The motion before the House is of the greatest importance. The proposal contained in the Bill is to alter the system of election of Deputies to Dáil Éireann. If that is passed, as it is likely to be in view of the large majority which the Government has, and, should it be ratified in the referendum which will follow, without question it will affect the lives of many generations to come.
The Bill proposes to alter a system that has been enshrined in our Constitution as the result of a decision taken, not 50 or 100 years ago, but just over 21 years ago, a system of election of representatives to the Dáil which, to my mind and to the minds of many people, is a valuable safeguard in returning Deputies to this House. The electorate could make the utmost of each vote and the preferences that went with it to the extent of indicating a preference for each candidate seeking election. By the intelligent use of the preference, a voter could ensure that the surplus votes, on the elimination of a candidate, would play an active part, if the first-choice candidate were not returned, in securing the election of the second-preference candidate.
Many Government speakers, including particularly the Minister for Defence, have said that is a ridiculous attitude, that it was tantamount to giving a number of votes to the people who voted for the lowest candidate. I suggest that there is nothing wrong in giving—as is given under P.R.—to an elector the right to say: "If my first choice to represent me cannot possibly be elected, then I would decide in favour of my second choice." I see nothing wrong in that. One might as well say that a housewife who decides to decorate a room and finds that the colour she chooses is not available cannot have a second choice of colour. Surely it cannot be said that, because for some reason her first choice was not available or could not be secured, she had no further right to a choice.
It is ridiculous to hear the Minister for Defence claim that, contrary to the Constitution, the electorate have more than one vote. It should be well known to anyone who knows anything about P.R. that under that system you have one vote and one vote only. Your twos, three, fours and fives are preferences of where you would like your vote to go should it not be used on the first choice you make. I suggest that P.R., as carried out in this country, is the fairest and best system yet put forward, and until a better system is put forward I believe it is essential for the people to continue electing Deputies in the manner to which they are accustomed and which has become a fundamental part of our Constitution.
During portion of his speech last week the Tánaiste thought fit to taunt some members of the Opposition with the suggestion that, because they engaged in long and exhaustive debate on the merits of this Bill, they were seeking by some underhand means to deprive the people of their right to vote on the principle contained in the Bill—in other words, that they were seeking to defer a referendum. The Tánaiste knows well that it is the duty of the Opposition to examine each Bill proposed by the Government, to debate that Bill and amend and improve it if possible. Opposition Deputies have every right—in fact, there is an obligation on us—to debate this or any other Bill affecting the people.
I wonder if there was any way of changing the principle of P.R. to a straight vote without holding a referendum, would the Tánaiste be so anxious that the matter be submitted to a referendum? The Tánaiste knows quite well—but many people may not be so aware—that there is no way of changing P.R. without a referendum, irrespective of what the Opposition or the Government may say. From the record of Fianna Fáil I have no doubt that, if there was such an alternative, we would have been told, as we have been told so often, that the Taoiseach knows what is best for the Irish people.
This Bill proposes to alter a fundamental of the Constitution. One would have thought that with such a proposal in mind the Government Party would have decided to have consultations with the Opposition groups. I cannot speak for any Party but my own, but I am quite sure that no such consultations were either proposed or held with the Labour group. The first knowledge any member of my Party had was when a certain national newspaper announced through its political correspondent that the matter was under consideration by the Cabinet. Following that, the Taoiseach made a short statement admitting the truth of the rumour. That was followed up by a discussion at the Fianna Fáil Árd Fheis at which, we were informed, the proposal that the Bill should go forward received unanimous approval. Deputy Norton has already paid tribute to the solidarity the Taoiseach received for that proposal.
To my mind, the method by which the Deputies on this side secured the news of such an important proposal was nothing short of contempt of the House. Perhaps the reason our opinions were not sought was because Fianna Fáil had made up their minds that, irrespective of whatever proposals were made by Labour or any other Opposition Party, they would go through with it. Matters of much less importance than the electoral system have been the subject of discussions between Parties. One would have expected that, before legislation dealing with such a fundamental was brought in, there would have been a proposal to set up a commission of experts, people versed in the knowledge of P.R. and other electoral systems, that such a commission would have been constituted and its advice sought. On such questions as emigration, the Seanad elections, licensing laws, education and language matters—to mention but a few—such commissions were established.
It is strange that on this fundamental issue no such proposals were made. If such a thing had been mooted I have no doubt that agreement could have been got on this side. It is quite true that no Government need be tied by such decisions, but at least we would have the advantage of a majority report and a minority report, with the facts for and against marshalled for consideration, both by the members of this House and the public in general, who, as we are told, will be the final judges.
I am aware that the case has been made that there was urgency and hurry because of the need for a revision of constituencies early next year. I suggest that that is not a reason but an excuse, because in the Constitution which makes provision for such revision, it is clearly stated that a revision of the constituencies must take place at least every 12 years. There was nothing to hinder the Government having such a revision of constituencies within the prescribed time, then instituting a commission to examine the proposals of this Bill, whether or not P.R. or the straight vote was the more advantageous in securing good government in this country, and, having secured the report, introducing the Bill in this House, which could possibly be an agreed measure. Even if it were opposed by the Opposition, by the same pressure of the majority of votes they hold, they could put the Bill through prior to the date when the life of this Parliament is to end. In that way, they would have the advantage of having the views and the opinions of experts, of having a debate on the politics and decisions of that commission and still be enabled to put their Bill through and have a referendum of the people within the prescribed lifetime of this House.
I suggest the reason that was not done was that if such a commission was established and should it happen that the majority report did not agree that P.R. should be abolished, the Government Party would feel that the electors might then refuse to accept the proposals at referendum time and throw out the proposals they would bring forward. I again suggest it is indicated that irrespective of a commission, irrespective of what anyone in this Dáil on the Opposition side might say, Fianna Fáil made up their minds that the straight vote is to come and come it will, and the only thing that can stop it, and thanks be to God for that, is that the people will have the final say.
Many of us awaited the speech of the Taoiseach with impatience last Wednesday. Many of us were anxious to know what type of argument he would be able to put forward that would be so convincing that it would allow the people to accept the argument in face of the continued praise which he has been expressing for P.R. over the past 20 to 25 years. The Taoiseach is well known to be able to put a very good face on a very bad case. He is well known as a highly skilled politician and I for one was expecting some particularly brilliant line that I and many others had not conceived. To my surprise and practically to my dismay, I failed to hear the Taoiseach make a single convincing point. He said that P.R. did not tend to stable government and said he hoped the straight vote would build up the Opposition to such a point where they would replace his own Party. He suggested that P.R. gave minority groups representation here. One would assume from that that each minority group securing the return of a number of Deputies on their behalf would automatically build up an Opposition. He suggested that his interest in establishing the straight vote was to do the very thing he had blamed P.R. for doing. I fail to understand that line of reasoning.
The Tánaiste followed with much the same proposals, except that he gave us a prophecy. He could foresee in the foreseeable future a Government comprised of Fianna Fáil Party members, with the Labour Party as the principal and, I think, the only Opposition, with—if I do not misquote him—Fine Gael fading out. That certainly is a change from the old story, even from the story Deputy Davern had to-day, that Fianna Fáil represent the workers, that Fianna Fáil get more workers' votes than the Labour Party get. I do not quarrel too much with that belief. I would say quite honestly that Fianna Fáil have fooled many workers over a long time.
