Public Business. - An Bille um an Tríú Leasú ar an mBunreacht, 1958—An Dara Céim (Atógáil). Third Amendment of the Constitutions Bill, 1958—Second Stage (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (16th Dáil) – Wednesday, 10 Dec 1958

Public Business. - An Bille um an Tríú Leasú ar an mBunreacht, 1958—An Dara Céim (Atógáil). Third Amendment of the Constitutions Bill, 1958—Second Stage (Resumed).

D'atógadh an díospóireacht ar na leasuithe seo leanas:—

(1) Go scriosfar gach focal i ndiaidh an fhocail "Go" agus go gcuirfear na focail seo ina n-ionad:—

ndiúltaíonn Dáil Éreann an Daea Léamh a thabhairt don Bhille de bhrí go gcreideann sí i dtaobh díchur chóras na hIonadaíochta Cionúire.

1. go gcuirfidh sin isteach ar chearta dlisteanacha minoluchtaí,

2. go bhfuil sé in aghaidh ár dtraidisún daonlathach,

3. gur dóigh parlaimintí neamhionadaitheacha agus rialtas stróinéiseach a theacht dá dheasca,

4. go mbeidh sé níos deacra dá dheasca deireadh a chur leis an gCríochdheighilt,

5. nach bhfuil aon éileamh air ag an bopbal, agus

6. uime sin, leis an gcor atá faoi láthair ar an saol agus ar ár gcúrsaí eacnamaíochta, gur dochar agus nach sochar a dhéanfaidh sé do réiteach fadhbanna an náisiúin,

agus go molann sí ina ionad sin go ndéanfar, d'fhoon eolas a sholáthar don phonal, coimisún saineolaithe a bhunú chun an córas toghcháin atá ann faoi láthair a scrúdú agus tuarascáil a thabhairt ina thaobh.—(An Teachta S. ua Coisdealbha.)

(2) Go scriosfar gach focal i ndiaidh an fhocail "Go" agus go gcuirfear na focail seo ina n-ionad:—

ndiúltaíonn Dáil Éireann an Dara Léamh a thabhairt don Bhille de bhrí nach ndéanann sé foráil le haghaidh vótála de réir na hionadaíochta cionúire agus ar mhodh an aonghutha inaistrithe sna Dáilcreantair aon-chomhalta. —(An Teachta Ó Bláthmhaic).

Debate resumed on the following amendments:—

(1) To delete all words after the word "That" and substitute therefor the words:—

Dáil Éireann, believing that the abolition of the system of P.R.

1. will interfere with the legitimate rights of minorities,

2. is contrary to our democratic traditions,

3. is likely to lead to unrepresentative parliaments and to arrogant government,

4. will make more difficult the ending of Partition,

5. has not been demanded by public opinion, and

6. therefore, in present world conditions and in our economic circumstances will impair rather than assist the solution of our national problems,

refuses to give a Second Reading to the Bill; and recommends instead that for the purpose of informing public opinion an expert commission be established to examine and report on the present electoral system.—(Deputy J. A. Costello.)

(2) To delete all words after the word "That" and substitute therefor the words:—

Dáil Éireann declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill as it does not make provision in the proposed single member constituencies for voting on the system of P.R. by means of the single transferable vote.—(Deputy Blowick.)

Mr. S. Flanagan

I should like very briefly to "recap" on some of the things I said in the few moments at my disposal last week. I began by saying it was a pity the level of the debate from the point of view of the Opposition had been so deplorably low. I instanced some of the remarks of Deputy Costello, almost the whole of Deputy Dillon's diatribe and the remarks of Deputy Dr. Browne whose speech was merely an example of his obsessive hatred of the Taoiseach. I might have added Deputy Norton's remarks about governing by jackboot and put them into that category. I did mention, however, that at the end of Dr. Browne's speech he asked the question: If Fianna Fáil Deputies would vote in favour of this Bill had they the opportunity of a straight vote? I said I certainly would vote in favour of the Bill if I were given the opportunity of a free vote of the House. I went on then to give some of the reasons which would prompt me to be very much in favour of this measure.

One of the things which must be very important to every Deputy, particularly members of a Party who put forward more than one candidate in a constituency, is the feeling of tension, sometimes amounting to bitterness, which prevails between the candidates themselves in the course of an election campaign. It is deplorable and undignified but those of us who wish to be honest with the House and with the people will admit it exists where more than one candidate goes forward in a constituency under P.R. In that connection I thought it significant that the exact wording of the amendment put down by Deputy Blowick and two other Deputies on behalf of the Clann na Talmhan Party obviously approved of the change from the multiple member constituency to the single member constituency and barely suggested that in the single member constituency the system of voting should be by single non-transferable vote instead of single transferable vote. I feel sure it will be of considerable interest to the people in my county that the Clann na Talmhan Party are in favour of a change from the present system to a system of single member constituencies. May I say that in that they are wise and I wholeheartedly agree with them? They, too, have experience of the bitterness and tension that develop between candidates who are going forward on the same ticket canvassing for the same votes.

I also mentioned that for a person representing a very large rural area the present system is unsatisfactory inasmuch as we are asked to represent a stretch of territory which we cannot physically represent in a satisfactory way. I have always felt frustrated about this state of affairs since I believe that a Deputy should be a leader and not merely a reflector of public opinion in his area, which he cannot be if he is not sufficiently in contact with his constituents and if his constituency is of the vast size of the one which I have the honour to represent.

One of the big objections put forward by those who oppose this measure is that we are trying to substitute a fair system of election for an unfair one. I do not think any system of election under parliamentary democracy in any country in Europe could be described as absolutely fair. I do not suppose those who followed the results of the recent elections in France could disagree with that view. It is, of course, highly desirable that it could take 230,000 voters to elect a communist to the French National Assembly but obviously it is not a fair reflection of the voting strength of that Party. In the same way if you go on to Austria, Germany, or to any country which operates what is known as "The list," it is plain that that again is not fair inasmuch as people are presented not with a list of individual candidates from whom they may choose but a list of Party candidates, and they have merely the choice of voting for one Party or another.

There is then the system of the single transferable vote which again may not be fair to the person who commands the highest individual support in his constituency. Therefore, we should cast from our minds the suggestion that there is any such thing as an absolutely fair method of election and realise that when people like Deputy Dr. Browne and others refer to the reflection of every shade of opinion in this House, they are talking absolute nonsense. The only possible way to have every shade of opinion represented in this House is by sending everybody in the country up here as a member.

The suggestion has been put forward that we are trying to push minorities and minority groups out of Parliament and out of public life. That is not so. I believe that under the system which operates in Great Britain and operates very well there, minority parties if they are to have any hope of growing to the size where they can be an effective opposition, must reflect not just the opinions and feelings of a minority group but national interest, and national policies are what they should put forward. I believe that under the new system if it is adopted by the people, while they will remain small Parties in this House they will be forced to reflect in their policy national rather than sectional interests.

The individuals who will be returned here under a single member constituency system will each represent approximately 25,000 people in a physical unit of the country. Those of us who have taken any trouble to study the results of elections in this country will find extraordinary results particularly in rural areas; one of them indeed is my own constituency where there are two members, both of them in the House at the present time who are living in the same town and another, Deputy Blowick, who lives a matter of a few miles away. It is a curious fact but it is true that three people who live within nine miles of one another have been elected in my own constituency. I am not suggesting there is anything wrong with that but some of the people in other parts of the county have during the years felt dissatisfied that they have never been able to elect or, alternatively, have never been able to keep elected, a member from their area.

In this instance it might be well to point out that, again, the fact that a candidate is going forward from a certain area for which he has no reasonable chance of being elected leads to the bitterness and frustration which I have already mentioned. I feel quite certain that the people of my county who, down the years, have not had sufficient contact with members of this House but who realise that this is not their fault, will support the system under which they will always have their own representative for their own area. They will not have the representation of four people, none of whom is personally fully alive to their particular needs.

Now, Sir, I should like to turn to what I think is the most deplorable element in this debate. I refer to the repeated statements from the Opposition Benches about jackboot government and to the attempt that is being made, so it is said, by my Party to perpetuate itself at the expense of the Irish people and to establish itself as a dictatorship. The people who put forward that view would do well to remember that it is much easier to change a Government under the single member constituency system than under P.R. It takes a very small percentage swing in England to change a strong Tory Government and to put in a strong Labour Government.

For that reason I believe you would have more stable and more solid Government and a Government more readily changeable by the people if you had the system put forward to the people under this Bill for their consideration.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Did the Deputy ever consider the number of safe seats there are in England?

Mr. S. Flanagan

There is no question but that under any system you will have a number of safe seats but there are far too many safe seats under P.R. in this country. There is far too much deadwood in this House, people coming in on the third or fourth count in a five-member constituency and doing nothing. That is one of the reasons why I hope that P.R. will be abolished and one of the reasons why I am sure that the new system will lead to a better Parliament, a Parliament with less deadwood. It is not satisfactory that there should be safe seats such as there are in England but the fact remains that it takes a much smaller swing in the percentage of votes to effect a satisfactory change of Government in Britain than it does in this country under P.R.

That, Sir, leads me to the references made by Opposition speakers to the unjustified cost of the referendum and to the upset it is going to be to the people and to the industrial life of the nation. That is the greatest nonsense I have ever heard in this House. The referendum is going to cost some money. I have heard the figures of £60,000 or £80,000 mentioned. I do not know what the figure is but I do know that the average life of the Governments in this country since the foundation of the State is about two and a half years. I know that from my own experience because I have fought three general elections since 1951 and the average last year came to an election every two years.

It is precisely to put an end to that situation that this measure is justified because the people will then be able to look forward to a stable Government which can, with a small swing of votes, be put out and another Government put in if they so desire. Such a Government will have a satisfactory and stable majority. I believe that under the new system the average span of life of a Government will go from two and a half years to about four years with a consequent saving of an enormous amount of money. You will not have to have double elections every time you want a stable Government. We had double elections in 1932 and 1933, in 1937 and 1938 and in 1943 and 1944. Each time it was necessary to go to the people twice in order to get a decisive answer from them.

I do not agree with one statement made by the Taoiseach in opening the debate when he said that he felt that if a second election had been held in 1948 Fianna Fáil would have been returned with the overall majority for which they asked. I do not believe they would have been and I think it is a good thing that they were not. I think it is a good thing to put out any Party, however good it may be, after three or four terms in office. It is a good thing to put them out and give them a rest. In England the people decided, when the war was over, that however good a man Winston Churchill was—and at that stage his prestige was higher than of any other man in the world—they would give him a rest and put in another Party. That did not mean that they rejected him because they brought him back again into Government a few years afterwards.

I believe that it is nonsense to say that the cost of the referendum is unjustified. I believe it is entirely justified because if the people accept the proposal to change the Constitution they will have more stable Government either from Fine Gael or Fianna Fáil. They will have a Government which they will know will be able to plan for four or five years ahead and the people will then be able to settle down to put the policy of that Government into effect and the members of the Dáil will be satisfied to get down to business instead of wondering whether it is next year or the year after they will have to go to the polls.

After all, Sir, the suggestion that this is a jackboot measure shows something like contempt for the Irish people. Do the Opposition speakers seriously suggest that a country like ours would be prepared to put up with any sort of jackboot measures? Do the Opposition speakers think that Fianna Fáil back benchers are just so many people who are prepared to lie down under what their own Government will do? I think that is absolute nonsense and the proof of it is, not in the years ahead, but in what has happened in years gone by.

Mr. McGilligan

What about the wheat motion a month ago?

Mr. S. Flanagan

The Irish people will see this propaganda for what it really is. They will clearly see it is nothing but an insult to their intelligence and, to that extent, perhaps Fine Gael have done a service to us, and not to themselves, by taking the line which they have adopted throughout this whole debate.

In conclusion, in supporting this measure I want to say that I am not speaking out of self-interest. Anyone who studies the figures of the voting in my constituency will know that a Fianna Fáil candidate will have considerably less chance of being returned under the new system than under the old one. There is a very heavy majority of voting strength against Fianna Fáil in my constituency and, therefore, I cannot be accused of speaking in my own interest when I support this Bill, as I honestly and sincerely do.

Of course, it will be suggested that we shall try to gerrymander the constituencies in such a way that the relative voting strengths of the Parties will be, in some way, nullified. I believe that is a reflection on the probity and integrity of the people who will serve on the commission which will define the constituencies and, again, I believe in putting forward that deplorable suggestion, Fine Gael and those who support them are not doing any service to themselves or to the Irish people. I believe that the people will see through such contemptible propaganda. All of us, however, are aware that when this Bill goes through, and if the referendum is successful, it will involve very great changes in the membership of this House. We should all be prepared to accept that.

For some of us this may be in the nature of a swan song. For many of us it will be a swan song, but the question should be not what happens to some of us but what is best for the country. I was very much impressed by what Deputy Booth said when speaking of the experiences of other countries under the P.R. system, but I would prefer to consider what is best for our own country rather than what is best for other countries. I am quite satisfied that the present system has outlived its usefulness and that we should adopt the system which we have suggested as an alternative, a system which has operated so well in Britain.

I may say that the atmosphere in which this debate has taken place is suggestive of the atmosphere connected with people who feel the ground shaking underneath them, and who feel we are about to make irrevocable changes and irrevocable decisions. There is nothing irrevocable about decisions of this House. It is quite possible that should Fine Gael come in here to govern, and if they feel the new system has failed, they can then ask the people to revert once more to the system of P.R. It is silly to regard this decision as irrevocable and as something which can never be undone. My personal belief is, however, that the Irish people will never want to undo the good work which I believe they will do next year but, should they ever want to do so, they will have the opportunity. Therefore, this can be regarded essentially as an experiment and as an attempt, after 35 years of relatively unsuccessful experience of the P.R. system, to try a system which will operate better for the peculiar needs of this country than the system which we have had up to the present time.

Whether, through the operation of the new system, some of us would be out of Parliament would not, in my view, be entirely relevant. We should be prepared to face whatever the future may bring in that regard. We should interest ourselves in having a better electoral system, and from that system will stem a better and more stable form of government and a better and more representative form of assembly. These are the aims of this Bill, that is why I support this Bill, and I hope the people will give the measure a full measure of support when they get the opportunity of doing so next year.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I felt rather frightened a little while ago because I thought my hearing was slightly affected when I heard a Fianna Fáil Deputy stating that he disagreed with some statement made by the Taoiseach. That is a phenomenon, something which would startle anyone but, of course, when we found out the nature of the statement it was discovered to be a very minor one indeed; but it is that type of tripe which we have been listening to from the Fianna Fáil Benches during this debate. I would like to ask Deputy Seán Flanagan when did he first fall in love with the direct system of voting? The answer, of course, is that he did so when the Taoiseach said that we must do away with P.R. Did Deputy Seán Flanagan, during the seven years he has been in this House, ever comment adversely on that system? Did any of the Fianna Fáil back benchers do so?

Mr. S. Flanagan

Certainly.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

They would not do so to-day were it not for the fact that the Leader of their Party said they must get rid of the system. However, leaving that point aside, I should like to know what is the reason for the indecent haste in trying to push this measure through the House. We have been informed by the Taoiseach that unless the Second Reading passes this week we shall have to sit next week and then, if the Committee and other stages are not taken, we shall have to reassemble on the 8th January or 15th January to do so. What is the need for this urgency? There are three or four years ahead in which it can be dealt with, and there are many other measures of more importance than it. In my view, the reason is that this is an endeavour on the part of the Taoiseach to keep himself in office until he goes further afield, and I feel sure that the House would not be discussing this Bill were it not for the fright which Fianna Fáil suffered in 1948 and 1954.

At that time as a result of the proportional system an alternative Government was provided. At that time Fianna Fáil were convinced that the people had no alternative choice and that, to use a common term, they were there for good. They were taken very much aback when they found, as a result of the 1948 election, that the country got an alternative Government, a Government much more effective than Fianna Fáil ever was or ever will be. We had the ideal type of representation under that Government —a composition of the various Parties with the exception of Fianna Fáil— and we had a similar type of Government in 1954 which introduced somewhat similar beneficial legislation.

I do not want to waste time recounting the achievements of the Governments of 1948 and 1951, but the Taoiseach has said that from 1948 to 1951, and from 1954 to 1957, in whatever part of the country he travelled he heard nothing but a demand to abolish P.R. These demands were made on him at times which coincided with his absence from office during inter-Party reign here but, despite that fact, he did not put such demands forward as part of his campaign during the 1957 General Election. Did the Taoiseach or any member of Fianna Fáil ask for the people's views on it? Did they mention in 1957 that if they were elected they would do away with this system of election which did give us stable government?

With regard to this term "stable government", what exactly does Fianna Fáil want? Have they not a stable Government at the moment? Were they not elected with a handsome majority in 1957, after 36 years of P.R.? Were they not elected with a majority of nine over every combination of Parties in this House? Is not an overall majority of nine stable enough for anyone? Is it a majority of 29, 39 or 49 they require?

This proposal is being advocated by Fianna Fáil speakers on the grounds of instability of Government. We all know that Governments here since the establishment of the State have been just as stable as Governments anywhere else in the world. But we are told now that we must revise the system and whittle down the so-called multiplicity of Parties and that we would do much better with a different system of election which would do away with all Parties, with the exception of perhaps two Parties.

I had occasion once to listen to a speaker from the Yugo-Slavian Parliament. He described the fair system of election they have to the Parliament of Yugo-Slavia. If the Minister for the Gaeltacht informs the Taoiseach of the content of my remarks now, in case the Taoiseach is not aware of the position in Yugo-Slavia, he may before this measure is finalised introduce the Yugo-Slavian method of election. It may suit him better. This representative from the Yugo-Slavian Parliament told us that the members of that House were elected on a Party system. There is, of course, only one Party permitted, or tolerated, in Yugo-Slavia—the Communist Party. Each branch of the Communist Party in the various localities nominates whoever that branch believes to be a suitable representative in Parliament. On their nomination a vote is taken between the 20 or 25 branches in the locality and the individual who is appointed as a result of that vote by the various branches of the Party is then nominated for Parliament; and, whether the people like him or not, they must come along and vote for him. He is duly elected to Parliament with between a 99 and 100 per cent. vote. That is the system in Yugo-Slavia. There is no difficulty about instability of government there. That system of election is bound to give stable government. They have 100 per cent. representation. Is it at something like that Fianna Fáil is aiming? I am sure if they could get away with it they would adopt the same type of dictatorial attitude and do away with every other Party here.

Much play has been made that this is a matter to be decided by the people. Why all the talk here? The ultimate decision rests with the people. If the people approve, this will become law. If the people disapprove, it will not become law. Arguing on that basis, Fianna Fáil speakers have been very annoyed at the lengthy nature of the discussion here. But this is exactly the place in which a lengthy discussion should take place on a measure which proposes to change the entire electoral system. We, as representatives of the people from one end of the country to the other, are obliged to express our viewpoints and give to the people, through this House, our views on this measure, pointing out the advantages or disadvantages inherent in the proposed change.

Now, I see little or no advantage accruing from the direct system of voting. I do not wish to repeat the various submissions made by previous speakers in support of that contention. The last Fianna Fáil speaker commented that they had this system in England and that it works satisfactorily there. It is a bit of a change to find Fianna Fáil anxious to borrow something from England. They pretend they do not want to have anything to do with England, but they are prepared to borrow this idea from England.

Everyone knows the position that obtains in England. It is entirely different from the position obtaining here. In England the average electorate is in the neighbourhood of 60,000 to 65,000 people. The personality of the candidate counts very little. The people vote mainly on a Party system. The system that has grown up in England suits a heavily populated, industrialised country like England. As had to be admitted by Deputy S. Flanagan, there has grown up with that system a system of safe seats. There is talk at the moment of a general election in England. As far as a general election goes, out of the 635 seats in the British Parliament there are at least 400 which are quite safe. They are the same as if there was no contest at all. The differences between the Parties in the safe constituencies are such that that is the position that will obtain there.

Look at it now from another angle. If a prominent politician is defeated in his own constituency, which may happen to be a marginal one, he is automatically removed to one of the safe seat constituencies and subsequently returned once more to the British House of Commons. If this Bill becomes law, will Fianna Fáil adopt that practice, assuming a few Ministers are defeated, as they undoubtedly will be, if this measure is accepted? Take the Minister for Lands, the Minister for Health, or any other Minister. If he is defeated in his constituency will he be transported to one of the safe seat constituencies, let it be down in Cork or up in Donegal? Will the local Party members then be asked to accept him as a candidate? Will the local people then be told they must elect him? That is what happens in England. That is what is likely to happen in any country where you have the direct vote.

Such a situation could not arise under P.R. because it is not the practice to transport a defeated candidate to another area to improve his chances of election. That has never happened here in our 36 years' experience of P.R.

Mr. Moran

Indeed it has.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

This debate has continued for so long there is bound to be a good deal of repetition. Has anyone ever asserted during the 36 years in which it has been in operation here that the P.R. system is an unfair system? The Minister for Defence said the system gave unfair results. Other Fianna Fáil speakers made the same statement. I never heard any Minister or any Deputy in any Party before this complain that the system gave unfair results. I never heard a defeated candidate complain that the system was unfair to him; he might say his defeat was hard luck. I know that Fianna Fáil supporters do not believe that P.R. is unfair. I know that their hearts are not in this particular measure but, due to the peculiar set up of their Party, they are compelled to support whatever the Taoiseach proposes whether they like it or not. If the Taoiseach had never commented adversely on P.R. we would never hear any adverse comment on the part of Fianna Fáil Ministers or back benchers on the system.

As I said earlier, the formation of the inter-Party Government is the root cause of all this hubbub about abolishing P.R. What system of government are we likely to have after the next general election if P.R. is not abolished? Fianna Fáil knows very well that the carrot of £100,000,000 to provide 100,000 jobs which they dangled before the electors on the last occasion will not do on the next occasion, despite the £220,000,000 carrot being dragged around the country at the moment.

Fianna Fáil expect that, possibly having passed this Bill through the House in a hasty fashion, the referendum will be taken about the month of February when the days are short and the nights are long and, possibly, they hope that what they deem to be their own effective organisation will bring out the rural voters to support the measure and that others will not take the trouble of going to the polls. That is one of the things they have in mind in deciding not to have any other type of election on the same day.

I cannot see why there should be a special referendum on the question of the abolition of P.R. Everyone knows that there will be a Presidential election in June next. The Irish people are sufficiently intelligent to be able to determine both questions on the same day and there is no need for duplication of elections.

What are the results likely to accrue from the establishment of the direct system of voting, if it should be established, and there is a very big "if" in that? Personally, I believe it is doomed. Fianna Fáil, as a Party commanding a solid vote, expect that they will be able to get almost all the seats. They assume that all the other Parties will go forward individually and thereby break up their votes and by doing so ensure the election of Fianna Fáil candidates. Some of them will get a rude awakening. They may not get the safe seat that they expect. That is the assumption that the Taoiseach is going on, that the various Parties will so break up their votes as to secure the election of Fianna Fáil candidates. From a personal point of view, I should not like to see the Minister for the Gaeltacht removed from this House but he will have a fairly difficult little job if the Bill becomes law.

Mr. Moran

I am sure the Deputy is worried about me.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Slightly worried. I am only pointing out that the Minister's position is typical of the position of some others. He will have a difficult little job.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The position of the Minister for the Gaeltacht does not arise on the Bill.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

This is a personal matter. I was emphasising my point.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If it is a personal matter and out of order, perhaps the Deputy could take it up with the Minister on some other occasion.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I was emphasising that it would remove some of these people from office. I believe I am expressing the point of view of the people who put me here when I say that they are quite satisfied with the present system of election. This change is due to the combination of Parties for the purpose of forming Governments recently. The demand for this change has come entirely from the Taoiseach, not from the Fianna Fáil Party. He wants to die in office. I hope it will be a long time before that happens. He wants to hold on to office for the remainder of his life. He knows very well that it is impossible for him to do so under the present system because it is most likely that a Government other than Fianna Fáil would be elected.

I conclude by condemning this proposal to abolish the P.R. system and I recommend the retention of that system.

Mr. Cummins

I am very glad to have this opportunity to ease Deputy Corish's anxiety—I am sorry he is not here—that every back bencher of Fianna Fáil is gagged or stifled in giving his views on this Bill. One of the most remarkable features of this debate was the extraordinary haste with which the Opposition rushed to condemn the Bill. The Taoiseach moved that leave be granted to introduce the Bill. No sooner had he done so when all sections of the Opposition fell over one another in almost indecent haste to hammer and condemn the Bill. There seemed to me to be an element of panic in this rush to criticise a Bill, the text of which had not even then been circulated. Why there should have been that panic, why they rushed to give expression to it, only Deputies opposite can say. In hastening to discuss the Bill, at a time when, according to the rules of parliamentary procedure they should not have done so, they showed a disrespect and even contempt for the institution which they now presume to cherish. The Government have been accused of bringing parliamentary democracy into disrepute by abolishing P.R. It is, in fact, the Opposition who have done so by deliberately flaunting the rules laid down for the proper ordering of business.

It has been said that the purpose of this Bill is to rivet Fianna Fáil in power. Surely Deputy Norton should know that this allegation cuts both ways. Could not election to Dáil Éireann by the single non-transferable vote just as well rivet the Labour Party into power? That may come, if and when that Party formulates a policy and programme acceptable to a majority of the people.

The same applies to Fine Gael. Cannot Fine Gael cement or rivet themselves into power in a similar way? The fact is, that no one Party can deliberately vote itself into power. Only the people can do that. It is the people who will still be the ones to choose who shall govern and who shall be in opposition.

It is a pity that Deputies opposite would not discuss the merits of the Bill in and out of the House more dispassionately than they have been doing. Could we not give the lie to those abroad who say we are politically immature and will always be so, by arguing this Bill without appeal to unworthy passions? I wonder is Deputy Norton voicing the opinion of his Labour followers when he suggests that the passing of this Bill will drive dangerous minorities underground? I am quoting from the Official Debates of the 12th November, Volume 171, column 626. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent any citizen seeking election to Dáil Éireann.

Deputy T. O'Higgins at a meeting of a Fine Gael branch a couple of weeks ago in Ballyroan, Laois, and reported in the daily papers of 22nd November, 1958, spoke of men who will not accept a Government elected by the people. Is Deputy O'Higgins voicing the views of his supporters?

Is Fine Gael in favour of antidemocratic means to combat this Bill? I am quite sure they are not. In my opinion, speeches like those I have mentioned serve only to arouse harmful and unworthy passions. I believe we should make an effort to conduct the debate with—in the words of the Preamble to the Constitution—due observance of prudence, justice and charity. Deputy O. Flanagan's speech on the measure last week certainly erred on this score. His remarks were the very opposite of prudent, just, or charitable.

I am a newcomer to this House but I have heard many speeches here and, before my election, I listened from a seat in the Public Gallery, but I have never heard anything so scurrilous and detestable. Deputy O. Flanagan spoke of the Bill as stinking in the nostrils of decent people, but surely if anything stank here last week it was his speech. He even sank so low as to look forward with a sort of ghoulish glee to the death of the Taoiseach. I would assure the Deputy that the Taoiseach will live in the memory, the hearts and affection of the Irish people long after he and his scurrilities have passed into oblivion.

The Fianna Fáil Party have often been accused of living in the past but, listening to the speeches from the opposite benches, it appears to me that it is Fine Gael who are doing just that. Fianna Fáil is the Party of to-day and the Party which looks to the future. It is the purpose of this Bill to provide for the future. The single-member constituency, from the individual Deputy's point of view, makes for the easier handling of his constituency. The area he is elected to represent would be more precisely defined, and a more compact area. I should imagine that the conscientious Deputy would welcome the Bill on that score.

The suggestion has been made that with the single-seat constituency a candidate could be elected by a bare majority leaving a large minority in that constituency without representation in Parliament. But, surely, if democracy means anything, it means simply that "most votes carry". And in any case a Deputy does not represent purely and simply the people who voted for him. He sits in Dáil Éireann as the representative of the whole area. He will, as far as he is able, work to safeguard the rights and air the grievances of every voter in his constituency irrespective of his or her political affiliations.

In the early days of the State, P.R. may have been the correct and safest method of election. At that stage in our history we were perhaps anxious to ensure that all sections of our people—all minorities, however small —should be given the opportunity to enter Parliament. But time has proved that this system, in fact, gives rise to a multiplicity of small Parties.

There is the possibility that in the future there could be more Parties here; so many indeed, that bickerings between them would become inevitable and stable government impossible. Under those conditions a strong extremist minority could well play havoc with the democratic nature of our institutions. I can visualise a state of affairs here when Deputies would long for the abolition of P.R. only to find that it was too late.

I sometimes wonder if the two Coalition Governments we had here would have lasted even as long as they did without the presence opposite of a strong, single Party, committed never to take part in any Coalition. Now is the time to make the change while we still have it in our power to ask the people to elect a strong, single-Party Government and a strong Opposition. Some day in the future we may want to make the change and, finding ourselves unable to do it, look back on these days and regret a lost opportunity.

There has been talk of dictatorship. I do not believe the critics who accuse Fianna Fáil of trying to inflict a dictatorship on the people can be serious. The people will be asked to decide this issue. Dictators do not ask people what they would like. They tell them what to do and how to do it. If the people decide to abolish P.R. there will still be the same freedom to vote under the new system and the same freedom to go forward for election. The democracy which we all cherish is still being safeguarded, so, unless we can visualise a democratic dictatorship, I cannot see the sense in that particular line of argument. This Bill, as I see it, is an effort to ensure that the dignity and freedom of the individual will be assured so that no combination of minorities will be enabled to take this freedom from us. Deliberately to blind ourselves to this danger is gravely to dishonour the memories of some great men who have gone before us.

Mr. McGilligan

Apparently it is to be accepted that there are much more catching things than influenza about the city at the present time. I have not listened to such smugness in speeches for many years. I suspect the expressions of righteous self-belief of the Taoiseach when he begins to talk about any subject in which he may be interested have been spread and spread deliberately through some process of infection even to the remotest back benchers, even to the Deputy who has just sat down.

I hope the Minister will not be so sensitive particularly when the wounds are falling on somebody other than himself. I do suggest that this is a national movement against P.R. Can a judge not honestly hold that particular view if he belonged to the Fianna Fáil ranks and now remembers the fact when he hears the Taoiseach laying down the law with regard to what is good and right for the country? Apparently there is unanimity everywhere—amongst one Party and that Party's delegates to the Árd Fheis, that Party's followers throughout the country, that Party's representatives here, and I include in that people who previously belonged to the Party no matter what position they occupy now. They are going to take exactly this lead, that this is something which should be done in the national interest, something in regard to which people would be failing in their duty if they did not do it.

Mr. Moran

Perhaps there is something wrong with the Deputy's hearing.

Acting-Chairman (Mr. Sheldon)

It would be even better if Deputies did not interrupt.

Mr. McGilligan

If they must, let it not be a mumble but something we can understand. Deputy Lemass at least has the nerve to interrupt in a particular matter of preferment although he owes his position here to a certain extent to a type of preferment which has been castigated throughout the country. As I said, we are told it is in the interests of the country, not in the interests of the Party, that P.R. should be abolished. Disregarding all the previous statement he made in praise of P.R. and even trying to forget that he praised it to such an extent as to put it in his Constitution in 1937, the Taoiseach, with that air of selfrighteousness, now says he wants to abolish it and asks the people to accept this not as a Party measure but something which it would be disastrous not to promote.

When one seeks for the reason for the introduction of this legislation we discover it is purely a Party reason, and that cannot be hidden by the made-up speeches of the people on the other side. Political life changed pattern just after the war finished. Fianna Fáil strength was breaking up and did in fact break up in 1948. People voted in favour of certain groups who in those days had not made it clear to the public they were going to amalgamate if the chance came their way afterwards. The break-up of Fianna Fáil—this was referred to by Deputy Dillon the other day—was helped by the Eindiguer and Maximoe scandal and the Monaghan bacon scandal of those days which gave certainty to people who previously had suspicion about those matters. In 1948 we had what is called the multiplicity of Parties. These Parties got the approval of the people at an election and combined together from 1948 to 1951 and again in 1954.

If anybody quibbled about what happened in 1951 there is not the slightest doubt than in 1954 the electorate voted for a Coalition Government as against a Fianna Fáil Government and by a solid majority they returned those who had indicated their view that they would cohere in order to give a representative Govenment. In 1951 certain people ran as Independents but when they were elected they proceeded to forget their election promises and betrayed the people who had reposed their trust in them. The people took their revenge on them in 1954 and got rid of every one of that group of five whose support gave Fianna Fáil three uneasy and disastrous years of power between 1951 and 1954. The election of 1954 showed clearly that what happened in 1948 was approved and what happened in 1951 was thoroughly disapproved. The Parties which amalgamated in 1948 got another chance in 1954 and amalgamated with good results.

The Taoiseach, Deputy de Valera, can speak at his Árd Fheis in terms of national interest. I do believe he fools even the delegates to the Árd Fheis or those who surround him in his Party. What he is afraid of is that his past performances have been so often exposed here by argument, but his past performances and their lamentable effect never got such a setback as when a different Government replaced Fianna Fáil in 1948 and again in 1954 when it was brought home to him that the people were aware that there were other energetic people capable of taking over Government with new policies and a capacity for great achievements. The Taoiseach does not like such a comparison which makes him realise that a cohesion of other Parties is still possible. The Taoiseach's motive for this Bill is to enable him to remain in office for a number of years without any chance of his policy being challenged or any chance of people coming together to do a better job of government than he has ever attempted.

Recently the Government after almost two years of stagnation, two years of laziness and of complacent acceptance of their inferiority in the face of the difficulties of the country, have produced a pamphlet called "Economic Development". How was it produced? A civil servant was sent around to Departments to collect any schemes that were there, any schemes that had even got to the stage of being suggested. This civil servant was able to find from his excursions in other Departments what had been proposed in the Coalition time and these were then put into a pamphlet for the edification of the Government.

Mr. Moran

There will be a time to discuss that economic paper. Surely this is not the occasion to discuss the economic programme of the Government?

Mr. McGilligan

I do not want to discuss it. I am referring to it. As I have said, the origin of it was that a civil servant was sent to scout around the Departments and the result of his excursions was that there were gathered and put into pamphlet form all the schemes that had been proposed in 1948 to 1951 and again from 1954 onwards. With the exception of one or two blots, and they were blots, most of the things contained in that White Paper are proposals of the Coalition days.

Mr. Moran

The economic work of the Government is not relevant to this debate at all.

Acting-Chairman

I think the Deputy is just making a passing reference.

Mr. McGilligan

That is so, Sir. I shall not be long but I expect my contribution will be too long for the Minister. A statement has been made that, even with startling changes along the lines of economic development, this country will still lag many years behind countries in the rest of Europe that are undeveloped. Why should that be? The reason for it does not lie in the efforts to increase production made from 1948 to 1951 and from 1954 to 1957, but rather does it lie in the stagnation and slackness that lasted from 1932 to 1947 and from 1951 to 1954.

Mr. Moran

You were finished in 1957 by the people.

Mr. McGilligan

I shall come to that in a moment. Here is what the people were told in 1957. After the election was over the Taoiseach addressed a message of thanks to those who had worked for his Party and said: "The battle of the polls is over. I am glad the results have been decisive. We can again look forward to stable government." A few paragraphs down the Taoiseach went on: "The battle with unemployment and the other ills from which the country is suffering has now to begin and we hope the result will be no less decisive. To achieve that we shall need the combined effort of every section of the community. We shall need the effort of everyone who produces more —every farmer who gets more from his soil, every manufacturer who produces more goods, every worker who does a better job and everyone else who can contribute his share to the winning of that final victory. We need one great, combined, sustained national effort and tha task will be done."

And what is the great sustained national effort going to be? The abolition of P.R. and the wiping out of the representation of small Parties! Is that to be the reward of everyone who takes part in the great national effort? What of the farmers who got more out of their soil? If they got more out of it, they got less for it. Where is the great combined, sustained national effort and what has come from it? Where is the failure? Are the people not able to give any further great national effort? The reason is that the members of the present Government have retained the slackness and have carried on the stagnation which they put on this country in 1957.

The only hope that Fianna Fáil have in connection with this matter is that there will be a small poll and that they will scrape through as they have done with some of the other institutions. It has been said that Fianna Fáil got a majorityy of the votes in the last election. They did not. They failed to do that. What happened was that over 190,000 who had previously voted for the Party to which I belong, the Labour Party, Clann na Talmhan, Clann na Poblachta and Independents, did not vote as before. They stood sullenly around. We had got into certain difficulties of a world-wide nature and these difficulties were attributed to us. Fianna Fáil got the advantage of that feeling against us but they got no additional votes. We lost. There was no percentage of voting as there was in previous elections.

The only hope Fianna Fáil have is that voters will not come out and that a small poll will result in Fianna Fáil getting a certain result to which they are not entitled on the figures. I made a calculation with regard to the strength of the voting that carried two institutions in this country. Less than 40 per cent. voted for the Constitution and about 31 per cent. voted for the present President. There are two great institutions of this country and the voters did not show much enthusiasm about them. The Constitution was carried by 39 per cent. of the electorate and the present President got into office with the aid of 31 per cent. of the voters. Again I repeat that is the only hope Fianna Fáil have—that with a small poll and with the people not sufficiently interested in the matter their organised strength will give them a 31 per cent. poll which they hope will be sufficient.

Voting has gone down since the general election. Deputy Sherwin was returned to this House on a poll which did not amount to 45 per cent. of the electorate. Voting has dropped in general elections through the country due to the apathy, disillusionment and despair of the people. There was that apathy in 1957 despite all the promises made by the Taoiseach. Despite those promises nothing has been done by the Government since 1957. Their efforts to beat down the great problem of unemployment and other economic ills have not given much encouragement to the people to come out and vote for them. All they can hope for is that the hard core of their votes will be sufficient to enable them to struggle this proposal across the line and then they will be ensconced here, if not for ever, certainly for a long time.

I want to find out what has happened to the problem of unemployment and to the other economic ills about which the Taoiseach was so vocal after he had won the electoral battle in 1957. It has been said that the situation now is that two out of every three people born into this country will die abroad.

Acting-Chairman

It has already been ruled by the Chair that the economic position is not relevant.

Mr. McGilligan

The Minister for Lands was allowed to speak of economic matters and he spoke at great length on them. I am making only a reference to it but the Minister was allowed to discuss it for columns. I shall counter him in a few sentences. The emigration situation, as I said, is that two out of every three people born at the moment in this country will die abroad. This situation with regard to unemployment has been, for I suppose ten years since Fianna Fáil's first period of Government in this country, that the figures were never below 100,000 and, at one time, they were as high as 146,000.

Well, they remember what happened since.

I want to speak now about this commission and about the judges. I want definitely to speak about the judges. I shall not criticise any judge or say that he will do a wrong thing, but judges are open to our criticism here when they are put into this commission. Anyone put into this commission is open to criticism. I am entitled to say of any of these new proposals that I do not think the proposal is a good one, and I want to give my reasons for saying it.

First of all, the President is brought into this. Let no one pretend here that the President is not a political figure. Before the Constitution was passed the Rev. Dr. O'Rahilly brought out a booklet called Thoughts on the Constitution. He said he “rejected as incredible the notion that the President will be above politics. Only a prominent political personality has a chance of election. We know that that is what happened, and it is complete nonsense to try to pretend now that the President has not had a certain tion in his past life. We are entitled to take that into consideration at the present moment. There may be no proper and honest criticism of this unless it is that the President is asked to do a political job. And the President was a politician.

As I said before, I find it is a test of faith to be asked to regard this piece of legislation as a matter of national interest, something that it would be a dangerous thing not to do, something people whould be failing in their duty if they did not attempt. Am I supposed to believe that the old faith that ran through President O'Kelly is no longer there and that he will not accept, and accept honestly, the view so honestly held by all the people opposite that, in the interests of the country, small Parties must be got rid of and the system that leads to small Parties must be got rid of? Am I to take it that the President, brought up in the way he was, and associated still with his political friends, and with those who are not his friends, will not feel the shaking of this faith going through him? In any event, whether or not he will be a politician, if he honestly accepts the view that small Parties are not bad —and one can, I suppose, on Fianna Fáil arguments accept that—will that sway his conduct? How will he segregate himself from all these feelings when he sees them so universally and so strongly held by the people to whom he used to belong?

The President, in fact, has not much to do in this matter. The President at least will act on his own. It is said in this Bill that he is to act on the advice of the Council of State. He is to act after consultation with the Council of State, and anybody who knows the Constitution of this country knows what that means. The Minister for External Affairs was frank enough to say that the mere putting in of this phrase—"acting after consultation with the Council of State"—was only a way of indicating that he would not act on the advice of the Government. Even that is not a full statement of the truth. In the Constitution the President is occas-all told to act on his own discretion. But that is very rare.

In the Constitution the President is sometimes told he must consult the Council of State before he does something. That does not mean much. On the majority of occasions he acts on the advice of the Government. In this instance he is to act after consultation with the Council of State. What does that mean?

Article 32 states clearly what it does mean:—

"The President shall not exercise or perform any of the powers or functions which are by this Constitution expressed to be exercisable or performable by him after consultation with the Council of State unless, and on every occasion before so doing——"

and here is what he has to do.

"——he shall have convened a meeting of the Council of State and the members present at such meeting shall have been heard by him."

That is the beginning and end of it.

He gets this body of 14 or 15 people into a room and more or less throws in the ball of conversation and, when they have done their talk, he dismisses them. They have no power to advise. If the whole council advised in one way he could go exactly the opposite, and he is doing nothing unconstitutional when he does so. He is, in fact, acting constitutionally. The Council of State, according to the Minister for External Affairs, is put in here to show that the President is not acting on the advice of the Government. That is not shown at all. It only means that he is at least not bound to act on the advice of the Government. he is asked to consult the Council of State, bring them into a room where they can be heard by him, and, after that, he can repudiate the whole lot of them. They have no influence. And that is what Deputy Costello pointed out at the beginning of this debate.

The commission then is to consist of seven people appointed by the President, one of whom is to be appointed after consultation by the President with the Council of State, three appointed from amongst the members of Dáil Éireann on the nomination of the Taoiseach, and three appointed by the Chairman of Dáil Éireann. one of these members, the chairman, is to be a judge.

"The member of a Constituency Commission appointed after consultation by the President with the Council of State shall be appointed from the judges of the Supreme Court and High Court and shall be the Chairman of the Commission."

The Minister for Education brought forth one member of the judiciary for comment here. He named the judge. I do not propose to name anybody. All I propose to do is to examine the group from whom the chairman is to be appointed. There is one member of the Supreme Court who was a Deputy in this House and Attorney General for a number of years. There is another member of the Supreme Court who was selected as a candidate for Fianna Fáil in an election, but did not make the grade. He was also Attorney General at a later stage. Another member of the Supreme Court was a member of the Seanad for quite a while; and another member of the Supreme Court was a State prosecutor and was given the conduct of State prosecutions by a Fiann Fáil Government.

Of the High Court, one member ran for election as a Fianna Fáil T.D., but failed to make the grade. Another member of the High Court was in the Seanad for a little while. Of the others, all were either public prosecutors, appointed to such prosecutions by Fianna Fáil, or else Attorney General under Fianna Fáil. That is their background.

Mr. Donnellan

And they are not political!

Mr. McGilligan

One of these is to be appointed by the President after the Council of State advises. I want now to ask a test question. Would anybody think it would satisfy the Northern Nationalists if a proposal were made by the Governor General of Northern Ireland that constituencies there would be re-distributed—the Governor General picking for that purpose a judge from the Northern Ireland Bench? Does anybody think that would be acceptable to our people up there? Where is the difference in asking us to accept the President, who has been a politician, picking from our group of judges, part of whose history I have disclosed? I understand there was a judicial person amongst the group which distributed the constituencies in Northern Ireland in their present guise. His judicial mind did not apparently operate, certainly not in the way in which one would expect it to have operated if constituencies were marked out with any degree of fair-play.

I do want again to make my position clear in this. Without alleging anything in the way of dishonesty against any judge, or anything in the way of Party bias, but only taking it that a man may be suffused with the same enthusiasm as motivates all Fianna Fáil at the moment, he may decide, honestly, that it was a good thing to get constituencies drawn in a particular way even inside these terms of reference. I wonder has the Minister seen the excuses put up for the terrific gerrymandering that has been done in the North. An attempt has been made to justify the cutting up of the constituencies there on the basis of the number of people of the same kind in homogeneous areas. That is only because the person there did not like to have orange and green mixing and he saw that they did not mix and saw that even a small bit of orange could give a certain colouring to a constituency even though the prevailing colour, on any basis of geographical or other administration, was going to leave the colour mainly green. All these things can happen on that commission and, if they cannot, let us see what else can happen.

The President may remove, for reason which to him seem sufficient, any member of the commission. If he is to remove those who have been nominated by the Taoiseach, he must consult the Taoiseach. If he is to remove those nominated by the Chairman of Dáil Éireann, he must consult the Chairman of Dáil Éireann and "consult" there has the same meaning as it has in the section of the Bill dealing with the Council of State. He is not bound by what the Taoiseach or the Chairman of Dáil Éireann may say to him. He can get rid of the three people appointed from the Opposition because the commission can still carry on. The commission can carry on with a quorum of four and there will be a quorum of four if the Chairman and the three nominated by the Taoiseach are there and in this draft we have had there is no provision with regard to the replacing of anybody who has been disposed of by the President after consultation with—but not on the advice of—the Chairman of Dáil Éireann.

I would prefer an honest or a dishonest but a clear distsribution of the constituencies by a member of the Government. This is a sham. Deputy Costello called it is smokescreen. Behind that many things can be done, just the same as they can be done by the Minister for Local Government in carving out the constituencies according to his vies, and the Minister for Local Government at the moment and the President and certain of the judges have all been brought up in the same political atmosphere. Personally, I would prefer to have somebody who could be challenged in this House to divide the constituencies even though it would be badly done and done, as I believe it would be done if done by the Minister for Local Government, with the greatest possible partiality towards his own people. It would be far better to have it done in that way than to have this sham put up and within the protection that one cannot go into a court and nothing may be questioned before a court even though it is that the commission have not adequately bound themselves by their terms of reference.

The whole thing is precluded from examination by a court and one knows what chance will be given here of discussing what a judge has done after he has done something, it is so difficult to get talking at the moment about what a judge may do. I am leaving out political partiality but simply taking it that you may have a person who honestly believes that the sooner one gets rid of small Parties the better, and that the tendency towards getting one big Party with a small splinter Party is the tendency that should be favoured.

Deputy Booth, unfortunately, is not here. Deputy Booth was very critical of Deputy Costello and Deputy Booth considered that he had been insulted by a reference as to his position, say, as a member of the minority. I do not think Deputy Booth was insulted. I think there was a good deal of straight talk about Deputy Booth but not of the religious minority to which he belongs. As far as I am concerned, Deputy Booth represents what I thought had long since departed from this country. I used to hear people arguing as to whether Dublin Castle was a reality or whether its walls were not now irrelevant, historic dust. Up to recently they have been. I thought we could regard it that all that emanated from Dublin Castle had gone and that the ruins of that place were irrelevant and historic dust. But, Deputy Booth made proposals through letters to the Irish Times.

I am not sure if he did not speak of this at a Fianna Fáil Árd-Fheis, but he certainly put himself on record in the Irish Times as to what he wanted done in respect of difficulties that arose when people were crossing the Border. He wrote a letter to the paper dated 30th October, 1954. I believe it was published somewhere around 2nd November. He referred to a debate that had taken place in this House on Partition, and he wanted to know would there be an extadition agreement between the two Governments. An extradition agreement. Possibly, the Deputy, although I believe at one time he was a lawyer, does not know what “extradition” means. Extradition treaties are made between Governments for the purpose of handing over to each other each other's criminals. I wonder does Deputy Booth make the assertion that the people to whom he is referring, the people who cross the Border either way, are criminals. He does in the next line go on to refer to them as “politicial offenders”. He asked as an alternative to extradition, that the political offenders who escaped across the Border might be treated simply as “rather naughty but forgivable, impulsive, children even in the case of armed assault”.

Not since the days of the British Government here has there been any suggestion that our courts were not capable of dealing with our own criminals if they were found in any criminal activity. Deputy Booth wants to hark back to the days of Dublin Castle administration and throw the people he wants called criminals into the hands of the Northern Government, even though possibly they are only under suspicion. There is a little bit of the informer about that. That was the Deputy's idea in posing these questions about whether there would be extradition or whether we would simply treat these political offenders as if they were naughty children, naughty but forgivable, impulsive children even in cases of armed assault.

We know Deputy Booth's view on the North. The best praise he could give the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste was given here in the Dáil on July 17th of this year when he said:—

"It is a matter of great pride to me, as a member of this Party, that the two leading members of our Government are both people who are acceptable in the North. Anyone who goes there knows that the Taoiseach is welcome in Belfast at any time and that the Tánaiste has been invited there and is welcome there. You only have to ask any member of the Government of Stormont as to whether they would prefer a visit from anyone in the present Opposition to have it made quite clear that any member of the Opposition is persona non grata.”

He continued in the speech of July 17th:—

"I would advise the members of the Fine Gael Party to go North and ask whether any of their ex-Ministers would be welcome to go to Belfast and speak at a public meeting. They will find that they are not."

Deputy Booth's idea of a compliment is to say of the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste that unlike the Pope at Portadown they are thought well of in Belfast. It is probably in that mood that Deputy Booth would have people who cross the Border even in armed raids treated as if they were criminals and handed over if we could get extradition agreements made between the Government here and in the North.

I wonder will Deputy Booth promote those ideas of his now that he has become such a leading light in the Fianna Fáil Party and whether he will see if it is possible to have some agreement made with the North about treating people who cross the Border as criminals? Will he advocate making agreements for extraditing them, for getting about any question of whether or not they are political offenders? If he does think about that, I would ask him to think about what the Minister for Justice said here on the 26th March last year when there was a debate on the Adjournment about the release of prisoners, a debate originated by Deputy McQuillan.

The Minister for Justice on that occasion said:

"The Deputy is challenging members of the House — it seems to me almost like felon setting — to call these young men criminals."

Acting-Chairman (Mr. Palmer)

The Deputy should now speak on the terms of the Bill.

Mr. McGilligan

I am going to point out that if certain small Parties, people who may congregate in small Parties, are not allowed to get parliamentary representation in this House they may take other measures, measures for which Deputy Booth will demand extradition and the handing-over of these people to the forces of the North.

Many years ago there was talk in this House of people who were taking up arms against the country and there was legislation in those days not nearly so severe as the Offences Against the State Act. Deputy de Valera as he then was brought in a resolution to get rid of that and in a speech on the Second Reading of his own proposed legislation — I am quoting from the Official Debates, Volume 40, column 53 — speaking of the then Government, the Cosgrave Government, he said:

"The Ministers opposite know only one way in which to solve them. Anyone who gets in your path, ‘squelch him, by God, squelch him,' as Carlyle said of Ireland. That is the only policy apparently that the Executive Council knows how to put into operation."

At column 56 he continued — this is where I shall come back to the Bill:—

"If you deny people who are animated with honest motives, peaceful ways of doing it, you are throwing them back upon violent ways of doing it. Once they are denied the peaceful way they will get support for the violent way that they would never get otherwise. There is no use in my preaching that doctrine to the Executive Council. The Executive Council only know one way — the way of force, the way of the big stick."

The then de Valera then said it was no use preaching that doctrine to the Executive Council which knew only the way of force and the big stick which never ultimately succeeded.

May I repeat the then Deputy de Valera's phrases:—

Deputy de Valera in those days was pleading that members of the Executive Council should allow some of the irregular forces to get into consultation with them and have conferences. President Cosgrave thought that a better way would be to bring all these people at that time with any belief into this House and give them an opportunity of making representations here explaining their policy and having it tested in public debate and we got rid, even without inter-Party Government, we got rid of the remnants of the gun people who were around.

Let there be no misunderstanding; I make no defence of anybody who goes out with a gun against any established Government here. That is not the history of the Party to which I belong. I am thinking now of people who are not operating guns, the people who voted for Sinn Féin in the last election and who at the first attempt became the fourth largest Party so far as support was concerned in the country. I have no doubt that many people, particularly young people have since joined Sinn Féin. Now we are going to abolish P.R. and we are not going to allow those people "the peaceful way". I am not speaking of the gunmen, the people who have despaired of progress here under the Fianna Fáil Government and have not been too pleased with what we did. We are to deny them representation in this House even though we are driving them into "the violent way" of trying to achieve their objectives and giving them "support for the violent way that they would never get otherwise". That is what we are doing.

No doubt this country is very tired of the political Parties they know; no doubt there are many young people who are avoiding the polls and no doubt there is any number of people who would be glad to flock round any new leader if he showed any policy or programme with which they could be associated — and sooner or later Sinn Féin will throw up a leader. Is it right, at this point, that we should come out with our objections to small Parties? Is it right that we should not think of the possibility of growth and should not give room to people who may have good intentions and who may have no association whatever with the other people? Yet we will not allow those people to get "the peaceful way".

I do not object to people saying in this House that this debate is prolonged. It is necessary to have a prolonged debate; it is our way of exposing to the people what we think about it even if we have to argue about it afterwards in the country again. It is one way of educating public opinion and I hope the debate will go on for many days so that all points of view will be put forward and so that it cannot be said afterwards that we omitted to recognise any possible danger that exists. Seeing the way in which the votes went at the last election, and particularly after the revelation of the dishonest tactics used and the speeches made about the future of the country, I should not be surprised to find that whatever support Fianna Fáil had will have waned and waned considerably.

I am glad there is one issue being put to the country which must unite all the people who were previously in the inter-Party Government. The referendum will not succeed in abolishing P.R. This is an effort to embalm corruption but decomposition has set in so far that it will be impossible.

Mr. Donnellan

There have been many quotations of statements made by the Taoiseach during the debate on this Bill but there is one quotation which this House has missed very badly and when you consider it is a quotation from a member of the Fianna Fáil Party that will surprise you. At column 30, Volume 110, of the Official Debates of the 18th February, 1948, a member of the Fianna Fáil Party said:—

"Just as King Herod sought to destroy an Infant rival so Eamon de Valera sought to destroy a new Party..."

That is a quotation from a member of Dáil Éireann who was, and I presume is to-day, a member of the Fianna Fáil Party. He compared the present Taoiseach to Herod. Far would it be from me to do so. However, if that comparison applied on the 18th February, 1948, it applies more so to-day. The then Taoiseach was being compared to Herod for wiping out one small Party, but here to-day we have a Bill brought in by that one individual, not by the Fianna Fáil Party, by which he seeks to wipe out all.

I suppose I can boast of being the founder of the first small Party that ever came into Dáil Éireann. I well remember fighting a by-election in a certain constituency in North Galway in 1940 when the then Taoiseach, Deputy de Valera, went into that area with the big black coat on him as usual and told the people there that it was treason for the Clann na Talmhan Party to put forward a candidate. That was in the present Parliamentary Secretary's constituency of West Galway. Neither Labour nor Cumann na nGaedheal, as they were known at that time, took any part; still the people of that area decided that the seat should be contested. The Taoiseach said it was treason for another candidate to go forward and I suppose the day will come soon — I know it is not the Fianna Fáil Party who are responsible; they have no say in it — when a list of candidates will be submitted to the people and they will have to vote for them whether they like it or not.

The Minister for Health asks; why are you afraid to go before the people? Thank goodness, I as a member of a small Party can say here I am not afraid to go before the people for the simple reason that at the General Elections of 1943, of 1944, of 1948, 1951, 1954 and 1957, I received more votes in my area than all the Fianna Fáil candidates received together. Therefore, it is not from any personal fear that I speak on this matter, no matter how Fianna Fáil may carve up North Galway. The reason I speak here is to support the principle that any Party or set of people who come together are entitled to come into this House if they get the decision of the majority of the electors of a particular area.

Deputy Blowick of my Party has an amendment before the House for which a good case has been made to a certain extent. I agree there should be one member in a constituency but let us have him elected by P. R. Very often it is hard for a man elected to this House to represent people who live perhaps 60 miles away from him. Therefore if the Taoiseach wants to have single member constituencies, let us have those members elected on the system of P.R.

Just imagine the present Taoiseach going through the country in the near future asking the people to vote against his Constitution. I wonder how many of you remember him as I do in 1937 in relation to the Constitution against Which he is asking the people to vote now. Of course, that does not surprise me very much when I read at column 31 of the same Volume I have quoted that a member of the Fianna Fáil Party in this House said:—

"In his political career the Taoiseach has eaten enough of his own words to choke an elephant and it would not do him any harm if he were to eat a few more of them."

That is from a man who was a member of the Fianna Fáil Party and I presume he still is. I would ask the Taoiseach even now—I would not ask the Fianna Fáil Party because they have no say in it; they were not considered; quite a lot of them will lose their seats and they know it— to swallow his words. To swallow a few more of them would not choke him when they did not choke the elephant.

Again, the very self-same member of the Fianna Fáil Party speaking on the same date as reported in the same volume referred to "... the desire of the Taoiseach to concentrate all power in his own hands and his refusal to share with other Parties the task of building up this country." He added: "We all know that no democratic nation depends for its existence or its future on the whims of any one man." That is what this Bill is. This Bill is the whim of the Taoiseach.

Further on, that same man who was a Senator of the Fianna Fáil Party and is still a member of it used the words: "I believe that under the system of P.R. which is enshrined in our Constitution and which the Taoiseach is unable to uproot from that Constitution..." Mark the words "which the Taoiseach is unable to uproot". But to-day he is trying to uproot it from the Constitution. These are not my words. They are words of a man who was a member of the Fianna Fáil Party. He continued:—

"Every section of the people has a right to send its representatives to this House and the system of P.R. provides that every section shall be represented which gets the votes of the people".

In this House we have had, on two occasions, a Government composed of small Parties. I listened to Deputy McGilligan and in passing may I pay him a special tribute. This country never produced a greater Minister than he. That is the tribute from a man who was never a Fine Gael supporter at any time. On two occasions we had inter-Party Governments here. For one reason or another, they may not have lasted the full time but, in proportion, they lasted longer than any Fianna Fáil Government that came in since 1932 and they came in in a rough time also.

I listened to Deputy McGilligan, the Minister for Finance in the first inter-Party Government, referring to the achievements of that Government. One thing he forgot and that is a thing for which he deserves more credit than anybody else, because he was the Minister for Finance he, and he alone, was the Minister responsible for the implementation of the Arterial Drainage Acts in this country. I know what happened in 1943 when Clann na Talmhan came in here to Dáil Éireann with ten members. Number one on our programme was arterial drainage. At that time we could have put Fianna Fáil into the wilderness but we did not do it. Some people may say: "God forgive you for not doing it".

Before 1943 was out, the then Herod, as he was referred to by ex-Deputy Cogan, saw the danger and rushed through this House the 1943 Arterial Drainage Act. He then rushed to the country and did Herod on it again. That was in 1944 and until 1948 what was done to implement that Drainage Act?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is travelling very wide of the measure before the House.

Mr. Donnellan

I want to deal with the work of small Parties. I am not speaking for myself.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is entitled to make his case within the Rules of Order.

Mr. Donnellan

I know that the Bill will be passed by the Dáil. I am looking across at so many Deputies who will have to vote for it, and I am worrying that it will be passed by the people also when a referendum is held. I shall tell you why. The Taoiseach, referred to as Herod by ex-Deputy Cogan, told his supporters at the Árd-Fheis that they must take their coats off and, if they do that, the Fianna Fáil Party will bring every supporter that they can to vote in favour of the Bill. I do not believe that more than 20 per cent. of the people will vote on a referendum and, if that is the case, there is a danger that it may be carried.

Deputy McGilligan spoke of the danger of driving Parties underground, and I believe that is the greatest danger of all. Of course, the Minister for Defence is a very young man and he may not remember what happened in South Roscommon at the last general election, when Senator Lenihan did not win a seat, and rightly so, as I think Deputy Gerry Boland was entitled to the seat. Deputy Gerry Boland, however, was accused of "spiking" them and he was not allowed to become a Minister again.

An Ceann Comhairle

That has nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Donnellan

I want to show, if I can, how the mind of the Taoiseach works.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must choose some other occasion for doing that. He cannot do it on this Bill.

Mr. Donnellan

I am afraid that it may bring back the scurrilous business carried on, on political platforms, from 1923 to 1943, when the bones of many of our patriots were shaken in the faces of the people in order to get votes. I remember Fianna Fáil saying: "We have 77 in Dáil Éireann commemorating the 77 that Fine Gael executed." It did not suit Fianna Fáil when small Parties arose to abolish that type of business on public platforms, when public platforms were taken up with economic issues. It was the benefit of the people that was then under discussion but that did not suit Fianna Fáil, and they have now introduced this Bill to abolish small Parties. They want to resurrect the old, weary, hard things that were done, and probably had to be done. They want these issues resurrected and the big chief, with the black coat, will appear once again as the greatest survivor of all, to work these issues once more saying that a Party such as Fine Gael—which, of course, it is not—is somehow representing the British Commonwealth.

They will play that stupid game again and the poor amadán down the country may be led on, as he was led on from 1923 to 1943. Recently in South Roscommon I overheard two very innocent people talk about this measure at a fair. One of them asked the other what he would do and what did he think about the Bill to abolish P.R. The answer was: "Musha, I do not know much about it but I will vote for it. Dev. said it". That is the mentality and with that mentality the Party over there believe they will last forever.

I despise Deputies who start talking about graft, trickery, and double dealing. I want to be honest on this. I believe that any member of this House, no matter to what Party he belongs, is a worthy representative. Otherwise he would not be here because the Irish people would not have him. But it is a very bad thing that it should go forth from this House that any graft, trickery and double dealing is carried on.

Deputy Corry spoke on this, as reported at column 1619, Volume 170, of the Dáil Debates, but of course, everybody knows that Deputy Corry is not responsible for what he says. I happened to be at a by-election in West Cork, listening to Deputy Corry speaking from a public platform and saying an awful lot, but a man standing next to me told me not to mind what he said as no one ever took any notice of him. As reported at column 1619 he stated:—

"I am giving examples of what happens under this mixum-gatherum and the price paid. There were seven or eight votes there belonging to the unfortunate farmers of this country. The price was, one a Minister and another a Parliamentary Secretary."

Those were Deputy Corry's words and as far as Deputy Blowick, who was Minister for Lands for five or six years is concerned, he did his work and did it well. He proved it to the people and the people, in their gratitude, have approved him at every general election since. It was not talking about fish he was, and Brown Windsor soup. He likes fish, but he does not like Brown Windsor soup. That is the kind of nonsense we have from the present Minister when he is travelling around the country.

I am sorry Deputy Corry is not in the House. I wonder if he remembers meeting Deputy Blowick on the corridor here on the morning of the 18th February, 1948? What proposition did he put up to Deputy Blowick? If he was here now I am sure he would tell you and we would know then from which side of the House the graft and the bribes came.

I am afraid I do not understand half what the Deputy is saying.

Mr. Cunningham

The Deputy's amendment advocates single seats.

Mr. Donnellan

But it does not advocate the abolition of P.R.

Mr. Cunningham

What has that to do with the gerrymandering of seats?

Mr. Donnellan

The Deputy will gerrymander if he can. I want to add my voice to the voice of those who have already spoken against this measure and to the voice of those who opposed the measure but cannot admit that they did so. The vast majority of the Fianna Fáil Party are opposed to this measure, but they are not allowed to say that. This is the Taoiseach's Bill. I ask him to withdraw it so that the true voice of the people will be heard here. I appeal to the different groups in this House—Fine Gael, Labour, Clann na Poblachta, Sinn Féin——

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 10 Dec 1958