Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 12 Mar 1959

Vol. 50 No. 15

Referendum (Amendment) Bill, 1958—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Blaney)

The Bill makes provisions for a new form of ballot paper to be used at a constitutional referendum; for facilities for voting by certain persons employed by local returning officers and for giving voters a summary of the proposal which is the subject of the referendum on the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1958. The Bill also includes provisions designed to secure uniformity where the poll at a constitutional referendum and a Presidential election is taken on the same day.

The necessity for a new form of ballot paper arises from Section 15 (5) of the Referendum Act, 1942, under which the proposal on which a constitutional referendum is held must be stated on the ballot paper in the same terms as nearly as may be as it is stated in the Bill containing the proposal. I am advised that to comply with this provision it would be necessary to set out on the ballot paper virtually the whole text of the Bill to amend the Constitution. It would obviously be quite impracticable to do this with an extensive Bill such as the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1958. It is proposed, therefore, in Section 1 of the present Bill that the proposal which is the subject of the referendum should be stated on the ballot paper by citing the short title of the Bill containing the proposal. The opportunity has also been taken to have a bilingual from of ballot paper.

Section 2 and the Second Schedule of the Bill provide for the necessary changes in Section 15 of the Act of 1942 and in the questions to be asked by a presiding officer of an incapacitated voter wishing to have his ballot paper marked. In the case of a referendum on the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1958, ad hoc provisions for dealing with incapacitated voters are included in Section 5, to which I shall come in a few moments.

Under Section 3 of the Bill it is proposed to enable a local returning officer to authorise persons in his employment, such as poll clerks and presiding officers, who are prevented by the circumstances of their employment from voting at their normal polling station, to vote at a specified other polling station in their constituency, which in practice will generally be the polling stations at which they are employed. There is a corresponding provision in the law relating to Dáil and local elections. If the poll at a Presidential election or general election is taken on the same day as a poll at a constitutional referendum, an authorisation of the local returning officer will, under Section 4 of the Bill, operate to enable the person to whom it is given to vote at the specified other polling station at that election also.

Under Section 28 of the Referendum Act, 1942, provision is made to secure uniformity of polling places, hours of poll, and of procedure generally where the poll at a constitutional referendum and a general election is taken on the same day. Section 4 of the present Bill extends these provisions to the case where the poll at a constitutional referendum is taken on the same day as the poll at a Presidential election. The section does not provide that the constitutional referendum and a general or Presidential election shall be held on the same day. It merely lays down the procedure to be followed if that does occur.

It was found possible to secure the agreement of all Parties in the Dáil to a statement containing a summary of the principal proposals in the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1958, and it is proposed in Section 5 to incorporate this statement in the polling cards to be issued by local returning officers to voters, including postal voters, at a referendum in relation to that Bill. It is proposed to provide that copies of the statement may be displayed at polling stations, and to adjust the rules governing voting by incapacitated voters so that they can have the summary contained in the statement read to them if, after being told the short title, i.e., "Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1958", they do not understand the import of the question: "Do you approve of or do you object to that Bill becoming law?"

In addition, copies of the Bill will be made available for inspection and purchase at post offices (about 2,300 in all) throughout the country.

Professor Quinlan

I rise to make just a few points on this Bill. I believe the Bill has been changed substantially since it was first issued, because, as issued, it deprived the voter completely of any information. He was merely asked: "Do you approve of the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill?" A big step forward has been made by bringing in the agreed Appendix, but a few points occur to me in this connection. First of all, if I understand the Minister correctly, the necessity for this amendment arose because he felt it impossible to include a summary of the proposals on the ballot paper without printing the whole Bill. Surely that difficulty could have been got over by agreement between all Parties on a summary of the principal proposals of the Bill. In fact, you got that agreement on the Appendix and I cannot see why the Appendix could not have been agreed in the original form of the ballot paper as a proper statement of the proposals to the voters.

I should like to hear what the Minister has to say on that, but a more serious objection, in my view, is that the changes, the very drastic changes, that have been made in this Bill are purely ad hoc and apply only to the present amendment of the Constitution, the Third Amendment, but they give the Government, or any future Government, absolute carte blanche to apply the Bill in its original form to all future amendments of the Constitution. In other words, as I read it Section 5 goes dead once the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill is over. So all the safeguards, all of the Appendix and the necessity for the Appendix, even the necessity of making a copy of the full text of the Bill available to the public—all that goes by the board when the referendum is over.

I cannot understand why such very desirable safeguards, such safeguards as were agreed, and fought to agreement in the Dáil, could not be incorporated by way of permanent legislation. I hope we may on the Committee Stage amend Section 5, so that the provisions set out here apply to all future referenda—that you must have this agreed summary available and you must go through this procedure. Alternatively—and I think it is a better alternative—we could scrap this whole Act, once this is over and get back to the 1942 Act, as amended in 1946 which, in my view, is a much sounder and a fairer approach to holding a referendum. You also give the people a chance of knowing what they really are voting on. I believe we should have either of these alternatives, my preference by far being for the first, but the second has worked out here as a good second.

I am not saying this solely to the present Government. There may be future Governments with very big majorities, especially if this amendment of the Constitution is passed. They will be here and we are giving them carte blanche now to drive a coach and four through the Constitution, because they can bring in any amendment they wish and they can drive it through both Dáil and Seanad by their huge majorities and then all they need to do is to bring the first form of the ballot paper to the electorate. All they need ask the electorate is: “Do you approve of the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution Bill?” That complies with the constitutional provisions.

I submit we are taking a very dangerous step here and I cannot see that there can be any objection to amending this in Committee to ensure that Section 5 is not merely ad hoc but applies to all future referenda on the Constitution, unless it is changed by another amendment of the 1942 Act. Otherwise, we are bound by the operative sections of the Bill which leave us in the very bad position that we were in when this Bill first reached the Dáil. Surely it is a tribute to the work of the Opposition and to the common sense of the Government that they came together and agreed on how to put this in a fairer and clearer way to the electorate.

The other point I want to make, and I do not wish to take up the time of the House, is the necessity—I know I cannot advocate it on the present Bill to any great extent but perhaps I may make just a passing reference to it— of further amending the 1942 Act to ensure adequate safeguards for our Constitution, whether against the present Government or the Government of 1970 or 1980. Such safeguards will ensure that before any Government attempt to bring in amendments to the Constitution, they will, first of all, set up an adequately constituted commission to go into the question completely and impartially and to give a detailed report on it as a basis of legislation for amendment of the Constitution.

We are setting a very bad precedent at present. We are bringing Party politics into the amendment of our Constitution. Whatever happens the present amendment of the Constitution, the Government or any succeeding Government should take steps to ensure that our Constitution is safeguarded and that there is written into the 1942 Act by way of amendment the proper, impartial, non-Party approach, that should in future be taken to amending the Constitution.

An Cathaoirleach

Perhaps the Senator will leave that matter now?

Professor Quinlan

I just made a passing reference to it. I think that covers the main points I have to raise. In view of the agreement on it, I do not wish to go into the provisions in greater detail.

Mr. Donegan

An amendment to this Bill was passed in the Dáil whereby it is possible to have the Presidential election and the referendum on the same day. I hold this is unfair and, as Senator Quinlan says, is introducing Party politics. I know there was agreement on the point, but I think it unjust and improper when there are two political candidates for the Presidency, that an election should be held on the same day to amend the Constitution. When the Constitution was passed, the cry was that it was above Party politics —that the people should forget Party and vote for the Constitution, judging it on its merits. Now the Constitution is enshrined as our safeguard. Is it proper or right that a political election should be held on the same day as a referendum to amend the Constitution? Is it right that the full Party circus on both sides should be taken out and the whole propaganda campaign fought on the same day in which two Party candidates are contesting the Presidential election? I hold it is improper, unjust and politically dishonest.

Mr. McGuire

I should like to say a word on how we on this side of the House feel about this Bill. It is purely a machinery Bill. We remember that at the beginning of this debate—I notice it was dropped later —it was asserted that we were opposed to having a referendum at all and that we were trying to prevent the people from voting on this referendum on the subject of the removal of P.R. In practical refutation of this assertion, we do not oppose this Bill. What we are opposed to very strongly, and what we have voted against very strongly, is the subject of the referendum. Therefore, we have concentrated all our efforts on the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill and have put everything we have into showing that we think the subject of the referendum is wrong and that the idea of removing P.R. and replacing it by the single non-transferable vote is wrong. It is a very bad thing; we have resisted it in every possible way and we shall continue to do so.

We do not oppose this referendum being held. If the subject has to be decided upon, we are in favour of the machinery being set up in this Bill. The Opposition Parties in the Dáil take credit for the very good precedent that has now been established in this Bill of giving the electorate a reasonable explanation of what they are being asked to vote upon. Anybody who has listened to the debate in this House or the other House will concede that the electorate are faced with a very knotty and deep problem. It would be pathetic if this Bill had gone through in its original form and the people had been asked merely to put an "X" against something with deep implications inherent in the proposition upon which the referendum was taken. We do not oppose this Bill. It is as good as we can get as a machinery Bill to carry out the referendum on the subject, but we think the referendum should never have been held at all. The subject should never have arisen and there is no necessity for it.

Mr. Blaney

I shall deal with the points made in the order in which Senators spoke. The general tone of Senator Quinlan's remarks seems to be directed, in the first instance, towards showing that there was no real change in the actual terms of the Referendum Act of 1942, as amended in 1946. He departs from us in that he feels there was no necessity for the provisions contained in Section 5, which are merely ad hoc so far as the referendum is concerned. I outlined, during the various stages of the Bill in the Dáil, the law as I saw it, and said I had been advised that the law would require a statement to go on the ballot paper. First of all, this statement would have to be an authoritative statement; and, secondly, because of the nature of the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, I am very definitely advised that practically the entire text of the Bill would be required on the ballot paper. I think offhand that would entail about 13 pages. I do not think it could be regarded as feasible that a ballot paper should have 13 pages of text attached to it. Indeed, even if that were done, it would add nothing to the knowledge of the voter. Rather than having 12 hours for voting, we would likely have to run the election for a week in order that every voter would have time to read the entire text of the Bill in the polling station before marking his or her paper.

I have already paid tribute to the agreement we got in the Dáil, which made it possible to put in this ad hoc section. In passing, I might say that on the Second Stage of the Bill, I invited the Opposition to come to such an agreement, rather than that I was forced into it by them. I invited them to make their suggestions and, in fact, privately outside the House, I went to them myself to seek the agreement. We were not forced into it, and while I pay tribute to the Opposition in the Dáil for their ready agreement and co-operation in this matter, it should not go on the record of this House that we on the Government side were brought to that position by the Opposition.

Mr. McGuire

There was good co-operation?

Mr. Blaney

Undoubtedly; but I want to straighten the matter and let it be known there was that co-operation on all sides, rather than any suggested coercion from the other side of the House. The suggestion has been made, and indeed it was made in the Dáil also—before we got the agreed statement—that if there had not been any statement, or if we did not get this type of statement in the future for any future referenda, the people would be unlikely to have a knowledge of what they were voting for. I do not think and I did not think when I spoke on this matter, in the first instance, that there is any likelihood that anything could possibly be put across the people that will not have been put to them from every angle. Over the weeks which have passed, and the weeks that have yet to come before this referendum is taken—and I think that would apply in all cases to the taking of a referendum—the Parties and public generally will have discussed this matter to such a degree that indeed I doubt if the question of any statement, whether on the ballot paper or on the polling card, as we propose here, is at all necessary. I doubt it because of the interest that has been around and the publicity that has been given to the discussions in this House and in Dáil Éireann.

As an instance of what I mean, let us look at the hours taken in discussing the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill in the Dáil. The total number amounted to 96 sitting hours. There were 50 hours on the Second Reading, 36½ on the Committee Stage, one and three-quarters on the Report Stage and eight and three-quarters on the Final Stage. Important though this third amendment may be, it is nevertheless but a small part of the entire provisions of our Constitution, as enacted back in 1937, and the total time taken to discuss the Draft Constitution in the Dáil in 1937 was 68¼ hours. We have alrady had 96 hours' discussion in the Dáil on just one part of the Constitution.

Mr. Barry

If you want to make a good thing bad—as you are doing now —that must happen.

Mr. Blaney

I am not debating the merits or demerits of the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill. I am merely dealing with the Senators who feel that the provisions for taking a referendum are such, and can be such in the future, that our people will not know possibly what they are voting for. I am pointing out, irrespective of the agreed statement contained in and covered by certain ad hoc provisions in Section 5, that despite that, and had the fact never existed at all, I hold that the publicity and the debates and discussions have been so wide and lasted for so long that our voters must be credited with sufficient intelligence to realise what they will be doing when this vote comes to take place. That is why I say that 96 hours were spent on a small part of the Constitution when only 68¼ hours were spent on the Draft Constitution in 1937.

Senator Donegan mentioned the unfairness of having these two votes held on the same day. I went to some pains in my introductory speech to point out that this Bill which I am piloting through this House does not provide that they shall be held on the same day. It merely makes certain provisions in the event of the two occurring on the same day.

Mr. Donegan

Will the Minister say if it is the intention to hold the referendum and the Presidential election on the same day?

Mr. Blaney

No, the Minister will not say.

Mr. Donegan

We all know that they will be.

Mr. Blaney

If we all know, it is scarcely relevant to ask.

Mr. Donegan

The Minister is the one to tell us.

Mr. Blaney

As a matter of interest, just to show the minds of various people, despite how their allegiances may differ, here is a quotation from a speech made on 11th December, 1958, in the debate on the Third Amendment of the Constitution. We had Deputy Everett talking about the likelihood of there being a clash of the two dates for the Presidential election and for the proposed referendum, and he said at column 1985, Volume 171:—

"I would ask the Government to consider these matters before putting the people to the expense of a referendum. Furthermore, if we are to have a referendum, why not have it on the same day as the Presidential election? This would be better than spending £80,000 or £90,000 for this referendum and then having to spend a further sum of this magnitude for the Presidential election. Alternatively would it not be feasible when holding the referendum on P.R. to find out whether the people want a President or not?"

That was in last December, but the point really is the one which I have made in the first instance, that I am not really dealing with the fixing of these two events on the one day, but I am making the provision necessary for taking the two events if they fell on the same day.

Mr. Donegan

Is it a fact that the Government are merely waiting until the Bill passes to announce that the two events will be held on the same day, in which eventuality the matter cannot be debated?

Mr. Blaney

So far as that is concerned, I think the Senator has raised something there. It just occurs to me that, to some degree, the wishes of the two Houses should be known before these things are announced. In other words, I think we should not jump the gun. Despite what all Deputies and Senators may think on this question of waiting until the two Houses have passed these Bills, I think it is no harm to point out that if so much time had not been taken—not in this House but in the other House—it would have been possible to have had this referendum well in advance of the Presidential election; and well in advance would have been a much better arrangement than to have it within a week or a few days of it. In my opinion if you went down the country as a politician and said: "We are having the referendum on Monday, and the Presidential election on Friday," then I think it likely that if you appeared in that district looking for votes in a general election, the people would probably run you out of it. That tallies more or less with Deputy Everett's view here. In relation to Senator Donegan's remarks, in this Bill I am merely taking very reasonable precautions, lest the two should be held on the one day, so that we may have a sensible arrangement and so that there will be uniformity of practice in the use of polling stations, presiding officers, staffs, and so on. The suggestion by Deputy Donegan that the holding of the two on the same day would bring politics into it is a matter on which no comment is necessary. Any of these matters is really the essence of politics and it would be a bad thing for the country if politics should disappear. Candidly, I do not think there is a danger in the world that politics will disappear.

Mr. Donegan

The essence of Party politics, not politics.

Mr. Blaney

The question of Party politics as against politics is one which is too subtle for me to appreciate fully. Politics to me are politics and this second tag we have attached to that word in recent times is merely an attempt to suggest that Party politics are something different. I do not see the difference. If we are to have politics, we will have Parties. Without Parties, we cannot have democracy. Therefore, we have Parties and Party politics.

Mr. Donegan

Is it not obvious to the Minister——

An Cathaoirleach

Is the Senator asking a question?

Mr. Donegan

Yes. Is it not true that having what has developed into a political election, the Presidential election, on the same day as the referendum, which should be considered apart from Party interests, gives the opportunity to my Party and to the Minister's Party, who each have a candidate, to roll out their propaganda services and their organisation——

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator is making a speech.

Mr. Donegan

——to secure not only the election of their political candidate for President but also the rejection or acceptance of the Amendment to the Constitution Bill?

Mr. Blaney

The only thing I want to get clear from the Senator's question is as to which matter he considers contains the contaminating politics he fears. Is it the Presidential election or the referendum? However, I hope I have answered satisfactorily the points raised by Senators, but if not, they will, on the later stages, have an opportunity of getting fuller information on the points they want to put across. Perhaps some Senators may wish now to ask some question which I have not covered, and I shall try to cover it.

Professor Quinlan

I should like to put two questions to the Minister. Does the Minister not consider that it would be far better that an amendment of the Constitution should be approached on a non-Party basis, that our Constitution is too sacred to become the plaything of Party politics? Secondly, I would appreciate it if the Minister would explain why Section 5 cannot be made permanent. It seems that just a few alterations would accomplish that.

Mr. Blaney

I shall take the latter question first, as to why we would not consider making Section 5 permanent. In order to have Section 5, it is necessary to have the agreement that we were lucky and happy to get on this occasion. It may not always be possible to get such agreement. Secondly, it may not always be necessary to have an agreed statement, because you could envisage, in relation to certain amendments to the Constitution, the title being self-explanatory and not requiring any summary or synopsis of its contents. Would it not be superfluous, to say the least of it, to have this title, which title would appear on the ballot paper, and then to put it elsewhere on the ballot paper saying that this was the proposal? You would be duplicating and it would not make any great sense.

We were lucky and happy to get agreement on this occasion, but I do not and cannot foresee that in the case of all other proposals the same facility would be available to whatever Government might be in office at that time. It is also worthy of note that, from our experience of the operation of Section 5, we will have learned something, just as we have learned something from the years that have passed since the earlier Acts became law. It may well be that some future Government and some future Minister will bring in a section as an alternative to Section 5, which may be a very great improvement. That may be as feasible as is this Section 5 and this amendment of the Referendum Act we are now bringing through both Houses of the Oireachtas. In the Dáil, dealing with the same suggestion by Deputies there, I had this to say at column 179, Volume 173, of the Dáil Debates of 25th February, 1959:—

"With reference to the application of that practice to all future referenda, which seems to be the Deputy's wish, I can only say that I still have the same objections as I had on the Committee Stage. While we undoubtedly have got agreement in this instance, if we were to make this part of permanent legislation, governing all future referenda, we might not so readily, if at all, get agreement as to the form of the summary. It is solely for that good reason—I consider it a very good reason—that we are leaving this as an ad hoc arrangement. As well as that, we shall gain some experience of how this ad hoc arrangement works. As a result of that experience, we may possibly incorporate it as a permanent feature in this kind of legislation.”

That was my answer to the same type of question as the Senator has asked, and nothing has happened since then to change my mind. I still feel the same way about this ad hoc Section 5 in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

In view of the fact that it is generally admitted that this is a machinery Bill, I wonder, in view of that general agreement, could we have the remaining stages now?

Agreed to take remaining stages today.

Bill considered in Committee.

Sections 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."

Professor Quinlan

First of all, we should pay tribute to the Minister for the great effort he made to get agreement on this. It would be ungenerous of us not to do that and I do hope that when this is over, the Minister will consider substituting some type of permanent legislation for the ad hoc arrangement we have here. When the Minister suggests that where the amendment would be trivial, the title would convey all the information, surely we are back to the 1942 Act, because that would have satisfied the 1942 Act and would have satisfied the requirements of the ballot paper at that time. I should like to ask the Minister if he will give some assurance to the House that we will get some type of permanent legislation. We have wiped out the relevant section of the 1942 Act and we have not put permanent legislation in its place. I, for one, would hate to see that left over until a new Government comes in with a majority of at least five to one in both Houses, after the Third Amendment to the Constitution Bill has been passed.

Mr. Murphy

This includes the Appendix which, I believe, is a result of an agreement between Parties in the Dáil. I do not want to be taken as opposing this agreement or opposing the Bill, which is a machinery Bill, but I should like to make it clear that I do not approve of the position in which the electors are being put an omnibus question. Not one question is being put, but three, and it could very well be that some of the people voting would be inclined to answer "Yes" to the first question, and "No" to the second question, and "No" to the third, but there is no choice in the matter. They have to take the three questions together and answer "Yes" or "No".

The three questions are: first, do they approve of the single member constituency instead of the multi-member constituency as at present operating; secondly, do they approve of the non-transferable vote instead of the transferable vote; and——

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator is now going very far outside the scope of the section. It is clear the Senator is leading up to a rather wide discussion on a matter which does not properly arise on this section.

Mr. Murphy

I am referring to the Appendix which is included in this section and I think it relevant to mention that, because it is in the Appendix that the three questions are posed to the electors, but if the Cathaoirleach rules me out of order, I accept his ruling.

An Cathaoirleach

It is not so much a matter of being out of order, but the Chair would like to warn the Senator that this is opening another wide discussion which does not properly arise on the Appendix.

Mr. Murphy

May I say I do not intend to enter into the merits of the questions? I am just making the point that the three questions are being put in a lump to the electorate. I do not intend to discuss the merits on both sides. We have already done that. I want to ask the Seanad where exactly we are going in this matter because we are discussing in this section the question of putting the three questions in a lump to the electorate, and the Seanad has already decided that one of the questions is not to be put by deleting subsection (1) of Section 2 of the Schedule yesterday. For this reason, I should like to be taken as not approving of this sort of omnibus question being put to the electorate.

Professor Quinlan

Are we discussing the Appendix?

An Cathaoirleach

The House is dealing with Section 5.

Professor Quinlan

Are we dealing with the Appendix?

An Cathaoirleach

The Appendix is obviously part of Section 5. The Senator will realise we cannot have a Second Reading discussion on this section.

Professor Quinlan

I thought that we would take the Appendix separately. I should like to endorse every word spoken by Senator Murphy. If we make such a virtue of consulting the people, as has been suggested in this discussion, then we should consult the people adequately, and fully, on the three questions. They should be put as three distinct questions. As I said earlier, our representatives in the United Nations have thought that even in other countries, in Africa for example, the people should not be asked multiple questions but should be asked: Do you approve of 1? Do you approve of 2? Do you approve of 3? Do you approve of 4? They should be given four alternatives. Here we have two alternatives and it is unfair to the people that they should be asked this dual question. Obviously there should be two separate questions. Furthermore, when revising the present machinery Bill, care should be taken to ensure that no such conglomerate questions are put to the electorate in the future.

Mr. Blaney

First I shall reply to the last point made by Senator Quinlan and Senator Murphy about the Appendix, the question of the agreed statement, the unfairness of putting two and three questions together, that the omnibus question is an unfair procedure and the questions should be put separately. The main point is that, in so far as the Government are concerned at the moment, we are merely proceeding according to the Constitution, which provides that when a Bill containing certain proposed amendments to the Constitution is passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, the matter then goes to the people for their final verdict.

In so far as this matter of separate questions is concerned, I can see a certain amount of what we might call argument in favour, in one way, of putting them separately, but has it occurred to Senators that in a break-down into several questions and having got the people to vote on possibly half a dozen—mind you, there are three questions mentioned, but there could be half a dozen questions, because the one about the commission could be separated into goodness knows how many—we could well have a situation arising from our desire to meet the people in a straight and fair manner in the sense of getting each question answered "yes" or "no" in which we could have a combination of answers on this one matter we are dealing with, which did not make any sense and all our trouble would have been for naught in respect of telling us to go ahead or to stay back.

Apart from that, there is one point I should like to put to those who, from their remarks, object to the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill and are opposed to the matter generally, some in part, and some in whole. I should like to say that the disadvantages, and there are disadvantages, to the people sponsoring these proposals, are that there could be three different issues, two of which many people might agree with, while disagreeing with the third.

The normal procedure is that when something exists in a certain form, when someone proposes to change one of its items and when in order to change one, all three must be changed, if a person does not want to change all three, but agrees to change one or two, he will disagree with all three. So there is a disadvantage, in fact, to the proposers of this proposal to amend the Constitution in the fact that there are three or four questions rather than one straight question. There is an advantage to those who are against the idea of a Third Amendment of the Constitution in the very fact of there being three questions contained in the one proposal and it is a disadvantage to the Government who are making this proposal to the people. I think that while it may not be the logical straight answer to the argument already made, it should at least be acceptable to them, because, in fact, we are, from our point of view, at a disadvantage in putting it in this manner, in the form of an omnibus question.

Professor Quinlan

There is just one point——

Mr. Blaney

If the Senator does not mind, I shall try to answer the other point before I finish. The Senator is also sad about the matter of making permanent legislation, and he would like an undertaking from me that the terms of Section 5, or some terms equivalent to Section 5, will be made permanent in the future, will be incorporated in some permanent legislation. Irrespective of what I might think about that suggestion, I would not be in a position to commit myself—possibly not myself but some other Minister in my position in time to come— to make that permanent legislation in the future. He has mentioned the trivial matters that could be covered— he assumed they might be trivial— with regard to being self-explanatory in the Titles in the future, but I do not quite agree.

For instance, we could have "The Abolition of Seanad Éireann", but I do not agree that is a trivial matter and again, just for the purposes of argument, we could have "The Abolition of the Presidency." I do not think that is a trivial matter, either. Both of those are possible situations that somebody, not feeling so kindly disposed to the Seanad as I and my colleagues are at the moment, might wish to bring about in the future. In such an event, that would not be regarded as a trivial matter and I think, with the ad hoc provisions of Section 5, the Title as set out at the moment in present legislation would, in fact, be adequate without any summary and, even if a summary had to be devised, I do not think there could be an agreed summary. But, if it were necessary, or if it were felt to be necessary, it would be completely and absolutely surplus to have another statement. No matter how you would summarise it you would have to say in the same words “Abolition of the Presidency”, or “Abolition of the Seanad”. Those are some examples and there are others that could be trotted out. These are obvious cases of matters that can be covered by Titles only, and are self-explanatory in that form, but are themselves not of a trivial nature.

The only other point I wish to deal with is that raised by Senator Murphy and I think, in answering Senator Quinlan, I have answered his point about the omnibus question. We are merely following the procedure laid down in the Constitution, that of putting our proposals in the form of a Bill to both Houses of the Oireachtas and, when those two Houses have finished with the Bill, in whatever form it finally emerges, the actual proposals contained in it should then go to the people for their decision. It is their decision—not ours—that really counts.

Professor Quinlan

I agree with the Minister on the difficulties connected with the omnibus question and the fact that it does act to a slight extent against the Government, but surely, in the very same sentence, the Minister admits that they are not consulting the people? The people are merely being asked to rubber-stamp what the Government have done.

Mr. Carter

Nonsense.

Mr. Donegan

I understand from the very involved explanation given by the Minister, in regard to what I would call the portmanteau question, that it is impossible to put this serious question fairly to the people without its putting its proposers at a grave disadvantage. Therefore, the implication to me is that it must be put unfairly to the people. Putting this portmanteau question in one "yes" or "no" form is unfair, and the proposers of the abolition of P.R. are acting unfairly in doing that. That is the only inference I can draw from the Minister's statement.

Mr. Blaney

I should like to agree with the Senator, but I do not see any other way it can be done. I merely added an addendum to the remarks of Senator Quinlan. In view of the very nature of the terms involved in the proposals, a combination of answers could be given to certain combinations of questions which would make no sense to anyone. Therefore, we take this as an omnibus question in which all these are intertwined, intertied and related, and the answer then will be either for or against a changing of the system.

Mr. Donegan

Does the Minister realise that he is saying this is being put unfairly to the people? In his own words, he is condemning the Government's proposals.

Mr. Blaney

As the Senator well knows, that is a completely and absolutely wrong reading of what I said.

Mr. Donegan

It is not.

Mr. Blaney

What I said to the Senator is that the unfairness in this case is to the Fianna Fáil Party and the Government who are making the proposals, and not to anybody else.

Mr. Donegan

With respect, the unfairness is to the people. From the Minister's own lips, we are told that the people are being asked to vote on a proposal which is being put unfairly to them.

Mr. Blaney

I am not saying that.

Mr. Donegan

It is unfair to the people and not to the Fianna Fáil Party.

Mr. Ryan

Without going into the fact that there could be six or seven questions, if we wanted to bring this to its logical conclusion, it is well to remember that there are two main questions, the non-transferable vote and the single seat constituency. I can visualise that some of the Senators opposite might like to have the single seat constituency, but to have the transferable vote with it. If the proposals were put to the people in the form of two questions, dealing with those matters, the people might vote for the present multi-seat constituency and the non-transferable vote, and I am quite sure that nobody opposite wants that result.

Mr. Murphy

I think that Senator Ryan has brought this question down to earth by making the point that there are two matters involved in it. As we know, from the amendments put down by Senators to the other Bill, even in this House there are people who apparently would like single seat constituencies with the transferable vote. Surely it is unfair to those Senators, and to people who think like them, that they should not get an opportunity of answering those questions separately? I do not see that it is impracticable to put those questions separately and I believe it would be very easy to have them answered separately. If that were done, the result would clearly show the will of the people, and Fianna Fáil have been making a great point that it is the people who are to decide. Let the people decide on these two questions. Let them have the opportunity of saying "yes" or "no" to those two main questions rather than bulk them together and tell the people: "You will have to say ‘yes' or ‘no' to them together."

Question put and agreed to.

Section 6 agreed to.

First and Second Schedules agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill received for final consideration.

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

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I should like to make one point on the last stage in relation to this machinery Bill for the purpose of allowing the referendum to be taken. When the Taoiseach was asked (a) why the whole question of P.R. was not removed in the 1937 Constitution and (b) why the question of P.R. and its abolition was not put before the electorate at the last election, in both cases he replied that he wanted it to be considered as an entirely separate question. I should like to express the hope that the machinery involved in this Referendum (Amendment) Bill will really be put before the people as a separate question and not put before them on the same day and in the same circumstances as the Presidential election.

Question put and agreed to.