While we, on this side of the House, consider there is no necessity for a referendum to be held, that the vast majority of the people of this country would be happier without having a referendum of the type embodied in the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill and the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill placed before them, nevertheless, if a referendum there must be, due to the political weight of the Fianna Fáil Party in both Houses of the Oireachtas then it is only proper that everything should be done to see that the people's choice in this regard can be expeditiously and conveniently determined. Accordingly we should find in regard to this Referendum Bill that there should not be the great disparity of opinion, clash of assertion or length of debate which has characterised the Third and Fourth Amendment Bills.
Except for one aspect, albeit a most important one, the provisions of the Referendum Bill are such as would recommend themselves to the House on the basis that if a referendum were to be held, then not only would it be better if it were done quickly but it would be better if it were done properly. I should like to say straight away that I think the new form of ballot paper which is being introduced by this Referendum Bill is a distinct improvement over the form of ballot paper used in the 1959 referendum. I think in this regard the present Bill is well worthwhile.
I do not think there is any need to go down through the various provisions of this Bill in detail. In every case there is reasonable argument for adopting the changes which have been proposed. It is, however, when we come to the Appendix to the Bill that a difference of opinion does arise. The Appendix to the Bill contains the information which will be circulated to voters in order to assist them in coming to a conclusion before they cast their votes in this referendum. It is very important that this should be done. It is important in a case like this that when an issue has been debated at length in Parliament and a summary is made for the benefit of the voters, that summary should, if at all possible, be a summary approved by both sides in the debate which has taken place. Unfortunately, that is not so.
Unfortunately, the position is that the summary proposed by the Minister in this Appendix is one which I consider would be a travesty and far inferior to the summary provided for the benefit of the voters in 1959. There are many ways in which the issue under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill can be described. We at present in this country have a particular form of proportional representation. Consequently, there is difficulty in describing our present form of voting. It is not sufficient, if we want to be exact about it, to refer to it merely as proportional representation. The form of proportional representation which we have is different in many respects from the form of proportional representation which is the electoral system in many countries of continental Europe. There is no need for us to discuss these differences in any detail but one of the chief differences is the great advantage of our system in contrast with the continental system, whereby the voter voting under the Irish proportional representation system can transfer his votes and give his later preferences to a candidate belonging to a Party other than the Party to which he gave his first preference vote. This is not possible under the continental electoral list systems. This flexibility of taking account of personalities which the House discussed yesterday evening is possible under our system. Also, when we come to describe the Government's proposition, there are many ways in which it can be described. The Government have chosen to describe it in the summary being circulated to the voters as, inverted commas, straight vote, close of inverted commas. This, I think; is not a neutral description. This is not a description devoid of emotional content. It is not the sort of clean, clear-cut description acceptable to all Parties in the debate that should be put forward to the people. We might, perhaps, have less objection to it if the inverted commas came after the word "straight" and not after the word "vote".
We should avoid, firstly, any descriptions which are not acceptable to all sides, any descriptions which have any connotations other than those of description and of summary. There is no doubt that many people have referred to this system as the "straight vote", but I do not think the Minister's inverted commas quite convey the irony with which this description has been used by those who are opposed to the Government's proposals. Anyway, I do not think that inverted commas used in the sense in which they are used here, rather than used as strict quotation marks, have any proper place in legislation.
It may be that there is difficulty in finding a description other than the undesirable description which the Minister is putting into this Bill, but I do not think there should be. There was no difficulty in 1959 in finding a description which was superior to the description which is used here. If we look back both to the Third Amendment of the Constitution, 1958, the Bill which never became an Act due to the decision of the people in a referendum, we find a description of the choice. If we look back to the Referendum (Amendment) Act, 1959, we find again a description of the choice. I think the descriptions used in both of those cases were far superior to the descriptions used in both the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill and in the Referendum (Amendment) Bill now before us.
I would like to quote from Part II of the Schedule of the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1958, that is, the Bill which the people rejected. Here we find a clear description of the system which the Government then proposed. At that time, the Government were quite content to allow a specific description to appear in the Bill, a specific description to go before the people. The description is as follows:
The Members shall be elected on the system of the single non-transferable vote, the candidate in a constituency who receives the largest number of votes being elected, but provision may be made by law for determining who is to be elected where there is no such candidate because two or more candidates receive the same number of votes.
Of course the latter half of that sentence is concerned with the unlikely event of a tie in a single-member constituency but the first half of the sentence is a clear description.
This is what was in the Bill: this is the legal interpretation of the change proposed. Members shall be elected on the system of the single non-transferable vote, the candidate who receives the largest number of votes being elected. This is quite clear and specific. When we come to the present proposal, this description was changed and we had the description "the relative majority system" used. Perhaps there are legal reasons why it is a better description but it is certainly not a clearer description. However, that change may well be necessary because after all this is the draft of what it is proposed should be inserted into the Constitution.
It still should be as clear as possible for the people because, as the Minister emphasised in his opening speech on this Bill, copies of this Bill will be made available at the small cost of sixpence so that those who are interested enough will be able to read in the Bill exactly what it is proposed to be done. So, when we contrast the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution before this House at the moment with the Third Amendment of the Constitution of 1958, we find there is a far clearer description even in the legal instrument, even in the Constitution amendment, of the position.
We find the same sort of thing when we turn and contrast the Referendum (Amendment) Bill, which the Minister asks us to pass this morning, with the Referendum (Amendment) Act, 1959. The Bill which the Minister now proposes in the Appendix says:
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1968, proposes— (1) To substitute for the present system of voting at Dáil elections the "straight vote" system in single-Member constituencies.
This is not an adequate description for the benefit of the public who have to vote in the referendum. It is neither an adequate description nor is it a clear description. We take serious objection to it.
Let us contrast this single sentence here with what was in the Referendum (Amendment) Act, 1959 and we find a clear difference. In contrast to this short sentence with its misleading words "straight vote", we find the following in the Appendix to the 1959 Act which starts off by saying:
The following Summary of the principal proposals in the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1958, is circulated for the information of voters:
and goes on to say:
At present, members of Dáil Éireann are elected on a system of proportional representation for constituencies returning at least three members, each voter having a single transferable vote. It is proposed in the Bill to abolish the system of proportional representation and to adopt, instead, a system of single-member constituencies, each voter having a single non-transferable vote.
To my mind, the description in 1959 is far more helpful to the voters. It is far more helpful to anyone who wants honestly and sincerely to go about his job of choosing, who wants to be clear in this regard. I do not think it is perfect. I think what is here in the 1959 Bill could itself have been improved because I think the definition I read from the Third Amendment Bill, 1958 is indeed itself more informative still, telling people quite clearly what we mean by a non-transferable vote. It says:
The candidate in a constituency who receives the largest number of votes being elected.
This makes it quite clear. For goodness' sake, let us have clarity in this.
We can have our debates here in this House and we can have our debates afterwards at our after-Mass meetings throughout the country. There is no doubt when we come to do that we are not going to be concerned about balance in the case we propose. Each of us is going to put our own case with all the fervour we can but let us not carry the disputes in regard to the Bills themselves, let us not carry an irrational element we will all be guilty of during the debate throughout the country into the Referendum Bill itself. This Bill above all should be a measure passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas to help the people, even if perhaps what we are going to say at the crossroads afterwards may have the effect of confusing them. At least let us here in the Referendum Bill lay aside our talk of the straight vote; let us lay aside the talk of what somebody said ten years, 20 years, 30 years or 40 years ago; let us sit down here and work out a description which will be as clear as possible. Even if it takes three sentences rather than one to make this issue clear, it should be done. In this regard we should call a truce to the political argument and put the issue fairly and squarely before the people.
As I say, this is something which should be kept quite apart from the debate on the Constitution Amendment Bills, something which should be kept quite apart from the subsequent campaign throughout the country. In passing the Referendum Bill, we are passing a necessary piece of legislation to assist the people. We all acknowledge that in constitutional matters, they are our masters. If we attempt in any way to confuse the issue here, if we attempt to bring any emotional connotation at all into any of the descriptions here, then we are failing in our duty in this regard. We have our duties to our own political ideas, to our own political Parties but in regard to this Referendum Bill our duty is to the people. In this legal instrument which determines the message which will be placed before the people on the polling cards that will be circulated to them, at least, let everything be clear, let the full detail be here.
I do not want to go ahead and discuss how this might be done. I have indicated in what I have said already that the job that was done in 1959 in describing the Government's proposal was a better job than has been done now and we should revert to the type of description that was used in 1959, taking either what was in the Referendum Act or what was in the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1958. The description which is in this present Bill is unacceptable and should be changed. Of course, the appropriate time for that is on Committee Stage. I do not want to go into detail on this Second Stage in regard to it.
I do want to stress the point of principle that this Referendum Bill, which has produced a ballot paper better than the ballot paper of 1959, is proposing to produce a polling card very much worse than the polling card of 1959, and I think that, without losing any of our Party loyalties, without compromising with any of our political ideals, we can come together and do a better job on the Appendix to this Bill than has been done as it stands at the moment.