Vol. 235 No. 4
I should like to ask the House to avoid duplication, if it is agreed, as in the case of the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, that consideration of sections I and 2 be postponed until the Schedule has been dealt with and that the sections be then passed formally.
Agreed.
AN SCEIDEAL.
SCHEDULE.
Perhaps at this stage the House could now agree as to the manner in which the Schedule is to be considered. In view of the statement on the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill that the Schedule should be dealt with paragraph by paragraph, recently I caused to be sent to the leaders of the Opposition Parties a sheet indicating for their information three possible ways in which the Schedule could be divided up. One of the ways was on the lines followed in the case of the 1959 Bill.
I think the Chair will admit it was not very clear.
It was suggested that possibly a way to divide up the schedule would be (1) Parts I and II——
(Cavan): That is the Irish and the English version?
That is right. Then followed by Parts III and IV which again are the Irish and the English versions. We are taking the Irish and English versions at the same time. The third was Parts V and VI.
That is not the way it was done in 1959.
In the second way, we have (a) subsection 1º in Parts I and II; (b) subsection 2º in Parts I and II; (c) Parts III and IV, and (d) Parts V and VI, section by section. That is followed by the third.
In other words, taking it in detail.
The position is that the Schedule has been divided into Parts and then the Parts have been divided into subsections.
(Cavan): I think that (1) seems to be the satisfactory way of dealing with it.
It was dealt with in 1959 in detail. The precedent seems to have been set. Are we taking it in the second form?
Yes.
Is it not the position that we deal with subsection (1)º and subsection (2)º of Parts I and II and then go back to the sections?
Parts I and II.
That is the second alternative.
That is the way it was done before.
That does not say it was the correct way.
There were many arguments and a precedent was set.
Neither the Minister nor I can say whether it was correct at that time.
(Cavan): I take it that we will do more or less what we did on the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, that we will deal with the amendments to the Schedule and, when we have dealt with the amendments to the Schedule, we will have a general discussion if we want it on the proposition that the Schedule stand part of the Bill. Am I correct in that?
That is correct.
First of all, we deal with the subsections.
Will this be Committee Stage? Can we speak as often as we like?
It is Committee Stage.
Let us get on with it. It will be 10.30 p.m. before we get started. It is immaterial so long as we cover the whole thing.
The natural thing is to deal with it subsection by subsection.
Agreed to divide Schedule for purposes of debate as follows:
(a) Subsection 1º in Parts I and II.
(b) Subsection 2º in Parts I and II.
(c) Parts III and IV.
(d) Parts V and VI, section by section.
(Cavan): I have been notified by the Chair that amendments Nos. 1 and 2, standing in my name, have been ruled out of order. Without questioning the ruling of the Chair, I want to draw the attention of the House to this ruling. I agree that the effect of amendments Nos. 1 and 2 standing in my name would be to retain multi-seat constituencies with the transferable vote. The Chair has ruled this out of order on the grounds that the amendments seek to delete from the Bill the provisions which give effect to the Second Reading, that is, the introduction of single-member constituencies in lieu of the existing multi-seat constituencies. I agree that that is the effect of the amendment. I cannot help observing that another amendment—which, as far as I know, does not appear to have been ruled out of order—has a similar effect in that it proposes to retain a form of proportional representation—“a form” I say—in the form of a single transferable vote instead of the non-transferable vote assented to in the Second Reading. I cannot see the distinction, in principle, between my amendment and the other amendment which, as far as I know, has not been ruled out of order.
I must object there——
If Deputy Norton would allow me to explain the position to Deputy Fitzpatrick, the Chair considers that the principle of the Bill as read a Second Time was the introduction of the single-member constituencies in lieu of the existing multi-member constituencies. Deputy Norton's amendment has been mentioned. Under Deputy Norton's amendment, the proposed single-member constituencies would stand but voting would be by way of the transferable vote instead of the non-transferable vote——
Which is a change in principle.
I have not yet finished what I have to say. Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendments Nos. 1 and 2 seek inter alia, to delete from the Bill the provisions which give effect to the principle assented to on Second Reading, that is, the introduction of single-member constituencies in lieu of the existing multi-member constituencies. Deputies will appreciate that the Chair must take all relevant circumstances into account in determining the principle of the Bill as read a Second Time. In the case of the present Bill, it became clear very early to the Chair that the question of the multiple versus the single member constituency was the main issue.
(Cavan): Surely, with the greatest respect to the Chair, the principal issue was whether there was to be proportional representation or anything like proportional representation, whether there was to be a straight vote or a transferable vote.
First past the post.
(Cavan): With regard to the amendment which has not been ruled out of order, I am not making the case it should be ruled out of order but I am making the case that all amendments should be treated equally. The big principle in the Bill as understood by everybody in the country was the straight vote or the transferable vote. Deputy Norton's amendment proposes to retain the transferable vote and to throw out the straight vote provision. With the greatest respect to you, Sir, and to the Chair you occupy, I want to go on record as saying that that is far more a principle of the Bill than the single-member constituency.
The Chair was not queried when it ruled on four occasions that discussion on Deputy Norton's amendment was not appropriate to Second Stage and should await the Committee Stage. One of the rulings was given in response to a case made by Deputy T.F. O'Higgins. Furthermore, the statements of about a dozen speakers on Second Stage contained a clear expectation that Deputy Norton's amendment would come up on Committee Stage: a number of these were front bench Opposition Members. Towards the end of the debate, they pressed the Taoiseach to indicate what his attitude to Deputy Norton's amendment would be. Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment was allowed on Second Stage because it advanced a fundamental reason against the Second Reading, that is, that two referenda had already been held and that a third was not justified; the referenda in question included the issue of the multi versus the single seat constituency, that is, the principle of the present Bill.
(Cavan): It may be that Deputy Norton's amendment was mentioned on Second Reading and that my amendments were not. That may well be. However, it was because it was clear to me that, if Deputy Norton's amendment was in order, then my amendment must be in order that I put my amendments in. I can only say that it appears to me as if there is not the same treatment for me in putting down amendments as there is for other Members putting down amendments.
May I make this submission to the House? I submit, with respect, that it is crystal clear that the purpose of this Bill was the issue of the single seat, first past the post, straight vote issue. There was no confusion at all about it. I would submit to you, a Cheann Comhairle, with respect, that that is an indefeasible principle—the combination of the single seat here with the straight vote—and that Deputy Fitzpatrick's submission must be acceptable to the Chair if Deputy Norton's amendment is to stand because, undoubtedly, there is the very same clash in basic principle, as on Second Reading, which has been passed. The Second Reading is first past the post. I submit that the two principles are——
Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendments are out of order because they conflict with the principle of the Bill.
I do not care whether or not Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment is taken. It must be quite clear that this amendment is, in fact, a complete negative to the Bill, that there could be no question of the straight vote in multi-member constituences. It could not be operated. Therefore, if the principle of the single-seat constituency were ruled out, there could be no question of the straight vote, whereas it would be possible to operate the transferable vote in the system of single-seat constituencies. We shall have the same argument anyway. It appears to me that Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment is against the principle of the Bill whereas it would be possible to have the Constitution amended and retain the transferable vote.
Tairgeadh an cheist: "Go bhfanfaidh fo-alt 1 i bpáirteanna I agus II mar chuid den Sceideal."
(Cavan): This subsection reads:
Dáil Éireann shall be composed of members who represent constituencies, and one member only shall be returned for each constituency.
This is the subsection which proposes to abolish multi-seat constituencies and I disagree with the proposal to abolish such constituencies and introduce single-seat constituencies because I think the single-seat constituency precludes minority representation. Whether the minority concerned be religious or political it should, if it has sufficient support to warrant it, have representation in this House and should be able to have a representation here to speak on its behalf. It should not be driven underground or driven to use violent means of expressing views. Indeed, the need for minority representation in the House is becoming more apparent day by day and year by year when we see Ministers trying to stifle free speech, to muzzle newspapers and prevent rate-payers and taxpayers from using the national television service to express their views.
This goes yet one step further. If this subsection is accepted you have a very substantial minority in any constituency being muzzled and denied the right to send a TD to this House to speak for it. Then, if the views which that Deputy would have expressed here run contrary to Government opinion you will have that section of the community also denied the right to express its views on television and through the national newspapers, if the present Minister for Local Government has his way. Therefore, on that ground an unanswerable case can be made for retaining constituencies of not less than three Deputies because this lends itself very strongly to proper representation being given to minorities whether religious, political or vocational. If such minorities get a sufficient volume of public support behind them they are entitled to come into this House and express their views. It would be good for democracy and good for the harmonious administration of the country to preserve that state of affairs.
On the Second Stage of these Bills we heard a good deal about the promotion of interest in politics and the stimulation of public views and political thought. In my opinion, the abolition of multi-seat constituencies and the creation of single seat constituencies will remove political stimulation and prevent young people from taking an interest in political life. This is because in a multi-seat constituency you have competition within a Party for the right to represent that Party in this House. If the single-seat constituency is introduced, supporters of a Party will have no such right; they will have but one candidate of their Party on the ballot paper and can either take him or leave him. That is not calculated to create a healthy interest in political life. If the present system has changed there will be very little incentive to a young man of ambition to interest himself in the political life of his constituency, certainly, with a view to attaining parliamentary honours.
Furthermore, one of the greatest faults in the single-seat constituency system is that it is calculated to create the safe seat. It is calculated to create a position in which the sitting member cannot be dethroned, in which he knows he has a safe seat. This single-seat constituency, coupled with the measure that we dealt with earlier this afternoon, the tolerance Bill, lends itself to the creation of the safe seat and to gerrymandering.
We have the experience of the safe seat in Northern Ireland. There are constituencies in Northern Ireland where an election has not taken place for 40 years. There was, as I informed the House on Second Reading and quoted from an editorial in the Irish Press, a situation where recently in the division of Lisnaskea, in order to make their voice heard at all, the Nationalist minority were left with no alternative but to refuse to contest the seat and throw their weight in behind another candidate. I shall be told, I am sure, by the Minister, that that is a situation peculiar to Northern Ireland, a situation which does not arise here. However, the safe seat situation can be created here by the Minister and his Party or by any Party in power when they come to arrange the constituencies, with elbow room of one-sixth above or below the national average, where a population of between 16,000 and 17,000 may be entitled to a seat in one area, whereas it will take between 22,000 and 23,000 to be entitled to a seat in another area. That provision lends itself to gerrymandering, to the creation of a safe seat. There is nothing calculated to do more harm to democracy than the safe seat system which the Minister undoubtedly has in mind.
Another point which obviously strikes one dealing with this proposal is that in this country an elector is inclined to seek the assistance of a TD whom he has supported and is not prepared to go to a TD he has not supported. In a multi-seat constituency under the system we have here at the present time, it is most likely that an elector will have a TD of his own choice to approach if he has a grievance to be rectified or ventilated. If the Minister gets his way with this provision here, there will be in every constituency in Ireland a big percentage of people left without a representative. There will be people having to go to another constituency to seek the assistance of a TD who does not represent them; or electors will be driven to approach a TD against whom they have openly campaigned at the previous general election. That is foreign to the Irish mentality. It is foreign to our nature. We are not inclined to seek the assistance of somebody whom we have openly opposed and tried to keep out of public life at the last election.
The system we have here of multi-seat constituencies, not less than three, which has operated since the foundation of the State, has worked very well, has kept alive political activity and healthy political thought. It has not, as the Minister has argued on Second Stage, led to the creation of numerous Parties or unstable government. The contrary is the case. Under the Irish system of multi-seat constituencies and PR—and I wish to stress the Irish system, because I do not think there is any system of PR exactly like it any place else——
That is right, anyway.
(Cavan): It has worked well, very well. We have had stable government. We have not had the creation of a great number of parties. As a matter of fact, in the past ten years the number of parties has been reduced from five to three. I fail to see what case the Minister can make in favour of this proposal. The Minister and the Taoiseach have so far failed to make out any case in favour of the abolition of the multi-seat constituencies and the creation of single-seat constituencies. We are down to this net point in subsection 1º, which reads:
Dáil Éireann shall be composed of members who represent constituencies, and one member only shall be returned for each constituency.
We will deal with subsection 2º when we come to it, but I should like to hear the Minister's case in favour of this subsection.
I hope that Deputy Fitzpatrick sometime will read what he has said and he will see how contradictory he has been. He started off by arguing that there was a need for minorities to be represented here in the Dáil. He did not specify what these minorities are.
(Cavan): Of course I did.
What minorities have we got in this country that need special representation as minorities apart from the representation of the three political Parties we have here at present? This system, he says, gives these minorities representation. The people are represented in the present Dáil by three political Parties and three Independent Deputies. I do not know if any one of the three Independent Deputies considers himself to be representing any particular minority view. Certainly I do not know of any minority that there is here unless Deputy Fitzpatrick is referring to religious minorities. If so, there is in fact in the Dáil representation of religious minorities but these minorities have not deemed it necessary to organise themselves on the basis of minority Parties. I should like to know what minorities Deputy Fitzpatrick is referring to as needing the special representation that this system is designed to give them, this system of multi-member constituencies.
Deputy Fitzpatrick says that the system of multi-member constituencies which ensures representation for minorities and therefore encourages the formation of minority Parties is good for democracy. Perhaps he will explain to us how a democracy could function if the situation which he envisages of large numbers of these minorities being represented here ever materialises. How would a Government be formed if the basis of representation is to be the basis of minority sectional interests rather than the basis of political Parties putting forward proposals in the interests of the community as a whole and getting votes on the basis of those proposals? I cannot see how the people are going to be able to choose a Government if the situation which Deputy Fitzpatrick foresees develops. I admit that the system of election that we are asking the people to rid themselves of is designed to achieve that position, to bring about the position in which it will be feasible for people to organise themselves on the basis of small sectional groups and to obtain representation here.
In the earlier part of his remarks, Deputy Fitzpatrick presented this as the desirable thing. He said that it would be good for democracy and I want to ask him how democracy could possibly function if the Dáil is to be composed of a number of people representing minority interests who may be in small Parties or may not, who might be just individuals who secured representation on the basis of being particularly interested in the well-being of particular sections of the community? Obviously the Government could only then be formed after an election because it will not be until after the election that the composition of the Dáil will be known and only then would these different individuals and small groups be able to get down to the process of bargaining among themselves for the formation of a Government. Certainly there would be no time for the formation of any policy. This situation, which both Deputy Fitzpatrick and I admit, is the objective of the electoral system we have would deprive the people of the opportunity of choosing a government for themselves. I quite agree that this all depends on the view we take of what is the purpose of elections, whether it is intended that at elections the people should choose their Government or whether they should just choose a debating society, people who represent different sectional views, and that the public should have no knowledge of what these people propose to do in regard to the conduct of the country's affairs and that they must just wait and see what emerges from the indeterminate situation which both Deputy Fitzpatrick and I agree this system is designed to bring about.
Apparently Deputy Fitzpatrick thinks that this is true democracy, that the people should not choose the Government but that the Government should be formed behind their backs after the election is over. We on this side of the House take a different view. We think the whole principle of democracy is that the people should be able to choose the Government. For this reason we propose that this system which is designed to prevent that should be changed for the one we are proposing and which would make it more likely that at election time people would be able to choose their Government and after the next election be able to hold that Government responsible for their actions, be able to relate the performance of the Government to the proposals they put before the people at the general election which returned them to office. Apparently Deputy Fitzpatrick is advocating that we should retain this system of election because it is likely to give rise to the type of Government that was described and favoured by the vice-Chairman of the Labour Party on a television programme last night when he visualised such a Government as a Government in which one section would be watching for the most suitable opportunity of pulling the rug from under the feet of the other section or sections who were colleagues of that particular Party in the Government.
At present the Coalition that is in the process of gestation comprises only two Parties and apparently it is envisaged there will be only one Party watching for the opportunity of pulling the rug from under the other Party's feet. Deputy Fitzpatrick visualises a situation in which all these unspecified minorities will have representation and therefore a situation in which whatever Government, if any, it is possible to form after the election will comprise a number of these groups bound, as the vice-Chairman of the Labour Party said last night, by no sense of loyalty to one another but instead watching for the opportunity to pull the rug from under their colleagues' feet.
It appears that if the situation which Deputy Fitzpatrick says is desirable does develop we will have quite an extensive amount of rug-pulling in whatever Government, if any, it is possible to form after the election. We know that at present at any rate there appears to be a desire in some quarters to form this Coalition openly before the election and apparently there is a desire in other quarters not to form it until after the election. In the circumstances that Deputy Fitzpatrick aspires to even this would not be possible because the groups would be too numerous for this arrangement to be made until they became aware of what the actual result was after the election.
Deputy Fitzpatrick went on to say that the change which was proposed would result in the creation of safe seats all over the country. I cannot understand how he can say that because it must be obvious that it is the present system which results in the creation of safe seats. It is obviously more difficult to win one seat in a single member constituency than it is to obtain one seat out of three, or one out of four, or one out of five. In a situation in which it is possible to scrape up third or fourth or tenth preference votes, which may later be transformed into full votes, all over a large constituency with the object of eventually arriving by this dubious means at what is described as a quota, it is much easier for a Deputy, who does not do his homework either as a legislator or as representative, to win a seat. It is, therefore, under the present system that safe seats are created and, in fact, exist. Some Deputies get safe seats on the basis of the votes given to their colleagues. It is quite obvious that this is, in fact, partly responsible for the narrow victory of the element in Fine Gael opposed to this proposition.
It must be obvious that under this present system, it is feasible for a Deputy not to do his work as a representative or as a legislator and yet to avoid the consequences of that neglect of duty at election time because of the widespread nature of the constituency and because he is required to get only the comparatively small amount of support, which is necessary under the present system, in order to retain this safe seat—a system which, as Deputy Fitzpatrick pointed out, exists nowhere else and exists here because it was imposed on us in the belief that it would bring about the situation Deputy Fitzpatrick actually believes desirable, a situation in which government would be impossible. These safe seats have been created under the present system. It is only very rarely that Deputies, because of their neglect of duty and falling from grace as a result of that neglect, find it advisable, as Deputy Lindsay said, to migrate to "fresh woods and pastures new."
Having, first of all, made his case for the present system of multi-member constituencies on the basis that this system gives representation to minority Parties, and having put that forward as the main justification for the continuance of the present system, Deputy Fitzpatrick then went on to point out that this system has not led to big Parties and actually holds this out also as an advantage under the present system. He wants to have it both ways. He holds out the fact that the system is designed to give representation to minorities which organise themselves on the basis of their minority interest as an advantage and he also holds out the fact that we have not got splinter groups represented here as an advantage also—two exact opposites.
Deputy Fitzpatrick asked me to give the reasons why we suggest the people should change their system of representation from multi-member to single-member constituencies. The purpose is to get rid of the many disadvantages and, indeed, the evils of multi-member constituencies. First of all, I regard the second of Deputy Fitzpatrick's points as being the desirable situation. It is not desirable that the people should be represented by a large number of small Parties because that type of representation effectively prevents the people from exercising their democratic right of choosing their own government. It must be admitted on the basis of the arguments put forward by Deputy Fitzpatrick that the system we propose of single-member constituencies is much more likely to give rise to election results which will make it feasible for a government to be formed with some prospect of lasting for a reasonable length of time; in other words, the system of single-member constituencies is more conducive to stability in government from election to election than is the present system, which is designed to bring about an indeterminate situation in which the only possible government is a government in which different sections will be always watching for an opportunity to pull the rug from under their colleagues' feet.
The present system—we all admit it now—is designed specifically to encourage the formation of small Parties. I do not think that is desirable. Instead, people should be encouraged to take a broad view of affairs, to try to appreciate the fact that in these modern times the interests of different sections are interdependent and that it is not in the long-term interests of any one section to ignore the interests of other sections. The people should be encouraged to form themselves into political Parties catering for the community as a whole rather than for narrow sectional interests. One of the main reasons, I think, for asking the people to accept this present system was because it was designed to create conditions in which they, the people, would be prevented from choosing their government. It is likely to result in inconclusive results. It has all the defects that a somewhat similar system has in other countries, though no system, as Deputy Fitzpatrick says, is as bad as the system we have here.
I quite appreciate the Opposition case; the present system makes it possible for a Coalition Government to be formed. They have been basing their case on the theory that the only possible alternative to the present Government is a Coalition Government and that because that is so and because this present system is more likely than the proposed system to bring about a situation in which such a Government can be formed after the election, therefore, it would not be fair to change this system.
In fact, I remember Deputy O'Higgins on Second Stage making the point that the people were entitled to choose a Coalition Government if they liked. Of course, nobody can deny that. The people are entitled to choose a Coalition Government if given the opportunity to choose it. The fact is that although we have had Coalition Governments here the people have never voted for a Coalition Government because prior to this we have never had even an attempt made publicly to form a Coalition before the election. Now there have been, at least, some indications that one, or that some, of the many sections of the Fine Gael Party, desire to form this Coalition before the election and there has been the usual well-known pretence of the Labour Party that they are not prepared to form a Coalition.
The Minister is worrying very much about Coalitions. It keeps him awake at night.
Obviously, not all of the Opposition are prepared to give the people the opportunity of choosing a Coalition Government.
It is worrying the Minister.
They prefer to retain the present situation where the Coalition Government would be formed after the people have voted for separate Parties. The appeal is to keep this system of representation of multi-member constituencies because it is designed to lead to situations in which the only admitted alternative to the Fianna Fáil Government—a Coalition Government—would be likely to be feasible. As I say, I fully agree that the people are entitled to choose a Coalition Government, provided they are given the opportunity to do it and if they are given that opportunity and if they do want a Coalition Government they will have a more effective way of choosing it under the system that we propose than under the present system.
Deputy Fitzpatrick sees the present competition among Deputies, sometimes Deputies of the same Party, in multi-member constituencies as one of the advantages of the present system. Again, that is another point of difference between our view and his view. We, on the other hand, think that the experience here has been that what this competition among Deputies representing the same constituency leads to is bad for public morale generally. It leads to a belief in corruption. Competition for the same votes among elected representatives and, as I have said, sometimes elected representatives of the same Parties, has resulted in a more widespread belief that benefits and services provided by legislation in this House are obtainable in accordance with the effectiveness of a public representative's representations rather than by virtue of statutory entitlement to these things. All Deputies know that that is not so but because of the fact that they are all in competition for the same votes it just is not possible for any Deputy who might like to disabuse the people of this idea to succeed in so doing because in a multi-member constituency there is almost bound to be at least one of the public representatives who will try to create the opposite impression and who will foster this belief in the public mind that representations by political representatives are effective in securing these things provided by the State, which are, in fact, as everybody here knows, administered by public servants in accordance with laws passed by this House.
Accordingly, we believe that the establishing of single-seat constituencies instead of the present multi-member constituencies will have the opposite effect and will be good for the morale of the public and will lead to a better atmosphere generally. We think that the competition for votes which does lead, and has led, to this type of thing in multi-member constituencies is something to be avoided and the avoidance of which is one of the advantages of the single-seat constituency.
It must also be obvious to Opposition Parties as well as to everybody else that, in so far as the genuine type of representation that constituents need is concerned, the single-seat constituency will provide better representation of that type because the Deputy who will be elected will have an area of reasonable size to cover; he will be able to know the problems of the area and he will, in fact, be able to look after matters of local importance requiring his attention better and more effectively because of the fact that he will have a smaller area to cover.
Obviously, there will be more scope for new entrants into public life in the system that we propose. In the new circumstances proposed there will be 144 separate single-seat constituencies and each Party proposing to form a Government and with a policy to put before the people to form a Government, naturally, will select in each of these constituencies the person whom they deem to be the best possible candidate to put forward their viewpoint and to obtain votes for it and to implement it if elected to the Dáil. Deputies here know that there is not always that incentive existing at present, that there are bound to be individual Deputies who have not got colleagues in their constituencies and who have not got the incentive to search for the best possible candidate as their colleague on the Party panel at the next election, that, therefore, the present system does not necessarily produce the best possible candidates in every case at election time and that there is a possibility that the quality of representation here in the Dáil may suffer as a result.
Certainly, I would imagine that if either of the Opposition Parties really aspired to become the Government on their own, they would welcome this opportunity of making a more effective effort to gain a majority because the sole incentive in the whole Party organisation, including the candidate in each constituency, would be to win the seat. In other words, there would be a complete effort over the whole country to get a majority. There is always the possibility that there could be some dragging of feet in present conditions. There would be a continuous new entry of good candidates— candidates considered good by their own Party organisations—under the system we propose. Obviously a candidate who did not do well at an election, did not seem to make any impact, would hardly be likely to be chosen the next time and there would be scope for new candidates.
In addition, in the system we propose, the elected representative would be isolated in the constituency. He would not have anybody else to do constituency work for him. If he did not do his work, he would be more likely to be replaced at the next general election than under the present system where the fact that he does not do his job can be concealed by the fact that some of his colleagues are particularly active. In this way also there would be a continuous weeding out of Deputies who did not do their job and, therefore, more scope for the election of more effective Deputies. It is quite obvious the people would gain by being more effectively represented, because the Deputies would have more reasonably-sized and more easily manageable areas to cover; they would also gain by evenutally getting more able and effective Deputies in the Dáil.
Under the system of single-seat constituencies, there would surely be less confusion at election time. It would obviously be possible for the people to make a clearer choice. In each constituency they would be voting for one candidate representing each of the Parties. There would not be any scope for second and third Deputies coming in on the votes of particularly popular men, whether it be the Taoiseach in Cork or Deputy Flanagan in Laois-Offaly. There would not be any incentive for Deputies who had become accustomed to bringing in other Deputies on their surplus votes to try and get rid of them.
Is the Minister trying to get rid of Deputy Paddy Burke? Does he not bring him in?
Does he not carry the Minister in?
Do not worry about Deputy Burke. If, as in the case of Deputy Flanagan, the candidate whom he brings in with him carries more weight—probably because of that fact —at Party meetings and succeeds in swinging the majority opinion in the Party against Deputy Flanagan's opinion, which is to be the effect that this system we are proposing should be brought in, it must be galling to a Deputy such as that to see that, despite the comparative paucity of support his colleague obtains in the constituency, it is the view of that colleague that prevails over the views of those Deputies—in a minority in the Fine Gael Party—who really have confidence in the future of the Party and who really do aspire some time to form a Government of their own.
The question of by-elections is another example of the advantages of the system of single-seat constituencies. It is not a question that has been adverted to very much here. As I pointed out on the Second Reading of this Bill, when a commission was set up in Great Britain to consider the system of proportional representation and multi-member constituencies, they, being reasonable people, advised against it. The most important argument they saw against the system was the disproportionate effort and expense that was required at by-elections. The question of the cost of the proposed amendment of the Constitution has been mentioned here. It should be quite obvious to Deputies that whatever cost will be involved would in fact be recovered very quickly in the reduced cost of by-elections, possibly within the life-time of one Dáil. The effort and cost involved in by-elections would be much smaller than under the present system.
Of course, Labour do not pay them.
From the point of view of our Party, we have to finance elections by way of voluntary subscriptions. We have to get people to subscribe to finance them whereas the Labour Party, as we know, by the manoeuvre of packed branch meetings grabbed money subscribed for a completely different purpose——
Rubbish!
——and financed election campaigns by subscriptions extracted under false pretences from people who have never voted for them and never will.
The Minister knows that is untrue.
I know it is true. I know that information with regard to the number of people who voted in different branches for the handing over of the money of the workers of all shades of opinion to a particular political Party has been refused to members——
Of the Fianna Fáil Party.
Yes, members of the Fianna Fáil Party, and members of the trade union concerned. Their money has been stolen to finance a political Party that the workers do not vote for.
(Cavan): The Minister is talking about the Republican Bonds and the Irish Press?
I was talking about the cost of by-elections when this effort at diversion was made.
Will the Minister accept the challenge?
Deputy Corish can issue his challenge in due course.
I will issue it now.
Deputy Corish can stand up when I am finished.
I will disclose what we get from the trade unions if you disclose what you get from Taca.
What we get from voluntary subscribers is well known. It is not sufficient to mount a campaign on the same scale as either of the Opposition Parties.
Contract commissions.
A protection racket.
We get our subscriptions voluntarily from people of all classes. So far it has sufficed for us in election campaigns, but I admit we cannot finance an election campaign on the same scale as either of the Opposition Parties. It is not just that one of the Opposition Parties has appropriated the money subscribed by people who do not agree with their policies but they have also appropriated paid organisers and headquarters that are not their property.
Fianna Fáil is the poor man's Party?
One thing is certain. Fianna Fáil have no 14-storey headquarters available for them.
They own it though.
The members own it and the majority are Fianna Fáil supporters.
I was dealing with the question of the disproportionate effort and the disproportionate cost involved in by-elections under this ridiculous system we have at present. I was pointing out that when a commission was set up in Great Britain to consider this system of election they looked upon this as being a decisive argument against adopting any such foolish system as we have here. Quite obviously, in fact, even in the emaciated form of the system we have a completely disproportionate effort is called for in a by-election where all the Parties in a particular constituency are trying to induce the full electorate of the constituency to go out to elect a fraction of their representation.
The people already have a certain amount of representation. They already have two-thirds of their representation in the case of a three-seat constituency, three-quarters in the case of a four-seat constituency, and four-fifths in the case of a five-seat constituency. Naturally enough the incentive for the people to go out and vote at a by-election is not as great when they only have one-fifth, one-fourth or one-third of their representation to elect. The incentive is not as strong as it would be if they had lost all their representation as a result of the death which caused the by-election.
Under the system of the single-seat constituency, on the contrary, you would be asking the same people to go out and elect their full representation, and this would apply to one-third or one-fourth or one-fifth of the present representation of the constituency, so that the effort involved from the point of view of the different political Parties would obviously be much smaller. You would have a smaller section of the voters to get out out to vote and they would be going to the polls to elect their full representation rather than a fraction of it as at present.
Of course the cost—and I was not referring to the cost to the political Parties, but it does apply—would be correspondingly smaller. You would have only the necessary number of polling booths, and so on, and the staffs concerned that would be appropriate to the job in hands to man and finance. We have had seven by-elections here in the life of this Dáil and the reduced cost of these by-elections alone would certainly go a long way towards covering the cost to the State of this proposed referendum.
It is obvious that there are disadvantages, both as regards representation of the people and as regards the fundamental purpose of the Dáil as the Legislature, involved in multi-member constituencies as such. There are evils involved. There are substantial advantages from both points of view to be gained from single-member constituencies as such. There are disadvantages in the present system which, as Deputy Fitzpatrick says, exists nowhere else but here—and that should be some indication in itself that this is not a particularly attractive system to people generally. These disadvantages are involved in the present system and there are substantial advantages in the system of single-seat constituencies.
Those are the main reasons why we are putting forward this proposal. We are asking the people to give themselves the normal type of representation, to give themselves the normal type of Legislature, and to give themselves a system which will make it reasonably possible for them to do what is inherent in the principle of democracy, that is, to choose a Government for themselves. On the basis of the argument put forward by Deputy Fitzpatrick the present system is designed to create a situation which will effectively prevent the people from choosing their Government because, if instead of being presented with candidates standing on behalf of broadly-based political Parties, they are to be presented with narrow sectional interests— and the system is designed as Deputy Fitzpatrick agrees to encourage them to make representation available to these narrow sectional interests—in those circumstances in which the result will be a number of small sectional groups or individuals, obviously the people will find it impossible because of the situation fostered by this system to choose a Government, and they will be deprived of their democratic right.
The Government could well be formed only on the basis of whatever bargain it is possible to make after the election. The policy will never have been put before the people and we will have the same type of unstable situation which we have seen in other countries. It is because we believe that the people are entitled to an opportunity of avoiding that type of situation, which Deputy Fitzpatrick wants to see, that we have decided to ask the Dáil to give the people the opportunity of providing themselves with a more rational system of representation.
(Cavan): I am sure any visitor to this House who was not familiar with the pattern of the electoral system operating here since the foundation of the State, listening to the Minister would be forced to the conclusion that we have, in fact, in operation here the single-member system, that we were proposing to change from the single-seat constituency to the multi-seat constituency, and that the Minister, forecasting and looking into the future with no pattern behind him on which to decide the issue, was warning the people of what might happen if we changed from the single-seat constituency to the multi-seat constituency. No one listening to the Minister would think that we have been operating the multi-seat constituency system since the foundation of the State and that it has given good service and every satisfaction.
Tell us about the minorities?
(Cavan): We would have expected the Minister to be able to point to the shortcomings in the system as operated here but he has not done so because he cannot. It has given satisfaction and has not led to any of the drawbacks or any of the undesirable situations which he has pointed out.
Would the Deputy agree that they are desirable or undesirable? He does not know.
(Cavan): That is an argument against the Minister. We have here a system of multi-member constituencies which has worked well and given satisfaction and which has not led to any of the situations complained about by the Minister.
How can Deputy Fitzpatrick say it has worked well and given satisfaction when for 30 out of 36 years we have had no change of Government?
(Cavan): Deputy Norton by the courtesy of the Chair will have an opportunity of speaking later on. Undoubtedly he will make his case then. The position is that we have a situation here which has worked well and has given satisfaction. Why, then, does the Minister want to change it? Why do the Minister and the Government want to change the rules? I think the people of the country are highly suspicious of the proposal to change the rules for electing people to the Dáil and are quite satisfied that the only reason the Minister wants to do it is to destroy interest in public life in this country and to create here a one-Party State and a one-Party system.
I say that minority groups—I said it in my opening remarks—whether they be religious minorities or political minorities, are entitled to a reasonable chance of getting representation in this House and of putting their views to the people from this House. I say that is more important now than ever because we have a Government here who do not believe in free speech and who do not believe in giving people an opportunity of putting their views across to the people through the public press and over the national radio and television service. That is why I say that it is more important than ever that minorities have a reasonable opportunity of coming in here and putting their views before the people instead of being driven underground or into illegal organisations or illegal activities.
I was interested to listen to the Minister speak about the cost of by-elections. I came home from the Limerick by-election with one thought predominant in my mind and that was that, whatever the result, democracy had scored a victory. It had been demonstrated that money and patronage and the activities of Taca stood for nothing. We are not unconscious of the amount of money spent by the Fianna Fáil Party in the Limerick by-election. Consider the fruits of political patronage, political promises, which brought into that constituency people—non-professional politicians— whom we expect to see in these by-elections. Just like the familiar faces one sees at race meetings all over the country, one sees the same familiar faces popping up in these by-elections on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party. It was demonstrated then that money could not buy unlimited votes. It was demonstrated in Limerick that Taca was not supreme. I think that is a healthy sign.
Does this arise, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle? I do not mind. That is all right.
I was about to draw the attention of the Deputy to the fact that we are getting away from Part I, subsection 1º.
We can discuss by-elections as long as they like. It is a very congenial subject for us because we win them and they lose them.
(Cavan): The Minister dealt with by-elections at some considerable length.
The Chair understood it was a series of interruptions and cross-interruptions.
(Cavan): With respect, no. The Minister dealt with by-elections and the cost of them.
The cost to the State.
(Cavan): I am trying to demonstrate to the House that it is not the multi-seat constituency that has put up the cost of by-elections but the activities of Taca and the activities of Government patronage.
To what patronage is the Deputy referring?
(Cavan): I shall tell the Deputy this much. I was outside a booth in Limerick and I saw a very well-groomed, fashionably-dressed gentleman there from cockcrow in the morning——
I do not want to interrupt the Deputy at this stage except to say that I shall allow a passing reference but I do not think we should discuss any particular by-election on this subsection.
Shall we tell Deputy Fitzpatrick whom we saw with them? At least ours were there only on election day. You brought them down to try to disrupt election meetings.
(Cavan): This man and his wife had come from the city of Dublin in a very expensive car. He was in a position where either he had got something or hoped to get a lot more. He was not there for the good of his health or for Fianna Fáil. He was there either in repayment of what he had already got or in the expectation of getting more.
Deputy Fitzpatrick has a colourful imagination. There is no evidence whatever——
(Cavan): I do not see Deputy Booth at by-elections. He must have a general dispensation. Maybe he sends some of these people I am talking about.
Deputy Booth is so naive that I love to hear him.
Presumably I can discuss the personnel the other two Parties employ in by-elections and their activities?
Yes.
(Cavan): Of course, as far as I am concerned.
That is grand.
I am again drawing the Deputy's attention to the fact that we have got away from Part I, subsection 1º.
(Cavan): I think I have dealt in the best possible way with the weakness in the Minister's case. I am satisfied the system of proportional representation has served well here since the foundation of this State. I am satisfied the people will see the Government's proposal for what it really is—a move to entrench themselves and to establish here a one-Party dictatorship.
The Minister said the multi-seat constituency lent itself to safe seats and that the single-member constituency does not lend itself to safe seats. We never had an uncontested seat here since the foundation of the State.
Where? The Deputy is a great man for betting. What would he like to bet on that?
(Cavan): I am saying we never had an uncontested general election here since the foundation of the State.
In the whole country or in any constituency?
(Cavan): Yes.
I say you had.
(Cavan): The Minister can tell us about it. Certainly you have the position in Northern Ireland of constituencies in which there has not been an election for 40 years—not for 40 years. That, I think, proves beyond yea or nay that the single-seat constituency lends itself to the safe seat rather than the multi-seat constituency. However, the sooner this proposal gets to the country, the sooner the Minister will get his final answer.
The Deputy keeps on going back to the question of minorities. He speaks as a man who is possibly in a minority in certain parts of his own Party but he has not my experience of being almost invariably a member of a minority. He said he wants representation for political minorities. I do not know of any such who are not already represented here. We have a group operating in the country under various names such as Sinn Féin, the Republican Movement and so on. They seem to be all together. They regard themselves as a political minority and have made it perfectly clear that they do not intend to seek seats in this House. What they want to do is upset the whole system of parliamentary democracy as we know it. That is the sort of political minority that deserves no consideration. I know of no other politically-minded people who form a recognisable minority of any sort. Granted there are pressure groups in any form of society but I do not feel we should encourage the creation of pressure groups.
The Fianna Fáil type.
What we should encourage, and have in fact encouraged, is what the Minister calls broadly-based political Parties. In a broadly-based political Party, you have a group of people who are in general agreement on major matters of policy. Certainly, so far as Fianna Fáil are concerned, you do not get complete unanimity of thinking on every conceivable matter. I believe that anyone who feels he is in a political or religious minority should join a broadly-based political Party and make sure that his own political views are given due weight in the deliberations of that Party. It does not mean that you must have separate representation for every pressure group. That is an element of disintegration in society which is most unhealthy and that is the element which has led to such enormous and long-standing political confusion in Europe, this proliferation of political Parties to which any proportional system is only too apt to lead.
The Deputy has said that there has not been any proliferation of Parties here. In fact there have been 12 different political Parties represented in this House already and the great danger of a still further increase in the number of political Parties has only been avoided because basically we have remained a two-Party system due to the aftermath of the Civil War. That is the only thing that saved us from the dangers which have overtaken so many other countries.
We hear the plea that this will lead to minority representation, minority governments and so on. It is worthwhile to look at the election results so far, from 1923 to 1965, as set out in the Report of the Committee on the Constitution at Annex II. It is no harm to go back on the results. In 1923 we had Cumann na nGaedheal forming a Government with only 41 per cent of the seats and 39 per cent of the votes. In 1927 the same Party formed a Government with only 27.4 per cent of the votes and 30 per cent of the seats, a minority Government getting worse. In 1927, only a couple of months afterwards, an election rectified the position by returning one Party with 40 per cent of the seats but with only 38.4 per cent of the votes. There you get government by minority. It was the same in 1932 when Fianna Fáil formed their first Government with only 48 per cent of the seats. In 1933, for the first time in ten years, since the formation of the first Dáil one Party secured 50 per cent of the seats. It went down to 49 per cent in 1937 and in 1938, for the first time, a Party secured a majority in the House.
The reason we have not had instability is that during those early years in particular we had a number of small groups which could hardly be called Parties which were so glad to get in that they did not want to see a government defeated and face another general election and so they either supported the largest Party or did not oppose it and so they retained their seats. On to 1943 when a Government was formed with only 48 per cent of the seats; back to a majority in 1944 with 54 per cent of the seats and then on to 1948 and the first inter-Party Government when the largest Party in that Government got only 31 seats and 19 per cent of the votes. Fianna Fáil could not quite recover the position in 1951 and formed a Government with 47 per cent of the seats. In 1954 there was a second inter-Party Government when the leading Party of that Government secured only 32 per cent of the votes.
Since then we had a majority in 1957, not quite 50 per cent, 49 per cent in 1961, and back to 50 per cent in 1965. But Governments have remained moderately stable for two reasons, basically the old division between the two major Parties and secondly the support, or lack of opposition of the smaller groups and Independents.
I agree that at the moment there is no danger of instability of government but the moment instability shows itself it is already too late to do anything about it. That is the point which, above all, we must try to din into the heads of the Opposition. It is no use saying: "It is not dangerous yet." Immediately it is dangerous, it is impossible to rectify the situation. I know that some people, particularly on the Opposition Benches say: "You are just imagining danger." You do not have to imagine danger. Last night on television we had the vice-chairman of the Labour Party——
You had not.
We had.
He was announced——
It was a mistake. The Minister for Justice got away with that in the Seanad. The Deputy will not get away with it here.
Has he been expelled also? It is impossible to keep up with the expulsions.
He left you.
Why not issue a list of expulsions from the Labour Party every month?
How were we to know he was expelled?
We did not expel him.
He was elected vice-chairman of the Labour Party.
You are talking about something you know nothing about.
It was published in all the papers and was not contradicted.
You got away with that sort of thing in the Seanad but you will not get away with it here.
I thought the only doubts about leadership were in regard to the Fine Gael Party. We do not know who the Leader of the Party is.
Fianna Fáil do not know who is leading them.
I should like to express my sympathy with the Labour Party in the very difficult position in which they find themselves. Certainly Dr. Noel Browne was announced last night on television, on RTE, as speaking in his capacity as Vice-Chairman of the Labour Party.
(Cavan): And he was described as a TD as well.
It must have been a great embarrassment to the Labour Party to have him there at all, but that is their worry.
He was an embarrassment to you for a while, both when he was with you and against you.
I much prefer him to be an embarrassment when he is a member of another political Party.
He did not pull the rug from under our feet.
He is your candidate for Dublin South-East.
We got a seat for you and you walked out.
Deputy Booth is in possession.
The man who got me the seat is the man who got you the seat.
We got you a seat and you walked out on us, and you will realise that before very long. If you are able to hold the seat, I will apologise here.
Do not bother apolo-gising.
I was trying to find out whether Dr. Noel Browne when he was speaking on RTE last night was speaking on behalf of the Labour Party, and now I find he is disowned by the Labour Party.
He is not disowned.
Perhaps in due course somebody would enlighten us as to where they stand with him. It is most confusing for everyone else. I regard him as a member of a political minority within a Party, but I do not believe he should be separately represented. I think anyone who holds minority views should go into a broadly-based Party and try to get his views adopted there. To have separate representation for individual pressure groups with sectional interests is completely against all my ideas of what a proper social policy should be. As I said on Second Reading, it is no good having people saying that they are going to put up candidates in support of the preservation of the Grand Canal. The preservation of the Grand Canal is in itself an excellent idea, but you cannot expect those in support of the Grand Canal to have a distinctive policy on social welfare, health services, external affairs, industry and commerce, tourism, posts and telegraphs, and the lot. To my mind, the only people who have a right to put themselves up as candidates at a general election are the people who are members of a political Party who have a national policy which they propose to put into effect, if and when they are elected a government.
This stress on representation rather than on the formation of a Government is essentially dangerous. That is the basic reason why I am in favour of the single-member constituency. That is something which gives a real chance of the formation of a Government with a coherent policy, a policy which is known in advance, and a policy which, at the end of the Dáil, can be judged on its merits or lack of same.
(Cavan): When did Fianna Fáil put a policy before the country?
We invariably put a policy before the people prior to a general election.
It is Fianna Fáil's policy never to put a policy before the people at election time.
The Deputy's contention is that the people are fools.
If we had gone into general elections without a policy, how could we have been so persistently returned to power? I do not know whether the members of the Opposition believe you can fool the majority of the people for 30 out of the past 36 years.
(Cavan): Heaven help the Irish people if they have to call upon you to protect them.
They have been doing it.
For 30 years out of the past 36 years that is exactly what they have been doing.
They have been fooled by Fianna Fáil.
They never called on Fine Gael or on Labour. I wonder why. They have consistently called on Fianna Fáil, which is frustrating, I know, for the other Parties. There is nothing they can do about it except get up on their bikes and get around the country, put their heads together and work out a policy.
We never heard of a policy from Fianna Fáil before an election.
It is extraordinary how the people have consistently supported us.
It is because you have that contempt for the people that you are where you are and will stay where you are. We know the people are not fools.
We are very much in favour of the single-seat constituency, and all Deputy Fitzpatrick can really say is that we are doing it from dirty motives, that we have sinister designs on the Irish people.
Put it to the country and stop wasting time.
If we have a sinister design, we share it with the Leader of Fine Gael. How on earth could Deputy Cosgrave have been codded into doing something which can only be to Fianna Fáil's benefit? The answer is he has not been codded; he just happens to be a realistic politician who can see that only by the adoption of single-seat constituencies is there any hope in the foreseeable future of Fine Gael forming a Government on their own, and he is supported by Deputy Sweetman, Deputy Flanagan, Deputy L'Estrange and many more of the Front Bench of Fine Gael, all the people who are actively engaged in political life as distinct from the political amateurs of the back benches. How can that be explained? If this is a fiendish scheme to keep Fianna Fáil in power, we cannot possibly have codded these men who have been in politics a long time.
(Cavan): You had a bit of a job outvoting the minority in your Party.
That is not difficult at all.
In your Party it is not.
There is no difficulty whatever; a split does not arise.
You had your each way bet.
Would Deputies please allow Deputy Booth to continue?
Your little Red group made you withdraw and you did withdraw.
Where did you all come from so suddenly?
Would Deputy Crowley please allow his colleague, Deputy Booth, to continue?
Let us get back to the single-seat constituency.
(Cavan): I thought the Deputy was trying to kill time in order to keep away from Deputy Norton's amendment.
I do not contribute to the same extent as the Deputy and, when I do, I keep to the point.
Put the matter to the country.
We would like to let them know what the position is.
Fifteen of you obstructed the Second Reading.
The Minister was able to obstruct it on——
I put information on the records that will not improve your vote.
We will have the referendum as soon as we can but we want to put the position squarely before the people. It does take some time and we do answer every challenge the Opposition issue. I sympathise with them because the more we argue with them the more it establishes that the Opposition are split right down the middle. I want to make it clear that this idea of single-member constituencies is something which is supported by the Leader of the Opposition for reasons he has given on previous occasions. It cannot be reconciled with the suggestion that this is a sinister Fianna Fáil——
(Cavan): Deputy Lemass said that the straight vote was as dead as a doornail and you could not have the cheek to put it before the country again.
Do you deny that Deputy Dillon said that PR was a fraud and a cod and——
(Cavan): You cannot deny that Deputy Lemass said that you could not have the cheek to put it before the country again.
The more Deputy O'Leary goes on the "Seven Days" programme on Telefís Éireann the better for Fianna Fáil.
You are pretty influential with Telefís Éireann yourself.
You have the chairman of the Labour Party against it; Deputy O'Leary for it; and Dr. Noel Browne against something——
This is not in order. Deputy Booth is in possession.
Only that we know better we would think the Deputy was for PR.
(Cavan): Where does Deputy Lemass stand now?
I do not know where he is at the moment.
Could we get back to the question before the House? One of the greatest advantages of the single-member constituency is that it is so much smaller and easier to handle by one Deputy than the multi-member constituency with a huge area, having perhaps three or five members but each Deputy having to cover the whole constituency. That is not healthy and it is not possible. Deputy Fitzpatrick said that this is an arrangement which has worked very well up to now. I challenge that. There are very few constituencies in which you could get more than ten per cent of the people who could——
Is the Deputy in favour of the single-seat constituency?
——quickly reply to the question "How many Deputies represent your constituency?".
Is the Deputy in favour of the single-seat constituency?
Of course I am.
Why do you not have the referendum? We are not holding you back.
You want to export half of Deputy O'Donnell's constituents. We will have the referendum and the people of Donegal will know what the Deputy wants.
We will have one Fianna Fáil Deputy less after the next general election.
Will Deputy Harte please control himself?
Go and test it. We are not holding it up.
We will test it and we will win it.
(Cavan): Taca suffered a defeat in Limerick.
If Fianna Fáil had got the result which the Minister for Agriculture forecast, we would be——
On a point of order.
This is going to be interesting.
It will be, because if it were not for fellows like me, you would not be here.
Do not go into that. I have nothing to hide.
If Deputy Harte has come into the House in order to keep up these interruptions——
I came in to help my colleague.
——I will have to ask him to leave. This is most disorderly. The Deputy should remember that this is the National Parliament, not the crossroads.
The Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary and Deputy MacEntee were all in it together.
If there are any more interruptions, I will have to ask Deputy Harte to leave. Deputy MacEntee, on a point of order.
You have taken the point of order, Sir. The point to which I was going to advert was that this is the National Parliament and Deputy Fitzpatrick's and Deputy Harte's conduct is disgraceful.
Deputy Booth should be listened to. All Deputies will get the same treatment.
I have been obstructed in every conceivable way and it is perfectly clear why, simply because what I say is inconvenient and distressing to those listening but, if any Deputy finds it distressing to hear either live or on the monitor, he is perfectly at liberty to withdraw and I will not feel insulted. When we get these smaller constituencies, it will be much easier for a TD to attend all the meetings he should attend in order to keep in touch with his constituents. I am a great believer in keeping in touch with all groups in my own constituency, whether they are residents' associations or anything else. It is a very good way of keeping in touch with constituents, finding out what they are thinking and explaining Government policy to them. That is an essential part of a Deputy's duty and in the present multi-member constituency, it could not be done. Somebody wants to hold a meeting and wants all the local Deputies to attend but it is extremely difficult to arrange a meeting which all local TDs can attend. And there will be holy war if some do and some do not. That causes trouble.
It is far better to have one TD representing the area, one TD responsible and one TD to whom every constituent can come. Deputy Fitzpatrick says it would be intolerable and quite against tradition, and everything else, that a man should have to go to a TD whom he opposed at an election. That is utter nonsense. I have been called on by constituents who opposed me. Nothing gives me greater pleasure than to be of service to them. I have never had any difficulty and, quite frankly, I do not think they find any difficulty in coming to me. On the other hand, when people come to me and say: "Please, Deputy, I want you to do something for me. I voted for you at the last election", my first reaction is to say: "I do not believe you and, anyway. I do not give a damn whether you did or not. All I want to know is if you are a constituent and, if you are a constituent, I do not give a damn who you are or what you are." That is the way it should be.
(Cavan): If he were not a constituent, he would be someone else's concern.
In our Party we do not interfere in constituencies.
That is what the Deputy thinks. He would want to be a Donegal boy.
We do not interfere and that is as it should be. The idea that people are slow to approach TDs because they campaigned or voted against them is unadulterated nonsense. Very often, in a five-member constituency, the constituent will write to all five TDs and say: "As a constant supporter of yours, I ask for your support in such-and-such."
He can vote for them all under proportional representation.
He cannot give them all No. 1. The only vote under proportional representation is No. 1. The others are just thrown in broadcast.
Is that so?
It is. I will come to that later. We will educate Deputy Harte yet. It is a slow job but we will continue it. Let us get away from the idea that a Fianna Fáil supporter must go to a Fianna Fáil Deputy and a Fine Gael supporter to a Fine Gael Deputy. That is not the system in any country in the world. There is no reason why it should be the case here. It is far better that it should not be so.
The Minister dealt with by-elections. The real snag under proportional representation is that, if a Labour Deputy dies, it is impossible to get another Labour TD to succeed him because the balance of voting will be against him. In a single-seat constituency, if a Labour Deputy dies or retires, there is every probability that a Labour Deputy will be elected to replace him.
Does the Deputy remember what happened in Cork?
Deputy Harte must allow Deputy Booth to speak.
I remember a great many things, but the main thing is that in a single-seat constituency, Labour will win a Labour seat. Unless the Labour Party have done something dreadful in the meantime, they will be able to return another Labour TD in the particular constituency.
Over the recent series of by-elections that has not, of course, been the pattern because, under PR, the Government have secured all except one. In many ways I think that is unfair, but that is the result because by-elections are fought as mini-general elections. As the Minister said, a whole constituency is asked to elect a proportion of its representation at one election. It is much fairer, much safer, to have a single-seat constituency when it comes to a by-election. If the majority in the area support the Labour Party, it will be a Labour Party seat. If the majority support Fine Gael, it will be a Fine Gael seat. If the majority support Fianna Fáil, it will be a Fianna Fáil seat. That does not mean, of course, that the position will be that way forever, but it is far fairer and it does give far better representation. It also gives a far better relationship between constituents and their TDs. A TD in a single-seat constituency will be in a much closer relationship; he will know his people and they will know him.
Before I finish, I should like to ask any Deputy of any Party to have a shot at asking a man in the street here in Dublin or in the country what his constituency is, how many TDs has he got and the names of those TDs and where he can get in touch with them. Some Deputies, including Deputy O'Connell, would be very surprised at the result.
I am firmly convinced the single seat is the fairest system and I need only look around me here, when important votes are taking place, to see how many Deputies are absent and I know the reason why some of them are absent.
I have a constituency—the Lord between me and all harm; I do not know who drew it, but the fellow who drew it must have been 14 days in delirium tremens before doing so——
Hear, hear. He is a neighbour of mine. The Deputy called him "Ali Baba" on one occasion.
Order.
It stretches from Youghal out to the bounds of Kerry. It amazes me to hear the arguments put up here against changing the present system. For three years before the last general election, I had to travel a very great portion of this strange constituency of mine and I saw what was happening. One of my colleagues, one of the best Deputies who ever sat in this House, Deputy Pat McAuliffe, is missing today. Why? Because he is trying to cover from Rockchapel to Youghal on his own. He has to travel the whole constituency by himself in answer to a demand from one parish today and another parish tomorrow.
I judge on what I see. The task is impossible. I have known that for the past 40 years. In order to make this blooming constituency a five-seat constituency, they had to add a tail to it and stretch it from Youghal out to Rockchapel. On one occasion I had to stay in Newmarket for a week in order to do my job of representing my constituents.
A concrete example of gerrymandering.
I saw lads like the Deputy here before. God help the Deputy. He will be dealt with the next time.
But the Deputy told me he had never met anyone like me.
Would Deputy Harte cease interrupting and allow other Deputies to make their speeches?
Would Deputy Corry not move lack of progress?
There is a problem. It is all right in the city of Dublin where sixpence on the bus will take a Deputy all round his constituency.
The fares have gone up since then.
The most it would cost would be a "bob".
Tugadh tuairisc ar a ndearnadh; an Coiste do shuí arís.
