Is that all the Minister has to say about it, Sir?
Referendum (Amendment) Bill, 1958—Fifth Stage.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
That is all for the moment.
I thought the Minister might have made up his mind since we were here last, as to whether the Presidential election would take place on the same date as the referendum. Has the Minister any information to give with regard to that?
Nothing further.
We are asked to pass the Fifth Stage of this Referendum Bill. It is certainly a thing of shreds and patches even though it contains a little more sense in its propositions now than when it was originally introduced. I do not know whether it is like the case of Bodach an Cóta Lachtna or the case of Cóta an Rí Coigríche. If a consolidation of the referendum amending Acts is carried out in 12 months' time, I certainly should like to see how much of that would have to be changed in order to show a properly set out statute containing provisions for a referendum.
As presented to us originally, the Minister proposed that the electorate be asked to vote a single "Yes" or "No" to three separate proposals. The Minister is still in the position that he insists on the voting paper being one which will ask the electorate to give a single "Yes" or "No" to a mixture of things which are very different in themselves and on which they cannot give separate decisions. The attitude seems to be that, because the Constitution presented to the people is an omnibus thing and the people cannot be expected to give a separate decision on every particular Article or sub-section of an Article, amendments to the Constitution can be omnibus amendments, too; and that six, seven, eight, nine or ten propositions can be put into a Constitution (Amendment) Bill and then presented to a referendum of the people, in which they will be asked to give an omnibus decision, where they are in a position to accept points one, four, seven and nine and refuse to give assent to the others. That is a sinister and absurd provision. Looking at the various additions and patches made to this Referendum Bill, one can see how very little consideration was given to the preparation of the measure in the beginning and, on the other hand, how much it was deliberately intended to withhold from consideration by the Dáil and to withhold from the people.
The Minister has agreed to enshrine in this amending Bill a proposal by which, at any rate, if the people are asked to vote in an omnibus way, they will be given individually, at the time in which they are advised that there is a referendum on, fairly definite information as to what is proposed by the Bill. We have had a bit of a struggle to get that appreciated and accepted. It is put in now in a rather detailed way in the Appendix. If this is a sign of a certain amount of conversion on the part of the Government, in that they think it would be well that the people should know something about it, we accept that, even though it is not a very satisfactory approach to the preparation of statutes governing a referendum.
The principle which is enshrined in the First Schedule, that is, the copy of the voting paper, is a principle which, I think, is absolutely and entirely wrong; and I hope this will not be used to create a precedent for dealing with this particular matter. If the Constitution is being amended in a number of ways, the people should be given an opportunity of saying, in respect of each type of amendment, whether they are for it or against it. Under the proposal which will go before them now, they will be asked to wipe out the multiple constituency— that is one very definite idea—which gives in a fairly substantial but nevertheless conscious way, an opportunity to various sections of the people who are conscious that they represent particular aspects of our economic or social life, a reasonable chance of getting a representative returned. It is proposed to create a situation in Dublin in which Dublin will be carved up into small draught board squares of 20 or 30 different sections, depriving the various concentrated interests— political, social or economic—in the City of Dublin, of an opportunity of expressing themselves in a reasonable kind of way. That is one thing which it is proposed to do. In addition, it is proposed to wipe out the transferable vote and to set up a commission. It is quite wrong, and it is contrary to any serious principle in regard to amending Constitutions, that the electorate should be asked to vote for these or against these in an omnibus way.
I think also that the House is being treated with very shocking discourtesy, which indicates again the lack of sincerity and the evasiveness of the Government, when at this hour of the day, we cannot be told whether the Presidential election and the referendum will be held on the same day.
On each stage of this Bill, either I as the responsible Minister or the Government as a whole, have been accused by the Opposition speakers of a lack of discourtesy——
Never of a lack of discourtesy.
A lack of courtesy— and courtesy is not very apparent from the Deputy's interruption just now.
Et tu quoque is never a good answer. The Minister must do better than that.
The general tone of the discussion on each stage has been that we have not shown a courteous attitude to the House—either I have not or the Government as a whole have not. The general reasons trotted out for that charge are that we have not said enough. That seems to be the theme this afternoon again.
Deputy Mulcahy has been elaborating on our lack of couresy in not giving information as to whether or not these two matters are to be decided on the one day. That is not a matter which comes within the orbit of the measure which we are discussing now. I appreciate the views of the Opposition and their desire to get clarity on this matter as soon as possible. However, I feel that they should appreciate that it does not come with the ambit of this Bill this afternoon and that it is not really a question of being discourteous —that I am not in a position to say to them what will in fact be the day or days on which these two votes, the Presidential election and the referendum, will be taken.
In so far as the general terms of the Bill are concerned, despite what has been said now about the "struggle" to get us to see the light in these matters, I think there never was really any struggle in the getting of agreement from this side, at any rate, as regards the statement to the public and the circulation of some document to the voters prior to the election or the taking of the referendum setting out the main points involved.
As I said at the very outset and as I might state once again, I was anxious to see how this might best be done and I had that point considered. At the first opportunity, when the desire from the Opposition, Labour, Fine Gael and others, was voiced, I lost no time in getting in touch with those people unofficially and outside the House and the culmination of that effort was that we did get the agreement in regard to a statement for circulation which is now being circulated and which everybody will agree is perferable to any of the other suggestions made during the course of the debate on the various stages of this Bill, that is, that a statement setting out the main proposals which are the subject matter of the referendum would be circulated and in the hands of the electors prior to the day of the election. That is something that we can be quite happy about in that it will meet the particular case in this event, at any rate.
In so far as the other matters raised just now by the Deputy are concerned, I do not agree that the manner in which this Bill has been dealt with shows any lack of thought or shows that there is anything sinister behind it. I do not understand that charge of there being something sinister in the whole approach to this Bill. I just cannot see where that arises, nor can I see why the Deputy should make the charge.
In so far as the actual form of ballot paper is concerned, about which we had our differences on Committee Stage and on the various amendments, I can still only say that I believe that our form of ballot paper as now outlined in this Bill is a much more clear and concise method of approaching this referendum than if we were to adhere to the type of ballot paper provided for in previous legislation, and I feel that any charges of our having any ulterior motives in bringing about a change in the form of the ballot paper are completely without foundation and that, indeed, the Opposition who are making those charges have not given any evidence or made a case to show that there is any foundation for this charge.
There is nothing further that has been raised on this stage that I feel I am called upon to answer and I shall conclude on that note.
Question put and agreed to.