Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 30 Jul 1968

Vol. 65 No. 21

Referendum (Amendment) Bill, 1968: Report and Final Stages.

Professor Quinlan

I move the amendment standing in my name and that of Senator McHugh:

In page 3, to delete all words from and including "To" in line 37, down to and including "constituencies" in line 39, and substitute:—

"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."

I am making one last effort on Report Stage to get the Minister to accept the formula agreed on by all Parties on the occasion of the last referendum. I quote from the debate in Seanad Éireann, which took less than one hour. In introducing the Bill, the then Minister for Local Government stated, at column 1352:

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.

That was by agreement. At column 1358, the then Minister for Local Government, Mr. Blaney, went on to say:

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.

Senator McGuire interrupted to say:

There was good co-operation?

Mr. Blaney said:

Undoubtedly.

That was the situation the last time. It is sad to think that things have deteriorated so much since then that the Parties could not be got to combine on a formula that would present the substance of the referendum to the voters in a fair and objective manner. The present Minister for Local Government turns his back on what had been done by his predecessor. In fact, the formula worked out on the last occasion has been derided, especially by Senator Yeats, who said it was to "bemuse and bedazzle". That was a formula worked out by all Parties. I was attacked in a rather personal manner across the House this afternoon for daring to try to bring the Parties back to that situation and for daring to point out the unfairness in the situation where the name "proportional representation" is very carefully concealed from the public and where "straight vote" in inverted commas is introduced for the first time. The last Bill did not have this.

Now I am proposing that we should delete subsection (1) and replace it by what was agreed on to represent the change proposed in 1959. The agreement is to abolish the system of proportional representation—"abolish" is a much more expressive word than what is here "to substitute for"; we should call a spade a spade and what you are doing is abolishing—and adopt instead a system of single-member constituencies, each voter having a single, non-transferable vote. In other words, it says what the system is. It gives the two essential features of what is proposed, the single-seat constituency and the single, non-transferable vote. Why can we not behave as ordinary, educated politicians and put into this what was agreed in 1959, what explains precisely what is in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution in the same terminology as was used at that time and get back to the agreement that prevailed in 1959? It is essential that in presenting a matter to the electorate by way of a referendum there should be an impartial approach. I suggest that the present summary does not have that; I suggest the 1959 one did. Therefore, I call on the House to support me in appealing to the Minister not to turn his back on what was agreed in 1959, to meet us in this way and ensure that the voters will be consulted fairly and objectively.

Mr. McHugh

I formally second the amendment.

Mr. K. Boland

This amendment does not mention whether the proposal is in connection with Dáil, Seanad or Presidential elections. Apart from that, it is quite clear that it would have no real effect except to delay submitting the proposition to the people and possibly to confuse them. This, in fact, is all that is intended. I must ask Senator Quinlan, do the people in fact know what the present system is or do they not? If they know the present system, then it is unnecessary to clutter up the voter's card with words to describe the present electoral system. I can see no reason for this except to confuse the people.

It was alleged that on the last occasion the people were confused, that the two different systems of voting and representation were described in the summary and that some people were confused as a result and did not know whether to vote for or against PR or for or against single-member constituencies. I think the proposed summary on this occasion is much clearer to the person who is not prepared to read and study a more involved statement. The only change suggested in regard to the description of the proposed system is, of course, intended to disguise it from the people who would be presented with a description of the proposed system which they have not heard up to this.

Senator Quinlan says that this is the formula that was agreed on in the last Bill. Of course it does not even remotely approach the formula that was in the 1959 Bill which was:

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.

It is also proposed in the Bill to set up a commission for the determination and revision of the constituencies, instead of having this done by the Oireachtas, as at present.

Senator Quinlan says that this is the same as "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" without even referring to the fact of whether it is for Dáil elections. There is no real similarity between what Senator Quinlan proposes and what was there in 1959. At this late stage in the discussion of this matter, Senator Quinlan seriously, apparently, asks me to believe that because this was agreed on in 1959, it would be reasonable to assume that it would be agreed on now in 1968. He asks me apparently to believe that this is one thing the Opposition would have agreed on if it had been put forward in this Referendum Bill, although on every other detail on which we tried to interpret the minds of the Opposition and comply with their desires, we found that their opinions had changed to the diametrically opposite point of view.

For instance, the proposal in the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill was clearly in response to the demands of Opposition Deputies and Senators. We find on this occasion that they have completely changed their minds. Similarly, in regard to the provisions for the Constituency Commission, the provisions in 1959 were opposed by way of amendment designed to remove all reference to a Constituency Commission from the Bill. We found that their attitude was that if there was to be provision for a Constituency Commission, its report should be amended by a simple majority rather than a two-thirds majority. On this occasion we find so far from not wanting a Constituency Commission, they want two——

Mr. O'Quigley

How does this arise on the amendment?

Mr. K. Boland

Senator Quinlan has made the case that I should have known that the Opposition would agree to the summary that was incorporated in the Referendum Act, 1959.

Professor Quinlan

On a point of order, I made no such claim, but I am putting it to the test in the present amendment.

Mr. K. Boland

Before this Referendum Bill was introduced in the Dáil, I had already discovered that the Opposition had changed their minds on practically every detail since 1959 and it was quite clear that their attitude on this occasion was to oppose everything proposed by Fianna Fáil, and if we had proposed that this should be the summary, we knew in advance what the Opposition arguments would be against it because they were made on the last occasion—that it confused the voters and that the normal voter who does not pay very detailed attention to political discussions would not know when he went to vote whether he was to vote for or against proportional representation or for or against the proposed system. These arguments were made on the last occasion and it appeared to us likely that they would be made on this occasion also. There is no doubt whatever that if we had proposed that the summary should be the same on this occasion, these arguments would have been made against it. The only mistake we made is that we tried to please the Opposition while we should have known that is not possible. In fact, they do not want to be pleased.

It is quite clear that the only objective in this operation of Senator Quinlan's is to try to get an amendment of some kind accepted here, an amendment of no importance, which he knows is no improvement, the only idea behind it being to delay bringing this matter before the people in the hope that something will happen to change the present trend of opinion, in the Fine Gael Party in particular, which is towards the opinion of the Leader of that Party.

Professor Quinlan

I might have realised that it was futile to try to bring back the Minister to even the small measure of agreement that was obtained in 1959. It is a poor tribute to the Minister that he is incapable of beginning to achieve even the agreement Deputy Blaney was able to get. It is a pity that the practice on the last occasion of having an agreed summary was departed from. It throws a very sinister light on the Government's attitude on consulting the people. It shows the people are not being consulted in a reasonable way. This is just an effort to get rid of PR and hoodwink our people into doing that.

I have no doubt whatever what the vote of the people will be and that they will overwhelmingly reject this effort to instal Party dictatorship. I would not be a party to delaying this question going to the people. There is no substance in the Minister's claim that we are trying to delay the issue, any more than there is substance in his claim that I believed he was going to agree to any of our amendments. But we had to show the reason of our amendments. We shall leave it for students of political science reading those debates in the future to judge the reasonableness of our amendments and their motives. We will commit our motives and reasons to history and I face the verdict on what I said in these debates with far more confidence than the Minister can face the verdict on some of the rather puerile objections he has raised against our efforts to behave as members of a democratic assembly, discharging our duties as democrats in this matter, and discharging our duties as democrats in Seanad Éireann. I have no option but to press the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill received for final consideration.

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

Professor Quinlan

I want to be recorded as dissenting. I could not possibly assent to the description, as put there, of the Fourth Amendment Bill, nor could I be a party to the introduction of the slang term "straight vote" into this Bill.

Mr. K. Boland

I just wish to reply to Senator Quinlan's allegation that there was no attempt made to meet the Opposition's viewpoint. I accepted a number of amendments in the Dáil on this Bill and on the other Bills as well. I think it is quite clear that throughout this whole operation there has been every effort made to meet the wishes of the Opposition, but as I have shown it just is not possible to discover what their wishes are. In fact they do not know themselves; in order to decide their attitude to the whole proposal they had to have an all-night session which finished up, as we know, in a very closely contested vote of confidence in the Leader of the main Opposition Party. The fact is clear that the whole purpose of this operation was an attempt to meet the wishes that were expressed here by the Opposition Parties in regard to what resulted from the interpretation by the High Court of a provision of the Constitution.

An Cathaoirleach

The Chair feels that this matter is not quite relevant at this Stage of the Bill.

Mr. K. Boland

It is clear I could not have interpreted the Opposition's view in regard to this, because it is solely dictated by the attitude of opposing anything whatever that was brought in by the Fianna Fáil Government. That has been Senator Quinlan's consistent attitude throughout the whole debate.

Question put and agreed to, Senator Quinlan recorded as dissenting.