At the conclusion of the debate last evening, I was indicating that this sub-section (2) would, in my view, have the effect of limiting very severely the choice of the electorate. If that sub-section were passed by the House, and if the Referendum Bill were subsequently accepted, the tendency would be to introduce a system of election by which, basically and mainly, the electorate voting in a general election would have a choice only of voting for one of two candidates.
In the course of many contributions from many Ministers, the Government indicated that that view might not necessarily be correct, but having regard to the fact that the Taoiseach and members of the Government have laid such stress on what they term the success of the direct voting system in Great Britain and the experience in that country, the general pattern of elections over a number of years has been for the electors there to be offered a choice as between two candidates.
The position here is that, since this State was formed and parliamentary government inaugurated here, the general electorate have had a choice. How they have utilised that choice down the years is a matter for each of them individually. There may be certain views on all sides of the House as to whether they utilised their choice wisely or unwisely, but nevertheless they had the choice and they were not compelled to say: "We will vote for this candidate because we have no alternative but to vote for one of two candidates."
The change in the system of voting can also have the result which was indicated already, that in a constituency in which 15,000 electors vote and in which there are candidates representing a number of political Parties, and possibly an Independent candidate, a situation could quite conceivably arise that out of 15,000 actually voting in the constituency, the votes of 4,000 would elect a representative for that constituency. The Minister for Defence agreed that this was possible when he spoke in the House yesterday. He said it was not likely but it was possible and I do not think I am being unfair to him when I say he expressed the view that it was not only possible but correct and proper, that where out of a number of electors totalling 15,000 taking part in an election in a constituency, 4,000 or a small minority voted for a particular candidate, that candidate should come into the House as the spokesman for that constituency.
Of course, that is quite understandable coming from the Minister for Defence and from the Government. It is quite understandable because it has been quite clear from the beginning, from the time this debate opened, that the main objective in the minds of the Government, in the mind of the Taoiseach, and in the minds of those who follow him like sheep, is to try to secure a situation in which 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. of the electorate in any constituency would return the Deputy for that constituency.
The Minister for Defence was worried about the situation of some 163,000 voters who, he said, were injured because of the way the single transferable vote operated in previous elections. He was concerned about what he termed an injustice to 163,000 out of 1,238,559 voters. He was concerned about them and held that they were injured because these 163,000 voters and their votes did not contribute to the election of a Deputy.
If, next week or next month, an election is carried out on the lines proposed in this Bill, the situation would fall between these extremes— if we accept for the moment that exactly the same number of electors participate in the election: with all the 1,238,559 voters casting a vote, if, in each constituency, 51 per cent. of the votes went to a particular candidate—in other words, the majority—the result would be that 500,000 votes would not contribute to the election of a Deputy.
If, however, as is quite likely and as is quite possible under the simple scheme produced now by this Fianna Fáil Government, in most of the constituencies, there were more than two candidates, then it is quite possible that 30 per cent. of the voters would vote for successful candidates, leaving 70 per cent. of the voters whose votes would not contribute to the election of a Deputy. In other words, those 750,000 people taking part in the election would have cast a vote which was not effective in so far as it did not result in the return of a Deputy and those 750,000 people can be set off against the 163,000 persons whom the Minister is talking about under the present system.
The Minister for External Affairs is very fond of referring us to the position outside the country. He is particularly good at telling us how successful the direct vote is in Britain. He failed to tell the House of the number of constituencies in Britain in which, for the past 30 years, although there has been a contest, it has been a contest in name only. Everyone in such a constituency and, in fact, everyone in the country who takes any interest in affairs and anyone in this country or in any part of the world knows that there are a very large number of constituencies there where the contest is just a sham contest because the majority in the constituency is so great that whether it is a question of one candidate or six candidates contesting the sitting member seat, there is no effect: the hereditary system is operating very well in some of these constituencies in England. They are called "safe seats".
The Minister for External Affairs has not adverted at any great length to the benefits this proposed system has conferred on the Irish people in Northern Ireland. Perhaps he may again intervene and give us his views but I doubt very much whether, in the light of the circumstances of Northern Ireland, in the light of the oft-expressed views of the Taoiseach and his Ministers over many years regarding that section of the country, anything he says in this debate in that regard will convince anybody that it has any merit.
Speaking in Longford on Sunday, the Minister for Health was reported at great length in the Irish Press of the following day. Reading the report, one gets a certain view of what is in the Minister's mind. It appeared to me as if his contribution would come under two main headings. It would seem that he is of opinion that any person who dares to go forward as a candidate and who is not a member of the Fianna Fáil Party or the Fine Gael Party is a crank or a crackpot. It would seem that any person who at present has certain rights and feels he or she should assert those rights by going before the people in a general election and asking for their support would be described by the Minister for Health of this Government as a crank or a crackpot. It would also seem that any citizen of this country, man or woman, who forms the opinion that he or she should support a candidate other than the candidate of the Fianna Fáil Party or possibly the Fine Gael Party, to that extent, goes against the popular feeling at the time and that, therefore, it is a crime.
One gathers from that speech that there is something wrong about our citizens supporting candidates of political Parties other than the Fianna Fáil Party or the Fine Gael Party— supporting candidates of minority Parties or minority groups. Is the Taoiseach, who is present now, prepared to assert that at all times the minority must be wrong? His colleague, the Minister for Defence, indicates that if an elector does not see eye to eye with the people living next door to him, with his fellow citizens, he is doing something wrong. Therefore, I take it the Minister for Defence means that the electors by right have only one choice, to move along like a herd of sheep, going this way when the shepherd wants them to go this way and going the other way when the shepherd wants them to go the other way. I wonder whether the people whose memories are venerated in Ireland would subscribe to the view that the Irish people or a section of the Irish people are not entitled to use their God-given intelligence and to take an active part in the affairs of the nation. The Minister for Health appears to have a great regard for sheep. It is quite clear from his discourse to the Fianna Fáil conference in Longford that he must have been talking to a flock of sheep.
In the course of this debate the members of the Government have taken some opportunities to advert to the position of the Labour Party. The position of the Labour Party is very clear. It has been defined again and again and on this issue it has also been defined. However, in case the Minister for External Affairs is still confused, as he is about so many things, let me say that the Labour Party believes that the citizens of Ireland should have the chance of deciding who should represent them in this Dáil. The Labour Party believe the choice should not be limited in the way it is now proposed to limit it. The Labour Party will be represented in this Dáil as long as Labour supporters decide to give the Party support and the condemnations or the strictures of various Ministers of the Government will not affect that position one bit.
The Labour Party are an independent political Party in this House and, as I mentioned on another occasion, they appreciate the fact that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, possibly in one of his more lucid moments, expressed the view that the Labour Party was the Party in this House that had a political and economic concept different from that commonly held by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. It was a separate and distinct political entity before we were born and will continue to be separate and distinct.