There have been so many speakers on this question that it is very difficult to approach it from a fresh or original angle. However, I wish to put forward my reasons for opposing this measure. The first inkling we got of the Taoiseach's decision to remove P.R. was at a Press conference some two or three months ago. A short time after that we had a Fianna Fáil Árd-Fheis in the Mansion House. That was a gathering of political supporters of Fianna Fáil and the Taoiseach saw fit to declare there his intention of removing the present system of election and of substituting for it the direct voting system. He has now gone a step further and announced his intentions to this House, which Assembly, in my opinion, should have been the first body to hear of his intention to abolish P.R.
Since that statement was made there has been much speculation throughout the country as to whether P.R. should go; we read in the papers every day where there have been discussions by local authorities. These authorities have gone so far as to pass resolutions condemning the Taoiseach's action. Again, we read letters in the Press every day criticising this measure. All this talk and all these letters about this action on the part of the Taoiseach points to a spirit of unrest in the minds of the people.
We have heard in this House, in support of the Government's contention that P.R. should go, certain reasons given as to way this Bill was introduced. One of the reasons was that the P.R. system of election tended to create a multiplicity of Parties and tended to set up warring groups. It was also suggested that it rendered responsible government impossible. Another reason given was that it was imposed on this country by the British. It was said that direct voting provides government by the majority of the people. I am not impressed by these reasons. I am convinced that there is a feeling in the minds of the vast majority of the people that this Bill is a ruse by the Taoiseach to ensure the return of the Fianna Fáil Party for the future. I may be wrong in that belief but it has been expressed to me on more than one occasion.
Many people think that the Taoiseach has an ulterior motive in introducing this Bill. In support of that it has been stated that no attempt was made to abolish the P.R. system during the 16 years Fianna Fáil were in power, from 1932 to 1948. No expression of opinion was then given that that system of election was unsatisfactory and that it should be replaced by the direct vote.
For those 16 years that Fianna Fáil were in power they suffered no defeat until 1948. During those 16 years we had many general elections and Fianna Fáil were returned every time. I could not say how many general elections there were but there were at least ten, and Fianna Fáil were returned every time under the present system which they now condemn. It is very significant that the Taoiseach thought of bringing in this proposal only after he received two defeats, one in 1948 and the other in 1954.
As I have already said one of the reasons given for the introduction of the present measure was that it was introduced into this country, and more or less imposed on the country, by the British Government in 1919. I am satisfied that previous speakers have conclusively shown that the adoption of the present system of P.R. was an act of the Irish people in 1922. A Constitution was drawn up in that year; it was endorsed by this Parliament and subsequently endorsed again by the people.
In 1937 the present Taoiseach drew up the Constitution and retained the present method of election in that Constitution. I fail to see why a thing should be condemned because it was introduced by the British Government to this country. That may not necessarily mean that such a thing is bad or injurious to this country and I think we could take many a leaf out of the British book without damage to ourselves. I always thought that P.R. was an act of the Irish people and we are told that it was supported and endorsed by no less a person than Arthur Griffith. I cannot reconcile the Taoiseach's statement that P.R. should go because it was imposed on us by the British with his action in retaining it in the Constitution in 1937. That does not make sense to me. I am satisfied, regardless of Government speeches on the matter, that the present method was introduced because it represented the express wish of the Irish people at that time.
It is contended by the Taoiseach and his colleagues that the direct voting system tends to elect a Government which will represent the majority of the people. When one examines the position in Britain in relation to the last ten general elections, one finds that in only two of these general elections did the elected Government represent the majority of the people. In eight out of those ten elections a minority Government was returned in Britain. The same can be said of the operation of the system in Canada.
We in this country have had no experience to go by with regard to Governments elected under the direct voting system and we are stepping into the unknown when we attempt to change the present method. If the single vote system operated in this country at the present time we could have, as a result of a general election, the Fianna Fáil Party receiving 35 per cent. of the total votes, the Fine Gael Party receiving 34 per cent. and the Labour Party 31 per cent. I have left out individuals and others Parties and am just taking the three largest Parties for convenience sake.
If those figures obtain at a general election, under the direct voting system it would mean that Fianna Fáil would be elected though they would not have a majority vote. They could not claim that they represented the vast majority of the people because, in that particular instance, 65 per cent. of the people would have voted against them and only 35 per cent. for them. Therefore, I fail to see how a change to the direct voting system will attain, as the Government contend it will, a Government that will represent the vast majority of the people.
The Taoiseach claims that the present system leads to multiplicity of Parties. My comment on that, as already expressed by other speakers, is that a man should have the right to stand for any Party because, when we consider the matter properly, it is the individual, the individual candidate, who counts and not so much the individual Party. I contend that if good men are nominated to stand on behalf of a small Party, even an insignificant Party, they should at least have a reasonable chance of election. I am afraid, however, that if the present system is abolished such men will not have as good a chance of being elected to Dáil Éireann and, indeed, the Dáil could be the poorer as a result.
Small Parties will be considerably handicapped if we change to a direct system of election, because in single member constituencies you will obviously have the big Parties nominating their respective candidates and, whilst at the present time we have representatives of small Parties in this House, if P.R. goes they will not have a chance of even being nominated. They may have a chance of being nominated but that will not be of any use to them because, obviously, the members of the two large Parties will defeat them overwhelmingly. Further, such men will have no chance of being nominated by either of the two big Parties, should they merge with them, because already the two Parties have their own sitting Deputies, and I am sure these Deputies will be very loath to stand down.
It was also claimed by the Taoiseach that the present system makes for irresponsible government. If we follow that statement to its logical conclusion Fianna Fáil, I think, must admit that is a reflection on their previous terms of office, and also on their present term. They have been in power from 1932 to 1948, for 16 years; they are back in power once more and, in the light of the statement that the present system of election makes for irresponsibility in government, in my opinion they stand self-condemned. We have often heard Fianna Fáil claim that they represented the majority view of the people but it now seems that they are not a responsible Government and that the people have been fooled all down the years because the Taoiseach has said that the present system leads to irresponsibility in government.
The Taoiseach did not say that between 1932 and 1948. He did, however, claim that Fianna Fáil was a responsible Government, but it now appears from his speech, and from the speeches of those who support this measure, that they are condemning themselves. Fianna Fáil are a Government elected under P.R. and thus are an irresponsible Government. In spite of common knowledge to the contrary, a knowledge which I believe is fully shared by the Taoiseach himself, we are asked to believe that countries like Switzerland, Denmark, Belgium, Norway and Western Germany are not progressive because they use the P.R. method of election. That is a rather ridiculous claim on the part of those who support this Bill.
We are also told that the present system of election leads to instability in government but I fail to see how that can be. Again, Fianna Fáil stand condemned because they were elected under P.R. and they have a majority of approximately 17 members at the present time. Surely a Government which has a majority of 17 over all Parties cannot be termed unstable? To say that the present Government is unstable at least appears to be contrary to the facts since they have that majority of 17. When the results of the last general election made it known that Fianna Fáil had been returned to power with a majority of 17, the Government then declared to all and sundry that they were a stable Government, and they were going to do this and that to solve the problems of unemployment and emigration. They said that they represented the vast majority of the people, and that they could go forward in confidence to solve all the problems which they might meet during their tenure of office, but now they say they are unstable because they have been elected under the P.R. system.
It has been said throughout the country, and by many people in my own constituency of Louth, that this measure has been introduced to provide for the rainy day when the Taoiseach retires, a day which probably will not be too long delayed. I am not suggesting that he should retire. I am not suggesting that he has lost any of his efficiency, but I am saying that it has been put forward that this measure has been introduced to provide for the rainy day when he will no longer be present to lead his Party or his Government. He says that P.R. is no good because it leads to instability but, at the same time, he forgets that at present he holds the position of Premier in this country, the position of Taoiseach, as a result of an election held under the P.R. system.
With regard to this point of stability, we have heard many speeches during the past year or so by a number of Ministers, and in particular by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, on the subject of attracting foreign industries and foreign capital in order to solve our unemployment problem. In those speeches the one point most emphasised was, of course, the fact that we had stable government here in the Twenty-Six Counties. It now appears that those speeches were not correct, that we have an unstable Government because it has been elected under the P.R. system, and that system must now go because it leads to instability in government. It is all very confusing. We have only to refer to those other countries which I have enumerated to realise how baseless is the Taoiseach's argument on that point. I do not think Fianna Fáil would admit they are an unstable Government.
It seems to me that the Government imagine that all our economic ills and troubles will be cured, if we revert to a direct method of election in the future. It must be admitted that there is no automatic panacea for our economic problems. There is no system of election which will automatically ensure the proper solution of those problems. It is not so much the system of election which should worry us as the type of Government which is elected. If we change to a direct method of election, I fail to see how the Government will be in a more secure position to implement the £100,000,000 plan which was recently referred to by the Government. Are they not strong enough now to carry out all their promises as they said they would? They have a strong majority and reverting to a different method of election will not improve the position, so far as our economy is concerned.
No system of election can solve our problems; no particular system can ensure the election of a Government that will do so. It is not so much that a different system of election is needed as brains and efficiency. I contend that these attributes can be found equally in small Parties as in large Parties.
It appears, too, that history is about to repeat itself when we consider the 32 Counties as a whole. When the North of Ireland was gerrymandered many years ago to the detriment of the Nationalist minority Fianna Fáil were loud in their condemnation of that action, and rightly so, but how now can we view with patience and indifference a contemplated action of the Taoiseach which may very well result in depriving minorities of the same right of election under a new system as they have under the P.R. system?
I fear we are going to walk hand in hand with the Six Counties in this regard. We recall on an occasion like this the many statements made by the Taoiseach when he reiterated his oft-expressed opinion that Partition was one of our outstanding problems. It appears that he is not so convinced now because if a direct voting system is the future method of electing Governments in this part of the country, there will be little attraction held out to our friends over the Border to unite with us as one nation. In reply to that argument, the Taoiseach contends that minorities could get representation by merging with the majority. We have only to refer to the set-up in the North of Ireland to realise how ineffective that statement is because we know for certain that the minority in the North of Ireland are not satisfied. Is it now contended that the Nationalist minority should merge with the Unionists so as to have proper representation in the Six Counties?
Fine Gael are opposed to this Bill because it represents a threat to small Parties. In the amendment put to the House by the Leader of the Opposition, it is suggested that a commission of experts should be set up to examine the ineffectiveness of the present system. I do not claim that the present system is an infallible one and that it is the absolutely correct one; neither do I agree that the one being put forward as an alternative is the proper one to have. I object especially to this Bill because there has been no real demand for it from the people.
There was a general election last year and on no occasion was this possibility referred to. It was never said by Fianna Fáil that they were seeking support for the next five years and that if they got in, they would promise to do away with the present system of election and revert to the direct method. That was never said and I fail to see how the Taoiseach can justify his contention at column 996, Volume 171, No. 8 of the Official Report of 26th November, 1958, when, referring seemingly to the demand for this measure which was evident to him at least, he said:—
"It has been suggested that there has been no public opinion, no voice asking for this. All I can say to the Leader of the Opposition is that, if he thinks that, he must have had cotton wool in his ears from 1948 to 1951 and 1954 to 1957, because everywhere I went through the country, everyone I met wanted to know when were we going to get rid of that system which was going to ruin the country."
That was stated by the Taoiseach on the Second Stage. Of course, the Taoiseach refers to the period from 1948 to 1951 and the years from 1954 to 1957—very significant years because during those years Fianna Fáil were not in power. I wonder was there any demand between 1932 and 1948, while the Taoiseach was going through the country, for the abolition of this system? It was not ruining the country, it seems, during those years. It was ruining the country only while Fianna Fáil were out of office.
I heard speeches in the Dáil many times since I came into the House in 1954 and on no occasion have I heard it suggested up to the present time that P.R. should go and that it was not a satisfactory method of election. I may be wrong in that, but at least I have not heard those speeches or read about them. I am afraid that the Taoiseach's experience of a demand for the removal of this system is shared by very few.
Reactions have been felt throughout the Twenty-Six Counties as a result of this Bill. In my own constituency, the people believe that there is an ulterior motive lurking somewhere behind the whole set-up. The reasons given so far are not accepted by many people; they are not accepted by me. I am at least a little bit suspicious. Fine Gael and the other small Parties are united in their opposition to the measure and they are confident that the people will reject it as being worthless and unworkable.
In passing, I should like to say that it will not only be the Fine Gael supporters, or the Opposition supporters in general, who will vote against this measure. I am convinced that many Fianna Fáil supporters will say no to the referendum because they realise that it is a bad measure and that it may possibly be the means of removing their favourites from office. It may be, as Deputy Booth said, that many Fianna Fáil faces will not be seen in the House, if this measure goes through.
P.R. has been with us for the past 38 years. That is an important factor when it comes to assessing the merits and demerits of the system. It is the system we know and, as Deputy J.A. Costello said, we are approaching the end of an era in political life and no one knows what undercurrents and repercussions there might be when the Taoiseach retires. I suggest it would be safer and wiser to leave things as they are—at least for the present. I am satisfied that the present system prevents landslides of a reactionary nature. As I say, it is the traditional system of election, and, as the Taoiseach himself said, it is the system we know.
The Minister for Defence referred to the system's complexities and said it was rather cumbersome and that people did not understand it. I agree that people do not understand the theoretical working of it, but they know it gives everybody a proportionately equal chance and they are used to it. They know what the Nos. 1, 2 and 3 mean and they know that "No. 3" may have a voice in electing a candidate and that "Nos. 5 and 6" may equally play their part, even though they may not be too well versed in the theoretical and mathematical aspects of it.
I do not say that there are no defects in the present system because under the P.R. system a candidate could head the poll and yet be defeated eventually. He could fail eventually to be elected and that actually did happen in the last election in the West of Ireland, where a man headed the poll on the first count and subsequently was eliminated. Equally, a candidate right at the bottom of the poll on the first count could be elected, if his colleague in the same Party headed the poll with a very substantial surplus on the first count. There is a seeming paradox there. The person who is first on the first count may be eliminated while the person who is last may be eventually successful and be elected.
There are these seeming paradoxes under the present system and again I refer to the amendment which suggests that a commission of experts should go into the whole matter rationally and objectively, and thrash out the matter in an effort to solve these little idiosyncrasies in the present method. Equally, if we change to the direct method, we have anomalies because a candidate could be elected, even though he represented only a minority of the people. For example, if there were three candidates contesting one seat in a constituency in which the total poll was 20,000, Fianna Fáil could get 8,000, Fine Gael 7,000 and Labour 5,000 votes. That would mean that under the direct vote system the Fianna Fáil candidate would be elected because Fianna Fáil got the greatest number of votes. Yet they have 4,000 votes less than the overall total of 12,000 who voted against them. It is with the object of reconciling these anomalies and defects in both systems that we suggest a commission of experts should be set up to examine the position.
I should like to inquire what would be the position regarding the Presidential election and local authority elections. If we are to have different systems for the various elections—for local authorities, for Dáil Éireann and for the Presidency—it will be very confusing for the people. Again, we must consider the future Seanad elections. No reference, as far as I can recall, has been made to what method will apply in future to the election of Senators.
It is claimed by Fianna Fáil that they represent a cross-section of the people. That may be so. I suppose every Party contend that they represent every section, that they do their best agriculturally, industrially and every other way, for all sections of the people. Fianna Fáil claim that they represent labour, the trade unions, agriculture, industry, commerce and business and every other aspect of the community, but it is very significant that the Seanad, as has always been said, is composed of vocational groups. The statement made by Fianna Fáil that they were the Party representing all sections of the people and, therefore, should be the only Party that should govern the people, is a false claim. When the Taoiseach is replying, I hope he will refer to what system will be used for Seanad elections, for the Presidential election and for the local authority elections.
With regard to the commission for the revision of constituencies, I notice that provision is made for the appointment of seven members to act on this commission. I do not see any provision for the filling of vacancies. If a member of this commission resigns for any reason, or is removed, there is no mention at all in the Bill of that vacancy being filled and no mention of any method for filling a vacancy. That is a very grave omission because if seven members— naturally it must be an odd number for the commission to come to some kind of a decision—are considered to be the proper number, surely the number must always be seven? If there are seven at the start, there should always be seven sitting on the commission in order that the commission may arrive at a proper decision. I presume that that omission will be rectified. I hope it will be rectified because I think it is wrong that these vacancies should not be filled, if they occur.
As regards a decision on the eventual boundary line for the constituencies, I fail to see how there can be a stalemate, if there is an odd number examining the question. How could there be equal numbers voting for and equal numbers voting against, if there are seven? I am mentioning that because it is said that the chairman will submit his report and it will be conclusive and final and will be acceptable to the President. If the other six members of the commission fail to agree amongst themselves as to revision of the constituencies, it will be left to one man to draw up a scheme of new constituencies. That will be a thankless job for one man, no matter who he is. He will be criticised by both Parties. I think the work should develop on the commission as a whole and that it should not be left to one individual, to the chairman of the commission. Of course, it is to be noted that the Government are open to suggestions on this matter, and I hope they will reconsider the position in that respect and amend it accordingly.
Much has been said about the cost of this referendum. A figure has been given of £80,000 and I assume that that is the cost only of the Government expenditure which will be incurred. I wonder is it the total cost? Does it include the cost to the local authorities who obviously will have to go to a lot of expense in arrangements for booths and paying fees to polling clerks, presiding officers and so forth? Again, would it not be better to hold the Presidential election and the referendum on the same day, in order to eliminate expense and duplication, not only of expense but of trouble and inconvenience generally?
In conclusion, I should like to say that it would suit the Government and the Dáil better if more important matters than this issue of the referendum were tackled first. What the people want is not so much a different system of election as more secure employment and an improved standard of living. That is all they want—issues relating to bread and butter. That is what they are most interested in. They are not interested, to my mind, in the method of election, but they are interested in a Government elected democratically by the people which does its best to implement the promises it makes during an election compaign.
We have at present 65,000 unemployed and we were told 60,000 emigrated in the past year. I cannot see how a different method of electing a Government will reduce the number of unemployed or stem the tide of emigration. I am satisfied that the Government have a strong enough majority at present, and are stable enough to attempt to solve these problems. I do not say they can solve them. No Government can solve all the problems with which it is often faced, but the fact that this Government have been elected under the present system of election, the P.R. system, which is now condemned by the Government elected under that system, is the greatest argument against the Bill.
