Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 27 Jun 1968

Vol. 235 No. 13

An Bille um an gCeathrú Leasú ar an mBunreacht, 1968: An Chéim Dheiridh (atógáil). Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1968: Fifth Stage (resumed).

Tairgeadh arís an cheist: "Go rithfidh an Bille anois".

Question again proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Boland)

This latest attempt at a filibuster by the Opposition Parties has merely served to show once again the indecisiveness and inconsistency of the attitude of the Opposition. It provides a clear indication of the unsound and ill-considered basis of their opposition to this proposed electoral reform. It is quite clear that their attitude is based not on conviction but on the traditional attitude of blind opposition to anything proposed by Fianna Fáil. In fact, it is beyond doubt that the vast majority of the Opposition Deputies, if not all, appreciate that the system we propose, and in particular the system of single-seat constituencies, is best for the country from many points of view, but because of this almost inbred attitude of theirs that they must oppose anything proposed by Fianna Fáil, a small majority decided that this attitude should be adopted.

This, of course, stems from the unreasoning fear of Fianna Fáil that has been bred all through their long history of failure in their efforts to damage Fianna Fáil and generally oust Fianna Fáil as the major party in this country. I suppose that is understandable, but it is rather a pity that this near majority of the Fine Gael Party which has some confidence in the future of the Party did not succeed in resolving the fears of individual Deputies for their own seats.

The passage of this Bill through the House has been by means of fits and starts. We have had periods of deliberate delaying tactics by both the Opposition Parties followed by periods of inaction which obviously were periods during which it was not possible for the Whips to rouse the Members to carry out the tactics that were decided on of opposing the Bill line by line. They started off almost in the same way as in 1959 with an obvious attempt to force every Opposition Deputy into this House to speak on the Bill. This succeeded only partially. We had 15 out of the 19 Labour Deputies making practically the same speech and 21 of the Fine Gael Deputies which, of course, is practically the maximum number of Fine Gael Deputies who are in fact in favour of the course they have adopted. During the Committee Stage, the effort was fairly well spent. We had merely desultory efforts to prolong the debate and, at the same time, an attempt was made to cloak up the fact that the effort to prolong the Bill was unsuccessful by adopting the pretence of being in a hurry.

The idea apparently now is that the way debates should be conducted here is that as many as possible Opposition Deputies should throw as much mud as possible here and then complain when the allegations they make are replied to and insinuate that the reply to these allegations constitutes delaying tactics. The rather spurious debate on Deputy Norton's amendment again indicated the inconsistency and indecisiveness of the Opposition Parties. They argued for the amendment and, at the same time, tried to argue against it. I do not know what side they finally came down on but they certainly did not make their attitude clear because, of course, they are not clear in their own minds; their attitude to this proposal is based purely and simply on opposition to anything proposed by Fianna Fáil. We had the same thing on the Report Stage—an indication of the lack of interest by the Fine Gael Party. We had, for instance, amendments proposed here and then we had Deputy T.J. Fitzpatrick of Cavan saying: "We shall leave that for the Seanad"—a clear indication of where the real leadership of the Fine Gael Party resides. Then we had this latest, obviously whipped up, filibuster on the Fifth Stage. This was obviously the best effort of the joint coalition Whips and one Deputy after another was sent in to say practically the same thing, to repeat their Second Reading speeches. In fact, I think that anybody who reads through the contributions made on the Fifth Stage will see quite clearly that the Opposition Deputies who spoke did not even seem to know at this stage that our proposal for electoral reform has been separated into two separate Bills and that, on the Second Stage, we were discussing the two of these Bills together whereas for the subsequent Stages, they were separated again. Obviously, Opposition Deputies were not able to separate them in their own minds.

The whole progress of the proposals through the House has indicated that, having succeeded in getting this proposal separated into separate proposals, the Opposition appear to want them put back again. As I said, eventually this filibuster has fizzled out despite the best efforts of the Fine Gael and Labour Whips to get their Deputies to come in and to speak.

However, although I appreciate that what has been happening here was merely an effort to delay the passage of the Bill, the fact that many allegations have been made imposes on me the duty to reply at least to some of these allegations. I may say I do not intend to follow the example of the Opposition Deputies in making a Second Reading speech, but I intend to deal with some of the points as they were made.

I suppose it is hardly surprising— certainly it is not surprising to me— that the Fine Gael Party, in particular, are displaying such confusion on this Bill. It is rather natural that they should be confused because, when the Party was set up it had, as one of its points of policy, Opposition to the system of proportional representation. The Fine Gael Party was set up in 1933 out of the remnants of the old Cumann na nGaedheal Party. Point 7 of the declaration of policy published at that time read:

The abolition of the present proportional representation system so as to secure the more effective democratic control of national policy and to establish closer personal relationship between parliamentary representatives and their constituents.

I think that is a very good summary of the case against the present system. This, as I say, having been the policy of the Fine Gael Party when it was set up—in view of that—it is only natural, I suppose, that they should now be confused.

The question naturally arises: When did this cease to be Fine Gael Policy; when did the change come about? I do not think anybody could say. Certainly it had not come about by 1937 because, in 1937, prominent members of the Fine Gael Party were arguing strenuously against proportional representation. As reported at column 1070 of the Official Report of Dáil Éireann of 25th May, 1937, volume 67, the then Deputy Patrick McGilligan is reported as saying:

It was always held that, with regard to proportional representation, which this country adopted, we had adopted the worst possible system.

Deputy J.A. Costello, who subsequently became Taoiseach, is reported later on in the same volume on 1st June, 1937, column 1345, as saying:

We always understood that the real defect under any system of proportional representation and particularly the system of the single transferable vote was that it led, in circumstances where there are 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 proportional representation and the single transferable vote.

So that whenever Fine Gael changed their attitude, it certainly was not in 1937.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): What did the Leader of the Minister's Party say?

Mr. Boland

I shall come to that. This was on the debate of the Draft Constitution, 1937. I intend to deal with just why this system was retained in that Constitution. As I say, Fine Gael adopted as one of the planks of their Party programme in 1933 opposition to proportional representation in principle and in particular to this system. They had not changed their minds in 1937 nor in 1947 because in 1947 no less a person than Deputy James Dillon speaking on the Electoral (Amendment) Bill, 1947, at column 1714, volume 108, said:

Personally, I think proportional representation is a fraud and a cod, and that it should be abolished....

Proportional representation is, in fact, as we all know in our hearts, the child of the brains of all the cranks in creation. So far as this country is concerned, it was tried out on the dog. I doubt if any other sane democratic country in the world has put it into operation in regard to its Parliament... It was foisted upon us by a collection of halflunatics who believed that they had something lovely that would work on paper like a jig-saw puzzle....

He ended by advising the House to vote for the Bill so that:

.... we may provide our people with an opportunity of getting sick of this fantastic system and hasten the day by which we will return to a normal system devised to ascertain the will of the people ....

So that Fine Gael had not changed their attitude to this by 1947 and nobody discovered that their attitude had changed until 1959 when there was a proposal to do this and it changed for one reason and one reason only and that was that they looked upon themselves as an Opposition with a duty to oppose anything suggested by Fianna Fáil. As we know not all their Party has changed yet, only a majority of one on this occasion is in favour of the proposal by the spineless members of Fine Gael who oppose this electoral reform. We know that the Leader of the Fine Gael Party still stands where his father stood in 1933 and where the Fine Gael Party stood in 1933, 1937 and in 1947 and where presumably they all believed themselves still to stand until the proposal to make this electoral reform was first——

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Deputy Lemass said that this proposal was as dead as a dodo and that you could not have the cheek to urge it on the country again.

Mr. Boland

——was first made in 1959 and then the majority decided to oppose it because it was proposed by Fianna Fáil.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): And the people accepted their advice.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Boland

This blind unreasoning fear of Fine Gael of anything proposed by Fianna Fáil, this inherent suspicion is bred in them, that anything proposed by Fianna Fáil must have some sinister motive, must have as its motive the destruction of Fine Gael. We do not have to destroy Fine Gael, they will destroy themselves. I also want to make it clear that nobody on this side of the House said that we are making this proposal for the benefit of Fine Gael. We have no interest whatever in Fine Gael. I do not believe that anybody can help Fine Gael and certainly I have no desire to do it. It is a fact that at some future date if the people want to get rid of us the system we propose will give them a better opportunity of doing so. We do not think they will; we are quite confident that just as we have retained the confidence and support of the people since we were founded we will continue to do so. If we do not it will be our own fault. If the people want to get rid of us they are quite entitled to do so and this will give them a better opportunity.

As I say, we have no desire to help Fine Gael but those in Fine Gael who have some desire to put some backbone into the Party can see that under these conditions there will be some opportunity of doing that. I would say that that is the reason the Leader of the Fine Gael Party wants this proposal carried. Despite the Party that he leads he apparently has not despaired yet of some day doing something about them. He can see that under these circumstances there will be some hope. It is a pity that these people who have some hope in the future of Fine Gael are in a minority but that is their problem and not ours. Everybody here knows that the system we propose is the best one and that it is only being opposed by those without confidence in the future. It is quite clear that those in the Opposition benches who are afraid of this system, afraid to stand on their own feet in single seat constituencies, who can see no future for themselves under those conditions and who cannot visualise any fraction of their present constituency in which they would be able successfully to oppose a Fianna Fáil candidate, are beginning to realise that their Leader and those who take the same view as he does will have their say despite the efforts of the small majority of the Fine Gael Party. It is for that reason that today and yesterday we had this last minute despairing and frantic effort by the spineless majority of the Fine Gael Party to put forward their case and bolster up their courage. It is clear that they failed miserably to make any convincing case for the retention of this system. Their contributions consisted of a combination of personal abuse of Fianna Fáil and individual Deputies and the imputation of base ulterior motives to Fianna Fáil, a combination of this type of tactic combined with a pathetic plea for a continuance of the system of election which is conducive to producing a situation making it feasible for Coalition Governments to be formed after the election and a pathetic plea to the Labour Party to "walk into their parlour."

However, it is quite clear from the Fine Gael attitude in particular that Fine Gael opinion is coming over to the side of Deputy Cosgrave and that those who have been opposing him and are opposing him were making their last stand here to day. I want now to deal with some of the points which were made. First of all we had this argument about the proposed constituency commission. Here again we had evidence of the inconsistent attitude of both of the Opposition Parties. It was not just a question of one Deputy taking a contrary attitude to another but we had cases of the same Deputy contradicting himself in the same speech. Here again we had more evidence of the inherent fear of Fianna Fáil that animates the two Opposition Parties. They are unable to see that the job which the constituency commission would have to perform is an objective one that would have to be done in a sensible way and that any group of individuals sitting down to devise a system of single-seat constituencies would have to take practical things into consideration and that they would be quite likely to reach agreement and bring forward an agreed solution. The Opposition insist upon looking on this commission as a question of two teams, the Opposition versus Fianna Fáil, whereas they should know, if they were capable for just one moment of getting over their fear of Fianna Fáil, that any group of individuals who will sit down and examine the situation will decide on the general lines on which to devise the single-seat constituencies. The Opposition see this as two teams—the Opposition versus Fianna Fáil—and they immediately concede defeat; they believe, apparently, that in those circumstances, they cannot possibly win.

First of all, they insinuated that we would in some way interfere with the selection of the Coalition team and, as soon as that fear was taken from them by writing into the Constitution what they already knew was going to be written into the law, they then turned round and started to abuse the referee, in advance of the contest, as they see it, taking place at all. Even though the referee has not yet been selected they already have implied that he will not play fair and that imputation is based on the assumption that Fianna Fáil, as always, must win.

This is a practicable job the Commission will have to do. It is not a contest. We have had a contradictory attitude. Deputy Murphy, Deputy L'Estrange and some other Fine Gael Deputies argued that this Commission means nothing because the referee will be on the Fianna Fáil side and it is on that basis decisions will be made. At the same time, Deputy Fitzpatrick, who is, I presume, the chief spokesman for the Opposition on this matter, wants not one Commission but two Commissions to do the same job. Deputy Fitzpatrick has gone on record with regard to this question of the Chairman as saying at column 1328 of the Official Report of 19th June:

... the Minister has offered a Commission and he says that the Chairman of the Commission is to be a judge of the High Court or the Supreme Court and with that I entirely agree.

His colleagues assume, apparently, that anybody appointed in that way is bound to act in a partial manner. We had then the contention that there was something wrong in having a decision with regard to the Commission's recommendations decided by a simple majority; a majority of one could reject the recommendations. This, again, shows how difficult it is to interpret the Fine Gael mind because, when the question of a Constituency Commission was being discussed in 1959, Deputy T.F. O'Higgins at column 946 of volume 172 of the Official Report had this to say: "Forget about your Constituency Commission". He did not want a Commission at all. He said: "Forget about your Constituency Commission. Let the law revising constituencies be passed here through the Dáil." But Deputy Fitzpatrick wants two Constituency Commissions, not just one.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The Minister knows perfectly well I do not want two Commissions. I challenged the Minister to take his Commission out of the Fourth Amendment and put it into the Third.

Mr. Boland

All right: the Deputy wants only one Commission. Deputy O'Higgins did not want one at all in 1958.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The Minister does not know the meaning of the word “truth”.

Mr. Boland

The Taoiseach at the time, speaking in 1958, said "... it would be open to any Member of the House to put up an amendment. Of course, he would have to get the House to agree—" and Deputy O'Higgins interjected, and said: "Two-thirds." The Taoiseach replied: "Yes, why not?" Deputy O'Higgins asked: "Why not a simple majority?" Now that we have conceded a simple majority to the Opposition and require only a simple majority they are not satisfied with that either. It is impossible to interpret the minds of the Opposition because they act in accordance with only one principle and that is that, whatever Fianna Fáil propose must have a sinister, ulterior motive, and they must, therefore, oppose it. Deputy Corish spoke in regard to this matter on 21st January, 1959, at colmn 982.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Why is it necessary to talk about it all again now when it was spoken about so much in 1959?

Mr. M. O'Leary

This is a farce. This is a comic opera and the Minister is largely responsible for it.

Mr. Boland

But I am not the only one who quoted.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Fianna Fáil got their answer in 1959.

Mr. M. O'Leary

This is a farce.

Mr. Boland

Deputy O'Leary wants debates to be conducted on the basis of the Opposition saying whatever they like and there being no reply.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The Minister is reducing the debate to the level of farce. This is becoming a bullring.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order: the Minister.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I am sure the younger people will be surprised to hear all this spoken about again considering it was threshed out in 1959.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order. The Minister now, without interruption.

Mr. Boland

It was threshed out in 1959 and the Opposition took up a certain attitude. They were not satisfied with a two-thirds majority to make a change in the Commission's report; they wanted a simple majority. Now, in order to meet their point of view, we propose a simple majority and now they do not want a simple majority.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The more the Minister talks about 1959, the more he makes people believe this issue was all discussed in 1959 and should not be here at all now.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order: the Minister.

Mr. Boland

Deputy Corish, in 1959, said:

The reason I favour the amendment is not so much because it retains what is embodied in the Constitution at present, but because I believe it will work and there is a certain amount of elasticity about it. At least, it gives the power to the Oireachtas to determine what the constituencies will be, what form they will take and what populations will be represented in each. I do not think the system it is proposed now to enshrine in the Constitution will work. It is crude. As Deputy Declan Costello described it, it is putting the veneer of respectability on these other two proposals. For that reason, I think the House should reject this part of the Schedule and adopt the amendment proposed by the two Fine Gael Deputies, or something reasonably near it.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Let the Minister tell us what the Leader of his Party said about this in 1937. Take it in chronological order.

Mr. Boland

I will, if the Deputy stops interrupting me.

Mr. Treacy

Is the Minister seriously suggesting that a political appointee of his will do justice in the revision of constituencies, a lickspittle and lackey of the Minister's.

Mr. Boland

It was threshed out in whether he will be a lickspittle and lackey of ours. He will be appointed by the Chief Justice. Deputy Fitzpatrick said he was satisfied with him.

Mr. Treacy

Put there to do the dirty work.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies should cease interrupting as this stage.

Mr. Treacy

It was well substantiated.

Mr. Boland

They assume that this will be a contest and that they are going to lose.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair draws attention to the fact that judges should not be referred to in the House in the manner in which they have been referred to.

Mr. Treacy

It is in the records.

Mr. Boland

We had these allegations about the integrity of the judiciary the last time as well and on this occasion, at least, Deputy Fitzpatrick said that he was satisfied that the chairman should be a judge of the High Court or the Supreme Court.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I would much prefer a judge to arrange the constituencies than the Minister: I concede that.

Mr. Boland

What I want to point out with regard to this question of its being a simple majority is that the last time when it was provided that there should be a two-thirds majority, the Opposition pointed out that this was meaningless and that a simple majority would be more realistic and more fair, and this time we complied with their suggestion and proposed that it would be a simple majority, and now they attack us for that but, at the same time, they did not put down an amendment to require that it should be anything more.

We have had it suggested and the allegation made that we had got no mandate to bring in this Bill. Of course, this proposal is not something that the Government can implement themselves. This has to go to the people and only the people can implement it. So, there is no question of our having a mandate to do it. We cannot do it, whether we like it or not. It is for the people.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): You might have let the people into the secret at the last general election that you intended to sponsor this measure.

Mr. Boland

I know that Fine Gael and the Labour Party both can see only one prospect of ever winning an election and that is to have confusion.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): And you are the boy to create that.

Mr. Boland

They would like to have the situation at a general election a confused situation, confused by matters that are not relevant for decision at a general election, in the hope that they could create sufficient confusion to bring about a confused result such as resulted in 1948 and in 1954. This was not a relevant matter at the general election because it can be decided only by means of a referendum. In any case, this suggestion which is apparently being made now that the Parties contesting elections should put before the people at the election the full legislative programme that they propose to carry out in the next Dáil is completely new.

Mr. Treacy

Surely an amendment of the Constitution should be mentioned?

Mr. Boland

For instance, we did not put before the people the Road Traffic Bill or the Standard Time Bill or anything like that. That type of thing has to be carried out by the Government in the period during which they are in office and the people can decide at the next general election whether or not the Government acted wisely. This proposal certainly was not relevant at all at the general election because it is something that has to be put as a separate issue to the people. The Opposition know that what they are suggesting is completely impractical.

Of course, what is worrying the Opposition is that now this will come to be decided by the people as one single clear issue and they realise that, despite their best efforts, it will be possible for us to put the facts clearly before the people this time and they, just the same as we, have no doubt but that the people's decision will be to adopt this electoral reform which we are asking them to adopt.

We have the allegation that because this was put to the people nine years ago there is something undemocratic in putting it before them again. I cannot understand that attitude.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Extravagance.

Mr. Boland

It is not as if we were trying to do it behind their backs or in spite of the people's opposition to it. We are asking the people to decide, in view of the changed circumstances, in view of the changed electorate, and in view of the extra experience they have of the system, to make this electoral reform.

Deputy Dillon when speaking here yesterday said that what was right in 1938 might not be right in 1948 and what was right in 1948 might not be right in 1958. He stopped there. He did not go on to say that what was right in 1958 might not be right in 1968 but it is quite logical to continue. It is possible that what was rejected by a tiny majority in the less than clear conditions that existed in 1959 might be considered differently by a changed electorate in 1968. For example, Deputy Dillon himself has changed his mind on a number of different things, on a number of different occasions, throughout his political career. I have quoted what his opinion of proportional representation was in 1947. Apparently, it was changed in 1959. How are we to know that even Deputy Dillon himself might not have changed again by 1968? Apparently, he has not. Apparently it is in 12 year cycles that Deputy Dillon works.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Has the President changed his mind?

Mr. Boland

Maybe we should have waited until 1971 for Deputy Dillon once more to come round to the view he held in common with the rest of the Fine Gael Party from 1933 to 1947.

We are asked what is the reason for doing this, since it was decided nine years ago. Obviously, there is plenty of reason. The people have had more experience of it. They have had the disedifying example of the two long recounts at the last general election. They have seen the absurdity of the system. They have seen the uncertainty of it, that you might as well toss a coin in a close situation as who is elected depends on what bundle of papers happens to come to the returning officer's hand or to the hand of some member of his staff, and that every time the votes were counted you could get a different result. That is because of the inconsistency of the system, because the people whom Deputy Dillon described as cranks and crackpots who invented this system started off to try to devise a system in which votes would be distributed proportionately and had to give up the attempt because it just was not possible to do it.

Mr. L'Estrange

Was the President a crackpot when he put it in the Constitution?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister, without interruptions.

Mr. Boland

I have already promised Deputy Fitzpatrick that I will deal with the Constitution of 1937.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Will the Minister deal with it today?

Mr. Corish

Is he going to finish by 5 o'clock?

Mr. Boland

I will deal with it, probably today, but, if not, next week.

Mr. Corish

When will the Minister be finished?

Mr. Boland

I did not talk yesterday or today.

Mr. Corish

You have said enough for the past three or four months.

Mr. Boland

Deputy Corish got as many of his Deputies as he was able to get to come in here and talk about it, and Deputy Fitzpatrick got as many of his Deputies as he could get to come in here and talk about it.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): And the Minister got as many as he could get.

Mr. Boland

Seventeen as against our eight. Unfortunately for Deputy Corish and Deputy Fitzpatrick, I am going to reply to all the points made, whether they like it or not. If they want to listen, they can stay there, and if they do not, they can go home. The people have had this experience. They have seen the result of these long recounts. They have seen that the system is a fraud and a cod, as Deputy Dillon says. While I do not say that there was any demand for this change, because the people have not got any way of making such a demand, I do say that ever since the experience in Long-ford-Westmeath and Dublin North-East there has been speculation as to the likelihood of there being a proposal to get rid of this ridiculous and fraudulent system that we have. There has been continuous speculation amounting almost to an assumption, that something would be done about it. Our people have seen the results of similar systems, but systems that are not quite as bad, in continental countries. They have the example that it has been found impossible over a period of almost six months to form a Government at all in one European country and for almost half as long a period in another. It is admitted on all sides that the system of election we have is designed to bring about that situation. It has not done it yet. If it had, it would not be possible to ask the people to change it. It is admitted it is designed to foster the existence of small, sectional Parties. It is inevitable it will have the same effect as similar systems—but systems, as the spokesmen for Fine Gael said, not as bad as ours—have had in other countries. If the system persists here it is only a matter of time until we find ourselves in the same position that so many continental countries have found themselves in.

We believe that the people do not want that type of situation. I know there are some sections of the community that would like that type of situation, that would like a situation of chaos in which it would be impossible to form a Government. But we do not believe that the people in general want that type of situation. We believe that, having seen what this gives rise to in other countries, the people will now take the opportunity of warding off that danger and they will provide themselves with the more rational system of election and representation we propose, at the same time gaining substantial other benefits for themselves in being better represented and in having Deputies who will be able to devote a reasonable amount of their time to their functions as members of the Legislative Assembly here.

In addition—I think this also was a relevant factor in our decision to give the people this opportunity—there is the fact that we hold an annual Árd Fheis, composed of delegates from all the different branches of our organisation. That Árd Fheis passed a resolution, put forward by a number of different cumainn, calling for a system of single-seat constituencies.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Single-seat constituencies? Did they ask you for what you are giving them?

Mr. Boland

They left that open.

Mr. Corish

What about the other resolutions they passed?

Mr. Boland

What other resolutions? The vast majority of them are implemented gradually. It is because we have this system of obtaining the views of the people that we have been so well able to interpret the wishes of the people and that we have remained in Government 30 years out of the past 36 years.

Mr. Corish

You traded on your Republicanism.

Mr. Boland

It is because of our broad democratic base that we have been able to keep so well in touch with the people and that we have remained in office.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): For the past six months, the Cabinet have been trying to decide whether to implement the Árd Fheis resolution or not. Eventually they decided to reject it. That is what your decision on last Wednesday meant.

Mr. Boland

What our organisation wanted was the single-seat constituency.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies will have to cease interrupting.

Mr. Boland

I will deal with Taca. Whether I do it today or next week is a matter for the Opposition to decide, but I assure you I will deal with it. I do not know anybody in this country more representative of a cross-section of the community than the Fianna Fáil Árd-Fheis.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Then why did you not accept their recommendation?

Mr. Boland

We accepted their recommendation. The system of election was not specified. That was obviously because our organisation appreciated that the evils of the present system were such that any system of election would have been acceptable in order to get the advantages of the single-seat constituency and get rid of the disadvantages of the multi-member constituency.

Mr. L'Estrange

Then why were the Cabinet equally divided?

Mr. Boland

The question was what system of election with the single-seat constituency should we adopt. We naturally put forward the best possible system, the straight vote. We did not get any guidance as to any other system either from our own Árd-Fheis or from the informal Committee on the Constitution which was set up and which spent some time considering this whole matter. As we got no indication we put forward the only realistic system——

Mr. L'Estrange

Who are "we"?

Mr. Boland

The Fianna Fáil Party and the Government.

Mr. L'Estrange

How could you do that when you were split down the middle?

Mr. Boland

We are 100 per cent unanimous on this matter. The proposal we are making now not only is designed to ward off the dangers inherent in the present system and to obtain the advantages of the more rational system of representation of the single-seat constituency for the people, but it will also establish in this country for the first time the fundamental democratic principle of one man, one vote. It will ensure that every person's vote is treated in exactly the same way, that everybody's opinion will carry the same weight. That is the object of the straight vote part of this proposal—to get rid of the discrimination inherent in the present system. We have every reason to believe that the people will do what we ask them to do and that they will, in fact, succeed in averting the danger that threatens them and which is so apparent from some parts of the Continent of Europe.

The Opposition have told us that this system has served us well. Their arguments to this effect were typical of the contradictory nature of their whole approach. They point to the fact that under the present system we have got at present a small number of Parties represented in the Dáil as one of its advantages. The fact we only have three Parties, they say, proves there is nothing wrong with the system. Then they go on to argue in favour of the present system that it ensures representation for small Parties. If it does, it obviously encourages the formation of small Parties. It has had the effect of producing a number of small Parties here before and inevitably it will have this effect again.

At present it is quite true that we have not got a large number of small Parties represented in the Dáil. Maybe Deputy Costello gave us an indication as to how that is so. He said that in circumstances where there are no major economic issues the system is bound to give rise to a large number of small Parties in the Dáil. Of course, there are still major economic issues in this country. Although it is 11 years ago since there was a Coalition Government here, the people have not yet forgotten that. It is still a major issue to make sure that a Coalition Government, comprised of people watching their opportunity to spring the trap on their colleagues, will never again get control of the country's economic affairs.

Mr. L'Estrange

Did you not have a Coalition with five Independents? That cost a lot of money.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

These interruptions are disorderly.

Mr. L'Estrange

How is it that the Minister was allowed to deal with Coalition Governments and I was not?

Mr. Boland

The Deputy dealt with them at length. Eventually, with the passage of time, this will not loom so large in the public mind and we shall drift back again to the small Parties. The system is admittedly designed to accommodate and foster them. The Opposition are pointing to the nonexistence of small Parties at present as an advantage and also to the fact that the system is designed to produce small Parties as an advantage. We have been fortunate here in that we have had this system and that it has not yet had its inevitable effect. That is because we have always had major issues. Initially, the issue was to get rid of the Dominion status established by the previous Government.

Mr. L'Estrange

And now you are recognising the North.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): You fought an unnecessary war——

Mr. Boland

It was not unnecessary.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. L'Estrange

You have done nothing about it since.

Mr. Boland

It was inevitable. Then we had the issue of neutrality, the fact that the country had adopted during the World War, a policy of neutrality, and it was obvious to the people that there was only one Party fit to be trusted with the handling——

Mr. L'Estrange

A half million people fought for Britain and a quarter of a million were killed——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would Deputy L'Estrange cease interrupting?

Mr. L'Estrange

As the soldier said: "Thank God Dev kept us out of the war". He was speaking while in a trench in Germany.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Boland

Also the worst effects of PR have been partially warded off by the fact that we have diluted this system as much as possible. We have frustrated its inevitable effects to a certain extent by having the constituencies as small as possible by electing as small a number of Deputies as possible because if the system were to be operated as the cranks and crackpots to whom Deputy Dillon referred intended, the constituencies would be much larger and it would produce its inevitable effect much quicker.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. L'Estrange

The Minister resents the fact that Deputy Burke beat him by 10,000 votes.

Mr. Boland

He never did, but even if he did, I would have no resentment because it would be due to his hard work and it would be no more than a just tribute to his long and devoted service.

Mr. L'Estrange

He got 14,000 votes——

Mr. Boland

And I was not far behind him.

Mr. L'Estrange

6,000.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Discussion of elections and by-elections is not in order.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Minister was a long way behind, pulling at his coat tails.

Mr. Boland

We do not pull each other's coat tails at all.

Mr. L'Estrange

No, it is throats you go for. The Minister should read the leading article in Hibernia.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would Deputies cease interrupting and let the business of the House proceed?

Mr. Boland

I have something more important to do than reading that kind of rubbish. I leave that to the Party opposite.

Mr. L'Estrange

It is Truth in the News you want.

Mr. Boland

We are told this is a democratic system. The opposite is, in fact, the case. The whole theory of the system we propose to replace is fundamentally opposed to the theory of democracy which is surely that the will of the majority should prevail. This is a system which arranges or tries to arrange so far as possible that in any close situation the decision will be made not by the majority but by the smallest minority. It is a system which allocates multiple votes to the smallest minority and only one to those who have reasonable political views, that is, if you can measure reasonableness by the number of their fellow citizens agreeing with those views.

I showed here already that this system operates on the exact opposite principle and that people in the smallest minority, those who can find only a minimum number in the constituency to agree with them, get as many votes as they like, the number being controlled only by the number of candidates, whereas those who find a reasonable number of their fellow voters to agree with them get one vote only. This is a system which gives special differential treatment to some members of the community selected in an arbitrary way and gives only one vote to others who have not done anything to disqualify themselves from getting the same consideration of their views as anybody else in the constituency.

Deputy O'Higgins gave what he himself admitted was an extreme example of 3,002 votes for one candidate, 3,001 for another, 2,999 for a third and 2,998 for a fourth. His own description of it as an extreme example is nearly sufficient. Outside of Alice in Wonderland, I doubt if it would be possible to imagine such a situation actually arising. Even if it did, that is what the people would have decided and it is not possible to establish that there is an absolute majority in favour of any particular candidate unless the people themselves say so. There is no other way of discovering it. Even in the extreme example of Deputy O'Higgins there is no way of deciding that there is an absolute majority in favour of one of the four candidates if the people have said that there is not.

He also posed the possibility of a constituency of three candidates, one getting 4,000 votes, another 3,500 and the third 3,000 and he said that if the candidate who gets the greatest number of votes is declared elected it means that there are 4,000 in favour of him and 6,500 against him. But if you declare one of the other candidates elected—the second candidate, say— there are 3,500 in favour of him and 7,000 against him. If you declare the third candidate elected there are 3,000 in favour of him and 7,500 against him.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Nonsense.

Mr. Boland

Nobody can say that there is a majority in favour of one candidate except the people and if they do not say it, it is completely unjustifiable to invent a mathematical way of allocating the votes cast for one particular candidate to other candidates. Certainly, the basis on which it is done in this system is the most undemocratic conceivable. It is not necessary to take what Deputy O'Higgins described as an extreme example to demonstrate this. It is only necessary to look at the result of any by-election that was not decided on the first count.

At another stage in this debate, I directed the attention of the Opposition to the one swallow that makes their summer, the one by-election out of seven in which their candidate was "deemed" to be elected—because he certainly was not elected. He was "deemed" to be elected in accordance with this system. Deputy Timmins was declared elected with 8,035 votes out of a total poll of 26,293 which is slightly over 30 per cent. In other words, under this system we have had elected a man who was opposed by almost 70 per cent of the voters, and he was declared elected only by discriminating against a number of the voters, because there were 8,035 people who voted for him; there was a total poll of 26,293, and that means that there were 18,258 who voted for candidates other than the candidate who was "deemed" to be elected. Of these, as I pointed out, 8,470 were given at least one other vote; some of them were given two, three, four and others as many as five different votes—8,470 selected in an arbitrary and undemocratic way out of the total of 18,258 who voted for candidates who were not "deemed" to be elected in accordance with the weird and wonderful operations of this system of PR which we operate in this part of the country due to no fault of our own.

I invited Deputies opposite to explain just why it is that the 9,788 who did not get the same attention paid to their votes should be treated as second-class citizens; what they had done to disqualify themselves from getting similar treatment. I pointed out that from the results of the fourth count, as it is called, it was quite obvious that if everybody in that election was treated in the same way, and if these people whose candidate was not "deemed" to be elected got the same treatment as the others, we would have established that there was an overall majority in that constituency in favour of two candidates at least, and, of course, there cannot be a majority in favour of two.

I pointed out that the reason you get that absurd result is that the basic assumption on which the whole system is based is a ridiculous one, and the basic assumption is that a preference vote to any degree, in this case as much as a fifth preference, is entitled to the same value as the first preference of other voters. When you adopt a ridiculous assumption like that, you are bound to arrive at a ridiculous result.

I also gave a simple numerical example of three candidates contesting a single seat either in a by-election or at the concluding stages of a count in a general election, with the votes being distributed in accordance with this principle. I showed from the example, which is nothing like as extreme as Deputy O'Higgins's, that it was quite conceivable you could find a majority in favour of each of the three of them, all because of this basically absurd assumption that preference votes should be accorded the same value as actual votes.

In order to avoid the fraudulence of the whole system being exposed this treatment is given to some voters only and they are selected in a completely loaded against people who have displayed reasonably responsible views in the election by voting for candidates who were able to get a reasonable amount of support in the constituency.

I pointed out that the same thing applied in the East Limerick by-election, that there was a total poll of 38,037, that 16,638 voted for Deputy O'Malley and that there were 21,399 who voted for other candidates, but that of those 21,399, 11,248 got a second vote and some got a third vote, but the other 10,151 got one vote only. I say there is no reason or justification for that discrimination. It is a fundamental principle of democracy that everybody's vote should be treated in the same way. It is completely wrong and completely undemocratic arbitrarily to classify some people in a constituency as being second-class citizens and not entitled to the same voting rights as the remainder. This is something that happens at every election.

There was talk here about the wasted vote phenomenon, whatever that means. If people decide to vote for candidates who will get a negligible vote, or even if they decide to vote for a candidate who does not happen to get sufficient support to be elected, they are quite entitled to do that; but what is wrong and what is undemocratic is to take those votes after they have been cast in the election and give them to people for whom they were not cast. In any system of election some people are bound to pick the winner and some the loser, and this ridiculous and discriminatory rule is not justified.

The pretence that this system of dealing with the votes after the election avoids votes being wasted is easily seen to be a complete and absolute fraud. There are wasted votes in this way in every election. The only thing that this does is to ensure that the smallest minority's votes will not be wasted, but that the votes of those who are in reasonable agreement with a substantial number of their fellow electors will be the ones most likely to be wasted. At the last general arbitrary way, but in a way that is election under this system which claims to deal with this "phenomenon", as they call it, of wasted votes, there were constituencies in which the number of wasted votes exceeded the quota, that is, considering as wasted both those that were non-transferable and those which were for a candidate who was in the last count but was not elected, the non-transferable votes, of course, being the votes of people who refused to take part in this farcical electoral system.

We were told here in this debate that the system we propose must result in a one-Party dictatorship, that it must perpetuate the Fianna Fáil Party in office. Nobody indicated just how or why this should happen. The circumstances in which elections will be conducted under the system we propose will be completely clear-cut. We shall have 144 separate constituencies, and in each of these constituencies each party proposing a form of Government —with proposals for the conduct of the country's affairs—will devise the best policy they can get, put forward the best candidate, and his task will be to convince the electorate in a reasonably small area that he is the most suitable man to represent them and the policy for which he stands is the most suitable policy.

When the Opposition Parties say that elections conducted in these clear-cut circumstances must result in the perpetuation of Fianna Fáil in government, must result in what they describe as a one-Party dictatorship, they are clearly admitting that it is inconceivable at any time in the future that they will be able to devise a policy or attract sufficient suitable representation to their Party to convince in the majority of the constituencies more people than we can, that their proposals are the most suitable, and that their candidates are the most suitable as public representatives. If they want to admit that, that is their own business, but it is clearly an admission that Fianna Fáil policy is in fact the best, or else it is a continued assertion of what we know to be the actual belief of the Opposition Parties, that is, their belief that the people are incapable of making an intelligent decision.

Mr. L'Estrange

You know you will not win and you are changing the rules.

Mr. Boland

In the next breath Deputy Fitzpatrick went on to try and deny that the system would in fact give stability. That is typical of the contradictory attitude they adopted right through the debate. It was put forward as an objection to this scheme that the system would give rise to a Government without an absolute majority of the votes. It is conceivable, but it could happen only if there were not an absolute majority of voters for any one Party. So far as I could see this was an argument in favour of Deputy Norton's amendment but the Opposition Parties did not support it when they had the opportunity.

Mr. L'Estrange

Nor did Fianna Fáil support it when they had the opportunity.

Mr. Boland

I showed that this system of the transferable vote cannot and does not change what the people have said in the ballot boxes. There is not, in fact, any way of establishing a majority in favour of one Party or one candidate unless the people do so. Any attempt to prove otherwise by the manipulation of votes after they are cast is a fraud and a cod, as Deputy Dillon described it.

The strongest argument so far as I could see put forward by Fine Gael against the proposal is that this is what they call the British system. The fact that it operates in Britain apparently is a reason why it should not operate here. I admit that in so far as it is the situation that it is the system in operation in Britain, it could be described as the British system, but it is also the system that operates in most other stable democracies. There are two British systems involved here. The system we have here is also a British system. The difference is that one is the system the British have for themselves and the other is the system that these cranks and crackpots whom Deputy Dillon described invented for us and people like us, and inflicted upon us for definite purposes.

So, there are two British systems involved here, one which was imposed on us, and which we are suggesting the people should get rid of, and adopt instead the system the British retained for themselves. They considered the possibility of changing it and rejected it. They set up a Royal Commission to consider the system we have as an electoral system and decided that this system which was invented in Britain was all right for us, but certainly was not all right for them, and they made sure not to adopt it.

With regard to the question of why and how it was imposed here, it was introduced here and imposed here in the Local Elections Bill which was introduced by the British Attorney-General, Mr. Samuels. I want to quote now from volume 114, columns 175 and 176 of Hansard. Speaking on the reasons for asking the British Parliament to pass the Local Elections Bill which would introduce this system here but not in his own country Mr. Samuels said:

At the general election, on the parliamentary franchise, 75 per cent of the representation has gone over to the Sinn Féin Party. What is the declared object of that Party? It is to make local government in Ireland absolutely impossible, and to break down British reign and rule in Ireland by capturing local bodies...

Who are you going to trust the administration of these things to? Are you going to trust them to bodies elected on the present franchise and under the present machinery—bodies which have been absolutely captured by people who call the rest of the United Kingdom `the enemy', and whose object is to break down the rule of the `enemy' and make the whole administration in Ireland impossible.

In other words this system was introduced into this country by a British Act of Parliament in 1919 in order to frustrate the attempts of the people of this country to break down British rule and establish rule by the Irish people.

Mr. L'Estrange

Why did Mr. de Valera put it into the 1937 Constitution?

Mr. Boland

We are coming to that. We are coming to the question of the 1937 Constitution. Having already dealt with Deputy Dillon's different changes of view on this matter, I propose to go on to deal with the question of the Constitution of 1937. Before I deal with that, I want to deal with another allegation made by Deputy Dunne that the system of the straight vote was invented by the ruling clique in Great Britain to keep themselves in power. In fact, there was no need for anyone to invent the system we are proposing of the straight vote with the single-seat constituencies. It was obviously the simplest and most natural system, giving the people the choice of a number of candidates and the opportunity to vote for the one they favoured and thought was the most suitable to represent them. It was the limited franchise which kept the Ascendancy classes in power and the extension of the franchise which changed this. The clear-cut system of election in fact facilitated the ousting of the Ascendancy.

It is a fact that this system operates in Britain and the system we have does not operate in Britain. It was invented there. In fact, there is a special PR society in existence for the purpose of promoting this system, but not of promoting it in their own country apparently. So far as I know, they operate over here only, and their only objective is to ensure that we do not get rid of this system with all its inherent dangers.

Mr. James Tully

They are conspirators ! They should be removed from the country.

Mr. Boland

So far as I know, they operate over here only. I do not know who finances them. I know they campaign at by-elections on behalf of Fine Gael and Labour, but so far as I know, they do not conduct their operations in their own country. There is no attempt to secure the benefits of this system for their own country.

Since Deputies are so worried about it, I might as well deal with the 1937 Constitution. Deputy Dillon, for instance, will remember just exactly what was being done in 1937.

Mr. Dillon

I do.

Debate adjourned.