The Minister for Health.
An Bille um an Tríú Leasú ar an mBunreacht 1958—An Coiste (Atogáil). Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1958—Committee Stage (Resumed).
Tairgeadh an Cheist arís: "I gCodanna I agus II go bhfanfaidh fo-alt I mar chuid den Sceideal."
SCHEDULE—SECTION 2.
Question again proposed: "That in Parts I and II, sub-section (1) stand part of the Schedule".
On sub-section (1).
I have been on sub-section (1) all the time.
I thought the Tánaiste was to make some announcement about next week's sittings.
We meet on Tuesday, anyhow.
And this Bill will be the only business?
The Constitution Amendment Bill will be the only business.
Will we sit on Wednesday and Thursday, if necessary?
If necessary.
Send the Minister for Health away somewhere next week.
Can the Deputy not take it?
I have endured enough of it. There is a limit to human endurance.
Then the Deputy ought to allow the debate to end.
Order! The Minister for Health, on the Bill.
When questions interrupted, having established the fact that P.R. was in fact introduced into this country by the British Government——
Is this in order on sub-section (1)?
I am repeating a statement which I heard Deputy Costello deny. Listen! the Deputy is not back now in October, 1931, and other people are entitled to speak in this debate as well as members of the Fine Gael Party.
I understand we are on sub-section (1), and we are on it after a great struggle to get there.
On a point of order, I put it that the Chair is the proper person to rule on order and not the Minister for Health.
I shall intervene if I consider that the Minister is not as much in order as most of the other speakers in the debate.
As he was during most of the debate.
I will leave it to you, Sir.
I understand some Deputies opposite are inclined to draw fine distinctions between various systems of P.R., but, in any event, as I said, our present system of P.R. was introduced into this country by the British Government and imposed by statute of the British Parliament in 1919.
"Introduced" is a better word than "imposed".
Having established that fact, and I think it is incontrovertible, let me go on to say that the first reference I can discover to the fact that the British were responsible for imposing P.R. on the people of this country is to be found in a publication of which I am sure Deputy Lindsay, Deputy Mulcahy, and, of course, Deputy MacEoin were very assiduous readers—the United Ireland. They called themselves then the United Ireland Party and United Ireland was the journal of the now Fine Gael Opposition. Here is what that journal has to say on this matter. I am quoting from the issue of 2nd February, 1935:—
"This country has a scheme of P.R. forced on the people"——
Now, I did not choose the word "forced" and it has, I think, in this connotation, anyhow, the same force as the word "imposed". However, United Ireland states that:—
"This country has a scheme of P.R. forced on the people by the P.R. Society in England which succeeded in inducing the British Government, which drafted the Home Rule Act of 1920, to try this nostrum on the Dáil."
It is not the Taoiseach or the Minister for External Affairs who made that declaration. And it was not made yesterday; it was made in the year 1935 as an authoritative pronouncement in the official organ of the United Ireland Party.
It was made before the 1937 Constitution.
It goes on to say——
It was made before the 1937 Constitution. Did the British impose it in 1937?
Really, I should not address Deputy O'Higgins, because he never does make a point. There is no substance in what he says. What difference does it make whether it was introduced before or after the Constitution? Are Opposition Deputies going to say now that we had not P.R. until it was given to us in the Constitution of 1937? I should not be surprised if they did, because some of their arguments here show that they have little regard either for the facts of history or even for the plain simple truth itself.
It was written into the Constitution in 1937. It was imposed by that Constitution, but the Minister will not admit that now.
The Deputy is trying to confuse the issue by putting up a smokescreen, but I shall not be diverted from finishing this quotation.
They imposed their currency, and the Minister accepted it and was very glad to have it.
Order! The Minister for Health.
Having told us that the British decided to try the nostrum on the Dáil, here is what United Ireland went on to say:—
"It has not yet produced a multiParty system mainly because of the acute division on the Treaty issue which has prevented politics from developing along normal lines, the lines which were beginning to appear for instance before Fianna Fáil entered the Dáil."
Now, I hope the significance of those words has sunk into the minds of the Deputies who are opposing this constitutional amendment, because the first thing that appears is that P.R. in this country had not the consequences which Sir Herbert Samuel anticipated it would have when he introduced the system in the Local Government Act of 1919. It did not split the people into multiple Parties. It did not split political opinion into multiple Parties. It did not split political force, the force that enables Governments to get things done, into multiple Parties and the reason why? —because of the lamentable Treaty issue—let us say that—but also because these developments were prevented from appearing because Fianna Fáil entered the Dáil.
I did not finish the quotation, but I think I ought, to make sure. United Ireland said that the acute division on the Treaty issue had prevented politics from developing along normal lines, the lines which were beginning to appear, for instance, before Fianna Fáil entered the Dáil. There is an admission that, far from being a fractionalising influence in Irish politics, Fianna Fáil have been a unifying influence in Irish politics.
Deputies
Oh!
I am sorry. That is what United Ireland said.
That is the interpretation the Minister puts on United Ireland.
All right. I shall read the quotation again and you can interpret it to see what other interpretation there is:—
"The acute division on the Treaty issue which has prevented politics from developing along normal lines, the lines which were beginning to appear, for instance, before Fianna Fáil entered the Dáil——"
The normal lines.
The normal lines, the lines of development which it would be normal to anticipate would be followed under the influence of P.R., that is, fractionalisation——
No, no!
This is misrepresentation.
——of political opinion and political effort in this country.
Normal right and left.
The Minister will have to read the whole quotation.
Normal right and left? It would be very difficult to see on what side the Deputy as a whole man would be on. There is one side of him right and the other side of him left.
There is a revelation.
Shall we say that he has two faces, then, one for the left wing of his Party and the other for the right wing of his Party?
Would one not expect a couple of revelations on sub-section (1)?
A clever chap, this.
Go on—normal right and left.
Would the Minister explain that "normal"?
I am getting back to the quotation. I want to rub it in.
Explain "normal".
I am wicked and sadistic enough to want to rub it in on you fellows that Fianna Fáil, far from being a fissiparous Party, a Party which causes splits and divisions, have been a unifying influence in this country and the proof of it is that they are the only Party in the whole history of the State from beginning to end who have ever been able to secure an overall majority in this Dáil——
But how?
——the reason being because those who want unity among the Irish people, those who want unity in order that the Irish people may be strong, are inclined to vote for, and do vote for, Fianna Fáil habitually. That is the answer.
Does the Minister really believe that himself?
We want to get rid, quite properly want to get rid, of that system, which when it was introduced was admitted in the British Parliament to have been introduced for one purpose only, to split the splendid unity which prevailed among the Irish people then.
The same as in the North of Ireland to-day.
You want a one-Party State?
No, we want at least two Parties in the State. We want a Government, a reasonable Government, an established Government, an effective Government, and we want, so that the people may have a free choice, an alternative, a strong and effective Opposition. That is what we want. The only Party in this House that ever wanted a one-Party State—wait—do not go too far—I said the only Party——
Do not interrupt yourself.
I say the only Party, using the word "only" there with certain reservations—the only Party in this House that ever wanted a one-Party State, that ever wanted to abolish Parliament, was the Party which sits opposite.
They established Parliament.
There were members of the Labour Party who had hankerings after monolithic Party, too, but the only people who ever went out openly and admittedly to abolish Parliament and establish a one-Party State in this country was the Blueshirt Party.
Nonsense!
We fought them because——
There was no such Party as the Blueshirt Party.
On a point of order, the Minister has been allowed to make reference to the attempts of Parties to establish a one-Party State. He referred to the Blueshirts and a whole lot of other figments of his imagination. I take it other Deputies will be allowed to contest that by argument across the floor.
The Blueshirts were not a figment of the imagination.
They were necessary to deal with the bullies and the thugs.
Perhaps the Chair would be allowed to say something some time. The Minister is travelling very far from the sub-section in dealing with the matter he is dealing with at the moment.
I agree that it is rather a diversion from the main purpose of the sub-section——
A very wide diversion.
——but, after all, we are not invulnerable to temptation and when Deputy O'Higgins started to talk about dictatorship——
The Minister ought to give a good example.
I shall try to repress the old Adam in me and give a good example.
The Minister is full of bogymen this afternoon.
The Minister has come to 1955.
I was saying that we do not want a one-Party State and do not want Fianna Fáil in perpetual control of the State. We do not want Fianna Fáil ever to be in that position, but we want to ensure that whatever Government are here will be an effective Government, backed by a majority in this House which will enable them to carry through a coherent and consistent policy.
You have that now and are not carrying it through.
You are not able to fix unemployment.
The Minister should be allowed to make his statement without interruption. There is a continuous barrage.
He says it is hard to resist temptation.
I am sure Deputy Norton could resist more than that.
From some speakers, yes.
I am sure he could. I shall have to insist that the Minister be listened to without interruption.
It is a great trial.
The Minister's whole ambition is to get interruptions.
I shall endeavour to prevent that ambition from being realised.
The best way to prevent an ambition of that sort from being realised is to curb the Minister and keep him to the ordinary rules.
I do not want to keep the House very much longer. I merely want to say that it is not with any aim of perpetuating Fianna Fáil in office, or even of continuing in office after the next election, that we are going to ask the people to vote in this referendum. The idea is to bring about a system of representation in this country which will give the people a strong Government, an effective Government, a Government which, with a majority in this House, will be able to carry through its policy and we want, at the same time, to give the people the opportunity of providing themselves with a reasonable alternative to that Government, an Opposition which, as I said, will be alert and vigorous and active and will be able to take advantage of any errors of judgment, of any mistakes in policy, which the Government of the day may make, take advantage of them to induce the people to turn that Government out.
That is what we are doing. That is the only thing we have in view and if we had any other ulterior motive we could not realise it. No matter what system of election we have, elections will be decided by the people's judgment of men and policies, and if the people decide that the men are not good enough who are put up as candidates in these single member constituencies—and they would have to be very good men in the single member constituencies; they will have to be men who are well known and highly respected and have the status and personal prestige to carry an election—they will not be elected.
And have plenty of money.
Much less than they would need to have in multi-member constituencies. If the Deputy tries to fight an election in one of these large five-seat constituencies through the country or even a three-seat constituency in the City of Dublin, he will know how much money it costs. When you are running a political campaign not upon the grievances of the people but upon a definitely formulated policy, you will know how expensive these large constituencies are.
Under the single member constituency, the people will have a better knowledge of their representatives. There will be closer contact between the representative and those who elected him and there will be this. Every Deputy will have to earn his election on the services which he renders to the people. There are in all constituencies, in the vast majority of constituencies, active members, members who are active in this House and who are zealous in looking after the needs of their constituency but there are also some backsliders in every Party. The backsliders are passengers who have to be carried in in every election in these multiple member constituencies.
I think that situation will disappear with the single member constituency. There will be easier access—there may be some Deputies opposite who do not like to meet their constituents and this may not appeal to some—on the part of the elector to his representative than there is at the present time. He will not have to travel all over the country or over a large county in order to make personal contact. He will know precisely where his representative lives and he will be able to establish that contact which is the whole inspiration of the system of representative democracy which we have.
That is the situation we are trying to bring about. We cannot do any more than that. We cannot guarantee either the election of a Fianna Fáil majority, the election of a Fine Gael majority or a Labour Party majority. All of us will have an equal chance with the electorate. After all, the history of the past ten years shows that though we were a strong Party in office in 1945, 1946 and 1947, we were beaten in the 1948 election and, again, in the 1954 election. Surely to goodness, your performance in opposition has not been so inept that you will never be able to get a majority over us again? If you believe that, you ought to retire because you are politicians in despair.
For 50 minutes, we have been treated to an exhibition of something like music-hall buffoonery by the Minister for Health. When he rose at half past two to speak, this House had been sitting for four hours. Two hours before he rose, I protested against the way in which the House was being treated by the Government. We might as well have been the absentees about whom Deputy Norton spoke earlier to-day for all the attention the Government paid to anything we were saying or any questions we were asking. That was for four hours before the Minister for Health came in. In a Bill introduced into this House by the Taoiseach, there was put into the Front Bench a pawn Minister, just to represent that there was a Government there.
I do not want to interrupt unnecessarily——
But you are.
——but I do suggest—would the Deputy be good enough?
Why should I sit down?
On a point of order.
What is the Minister adverting to?
To the fact that a member of the Government carrying full responsibility with every other member of the Government, has been described as a "pawn".
I am not going to argue. I hold that the word "pawn" is an expression which should not be used towards a Minister or even any Deputy.
Very good, Sir.
This is a denigration of a very old and noble game.
Deputy Mulcahy——
I withdraw the word "pawn". A Minister sat on the Government Benches as a kind of cross mark on a ballot paper to show there was a Government. While he may and, I am sure, ought to accept responsibility, being Minister, no Minister who was in here this morning for four hours accepted responsibility for taking any part in the discussion or giving any assistance to the House as to the explanation or the effect of the sub-section of this Schedule.
The Minister said the people want a Government and an Opposition. What the people want is a Parliament that will be effective and dignified—an instrument for bringing into a unity of spirit the various qualities of their people as expressed by their representatives here when dealing with their various interests. It is because of the treatment of the Dáil in that way that I absolutely protest against the proceedings that have gone on here this morning from the Government side of the House. Then, with the kind of pretence of intervening in the debate, we get the Minister for Health. Instead of the two Fianna Fáil Deputies or the four Fianna Fáil Deputies who sat in behind the Minister, 20 had to come into the House to listen to the music-hall buffoonery which was to be provided.
The Bill we are discussing is a Bill drafted in such a way that it was intended to prevent proper and reasonable discussion on Committee Stage. The fact that it was so drafted created difficulties not only for members of the House, but even for the Chair last week. As the Minister for Health noted, the House broke through the difficulties created by the Government. To the credit of the House, but not without some pain, we found ourselves in the position this morning of being able to discuss sub-section (1) and take a separate decision on it, but we might as well not have broken through the tie-up the Government put in the drafting of their Bill, because so far as the Government were concerned, the House was prevented almost in every possible way the Government could prevent it from getting an answer to the questions wanted here as regards the effect and the possible results of sub-section (1).
On Second Reading we had the Taoiseach himself, seven Ministers and about 11 of the Fianna Fáil Party. They came in and, behind the protective barrier of Second Reading discussion, they had a lot to say. When it comes to discussing the Committee Stage, and going into the details of Committee Stage, they do not come in to face questions, reasonable examination of the proposals and reasonable questions as to what is intended.
No question asked this morning in a reasonable way has been answered. One of the substitute Ministers on this Bill just considered we were taking too long about the matter. We were taking too long because of the documents, papers and quotations which were used. The treatment of the Dáil here this morning and the Minister's performance now for the past 40 minutes was what we can expect. I protest against it.
The Minister pleaded that there should not be six more speeches generated by the speech he made. I do not know whether Deputy Norton had any intention of accepting this challenge or suggestion, but I certainly know that no member of the Fine Gael Party wants to degrade the House by discussing this matter again in this atmosphere. We will find another occasion, on the Committee Stage of the Referendum Bill, for bringing the Ministers and members of the Fianna Fáil Party a little more down to earth and seeing that they answer questions on what is involved for the people in these proposals.
I intervene now after the Minister to protest more against the treatment of the House from 10.30 to 2.30 than even to make a protest against what the House was treated to after waiting for those four hours, in the 40 minutes' music-hall performance which the Minister for Health put on for the benefit of 20 members of his Party who, not coming into the House earlier, came in to hear his performance.
We want a Parliament which will represent the people and which will be an instrument in bringing about, at the parliamentary level, the unity the Minister suggests is needed behind the closed doors of Party to divide up in a swing from time to time the power and the ability to influence affairs between the two big Parties, labelling them "Unity,""The Nation" and that kind of shibboleth that people put on their doors when they are colloguing and when they are planning and bargaining about things they are not prepared to do openly and effectively in the place where it should be done.
This House has been insulted and degraded this morning by the performance of the members of the Government. They have done it before, but time is moving on. While these discussions are going on here, they may well come again to degrade Dáil Éireann and, by so doing, degrade the people; but the time is coming when the people will see what is going on. I would not continue the discussion in this atmosphere and I do not see that any good can be done by continuing it in this atmosphere.
Thanks to the struggle which was made last week, we are in a position to take a decision here on this proposal to wipe out multi-member constituencies, with its effect on reasonable representation in the House, and to substitute the single member constituency. The Government tried to prevent that, but did not proceed. They may carry their point here in a division, but the whole implication of that will be discussed elsewhere, where people will take their work and their electoral responsibility and their responsibility as citizens in a more serious way than the Ministers here are prepared to take the grave responsibility which they should feel and which should fall very heavily on their shoulders.
I thought earlier to-day that we had gone back to 1937 and used that as a basis of discussion, but it appears now that we must always be damned with the four figures "1922". No matter what proposal we debate, sooner or later, the protagonist on one side or the other will start a discussion, not on the basis of the values of the citizens or of the country, but on the basis of what one did or did not do or say in 1922. The Minister for Health has just been trying to pick a particular year and a particular statement to build up a case for which he has no other basis.
I wonder whether the Fianna Fáil Party feel that the only way of getting this legislation through the House or the country is by making the citizens more confused than they are now? Since the discussion on this measure opened, it has been repeatedly demonstrated here that there is utter confusion amongst the ranks of Fianna Fáil as to the meaning and purpose of this Bill, so much so that they are nervous of letting other Deputies get in on top of them. The records of the House show most significantly that a Party with over 70 members has had to confine its contribution to the discussion almost to a handful of Ministers, who in practically all cases, are using prepared briefs. The Minister for Health has given us to-day a homily; he says that the purpose of an election is to elect Deputies to come in here and form a Government, a Government, he hopes, of Fianna Fáil and, if from the Opposition, he hopes it would be Fine Gael. It would break his heart if he had any other type of Opposition, as then there could not be played the little game of tweedledum and tweedledee that has been going on since 1922.
He says the main function of Deputies is to vote into office a Government which will be effective. He says that the candidate going before the electorate under the proposed scheme should be one who is personally well known, who can get around the constituency and talk to the people. His main attributes, according to the Minister, should be those of being well known and popular in the area. Judging from the past performance of Fianna Fáil, prior to election, such a candidate would not require a political programme or policy to put before the electorate. It has been significant that, since they first came into office, they have always been very careful to avoid putting before the electorate a policy or programme, before a general election. As a matter of fact, the Taoiseach and his Ministers, appearing on public platforms before elections, have usually been fairly careful to say: "We have put a comprehensive programme before you."
Therefore, according to the Minister for Health, you are, on the one hand, trying to get Deputies to legislate, and according to him, these Deputies will be elected mainly on the basis that they are popular fellows and good fellows. Such a contradiction, and such a state of confusion, need not be wondered at. The Minister for Health indicated in an interjection, that if Parties like Labour or Fine Gael or any other Party had a left wing or a right wing, that would be something extraordinary.
If we are to believe the Taoiseach, the Minister for Health and his colleagues in the Fianna Fáil Party have consistently made it very simple. The Taoiseach knows what will happen to the Fianna Fáil Party, if, by any chance, he moves from his present position into another position. There is neither left wing, nor right wing, nor centre wing, in the Fianna Fáil Party. The Taoiseach is there and the Party follow, so maybe, therefore, we can take it that what has operated down through the years in that Party is that there has been a fairly large number of Deputies following the example of, or taking orders from, one individual.
The Minister for Health indicated that it would be a bad thing for groups, organisations or Parties to have representation in this House, but it would be a good thing in his view, if groups or sections had representation in Fianna Fáil. They would be safe there, because so long as they have one man as chief of the Party to say "aye" and "no", and the Party will say "aye" and "no" just as ordered, that is all right.
One wonders if that situation, carried out to its logical conclusion and along the lines that the Minister for Health and his colleagues are anxious to do what they can to restrict political development and political change in this country, would eventually be a good thing for the citizens. I suggest that the members of this House might ask themselves one or two cogent questions.
This sub-section deals with the proposal that there should be only one Deputy for each constituency. I shall ask this question very briefly and then sit down. In this year of 1959, what concrete benefit, what definite value to the people of this country, would ensue from changing the system of election from the present one to the one which would provide one Deputy in each constituency? I submit that Bills, and sections of Bills, coming before the House, should carry with them some form of argument which would show that their adoption and their implementation would be of value to the country.
I will ask one question only: Will the Taoiseach, or any Minister, or any Deputy of the Fianna Fáil Party, tell us in this House, or tell the country at large, whether the adoption of this sub-section will put one man into a job, or prevent one man from leaving the country?
I intervene for the purpose of correcting a misrepresentation of my speech by the Minister for Health. The Minister was so befuddled to-day that he was unable to understand the few simple figures which I used in order to bring home, in the simplest possible way, to the Minister, the effect of what he was doing, so far as the future representation of the electorate, and the future composition of this Parliament were concerned.
I said that in a four-member constituency a Party that gets 40 per cent. of the votes gets two seats because, in fact, under the method of ascertaining the quota in a four-member constituency, the quota is 20 per cent. of the valid votes, plus one, so that in a four-member constituency, if you get 20 per cent. of the valid votes, plus one, you must get a seat. If you get 40 per cent., plus one, you get two seats. That has been the practice, and anyone but the Minister for Health would be familiar with what is happening or has happened in the country. No ordinary schoolboy would attempt to question the accuracy of the figures which I have used, namely, that 40 per cent. of the valid votes in a four-member constituency will get you two seats.
I went on to say that if you break up the four-member constituency into four separate constituencies, the Party that got 40 per cent. of the votes in each of the four constituencies automatically got a seat in each constituency, so that, as a result of switching over from P.R. to the single non-transferable vote, you got this kind of result. At present in a four-member constituency the Party that gets 40 per cent. of the votes gets two out of the four seats. In other words, it has half the representation in the four-member constituency, but if you break up that four-member constituency into four separate constituencies, the Party which got only two out of the four seats when it was a single constituency of four seats will be able to get the only seat in each of the four separate constituencies.
It will wind up, therefore, in their having collared all the seats in the four single-member constituencies, whereas under P.R., because they got only 40 per cent. of the votes, they can get only half the seats—and that is the system which the Minister for Health and his Government are recommending to the House.
If it is on the basis of a smash and grab raid, of get away with any political or parliamentary loot you can, I understand this argument. It is jungle law, a case of boxing the compass, and manipulating things in any way you like in order to make sure that your Party remains in office, but it is not democracy, and it is not equity, and it has no parallel in any of the countries where real democracy is practised in Europe. I want to put that on the record.
I should like to make a brief reference to a new point which was introduced by the Minister for Health. When he was speaking almost tearfully at the end of his speech, he said, in reply to Deputy Sherwin, that the present constituencies were very large and that, unfortunately, Deputies had to travel all over them, that it was very expensive to fight an election in a large constituency, that these men did not see their constituents often enough, and apparently having examined this in detail, the Government are sorrowing for those Deputies who have to travel and cannot see as many of their constituents as they apparently desire.
So far as I know, the Twenty-Six Counties have not expanded since 1937. It is the same area now as it was then, but in spite of the fact that the constituencies are the same, and the number of Deputies virtually the same, and the number of electors less, the Government nevertheless put P.R. into the 1937 Constitution. All these considerations to which the Minister referred so touchingly this afternoon were apparently unworthy of consideration by the Government when they decided to include the P.R. system of election in the 1937 Constitution.
I do not believe what the Minister for Health said this afternoon about the size of constituencies or the number of electors. If we get on to the single-member non-transferable vote system of election, we shall have fewer electors per parliamentary representative than any other country in Europe. I do not know why it is assumed that our candidates for election can represent only a very limited number of electors when members of parliament in Europe represent substantially more electors than any Deputy here does. To that extent, we already have a cushioned position from the point of view of the number of electors we represent as compared with any other country in Europe. To reduce the number still further by the device of single member constituencies is, in my view, a consideration which was not thought of as a justification for this Bill. It is just one of those artificially conscripted arguments which have been pressed into service by the Government, in the hope that it will constitute another element in the smokescreen as justification for this Bill.
The display given by various Ministers who spoke in support of this Bill clearly indicates that they are standing on no principle whatever. The vacillations of the Minister for External Affairs and his reasons; the asinine reasons given by the Minister for Health this afternoon; the long dissertations by the Taoiseach in which he did not say he disliked P.R. but disliked the Coalition Governments which P.R. made possible, are all a hotch-potch of arguments or so-called arguments which are no justification whatever for this Bill. As Deputy Larkin rightly said, this Bill leaves the problems of the people completely untouched. It is a fraudulent measure designed to divert their attention from their own grievous personal problems.
Cuireadh an Cheist.
Rinne an Coiste vótáil: Tá, 71; Níl, 49.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 49.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Blaney, Neal T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Seán.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carty, Michael.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Clohessy, Patrick.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Honor M.
- Cummins, Patrick J.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Mick.
- de Valera, Eamon.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Donegan, Batt.
- Dooley, Patrick.
- Egan, Kieran P.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Fanning, John.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Galvin, John.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Griffin, James.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Loughman, Frank.
- Lynch, Celia.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Medlar, Martin.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Moher, John W.
- Moloney, Daniel J.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Moran, Michael.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Malley, Donogh.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Toole, James.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Sheldon, William A.W.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
Níl
- Barrett, Stephen D.
- Beirne, John
- Belton, Jack.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Burke, James.
- Byrne, Tom.
- Carew, John.
- Carroll, James.
- Casey, Seán.
- Coburn, George.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Costello, John A.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Esmonde, Sir Anthony C., Bart.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hogan, Bridget.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Larkin, Denis.
- Lindsay, Patrick.
- Lynch, Thaddeus.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Manley, Timothy.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, William.
- Norton, William.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Denis J.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Rogers, Patrick J.
- Rooney, Eamonn.
- Sherwin, Frank.
- Spring, Dan.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tierney, Patrick.
- Tully, John.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman; Níl: Deputies O'Sullivan and Casey.
Question declared carried.
Faisnéiseadh go rabhthas tar éis glacadh leis an gceist.
AN SCEIDEAL—ALT 2.
Tairgeadh an Cheist: "I gCodanna I agus II, go bhfanfaidh fo-alt 2 mar chuid den Sceideal."
SCHEDULE—SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That in Parts I and II, sub-section 2 stand part of the Schedule."
Can we hear from the Taoiseach some explanation of sub-section 2?
Sub-section 2 says in effect "Croppies, lie down". Has the Taoiseach anything to say on that?
I think it can be inferred from the terms of the sub-section what is in it. The matter has been discussed here many times already and arguments put forward for and against.
No attempt has been made to suggest that the Government elected in this way can be anything but a minority Government, except by deliberate suppression of other groups in the country.
I understand the Taoiseach is not prepared to say anything on sub-section 2.
I have said it already.
He does not propose to say anything on this occasion. He ought to explain to the House the effect of the sub-section on the citizens, or rather the effect the Taoiseach and the members of the Government desire. As I read the sub-section, it has one very substantial effect. Under the present system, if there are a number of candidates, the elector is entitled to express a preference for a particular candidate. In a constituency where there is a candidate of Fianna Fáil, a candidate of Fine Gael, of Labour, of Clann na Talmhan, of National Progressive Democrats, and an Independent, the electors can at the present time, with the single transferable vote, decide, if they so wish, that the Fianna Fáil candidate is the one who should get their support, but they can have the alternative that, in the event of the candidate of Fianna Fáil not getting sufficient support to be elected, the candidate of one of the other Parties would be elected.
In the case of an electorate facing the election of a Labour candidate, under the present system, they have the choice—they have many choices— of voting only for the Labour candidate, or voting, first of all, for the Labour candidate, and next for a candidate of one of the other political Parties or an Independent. But, in the final analysis, the effect of that type of transferable vote means that, even if it is applied in a single member constituency, it will tend to ensure that at least the candidate so elected is one who has received the majority of the votes cast in the constituency.
The Taoiseach has had a lot to say, in this Chamber and out of this Chamber over the years, about his respect for the wishes of the people, his respect for the Deputies elected to this Dáil, and his respect for parliamentary government. I want to ask him and his Ministers: does the introduction of this sub-section in this Bill show any such evidence of that respect for either the wishes of the people as a whole, or for majority decisions and respect for the Parliament of this country? Surely the Taoiseach cannot but agree that if he carries through a division in this House on the question of a single member constituency, and even if he was enabled to-morrow to carry a decision in the country in favour of a single member constituency, the people who go to make up the constituencies should have some consideration, and some regard, shown to them on the basis of their majority decision?
It is not good enough for any responsible member of this House to suggest that that situation can be met by some kind of an agreement among Parties or groups to support only the candidate of one Party, because, by doing that, you are again outraging the very principles of democratic government and democratic procedure. Surely Fianna Fáil spokesmen, if one gives any of them credit for any sincerity or any belief in their own Party, will not suggest that, at any conceivable time, they, as a Party, would agree in a particular constituency, that a candidate of theirs, who had the support of the local Fianna Fáil cumann, and the local Fianna Fáil supporters, should not be permitted by the National Executive to go forward because Fianna Fáil wanted to ensure that Fine Gael, or Labour, or the National Progressive Democrats should get the seat. The suggestion which has been repeatedly made that this matter can be dealt with on a basis of some pre-election agreement—coming from Fianna Fáil— must presuppose that even they themselves are thinking along those lines.
Have we no longer any regard in this country for the people who send Deputies into this House, that in this sub-section of the Bill we will say: "You will vote on this basis for ‘X', if you are a very good, staunch and loyal Fianna Fáil supporter"—and there are such—"and if your own candidate at the particular time is not getting sufficient support, then your vote must be completely and utterly wasted." Or, shall we say the same thing to Fine Gael? Fine Gael may have a person in a constituency—it does not matter where the constituency is, whether in Dublin, Clare, Wexford or anywhere else—whom the organisation in the area believe should be a candidate. Are we to say from this House that it is the opinion of the Taoiseach that the National Executive of Fine Gael should say: "We do not think you would get 51 per cent. of the votes and we think there may be a danger of letting Fianna Fáil in"— there might be a danger sometimes of letting Labour in—"in that case we will not let you stand. We will deprive you as an individual, as a citizen of this State who is entitled under the Constitution to go forward for election, of the right to be a candidate in the area."
We know that this type of procedure operates in other countries and we know the effect of it. The Taoiseach has been very happy here relating how well the non-transferable vote has worked out in our neighbouring country. I think he is somewhat embarrassed when he thinks about how well the non-transferable vote operates in the northern part of this country. Do we not know from our observations, and from investigations going back to 1910, 1911, 1922, 1937, last year and the year before, that any year there has been a general election in our neighbouring country, because of the single non-transferable vote, there are what are called safe constituencies. These are constituencies in which a candidate is chosen, not because he has the qualities the Minister for Health wants to see in a candidate, of knowing the particular community, knowing the people's problems, and being able to talk to the people and then coming forward to represent them, but because the Party knows from experience that they have an automatic majority. They can take people who were never even seen in the constituencies, and put them up as candidates, three weeks before an election, in the sure and certain knowledge that they will be elected. Do we not know that the same system which was brought about by certain other factors, but is basically the same, operates in the northern part of our country, where it has resulted in no contests in certain areas because of an automatic majority?
It may be pertinent to ask the Taoiseach now—in a few months he may or may not be in another place— is it his desire not only to alter the Constitution, and try to persuade the people to alter it, to change from the multi-seat constituency to the single seat constituency, but even to go further and remove from the people the question of a majority decision? I have no hesitation in saying that I have strong views, and I have expressed them here, on the right of the people to be represented. There might be some case to be made if there was provision that at least a Deputy elected in a single seat constituency was elected as a result of a majority vote. But this sub-section is a particular one which is deliberately put in here for the purpose of ensuring that that will not happen, unless, of course, the ambition of the Minister for Health and that of one or two other Ministers, is realised, that is, that this Chamber will become a Chamber where there are only two political Parties.
If that is the intention behind this Bill, why does the Taoiseach not say it? Why does he not come out in public and say to the people: "I propose to have only two political Parties. I shall do my best to make sure that the others which exist disappear and that no more will appear."
In the course of, I think, the Second Reading debate, the Taoiseach was particularly anxious that the proposals contained in the Bill should receive calm and clear examination in this House, that members of his own Party, of the major opposition Party and of all other Parties should discuss in a critical way, calmly and objectively, the benefits or otherwise that might flow from the introducing of this legislation. I think he indicated that he was anxious that in due course the electors would get the same opportunity of examining these proposals clearly and calmly and arriving at a decision. I take it they would arrive at a decision after the various aspects of the matter had been put before them. That is a reasonable statement from the head of the Government.
The Taoiseach is also the controlling director of the Irish Press. I recommend Deputies to read the issue of that paper for the day before yesterday. It is the issue which contains a report of the last contribution of the Taoiseach to the debate. Read that report calmly and coolly and read the contribution made by the other Deputies. At that time, the Taoiseach was speaking as a Deputy, the same as the rest of us. Read the contribution made by him and measure out the amount of space given to the contributions made by each Deputy and then ask yourself who in the country is going to have an opportunity of calmly, coolly, clearly and adequately considering the merits or demerits of this Bill.
I am making no personal complaint. I recognise that if there is a newspaper owned by a political Party, whose controlling director is the head of the political Party, they are going to bend all their arguments and reports in favour of the spokesmen of that Party.
Surely the Deputy cannot discuss the amount of space given by newspapers to Deputies' speeches? It does not arise on this sub-section.
As usual, I take the advice and guidance of the Chair, but I feel I am entitled to suggest to the Taoiseach that having stated in this House, to the best of my recollection, —I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong—that we should discuss this Bill coolly and clearly, in an atmosphere of what is best for the country, some attempt should be made to honour the request he has made to the House.
I want to ask the Taoiseach: does he consider it fair or just or equitable that if, as set out in the provisions of this sub-section, a candidate other than a candidate of Fianna Fáil, or Fine Gael, dared to contest any single seat constituency, the most likely result of the entrance of such a candidate would be a Deputy elected by or responsible to a minority of the electors?
Supposing we take Limerick City as an example at the present moment there would be one seat there. Supposing we had in Limerick City—or Cork City or Dublin City, exercising their rights, candidates for Fianna Fáil, for Fine Gael, for Labour, for Sinn Féin and for Clann na Poblachta. It is very hard to estimate exactly in present circumstances what either the valid number of electors in any area or the valid poll would be but suppose 4,000 Fianna Fáil votes are cast for their candidate and that Fine Gael secure 3,000, and that the Labour Party were fortunate enough also to get 3,000. Suppose Sinn Féin polled 3,000 and Clann na Poblachta 2,000. Under this sub-section, we see the picture that results. There is a total of 15,000 votes cast, say, for a representative of Limerick City, but this sub-section provides, if that occurred, the Fianna Fáil candidate would definitely be elected with 4,000 votes and 11,000 electors in that area would be deprived of any representation.
It may be argued, as somebody has argued here, that the Deputy elected represents everybody. That is just cock-eyed nonsense and the people suggesting it do not themselves believe it. Is it thought there would be so many recipients of Fianna Fáil largesse, if that were true? Would there be any premium for supporting the large political Party if the Deputy elected represented everybody? In the fullest sense of the words, I should hate—I shall be honest—if I were the candidate in Louth to say I represented the Minister for External Affairs. If he wanted a house or wanted something to do with the local authority; if he wanted a question raised in the Dáil, no doubt I would have the pleasure of doing it as an ordinary matter of courtesy, but the views of my Party and his views do not coincide, or coincide only to a very small extent. While there is no possibility of its happening—we are dealing in suppositions at the moment—suppose I became the Deputy for Louth. I cannot imagine myself conscientiously representing the views of the Minister for External Affairs. That would still be difficult, I know, even where a Deputy is elected on the basis of the transferable vote, but it would not be nearly so bad as it would be if this proposal goes through.
I am very reluctant, generally, to attribute motives to anybody, but having heard so much from one side and the other on whether the proposal to introduce P.R. had a British basis and whether the proposal to abolish it was based on experience in Britain, I am wondering whether the Taoiseach, in considering this matter, did anything but take up a book setting out the system of election in England and say: "What is good enough for John Bull is good enough for us." I should not like to attribute that motive to the Taoiseach. I doubt very much if he seriously considered that a system which provides only or mainly for the return of majority members, as applies in the North of Ireland, would be the proper system for us in our circumstances.
The Taoiseach told us in introducing the Bill and again later at various stages, that having observed developments in other countries over the years and here at home, he considered, as a result, it was desirable to seek a change in the Constitution here. Why not take a little further thought and perhaps change his mind again? The man who never changes his mind is generally described as a man who has no mind to change, but I think the Taoiseach has demonstrated very clearly since this debate began that he has a mind to change and he has changed it.
It might be reasonable for this House to say to the Taoiseach on the present sub-section: would he not, even at this stage, examine the implications of the sub-section? Should I put it to him directly? Down the years, I have had a very high regard for the Taoiseach, much higher than I have had for some of his colleagues from time to time, and I put it to him directly: has he really examined the implications of this sub-section? Does he not realise that in attempting to force this through the House, in attempting to popularise his actions through means that cannot be debated in this House, he is overlooking the constitutional rights the people have and which he is so proud to say he will defend since they are enshrined in the Constitution of which he is also proud to say at times he is, in effect, the father.
Surely it is a basic right that in any constituency a person of 21 years of age is entitled to vote and to be nominated as set out according to the Constitution. Any such candidate is entitled to a fair chance of becoming a representative for the constituency. Surely the Taoiseach will agree this sub-section seriously limits that right, because the effect of the sub-section on the ordinary elector is to say to-him: "There are four candidates— pick one. If that candidate gets 30 per cent. of the votes the other 60-odd per cent. of the voters have no representation and no spokesman." It is important to have a Government that enjoys the general respect and support of the community; but what Government will enjoy the general respect of the community if it deliberately goes out of its way to arrange matters with a view to ensuring that citizens will not be entitled to form political Parties and, through them, to get representation in the House?
Much has been said about the right of representation. It is widely enjoyed here. We can boast that the present system affords to the widest section of the community the greatest opportunity of forming associations and securing representation in this Parliament. This sub-section tends only in one direction—to introduce in place of the present system a system in which there will be only two Parties in the House. If the Taoiseach thinks that it is a good thing at this stage to continue a policy which could conceivably result—the Taoiseach is a better mathematician than I can ever hope to be—in 60 to 70 per cent. of the electors being disfranchised on a national basis, then that will be his responsibility. I would urge him to look at this sub-section again and to give effect to his oft-expressed regard for the rights of parliamentary democracy here.
I think it is very important that the implications of this paragraph should be clearly realised and appreciated by Deputies and by the people who have to vote on it. In my view, this paragraph takes away the last possible legal device to ensure that a candidate representing a minority of voters in a constituency will not be elected. It also takes away the last chance of other Parties or groups, taking part in that election in such a constituency, of securing, by means of the transfer of their votes, that there will be elected their second preference and one who certainly will be entitled to claim that, when elected, he really represents a majority of the voters in that constituency.
This afternoon, the Taoiseach was invited to make the case for this sub-section. I have been going back in my mind over his speeches in the course of the debates in the House, and, frankly, I cannot remember one single argument he put up in favour of this sub-section. The case has not been made for this. The case has been made— however bad the arguments may be— for the abolition of P.R. and the single transferable vote. But no argument has been put up to show why it must necessarily follow in the public interest, that if the principles of P.R., based upon the single transferable vote are abrogated, it is necessary to put this provision in the Bill, by means of which and as a result of which, a person who is elected in a constituency may, and pretty well all the time will, represent a minority of the voters.
During the course of the Second Reading debate, I gave three examples. They were not from this country, but they were very relevant at the time, and they are relevant now. I gave three examples of what happened during a very crucial period in the history of this country, at a time when the granting or withholding of Home Rule for Ireland was a very vital issue and when the Party in the British House of Commons in favour of that political advancement for this country called Home Rule had a very precarious majority.
I gave the example of the by-elections in certain constituencies when those elections were held under the system now proposed. There was a Liberal candidate, a Labour candidate and a Tory candidate. The Tories were vehemently, violently and intransigently opposed at that time to what was called Home Rule. The Labour candidate in each of these constituencies had pledged themselves to vote for it, and so had the Liberals. As I said, there was a Labour, a Liberal and a Tory candidate in each of these by-elections; but the Tory candidate got in in each of them with a minority vote and that made a difference of six in the British House of Commons.
That is what is proposed here. A gets in with a minority, although B and C together had a vast number of votes more than he had. They were both opposed to the principles of the Tory; yet the Tories represented those constituencies in a very vital period for the history of this country. That is what the Taoiseach is proposing here. Take a simple example. I do not like to take existing Parties, but it is difficult not to do so. Supposing there are Fianna Fáil, Labour and Fine Gael candidates in a constituency in the City of Dublin. Fianna Fáil, say, get a number of votes; Fine Gael get a number and Labour get a number. Say the aggregate of the Labour and the Fine Gael votes together outnumbers Fianna Fáil. Yet Fianna Fáil get in because they have one vote more than any of the others. That is what we are asked to do.
I have not yet heard what is the argument against the system which, I think, exists in Australia, by which if, say, you have Fine Gael, Labour and Fianna Fáil and if Fine Gael get a number of votes which is one more than the larger number of the other two then Labour can say: "We do not like Fianna Fáil but we do like Fine Gael and we will give our votes to them." That at least ensures that the person elected, whether Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or Labour, under the system of the transferable vote, represents, and can claim as of right to represent, a majority.
We have listened to various specious and most implausible arguments here on the necessity of having a strong Government and of having a constituency that will return one single member. What is the argument against this system, I mention, which is only a subsidiary system of the present system? We have not heard the argument against it. We are told it would be desirable that the person in a one member constituency should get in on the first count. Why should he, when there are two other people there against him, unless you want to prevent them from making their case and keeping their names before the public? I cannot see the reasoning against it and I await any arguments from the Government or anybody on their behalf to justify this proposal.
We have argued all the time, and will continue to argue, for the retention of the existing system, subject to its being examined for defects which undoubtedly exist in it. We have made the case that the fundamental principle on which we stand is that there should be an electoral system based upon the principles of P.R. which will best give minority rights in the country their due representation in Parliament. That is our principle, the principle upon which we stand.
I repeat: I have no belief in any particular system of P.R. as an immutable political dogma. The one we have at the moment has worked well, with certain defects. If that system goes from us, as it apparently will now, why cannot there be some other safeguard, such as that which exists in Australia, whereby the persons voting for particular Parties in that type of election can transfer their votes to somebody else, if they like? Why should it be put down here that the representatives of the people in Dáil Éireann shall be elected under the system of the single non-transferable vote? The voter can give one vote, and only one. The voter cannot transfer that vote. He cannot say: "I like A but, if I cannot have A, I would like B; and, if I cannot have B, I would like C."
Surely such a system would ensure the situation Fianna Fáil pretend they want to get—the single member constituency represented by a majority. But that is only a pretence on the part of Fianna Fáil. They do not want that. They want to get away from the situation in which Fine Gael, Labour, Independents, Clann na Talmhan and others can represent particular sections of the people and, yet, come together and represent them here, making their case for their own particular sections, but nevertheless being willing and competent to help in the formation of a Government and the implementation of an economic policy for the ultimate benefit of the people as a whole.
That is what Fianna Fáil want to prevent. They have no interest in ensuring that any particular constituency will get proper representation. If that was what they wanted they would except this clause in relation to the fundamental principle upon which they have been acting, namely, the abolition of P.R.
I do not yet know what the case is for the abolition of P.R. I repeat once more: the Government in this Bill hope to do what was done in the Draft Constitution in 1936, something against which I pleaded at the time with all the weight of the arguments I was capable of putting forward at the time. I do not know why we should tie the hands of our successors.
Deputies
Hear, hear!
I do not know what mandate or authority we have for doing that. I object—again, I use the phrase—to the Government, to the Taoiseach—I would even object to ourselves on this side of the House— trying to mould the future, when neither we nor anybody else, except God alone, knows what the future of this country will be. I have the strongest objection to such an attempt on our part to mould the future. We do not know what conditions will be.
This afternoon, I spoke of what I called the "last chance argument"— the last chance of getting rid of P.R.; I explained to the House what I felt was implicit in that argument. It was the last chance because the Taoiseach apparently is leaving political life; it is the last chance because Fianna Fáil has abandoned hope of ever again getting an over-all majority under the principle of P.R. Whatever it is, if this goes inflexibly into the Constitution, it may be said by way of rebuttal that there can be a referendum and the people in the future can change it, if they want to. But, if this is the last chance of getting rid of P.R., if these proposals are now enacted into the Constitution as a result of the referendum, then there will never be a last chance, or any other chance, for the people to get rid of this new system. I want that to be realised now, appreciated and thoroughly understood by everybody. There will be no chance, except in theory, of ever getting rid of this proposed system.
According to the Taoiseach, it took him years to get himself into the position in which he is to-day, with an over-all majority. He intends at no very distant date to clear out of public life. This is the last chance of getting rid of P.R. It took the Taoiseach years to achieve this. He is doing it now because he has a large over-all majority, a majority achieved in wholly adventitious circumstances. Will there ever be a Government, if these proposals are embedded in the Constitution, with a sufficiently large over-all majority which will not merely be in a position to change again but which will want to change? If you have a one-Party Government, a two-Party Government, or possibly a three-Party Government, each Party having got into this House by means of this system of the single non-transferable vote, then none of those Parties will want to change because they are in power, in Parliament and in office because of it and they may know very well that, if they change to P.R., they will lose it all.
It is wholly illusory—I go so far as to say it is dishonest—to pretend that if you write this clause into the Constitution, you are safeguarding the position by providing for the possibility of people subsequently changing it, if they wish to change it, by referendum. They will never get the chance. Do the Government think there is the slightest chance of either the Labour Party or the Conservative Party in England ever adopting the principle of P.R.? Not on your life! The big Parties do not want P.R. because they have the swing over—in one day and out another. They know very well that if they changed to P.R., that would be bad for them as individuals and it would be particularly bad for them from the purely political Party point of view.
Again, I emphasise—I hope it will be clearly understood here and throughout the country—that this may be the last chance of defeating this proposal. If P.R. is got rid of, and I earnestly hope it will not be, then there will never be any question of a last chance of restoring the rights of minorities; there will be no chance except possibly through the adoption of radical means, radical means which certainly would not be in the interests of the country.
I have here only about half the volumes in what lies before me on the Front Bench, half the volumes in which this principle has been debated. I would remind Deputies that we have debated this point at great length. I think Deputy Costello produced the best argument for getting section, the best argument for getting rid of the transferable vote. At column 1345 of Volumes 67 and 68 he said:—
"We always understood that the real defect under any system of P.R., and particularly the system of the single transferable vote, was that it led in circumstances where there were no big economic issues before the country to a large number of small Parties being returned, making for instability in Government. That is inherent in the system of P.R. and the single transferable vote."
If I spoke for months, I could not argue better than that.
That has nothing whatever to do with this sub-section.
The single transferable vote Deputy Costello wants is the system which he knows, as well as I do, leads to "a large number of small Parties being returned, making for instability of Government." He himself had experience of two Governments in which he was knocked down like a house of cards because of their inherent instability and because of the withdrawal from those Governments of one of the small Parties.
Tugadh tuairisc ar a ndearnadh; an Coiste do shuí arís.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 20th January, 1959.