I should like very briefly to "recap" on some of the things I said in the few moments at my disposal last week. I began by saying it was a pity the level of the debate from the point of view of the Opposition had been so deplorably low. I instanced some of the remarks of Deputy Costello, almost the whole of Deputy Dillon's diatribe and the remarks of Deputy Dr. Browne whose speech was merely an example of his obsessive hatred of the Taoiseach. I might have added Deputy Norton's remarks about governing by jackboot and put them into that category. I did mention, however, that at the end of Dr. Browne's speech he asked the question: If Fianna Fáil Deputies would vote in favour of this Bill had they the opportunity of a straight vote? I said I certainly would vote in favour of the Bill if I were given the opportunity of a free vote of the House. I went on then to give some of the reasons which would prompt me to be very much in favour of this measure.
One of the things which must be very important to every Deputy, particularly members of a Party who put forward more than one candidate in a constituency, is the feeling of tension, sometimes amounting to bitterness, which prevails between the candidates themselves in the course of an election campaign. It is deplorable and undignified but those of us who wish to be honest with the House and with the people will admit it exists where more than one candidate goes forward in a constituency under P.R. In that connection I thought it significant that the exact wording of the amendment put down by Deputy Blowick and two other Deputies on behalf of the Clann na Talmhan Party obviously approved of the change from the multiple member constituency to the single member constituency and barely suggested that in the single member constituency the system of voting should be by single non-transferable vote instead of single transferable vote. I feel sure it will be of considerable interest to the people in my county that the Clann na Talmhan Party are in favour of a change from the present system to a system of single member constituencies. May I say that in that they are wise and I wholeheartedly agree with them? They, too, have experience of the bitterness and tension that develop between candidates who are going forward on the same ticket canvassing for the same votes.
I also mentioned that for a person representing a very large rural area the present system is unsatisfactory inasmuch as we are asked to represent a stretch of territory which we cannot physically represent in a satisfactory way. I have always felt frustrated about this state of affairs since I believe that a Deputy should be a leader and not merely a reflector of public opinion in his area, which he cannot be if he is not sufficiently in contact with his constituents and if his constituency is of the vast size of the one which I have the honour to represent.
One of the big objections put forward by those who oppose this measure is that we are trying to substitute a fair system of election for an unfair one. I do not think any system of election under parliamentary democracy in any country in Europe could be described as absolutely fair. I do not suppose those who followed the results of the recent elections in France could disagree with that view. It is, of course, highly desirable that it could take 230,000 voters to elect a communist to the French National Assembly but obviously it is not a fair reflection of the voting strength of that Party. In the same way if you go on to Austria, Germany, or to any country which operates what is known as "The list," it is plain that that again is not fair inasmuch as people are presented not with a list of individual candidates from whom they may choose but a list of Party candidates, and they have merely the choice of voting for one Party or another.
There is then the system of the single transferable vote which again may not be fair to the person who commands the highest individual support in his constituency. Therefore, we should cast from our minds the suggestion that there is any such thing as an absolutely fair method of election and realise that when people like Deputy Dr. Browne and others refer to the reflection of every shade of opinion in this House, they are talking absolute nonsense. The only possible way to have every shade of opinion represented in this House is by sending everybody in the country up here as a member.
The suggestion has been put forward that we are trying to push minorities and minority groups out of Parliament and out of public life. That is not so. I believe that under the system which operates in Great Britain and operates very well there, minority parties if they are to have any hope of growing to the size where they can be an effective opposition, must reflect not just the opinions and feelings of a minority group but national interest, and national policies are what they should put forward. I believe that under the new system if it is adopted by the people, while they will remain small Parties in this House they will be forced to reflect in their policy national rather than sectional interests.
The individuals who will be returned here under a single member constituency system will each represent approximately 25,000 people in a physical unit of the country. Those of us who have taken any trouble to study the results of elections in this country will find extraordinary results particularly in rural areas; one of them indeed is my own constituency where there are two members, both of them in the House at the present time who are living in the same town and another, Deputy Blowick, who lives a matter of a few miles away. It is a curious fact but it is true that three people who live within nine miles of one another have been elected in my own constituency. I am not suggesting there is anything wrong with that but some of the people in other parts of the county have during the years felt dissatisfied that they have never been able to elect or, alternatively, have never been able to keep elected, a member from their area.
In this instance it might be well to point out that, again, the fact that a candidate is going forward from a certain area for which he has no reasonable chance of being elected leads to the bitterness and frustration which I have already mentioned. I feel quite certain that the people of my county who, down the years, have not had sufficient contact with members of this House but who realise that this is not their fault, will support the system under which they will always have their own representative for their own area. They will not have the representation of four people, none of whom is personally fully alive to their particular needs.
Now, Sir, I should like to turn to what I think is the most deplorable element in this debate. I refer to the repeated statements from the Opposition Benches about jackboot government and to the attempt that is being made, so it is said, by my Party to perpetuate itself at the expense of the Irish people and to establish itself as a dictatorship. The people who put forward that view would do well to remember that it is much easier to change a Government under the single member constituency system than under P.R. It takes a very small percentage swing in England to change a strong Tory Government and to put in a strong Labour Government.
For that reason I believe you would have more stable and more solid Government and a Government more readily changeable by the people if you had the system put forward to the people under this Bill for their consideration.