I spoke on the Second Reading. I thought that would be my contribution but it seems that we are having this thing all over again, and so I intend to keep my end up, because in politics, like everything else, you must keep your end up. I should like to mention that the people have no interest in this debate. They say to me: "When is it going to stop? What about housing? What about the unemployed?" I am not blaming the Opposition. The Opposition are sustaining the debate because they were provoked into it and, of course, they are entitled to defend their end. In proposing the amendment of the Constitution, the Government Party have their motives. I believed, when I last spoke, that they had multiple motives and not just one motive. It was not just a question of stability and now we know that the Taoiseach's candidature for the Presidency was naturally a part of the general plan. They must have had in their minds the question of losing the Taoiseach's personality and the prospect of losing a large number of votes in a general election, and because of that they want to try out one with the other.
The sub-section we are dealing with deals with whether there should be one candidate, or a number of candidates, representing the people in an area. I am not claiming infallibility, but I say this: an Independent Deputy, if he is rather false, has only to cover up for himself, but, when a Party man speaks, he has to cover up for himself and his friends, so, on the rounds, I would say my arguments are as good as any, if not better.
On this question of whether there should be one or many candidates, it is said that P.R. is a deal between Parties, but let me put it this way, that the single representative system will be a deal between individuals. As is known, there are Liberal members of Parliament in England and, by right, they do not represent the constituencies. They are allowed to represent them in a deal with the Conservative Party and vice versa. In other words, we hear about those who get second and third preferences, that it is not right that they should get second and third preferences—which P.R. gives the candidate in many cases—but in a straight vote constituency, a deal is done and the larger Conservative Party permits a body, not as strong as itself, to take over the area. The Conservative Party allows the Liberals to contest the seat so that their main opponent, namely, the Labour Party, will not win.
That is the system in England. Individuals are blackmailed and blackmailing is possible here if P.R. is abolished. Any individual in an area who can secure a couple of thousand votes can threaten one or other of the big Parties that if he is not allowed to stand, he will go up anyway and upset their chances. Therefore, instead of deals between Parties representing large bodies of people, there will be deals between individuals representing selfish motives.
Only a month ago, I read an article by "Cross Bencher" in the Sunday Express. It is a weekly article which deals with current parliamentary affairs in England and this article dealt with a by-election which was pending in Southend. It stated that the local Conservatives were of one mind not to put up the son of the late candidate because the late candidate's family had control of the area since 1912. They were determined on this occasion that they were not going to be forced into accepting the heir who was only 23, but, according to last Sunday's Express, he has been accepted. The reason was that the son said: “All right; I will stand”, so he blackmailed the Conservative Party in the area into accepting him, and that is what the abolition of P.R. means. That is how it developed in England and that is how it must develop here, because if there are major Parties, if there are three persons with considerable strength in an area, one can say to another: “Look, if you do not be good, I will go up.” That is blackmail and, therefore, instead of deals between Parties, representing large sections of the community, you will have deals between individuals for selfish motives. That is the alternative.
I am not going back to what Fianna Fáil said. I am not concerned with that. I am concerned with what does happen and what will happen. I am concerned with human nature and how it will react to a proposal. I am concerned with facts. I heard a lot about what Deputy Dillon said regarding P.R. but what difference does that make? In politics, you are always against the fellow in office and you speak with your tongue in your cheek. That is accepted, and what is the point in speaking about what Deputy Dillon said? Let us get down to what will be the result of the abolition of P.R.
I have made the point that in Southend a 23-year-old whose father and grandfather controlled the area since 1912, has now been selected because he threatened the local Conservative Party that if he was not selected, he would go up, and the Party would lose a few thousand votes. We have a number of Liberals who do not represent the largest bodies in the areas, but they are allowed to represent them because they said that if they were opposed, then they would put up their candidates in Conservative areas where there were marginal seats.
Do not tell me that, by and large, politics is not blackmail. Of course it is. Politics, in my opinion, is the art of deception. I do not have to go to the principles of Machiavelli to know that. I know it and you know it and nobody is going to stand down on principle. If a man thinks he can obtain an end, he will shove his neck forward.
Under P.R., no individual can decide what is to be done with his votes, but in a straight system he can. For instance, if a man stands as a candidate under P.R. and gets 1,000 votes, he cannot say that he will not give them to another candidate. He has no choice and the people decide. If so-and-so is eliminated, his votes will then go to somebody else. Under P.R., no individual controls his votes. He cannot put a gun to anybody's head. Under the straight system, a man who knows that he will get 1,000 or 2,000 votes can dictate and can blackmail the area. Whether you like it or not, that is true.
More than individuals can blackmail. Newspapers can blackmail. Any newspaper editor, if he decides to throw his weight one way or the other, in a case where there might be a marginal seat, can decide who is to win. Churchill stood for Dundee on one occasion and lost by 42 votes. His backer was Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Beaverbrook held that because one of his editors had a spleen against Churchill, and did not back him, he lost the seat. He sacked the editor for not throwing his weight behind Churchill and told the editor that if he had done what he was told to do, Churchill would have won. What I am trying to point out is that men can win or lose through any little source of influence at all. This straight system is subjected constantly to blackmail of individuals, of money and of newspaper magnates.
I heard Deputy O'Malley mention all the small people who comprised his Party. That is all right now. The people who comprise his Party now are the products of P.R. The small man gets his chance, but eventually there will be very few small men in his Party. That is natural evolution. In 1935, 60 per cent. of the House of Commons was comprised of lawyers, company directors and trade union officials. That is stated in this book which I have. I do not like quoting books. This book is entitled Parliamentary Representatives by Mr. J.F. H. Ross. The majority of the remainder of members in the House of Commons were men of means. Now, through natural evolution, only the people with lots of money, or influence, will be chosen as candidates, so that poorer men may make up their minds that in ten or 15 years, there will be few small men in political life in this country.
According to the same book, every Conservative candidate must hand back his salary and, in many cases, more than his salary. Therefore no man can be a Conservative candidate, unless he is a wealthy man and that, to a large extent, is also applicable to the other Parties in England. To be a candidate in England, you need to be a man of a certain income; therefore the present Commons represents only about 4 or 5 per cent. of the English people. The rest are excluded by reason of the fact that they have not got the income necessary to be a candidate. That is natural evolution in politics where P.R. is not the practice.
Let us take the Labour Party. One would say: "Well, there is a Party that should put forward small workers". When I say that the small man should be put forward, I do not mean people who are small in mind. I mean people who are small in means. You can be a man of very small means and have a very fine mind and you could be a man worth a million and be a numbskull. Because of finance, few men, other than trade union officials can become candidates in the Labour Party. It developed that way. Money has become so decisive that only people with substantial sums of money will be selected. The people in the local area realise the need for money and favourably consider the person who has a substantial amount of money.
Let us not talk about our present composition. Our present composition here came from P.R. and from the national struggle. It was not only a question then of money but a question of whether you had guts. There is one other serious tendency and it is this—it is quite obvious that henceforth the average Government will be a minority Government. It must be. It may interest the House to know—again referring to this book —that for a period of 24 years, there were only five years of Government by a majority Party in England. Do not forget that. There were 15 years of coalition Government in England, where we are told strong Governments were a natural result. Therefore, there is no guarantee that this miraculous stability, which is only alleged, will result. In a nutshell, it can mean that men like myself— personally, I do not care—those who are not in Parties will not get a chance. Those like the heir of the family controlling Southend, will almost certainly be elected. That position will worsen as politics develop and especially if P.R. is abolished.
We are told that the one man will look after his seat, that it will be his responsibility. That is the best joke I have heard in a long time. Let us take the case of the Taoiseach. He is leaving politics and I hope he will have a good rest. The Taoiseach has been representing Clare while he was Taoiseach, but has he been looking after Clare? He has not. He has had responsibilities—there are a lot of us in the same boat—but the other three or four members were looking after Clare. He cannot run down to Clare and hang around there finding out the views of the people. He probably did not see Clare more often than once a year but the other three or four Deputies were looking after Clare. Suppose P.R. was abolished. Who would look after the constituencies of people like the Taoiseach or his Ministers? They will not be able to get down to them except once in a blue moon and then hurry back again to Dublin. How will they represent their areas?
You may say that somebody will do it for them. To my mind, nobody does anything in this life except they have a motive and nobody is going to kill himself down in Clare looking after the Taoiseach's interests, unless he is well paid for it. So long as the incentive is there, so long as he realises there is a prospect of winning a seat, or of holding a seat there, he will look after it. At present there are members living away from their areas and they do not go into their areas. Yet it is said that under the new system they would go and walk the streets and listen to their constituents. They will not. They will keep out of their area and only go in on occasion when there is a meeting, say, in a place like O'Connell Street where they can get up and speak and then get out again. There is no use fooling yourself. If you want work done, there must be an incentive and the best incentive is for a man to know he has a chance to be elected a member of this House.
There is a good chance for him to hold his seat if he is a T.D. but once you do away with P.R. it means, as in the case of the fellow in Southend, England, that he does not have to do anything. He actually gets here by blackmail; certainly, he does not have to break his heart for his area. It is no use trying to kill the hare with cross arguments. Where there is an incentive, there is effort. We all kill ourselves working, if we have to do so; we "stall" when we do not have to do so. That applies to every one of us and in all things.
As I said already, I wanted to speak to hold my own end up and if there is another big discussion next week, I will have another opportunity because naturally I must keep my name before the public. I must do that. I do it by hard work and I do it otherwise. Other people get it done easily, but I work hard and I could not keep my name up easily like others. I do not speak just for the sake of speaking and I believe every word I say is true. I believe the suggested abolition of P.R. can only mean something to a handful of privileged individuals like the gentleman at Southend, and that for the average member of this House, for the blacksmith and the labourer and so on, it means they have an opportunity now they will never get again. Fianna Fáil members may have to back the Taoiseach but in their hearts I am sure they have their doubts. I shall say no more.
