates will be required to lodge a deposit, the amount of which will be large enough to deter irresponsible nominations, but not so large as to prevent the candidature of anyone who sincerely believes that he has a prospect of being elected. Of course, if his belief is justified in the eyes of the electorate, he will get his deposit back.

To avoid a situation which has arisen at past local elections at which very large numbers of candidates stood for a large number of seats, resulting in the ballot papers being the size of a newspaper and the counts stretching on for days, it is proposed under Section 87 to take power to divide the cities of Cork, Limerick and Waterford into electoral areas by ministerial order, which will be subject to annulment by resolution of either House of the Oireachtas. The Minister has power at present to divide Dublin city into electoral areas by order, subject to annulment by either House. He can also divide a county into electoral areas by order and has, in fact, divided every county. The boroughs of Galway and Dún Laoghaire will be divisible also in the same way as other boroughs and urban districts, that is, by order of the Minister. Although power is being taken in the Bill to divide these areas, it may not, in fact, be used before the next local elections as I should like to see the effect of the provision for deposits which may reduce the number of candidates seeking election, and possibly render the division of some of the areas at least, unnecessary.

It would be ungracious of me to conclude without thanking again the members of the Joint Committee on the Electoral Law, of whom seven were Senators. The Committee did an excellent job in analysing the proposals put before them and in making recommendations for the general improvement of the electoral law. I am sure that in years to come the reports of the Committee will be regarded as a milestone in the development of the Irish electoral law. I think that this House could hardly do better by way of tribute to the Committee than to accept this Bill in principle.

Mr. L'Estrange

The object of this Bill, as has already been stated, is to modernise and to liberalise the law relating to elections to Dáil Éireann, and also the law governing presidential, local government elections and referenda. We on this side of the House welcome the Bill because I think the Minister in the Dáil, where there was a full and frank discussion on the measure, met our principal objections to the Bill when it was introduced in the Dáil and accepted some of the amendments and we are now satisfied with the Bill.

In this Bill I think approximately 80 Acts of Parliament dealing with elections are being repealed. The 1923 Act is to remain. Great credit is due to all concerned with the introduction of the 1923 Act because it is still to remain on the Statute Book. Perhaps it is a pity that we did not succeed in producing one comprehensive Bill to cover all elections. The Minister has, in his concluding remarks, paid what I believe to be a very well deserved tribute to the Joint Committee which did the spade work in regard to the Bill now before us. As I happen to be a member of that Committee, I shall not say any more about it but, at the same time, I thank the Minister and I agree with his remarks. Our best thanks are due to the officials of the Minister's Department who worked so hard in producing this very modern and comprehensive Bill before us today.

The Minister, his Department and his officials should also be thanked for the explanatory memorandum which accompanied this Bill and which enables those of us not used to legal phraseology to understand more fully what is contained in the Bill. We can certainly say that, in the main, the recommendations of the Joint Committee on the Electoral Law have been accepted, but there are a number of proposals the Joint Committee saw fit to make which it is not proposed to implement in this Bill.

Most people who have experience of elections will agree that one of the greatest safeguards against personation was the deterrent inherent in an individual having to take the oath. Average decent Irishmen do not look on the oath as an empty formula, but there is no doubt that it was a deterrent and did prevent a lot of personation in the past. Therefore, I am glad to see that the Minister was prevailed upon in the Dáil to accept the amendments, and the oath still remains. The Joint Committee recommended that the oath be retained as a deterrent and as a safeguard. The Minister when introducing the Bill in the Dáil took it out. It is now back in the Bill again, and I have no doubt that it will be a deterrent. We will have, I suppose, fairer results in elections due to the retention of the oath.

I welcome the powers given to local authorities to issue voting cards. I sincerely hope that it will stimulate interest in local elections because this is badly needed at the present time. At present only roughly 30 to 40 per cent of the electorate vote at local elections and we will all have to admit that this is a deplorable state of affairs, especially when we consider that the county councils of Ireland are responsible for spending 50, 52 or 53 million pounds of the taxpayers and rate-payers' money or almost five times what it cost to run the whole country in 1922. That is what they are responsible for spending and it is a pity that a greater number of people would not take an interest in local elections and go out to vote. The new procedure allowing voting cards to be sent to those people may stimulate interest in the elections and I hope it does.

There is no doubt that our system of local government has earned a bad name but the inherent taint of corruption or near corruption has now almost completely gone. We all know that for a long number of years—I do not blame one Government more than another—different Governments have passed the buck, pushing more work on to local authorities and more responsibility on to their shoulders. With the amount of work they have to do and the huge sums of money under their control, it is very desirable that those who take an interest in local government should be of the best quality and the fact that under the Bill they will have to deposit a sum of, I think, £10 in future when standing for election to a local authority will add some dignity perhaps to the candidature.

The electorate, especially here in the city of Dublin, do not take the interest they should in local elections notwithstanding the fact that the majority of local councillors—and I think this can be said for the whole country—take a very considerable interest in their constituents and in the work of the various committees, health, mental hospitals, agriculture, finance committees or whatever they may be. The members of these bodies are entitled to our best thanks for the work they do. They are unpaid legislators, as it were.

I am glad to see a section in the Bill introducing uniformity at the counts regarding marks on papers. Those of us who have been at by-elections know that in the past one presiding officer would allow an "X" while another would not be inclined to allow it. Now we will have uniformity. Many old voters mark "X" and continue 2, 3, 4 and 5. In the past, these papers were disallowed by some presiding officers but now, in future, we will have a measure of uniformity and agreement throughout the whole country and those papers will be allowed. That is to be welcomed.

I thoroughly agree with and approve of the provision on the limit of expenses. Definitely it is time that logic should apply. It must be admitted that there were fraudulent returns all over the country in the past. Few candidates could keep within the limit yet returns were sent in stating that they did and it is a good thing that logic will prevail in the new situation.

I also agree with the provision allowing candidates to state their political affiliations. It is a new departure and one with which I entirely agree. It gives the electorate a better opportunity of making a choice especially under our system of proportional representation. It will also, I suppose, save the different political Parties a certain amount of expense on getting out specimen ballot papers, et cetera.

I also favour the provision on self nomination by candidates. All of us who have been candidates in Dáil or county council elections in the past are aware of the time, trouble and anxiety expended when a candidate goes to the county registrar's office with his nomination paper and the time it takes to check the nomination paper. The assentors', proposers' and seconders' names, the centres and the townlands must be exactly as they are on the register. Even if the name of one of them is wrong on the register, and it is corrected on the paper, the candidate must take it back to the people and get the assentor, proposer, seconder and seven other people to sign. Then he goes back and may find that some of the others may have made a mistake and back he must go with the paper again. A lot of nonsense was attached to it and I am glad the Minister has introduced a new provision which brings the whole matter in line with modern practice.

I am also pleased that the person has not to live in the area for which he stands in a local election. I am glad that that system also is being brought into line with modern requirements. I would be in favour of the Minister doing something in the way of national publicity advising people of the necessity to register and to examine the electors' list to see whether their names are on it or not.

We are all aware of the number of people in all counties who come up to one on election day saying: "I am over 21 and I have been living here for five, six or ten years, but my name is not on the electors' list and I have not a vote. What can you do about it?" As we all know, we can do nothing about it then because it is too late. Everyone entitled to vote should have a vote at election time if at all possible and a national publicity campaign would help in that direction. There have been far too many defaults in the past and whether the new system will make it any better or not I do not know but I hope it will.

There are many other matters which might perhaps be more appropriately dealt with on the Committee Stage. I have little else to say except that I think the time has come to allow free access to polling booths. In many areas, especially in large urban centres, you have almost intimidation of voters, as they go in to vote. People are standing in front of them thrusting canvassing cards into their hands, although the majority have their minds made up already. An Order should be made allowing nobody within fifty yards of the polling booth. There are certain rules and regulations governing free access but they are very seldom carried out. There is no doubt that people are pestered and hampered as they go to the polling booth although they have made up their minds already and if the Minister did something in that direction it might be a good idea otherwise I welcome the Bill.

Mr. Cole

I should like with Senator L'Estrange to welcome the Bill which the Minister has now brought before the House and to join in with the Senator, as a member of the Committee, in paying a compliment to the very efficient and very keen staff which the Committee had on that occasion. I am very sorry that the Minister was not able to produce a Bill bringing the whole of the electoral law up to date in one Act but I hope that we will sooner or later be able to do so.

I cannot altogether agree with Senator L'Estrange or the Minister on the question of the oath. To my mind a person has a right to vote whether he is correctly described on the register or not. I know country people who may be wrongly described, say, as Eliza instead of Elizabeth Jane, are very nervous about it, and I have seen them absolutely refusing to go in to vote because they knew that they would be asked: "Are you the person on the register?" and they felt a lot of nervousness about saying: "I am Eliza Jane" even though they were the only person of that name in the townland. This oath is not going to stop the person who goes in to personate. Such a person going in deliberately to give a vote he should not obtain will be prepared to take the oath too. If he is going to risk that penalty, he will risk whatever penalty he may have to pay for taking the oath. I am, therefore, sorry to see various oaths regarding blind persons and others in the Bill. We should increase the penalty if you like, but I should like to see the Bill without the oath.

The only other question of importance I should like to refer to is the new principle introduced in this country of allowing a political party to be named on the ballot paper. The Committee did recommend, as will be seen from the memorandum, that independent or non-party people would be entitled to describe themselves in five words. That has been cut out, and if you are not a registered party you can only put "non-party" on the ballot paper. The idea of putting a political party on the ballot paper at all was introduced for two reasons. The first was, no doubt, to distinguish between parties and similar or nearly similar names. But it was also to eliminate a certain confusion particularly in local elections. In my own county I have known where you can get two people with exactly the same name in different parties, but you could also have two people with exactly the same name as independent or non-party men. It is rather unfair when we have gone so far that we should not have some way of allowing those two to distinguish themselves. In one local election in my county there were in each of two areas people with similar initials and names.

For the Dáil election alone, I should like to inquire from the Minister if he thinks that a single man who before an election has decided that he is going to stand would be able to register himself as a political party. I do not know what the definition of a political party might be. The registrar is the person to decide, with an appeal to a committee of the Chairmen of both Houses and a High Court judge, but to my mind if I have one supporter and myself I am a party. If my wife is prepared to support me I would be a party.

Mr. L'Estrange

She might not agree.

Mr. Cole

If I got her to agree. If a person before an election is prepared to stand at the following election and has a certain amount of support, that person should be allowed to register himself as a party. He might grow into a party, and surely if he has supporters he is a political party. I should like to see some section in the Bill suggesting that nothing in it would prohibit a single candidate from registering himself as a political party, to give him an equal opportunity of displaying his aims, on the ballot paper, just as a party can do, and also in local elections to allow him to distinguish himself from another person of the same name on the ballot paper. I am quite prepared to see even fewer than five words if the Minister thinks that that is unfair to a party candidate. I am prepared to see two words. To put them all down as non-party is not really carrying out the wishes of the Committee and I do not think it is a reasonable solution of the question.

There is another point in connection with the matter which is more of a Committee matter than a Second Reading point. That is the last day for registering a political party. I take it that in the case I am mentioning of perhaps a single man or two men who might be putting themselves up as candidates they could be taken by surprise by the declaration of an election. The Bill provides for the closing of the register of political parties under Section 13 and for the sending of the register to the returning officer on the third day after the issuing of a writ. If a writ were issued today, can I register a political party tomorrow? There should be some fixed day after the election is declared and no further registration then allowed, otherwise there will be confusion.

Another point I wish to make is a small one. A candidate can nominate himself or be nominated with his consent. In a lot of instances the Committee cut out the requirement about his consent because they felt that in many cases the returning officer would have no means there and then of knowing whether the consent was that of the candidate or not. If the returning officer knew his writing or signature, he could say that a paper handed in with £100 saying: "I consent to my nomination" was signed by Mr. so-and-so. Otherwise, the provision is absolutely useless, and it could be left out altogether. The fact that there was a lodgment of £100 should be quite sufficient to check any wrong, doubtful or frivolous nomination. The only other point I should like to raise arises better on the Committee stage. With these few points I will support the Bill fully. I am very glad to see so comprehensive a Bill as far as it goes.

Professor Stanford

There are two brief comments I should like to make on this Bill. The first is what I regard as an omission. In Section 5 the qualifications for voting in an election to the Dáil are that a person should be a citizen of Ireland and ordinarily resident in the constituency. I understand that the position in Great Britain for Irish people who go to live there for a while is that they can fairly easily get the privilege of voting for the House of Commons at Westminster. I wonder whether it is not a matter of justice that we should treat British residents in this country on similar terms. If the British have given this privilege to our people who go there, in common justice we should grant it to them in return. I imagine that this matter was considered very carefully by the Minister and the Committee. There may be good reasons in his mind, and in their minds, why no suggestion of this kind was adopted. But I think it is only right that he should give us his reasons today so that we may all be satisfied. In the comity of nations to which we are proud to belong, there should be equity in matters of this kind.

In my view the British acted with considerable generosity after 1948 in the matter of giving citizenship to our people. I should like that we should not be behindhand in extending similar generosity to them.

I understand the conditions for voting in our local elections are much easier. In fact, British citizens can very quickly get votes, I understand, in the local elections. I am also informed that British citizens are quite often empanelled for jury service. They are doing a certain amount of work for our State. They are good citizens; so I think we should consider whether they should not be enabled to become full citizens rather more easily than they can at present. I know that these questions of nationality are very complicated. I should, however, be grateful to the Minister if he would tell us why we have not gone any distance to meet the British point of view.

The other matter to which I want to refer is quite different. In this country where we are all trying to promote a better spirit of citizenship, and where we are all trying to create a better-informed citizenry, the Minister could do a good deal to help towards that aim if his Department would prepare a booklet of some kind which would explain the privileges of citizenship and the privilege of voting, which would also explain the machinery of voting, with, perhaps a specimen voting paper, and which would give something of the history of how Irish citizens won the vote— a hard and bitter struggle it was, as many of us know, for the majority of those citizens. If the Minister could see his way to getting his Department to issue a booklet of that kind it could do a great deal of good.

The kind of booklet I personally have in mind would be one that school teachers could use and give to the more intelligent school children. It might also be the kind of booklet that citizens themselves might like to have and study. Its main aim, as I say, should be to encourage better citizenship and greater respect for the Oireachtas, and generally to promote the aims that the Minister's Department is there to promote. I hope the Minister will give consideration to this notion of producing an educational booklet of that kind. If he is not prepared to do it, perhaps he might persuade the Department of Education to co-operate in the matter.

Mr. Ross

I should like to support this Bill. The amount of work that has gone into it is obviously tremendous, and the Committee who made their recommendations, and the draftsman are certainly to be congratulated. I was looking at the First Schedule which contains amendments and I saw that a total of more than 60 Acts have been repealed.

On the general principle of the Bill I want to say that I support Senator Stanford in what he has said about reciprocity for British citizens. The same idea was going through my mind when I read the draft of the Bill, but it occurred to me that there is a fundamental objection to both our points of view. In the Constitution, voting is restricted to Irish citizens. Therefore, if we were to give British citizens reciprocity we would have to amend the Constitution. I should like to ask the Minister in that connection if he would consider whether at some stage a constitutional amendment should be introduced because the point is absolutely valid.

British citizens living here contribute to taxes and to rates. They perform jury service. They contribute in every way as citizens, but they are restricted from voting. The position is particularly unfair to them because the British generously give us a vote if we go to reside in Britain. I should like to ask the Minister if he would let us know whether, during the drafting of the Bill, he considered that point, and if he would consider a constitutional amendment. Possibly it is a point that he would not want to introduce alone as a constitutional amendment, but if the Constitution were being amended on some point, it could be brought in, in fairness to quite a large number of our community who contribute in every other way to the wellbeing of the State.

Mr. Desmond

To a great extent I agree with most of the sections of the Bill which is bringing the electoral code up to date and clarifying different matters which were not clear before. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to something I consider is not as democratic as it might be. In Section 87 the Minister may, by order, make changes in the cities of Cork, Waterford and Limerick, without any reference to the local authorities or the corporation. That is a departure from the usual consultation with the local authorities and, especially, with corporations of such standing as the corporations of those three cities.

I am not saying that a case could not be made, perhaps, from making changes and dividing up the cities. That may be worthy of consideration. The point I am making is that the corporations and local authorities are entitled to be consulted about any views they may have on such matters. They certainly would have views in the light of their experience, and they could help to put the Minister in a stronger position to make an order along certain lines, if it was required.

I notice in the explanatory memorandum which the Minister has provided with the Bill that one of the reasons it did appear was the unwieldy ballot papers. That probably would be true but that is perhaps now being safeguarded to some extent by the fact that the Minister is bringing in in the Bill a clause to the effect that there will have to be deposits. I think he stated in his speech today that he is inclined to consider the effect of that in regard to some of the areas where he may decide to further divide other areas before finally making a decision in the matter.

That is something, of course, the effect of which we will have to wait and see but certainly the other point is something that is worthy of consideration. It is something that the local authorities, I think, are entitled to consideration on. Their view in the different areas, particularly in the areas referred to, is that any views now expressed in this matter, or whether they have a view or not, do not count because the Minister under this Bill makes an Order and that is the end of it. I think it is a pity it has been put in in that way without first giving them an opportunity of expressing their views in the matter. I should like to hear the Minister on that.

Professor Jessop

I should like to join with the other Senators in expressing my appreciation of the amount of work the Joint Committee put into the Bill, modifying portion of the electoral law and producing this very comprehensive instrument—the Bill we are now considering. I had not intended to speak on it because I have not got any authority on matters like this. But, I should like to comment on a point raised by Senator Stanford and Senator Ross. I agree with the view expressed but I think there is a difficulty which is so obviously insurmountable that it makes it impossible to proceed with it any further.

You cannot really consider giving reciprocity to a citizen of one country unless you are prepared to do the same thing for another country. In certain other countries this would create difficulties for which I cannot see any way out. I am thinking particularly of the USA. We have citizens of the USA taking up residence here in increasing numbers. Of course, it will be a long time, however, before there are as many American citizens as British citizens but, certainly, the number is not negligible and it is increasing.

If you reside in the USA, you cannot vote unless you become a citizen. Thereby, you relinquish citizenship of any other country of which you may have been a citizen previously. Conversely, if you are an American citizen in this country and you vote in any kind of an election here, you automatically relinquish your American citizenship so that unless there is some change in the American Constitution altering that situation you cannot possibly have any reciprocity with America. Unless we can do that, I do not see any way in which we can pursue reciprocity with any other country much as we might like to do so.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

This Bill is designed to make democracy work in the most efficient and effective way possible. I am glad to know Senators are satisfied that it is a good Bill and I think all will agree with the tributes which were paid in the Dáil to the Minister on its production. As the Minister said in his introductory statement, the Bill is based largely on the report of the Joint Committee on Electoral Law, which, itself, worked on a draft submitted to it by the Minister.

I was glad to hear the reference to the work of the Joint Committee from the Senators who have spoken and I think it no harm to recall the fact that that Committee was composed of 15 Members of the Dáil and seven of the Seanad. It was representative of all Parties and of the Independents in both Houses. I think it well also to recall that the Committee held its first meeting on the 8th June, 1960, when Deputy, now Senator, Gus Healy was elected Chairman. The Committee held 28 meetings and completed its work on July 12th, 1961. The Committee submitted three interim reports to the Minister for Local Government, the first on the 17th August, 1960, the second on the 15th March, 1961, and the third on the 17th April, 1961. The final report was submitted on the 12th July, 1961, and it was a unanimous report.

It will be appreciated from this résumé that that Committee lost no time in doing the job which it was given to do. I should like to point out the value of such Committees charged with the consideration of Bills of such a technical nature and I hope it will be found possible in future to avail of that expedient for the consideration of many more pieces of proposed legislation.

Senators

Hear, hear.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The members of the Joint Committee, although they were divided in political outlook, approached the task of giving us this piece of electoral law. I must say, in fairness to all concerned, it was a most refreshing and encouraging experience to find such unity of purpose at every meeting. As this is the first opportunity that presents itself, I feel it is something which should be put on record. I should also like to avail of this opportunity to pay a tribute to the Chairman, Senator Healy, for his thorough grasp of the job which was before us. His intelligent summary of the discussion of moot points and his unfailing good humour were in great measure responsible for the fact that every meeting was a business meeting which stuck to the point under discussion and little or no time was lost on extraneous matters.

I should like also to join with other Senators, who have made reference to it already, in paying a tribute to the officers of the Department of Local Government whose wide knowledge of the whole subject was placed at the disposal of the Committee at every meeting and on every point on which they wanted information. That knowledge was of invaluable help to the Committee in its deliberations. As is known to all, the details of the Committee were limited to dealing with Dáil elections and it did not deal with the law relating to such things as local authorities or the referendum but I am glad those points are covered in the Bill now before us.

I think that the outstanding proposals in the measure before the House are the inclusion of the names of the political parties in the ballot papers for Dáil and local elections, the nomination of a candidate by himself, the abolition of limitations of election expenses, new elasticity relating to hours of polling, registration of electors where they ordinarily register, institution of deposits for candidates in local elections, institution of polling cards by local authorities and the holding of local elections throughout the country on the same day. These are all very desirable innovations in accordance with the aim in view and are, with many others in the Bill, more suitable to be discussed, should there be a desire to do so, on the Committee Stage.

I should like also to join with other Senators in complimenting the Minister on the very informative Explanatory Memorandum which was circulated to Senators and which, in my case, and in the case of many others I am sure, has proved of great assistance in understanding and analysing the proposals in this Bill.

I should like to support Senator Stanford very strongly in his plea for the publication by somebody—I do not care by whom—of a booklet dealing with citizenship. I think it is appalling that in this country at the present moment our young people are leaving the schools without the slightest idea of the fundamental law under which they live, without the slightest idea of their rights as citizens, with very little idea of what their local government is, what their national Government is, what constitutes it, or what the process of voting is. I think the publication of a booklet, as suggested by Senator Stanford, would do a great deal to inform the younger generation, particularly those who are now coming to manhood and who will be on the register in due course as voters, of not only their rights but also their responsibilities as citizens. I think it is imperative that some such booklet should be issued as soon as possible, and I hope that the Minister will take note of this suggestion and bring it to whatever quarter is most likely to give effect to it.

This Bill, as is obvious, can be taken to be an agreed measure. It passed through the Dáil without a division, and I trust that the Seanad will expedite its passage into law.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

I should like to join in the welcome extended to this Bill from all sides of the House. It is a Bill that will certainly be welcomed by those seeking election to Dáil Éireann and, more especially, by their election agents. It simplifies the machinery for election to the Dáil in a few respects. As has already been said, this Bill, for all practical purposes, gives legislative effect to the recommendations of the Joint Parliamentary Committee set up to investigate and report on the electoral law. I certainly should like to join in the congratulations and thanks to the members of the Joint Committee for the very fine job of work they did.

The fact that the Bill had such a speedy passage through Dáil Éireann, I think, in itself reflects great credit on the Committee. I think the Bill would have had an even speedier passage through the Dáil were it not for the fact that the Minister sought in one respect to refuse to implement the recommendation of the Joint Committee by removing the oath which could be administered to a person who sought a ballot paper. To the Minister's credit, however, it must be said that he gave way to the Opposition on the Report Stage and that very necessary safeguard against personation still stands in the Bill. The Committee, the Minister and the Dáil are to be congratulated on the manner in which they dealt with the Bill.

The basis of our electoral law prior to this Bill was the Electoral Act of 1923 which for all practical purposes, remains intact on the Statute Book. When we are expressing our appreciation for work done in the field of electoral law, we would be less than fair if we failed to put on record the fine job of work which was done by the Minister, the Department and the Oireachtas in 1923 when they put on the Statute Book the Electoral Act of 1923 which has stood the test of time and which remains fundamentally the basis of our electoral law. I say that particularly because the Electoral Act of 1923 implemented the provision in the first Constitution of this State which provided a new form of election machinery, namely, proportional representation. It was a new departure in this country. It must have been a very complicated job for a new Department and a new Minister. They did the job well and time has proved that.

The Minister stated in his opening speech that it was hoped to codify the electoral law and provide one comprehensive measures to which candidates and their agents could refer. Some considerable progress has been made under this Bill in that direction. It is a pity, even if it meant some further delay, that further progress was not made and that we could not have one entirely comprehensive measure incorporating the Electoral Abuses Act and other Acts in this one measure.

I say that because this Act and the Acts dealing with election to Dáil Éireann have very frequently to be dealt with, and have very frequently to be interpreted, by people who do not possess any legal training. Of all the election agents in any general election, I would say a very small percentage of them are people with legal training or specialised legal training in this particular department. Therefore, it is very important that the law on the subject should be codified, and, while a move has been made in that direction, it is a pity that it was not possible to finish the job in one effort.

I agree with the provision in this Bill which transfers the duty of compiling the register from the county registrar to the local authority. I agree with that for a couple of reasons. First, the local authority have better machinery for carrying the job into effect. Secondly, if the rate collectors or the local officials slip up on it, the elected representatives, who are vitally interested, can be on the job, and the officials made answerable. Thirdly, I think we now have a right of appeal from the local authority to the county registrar who will be sitting as an independent official hearing appeals. Heretofore, when he sat as the returning officer, he was really hearing appeals from himself and that was not satisfactory.

On this point I think it is a pity that the State did not accept the entire case of compiling the register. I suppose it is sought to justify asking the local authority to bear half the cost on the grounds that the register is required for local elections but the register is primarily required for Dáil elections, Presidential elections, referenda and the provision of jurors' lists and I think the State should have borne 100 per cent of the cost.

Of course, we must all be delighted at the abolition of the limit on candidates' expenses and I trust that means that a return of expenses of any description will no longer be necessary. This new departure is merely facing up to the realities of the situation. I am not so sure that the stipulated maximum was exceeded in the past because I think it was fairly fair but I do know that it was impossible to keep any sort of accurate record of what it cost to elect a member of Dáil Éireann or in many cases to attempt to elect a member of Dáil Éireann and the lot of the election agent who was asked to sign his name to this return was unenviable.

I am glad that the necessity for eight assenters has been done away with because that led to all sorts of difficulties. I hope the occasion never arose that a handwriting expert was called in to vet the signatures of all these assentors all over the country. Again, this is facing up to the realities of the situation and making things simple.

There is one thing, I think, on which the Minister did not follow completely the recommendation of the Joint Committee and that is the deposit. The Joint Committee recommended that the £100 deposit should still stand but that the number of votes required to save the deposit should be reduced from one-third of the quota to one-fourth. I think that anybody who received one-fourth of the quota in an election would be justified in standing and should save his deposit.

Senator Desmond dealt with the powers taken by the Minister to divide the cities of Waterford, Limerick and Cork into wards without being requested to do so by the city councils there. At present the Minister can move in this matter only if he is requested to do so by the city council and the Minister should have left the law as it was in that respect because no one is in a better position to know whether a city should be divided into wards than the citizens of that city. I would go further and say that if the Minister in his wisdom thought he should have this power he should have left some safeguard to the members of the city council. Under the Bill as it stands the Minister can decide that he is going to divide the city of Cork into wards without any consultation with anybody. I think he must lay the regulations before the Dáil and Seanad and if they are annulled they do not become law. I do not even know if that is in the Bill but I hope it is.

There is another provision for making regulations for the holding of local elections and its says that a draft of the regulations must be laid before Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann and that it shall not become law until it is approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas. That gives each House the opportunity of discussing the regulations, suggesting amendments to them and that sort of thing and I think the Minister should have made a similar provision here. Before making an order dividing the cities into wards he should have to lay the regulations before both Houses of the Oireachtas where they would be open for discussion.

I may not be taking the sections of the Bill in strictly chronological order but there is another point about which I am not entirely happy, that is the section of the Bill which gives a returning officer the right to accept withdrawal of a candidate from a person other than the candidate even if it is not over the signature of the candidate. That is a dangerous provision. If a person is nominated as a candidate in a Parliamentary election some elector in the constituency can come to the returning officer and say: "I want to withdraw candidate A" and in certain circumstances the returning officer may accept the withdrawal of that candidate nothwithstanding the fact that it is not even made in writing by the candidate himself. I know that serious penalties are provided for the fraudulent withdrawal of a candidate or for the withdrawal of a candidate without his consent, but that is not enough. In the rare case where this might happen the returning officer should visit the candidate and interview him in person or if that were not possible he could appoint a deputy to go and interview the candidate. It is a very serious step to allow a candidate to be withdrawn, to provide the machinery for the withdrawal of a candidate, which might lead to a candidate's fraudulent withdrawal or to withdrawal without his consent.

I understand that the Minister will make regulations on the compiling of the electors' lists and that they will provide for publicity to be given to the necessary steps which must be taken in order to become registered as a Parliamentary elector. I thoroughly agree with the suggestion that it would be a great thing if this were done on a national scale. At the present time, every returning officer is left to work out his own publicity and the result is that advertisements are small. You could have one national advertisement in each provincial paper. If that were done on a national basis, you could have more striking, more effective and a much larger advertisement. I am sure the Minister will bear this in mind when he is making the regulations. I welcome the Bill by and large.

Mr. Mooney

I do not wish to detain the passage of the Bill but I should like to make a plea on behalf of commercial travellers for postal voting. It is rather a pity that they have not been included in view of the fact that at the time of an election they may be in various parts of the country. With the development of industry and general economic development throughout the country the number of commercial travellers has increased and it has been mentioned time and time again to myself that they should have the right to postal voting in certain circumstances. If they are not included or some provision is not made for them, with the increase in their numbers and the fact that most of them are married a cynical view will grow up in regard to Parliament, if it has not already reached that stage in some of their minds. They feel that they have no voice in the election of a government or even of members of local authorities and their attitude is: "Why should I worry or bother?" The Minister should seriously consider this question of having them included in a postal vote. They constitute a body that is not going to reduce but will increase with the years, and it is possible that if they had the right of a postal vote they would exercise it in the particular area they might be in on the day of an election.

Another solution to the problem, I suppose, would be to have elections on a Sunday, but I would not like to advocate that system. We have enough going on on Sundays already without elections.

I would like to put before the Minister for consideration the question of the revision of the existing electoral areas in counties. They are anything but realistic in view of recent trends— the drift from rural areas to towns and across the water. We have the position in our county where it takes more votes in one particular electoral area to elect a man than it does in another. For example, in the area I represent it takes 845 or 850 votes to be elected while in the northern portion of the county a man can be elected with 500 or so. Legislation should be brought in at some future date to remedy the position and make it more realistic. I am sure this question applies to other counties as well as Leitrim.

Reference has been made, although perhaps it is outside the scope of this Bill, by Senator Professor Stanford, with a reply by Senator Mullins, to the issue of a citizenship book. The point is that a spirit of citizenship should be inculcated in our young people. I support the views expressed especially in regard to parliamentary institutions, but I am sure that both Senators are aware that a very fine booklet on citizenship has been issued recently by the Irish Christian Brothers. It costs only a nominal sum, around 2/-, and it should be in the hands of every child in the country. It tells them how they should conduct themselves in public, respect the flag and public property. The only thing required to be done is to widen its scope by including the set-up of our parliamentary institutions and our local authorities.

Mr. McAuliffe

I have not very much to say about this Bill except that I welcome it. It is a really good one because a Committee from all sides of both Houses worked on it and really got down to getting something that was required. As a member of a local authority, I am very glad that only 50 per cent of the expense will have to be borne by the county council. We have found a jump of 1½d. or 2d. in the £ due to the fact that we were holding local elections, and I am glad that the jump will not be so great in the future.

I am also glad that the political Parties to which candidates belong will now appear on the paper. This is a very good idea and I have often thought that it should have happened long before this.

As regards secrecy, I am glad that the Minister has taken note about that by reducing the type of the number on the back of the ballot paper. It was extraordinary how many people were able to see the number and be quick enough at the opening of the ballot boxes to know how a person voted.

The question of the official mark is one that concerned us very much at the last election. The counting of votes was held up for two days and it caused quite a lot of annoyance in the constituency. I do not know if the Minister has even gone far enough in trying to see that the official mark will never be left off again. We have a Senator in this House who could as easily have been in the other House if the official mark had been on the papers. It must be heart-breaking for a candidate to find himself defeated just because of carelessness on the part of a presiding officer. If a presiding officer ever makes a mistake like that, it should be seen to that under no circumstances would he be selected in the future.

We heard a good deal today from Senator Ó Maoláin about children not knowing sufficient about citizenship. I do not know what the Minister would think of a reduction in the age for voting. A big proportion of children go to work now at the age of 16, 17 or 18 and they have to wait until they are 21 before they can vote. I would like to hear the Minister's views as to what he would think of giving votes at 18.

As regards the £10 deposit in local elections, I do not know whether it is a good or a bad idea. I am not altogether in favour of it because I do not think it will cut out anyone. It might cut out one or two undesirables, but I do not think that if an undesirable wants to go up for a bit of a laugh and get a few votes the £10 will deter those who put him up.

I agree with Senator Fitzpatrick that the deposit should not be forfeited unless the candidate fails to get one quarter of the votes on elimination instead of one-third as at present.

In general, I am in agreement with the Bill. I should like to see a quarter for the forfeiture of the deposit, and I would like to see that it would be nearly impossible to leave the official mark off the paper.

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 10 Jul 1963

Private Business. - Electoral Bill, 1962—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Senators

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 10 Jul 1963