An Bille um an Tríú Leasú ar an mBunreacht, 1958—An Coiste (Atógáil). Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1958—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Tairgeadh an Cheist arís: "I gCodanna I agus II, go bhfanfaidh fo-alt 1 mar chuid den Sceideal."

SCHEDULE—SECTION 2.

Question again proposed: "That in Parts I and II, sub-section 1 stand part of the Schedule."

Mr. McQuillan

The Taoiseach himself gave us his views, two days ago, on the reasons why the single-seat constituency with the non-transferable vote is, in his opinion, a better proposition than the present arrangement. One of his reasons for this measure is that he believes it will in future give us stable Government. I do not think that anybody here, or outside this House, will deny that we have had stable Government over the past 25 to 30 years. Of course, opinions may differ on what stable Government means. As far as the general public outside this House are concerned, their belief is that a stable Government should be one that is able to bring forward good progressive measures that will improve economic and social conditions in this country. A Government who bring forward good, sound propositions and do their utmost to carry those into effect, will get the support of the people without their having to resort to dubious means to keep themselves in office.

It cannot be denied that we have had stable Government here over the years. For 16 to 20 years, we have had one-Party Government, strong Government, and yet during that period of strong Government, economic conditions deteriorated to such an extent that the youth of to-day are fast losing hope in the future of this State. Is it suggested that if this measure is carried into effect, and Fianna Fáil are given another period of years in office, they will change their colours? In my opinion, as far as the political Party in office at the moment are concerned, the word "stable" is incorrect. The words we should have had as far as Fianna Fáil are concerned are denoted by the letters "S.S."—strong and stagnant Government. I do not think that the people are prepared, through this manipulation, to allow them to carry on as they have been allowed in the past. The other evening, the Taoiseach told us that the edges were blurred, that differences were disappearing in this House, that is, the fundamental differences, what he described as fundamental differences, and whilst those alleged fundamental differences were there, P.R. worked reasonably well.

It is a fact that the edges are blurred, that that bitterness is dying out, because to-day there is no difference in this House on the question of the civil war, or there should not be any differences. But, when the Taoiseach says that difference is disappearing, his argument is that support for the groups concerned is falling away and that would be a bad thing. Is it not a fact that what he wants to do is to hold the position, or to return it to what it was ten or 15 years ago? It cannot be denied that the greater proportion of the people were divided simply and solely on the question of whether or not they took a certain side in the civil war. That difference is dying out and the Taoiseach is afraid, as a result of its dying out, that Fianna Fáil will die with it. There is one way in his mind by which he can keep that split and perpetuate it, that is, by changing the system of election and ensuring that Fianna Fáil, as far as can humanly be done, will have justified themselves on the line they have taken for the past 35 or 30 years.

At the moment we are at a very important period in our development in the political sense and what I might describe as the big thaw is now setting in. There are various parts of the world where for the greater portion of the year, the entire countryside is held in the grip of winter and every spring, when the sun begins to shine, little rivers and streams begin to flow and life resumes its hopeful appearance there. Politically speaking, this country has been in the grip of a Father Winter for the past 25 or 30 years and the thaw is now beginning to take place and the streams of political thought are now being allowed to run free.

Is it the Taoiseach's intention, when he himself is disappearing now from the political scene, to try once more to freeze development in this country, to freeze the idea of progressive thinking and to push the people into two separate outlets and keep them frozen there, politically speaking, for the next 20 to 30 years? The youth of to-day are not interested in being told that the Taoiseach took a certain line 25 to 30 years ago. There is no use asking them to sort out their ideas on the grounds that they must be for either Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael. There is not the slightest doubt that there is youth supporting Fianna Fáil who have everything in common, on economic and social matters, with their opposite numbers in Fine Fael. Is it right that these people must sit on opposite sides of the House simply and solely because the Taoiseach wishes to keep that difference there based on a civil war?

This measure, if it is allowed to pass, if the people accept it, will prevent the people, even in political Parties, from sorting themselves out on fundamental matters. As I have already said, we are not allowed discuss the real fundamental issues of this matter. As far as the Taoiseach is concerned, fundamentals mean the Irish language and the alleged agreement on Partition. To the majority of the people, the fundamental matter is the survival of this nation; yet there cannot be a discussion here as to the urgency of the problem of taking the necessary steps to prevent the drain of the 70,000 people per annum who are clearing out of the country. It does not even worry the people in the Government at present. It is not a fundamental matter, as far as they are concerned.

I must say that the major Opposition Party have shown over the years that as far as they were concerned— whether they were sincere or not, I do not know—it was not their belief that one Party alone was essential to form a Government. It can be said that they have given proof that they are not prepared at this stage to keep up the civil war differences. I do not see any reason why Fianna Fáil should not adopt the same attitude. There is a golden opportunity now for them. The sun is beginning to shine even in that direction.

The Taoiseach has referred to the fact that if this new system which he proposes is adopted and if it is found wanting, it can be changed. More accurately, he said that if the system was found to be unsatisfactory it could be changed. Those were his remarks on this measure. In other words, he was preparing, at this stage, another bolthole, another escape route. If, in ten years' time, his Party were queried about the failure of the system, all he would have to say is that he had said that if this system was found to be unsatisfactory, it could be changed.

If we examine carefully what he really meant, we will find that it does not look so good. At the time, he was speaking about the multiplicity of Parties. His argument has been that he does not like a number of Parties. It is not P.R. he is against as such, but the fact that a number of Parties is likely to arise as a result of P.R. What does he say? If the system was found to be unsatisfactory, it could be changed. In other words, if under the new system we still had a multiplicity of Parties, some other step would have to be taken.

What does that mean? The Taoiseach is all out against a number of Parties, so that if this system which he proposes is adopted and if it fails to prevent the growth of Parties, his Party can take steps to prevent their growth. Is it not beyond contradiction that all the Taoiseach believes in is government by Fianna Fáil alone and that he can never envisage government by any other Party at all; that he has got into a rut in that regard? I suppose it is just old age. When people get to a certain age, they get into a rut and the Taoiseach is no different from anybody else in that respect. He cannot be got out of it at this stage.

He gave a very interesting discourse here on the advantages, as he saw them, of the single seat constituency. One would have the idea that the single seat constituency would be just a grand little area over which a Deputy would preside like a grandfather and all the people would come to him with their grievances and he would be like the local chief in the area. When we get from the Minister for External Affairs and others a long harangue on the advantages of the single seat constituency in Britain, let us remember there will be no comparison whatever between the single seat constituency in Britain and the proposed single seat constituency here. Other Deputies have dealt with this in detail, but I must go on record with my view because I have very strong views on this and I happen to know perhaps a little more than other Deputies about the matter, due to the fact that I came into this House in spite of the opposition of all political Parties.

The minimum number in a constituency in Britain is 45,000 to 50,000. Here in Ireland under the new proposal, we shall have 8,000 to 10,000. Is it not well known that there are constituencies here at present where there are enough relations to put a particular candidate within reasonable distance of being elected through his relations and their relations and contacts alone? That could not happen in Britain. No member in a single seat constituency there is in a position to put his finger into every pie. No Member of Parliament in Britain is in the position— on the face of it, at least—that he can make a decision as to what gang will be employed by the county council, who will get the local post office, who will act as a chief agent to recommend increases, shall we say, in old age pensions for certain individuals, who will make recommendations in regard to every appointment in the locality.

That does not happen in Britain. Constituencies are too big; there are too many people available to prevent any individual getting away with that type of conduct. But if we have the constituencies here arranged practically on a parish basis, we shall have the lowest form of political jobbery that can be envisaged and, goodness knows, it is bad enough now. I have not the slightest doubt from my experience under the present system that the present situation is as nothing compared with the depths to which it will sink if we have single seat constituencies. The one saving grace at the moment is that in the multiple seat constituency other Deputies are available who will prevent the local little dictator from having his way.

To a Deputy looking for a soft seat and the situation of local boss, it must appear very attractive to be able to say: "I am going to be here in this small constituency which, if I stand on a hill in the middle of it, I can see from end to end. I can know what is happening in every townland. I know how every family in it will vote. I will be able directly or indirectly to intimidate, to persuade, threaten or cajole the people in that constituency who are opposed to me politically." That is what the Party machine will be there for. That is one of the dangers of the small single seat constituency.

There is another danger and it has been referred to by other Deputies. It has to do with the type of candidate who may be selected and elected. I refer now in particular to the Fianna Fáil Party which works on the basis of a very well organised machine. That is the only Party I know that has a rigid Party machine with contacts in every town, local cells with local club secretaries, regular weekly meetings, with one shilling membership subscription to the club, and no entrance to the club on certain nights if the "moguls" are meeting to decide whom they will recommend for the post office or something like that. That is going on at present here.

There may be people in such a constituency who do not like a particular Fianna Fáil Deputy, although they may be Fianna Fáil supporters. They may have loved the sight of the Taoiseach and possibly it was for the Taoiseach they voted on many occassions, but at least under the multiple seat system, if the local people do not like a particular member of the Party, they have a choice or a chance of electing another member of the same Party, and that happens. What will happen if they are saddled with the one individual and have political convictions on a certain line? They are forced to support an individual who may not come up to standard because he has been selected by the Party machine, not by the people. They must vote for the man put forward.

The Taoiseach naively suggested that the people could vote for anybody they liked and that they could vote, for instance, for a strong Independent. He could envisage an Independent coming back here. Surely if he is worried about small Parties, he should be just as worried about strong Independents? But that was his suggestion. He could not see how the Independents could be beaten. Then why does he worry about small Parties? Is there something special about Independents that does not apply to small Parties? Or, would it be that at the back of it we can see the form of jobbery that will take place behind the scenes?

Let us take constituency X. As they stand, Fianna Fáil has not a hope of winning a seat in a straight fight against, shall we say, Fine Gael. But what Fianna Fáil can do under such circumstances, and what they are likely to do, is to select or to get an alleged Independent to go forward, a man who will not be Fianna Fáil. He will be what the Taoiseach himself has described as "a strong local man". He can take 1,500 or 2,000 votes from the Fine Gael Party and the Fianna Fáil man is elected. The "strong Independent" in that case can be recompensed in some way later on. More bargaining will take place under such a scheme.

There is worse than that. I do not like to have to say it, but there are at the moment on the Fianna Fáil back benches a number of what I may describe as independent-minded Deputies, who obey the Party Whip but who make their feelings known at certain times and who have the courage now and then to criticise publicly the decisions made by the Government. Sometimes the Deputies concerned make their feelings known inside in the Party room. Very often, they are a thorn in the side of the Party in the Party room of their own organisation, but matters are smoothed over. Very often, amongst their seniors, the Cabinet, there is a feeling of annoyance that this type of individual can be such an irritation and such a trouble to them. It is all right at the moment, of course, as they can deal with him in the Party room, but they often think longingly about how they could get somebody else. Under the present system they cannot do so.

That individual can be a help in the Fianna Fáil Party under P.R., because he can bring life into the Party. He does not bow his head down and genuflect in front of the leaders at every meeting. They cannot do anything about it, because of the fact that the people put him there. If the single seat constituency comes in, that man will not be allowed to go forward. Only the one Fianna Fáil candidate can go forward and the Party machine will make damn sure that it is the disciplined candidate, the well-trained circus dog, who will go forward in that constituency.

I make this assertion here, that under the new system, no conscientious, independent-minded Party man will be able to be returned to this House. Instead of the 76 well-trained back benchers now behind the Government, we are likely to have another ten to 15 such individuals. The idea underlying their election to this House will be that they will be available to walk through the division lobbies to implement the decisions taken by their Cabinet in the back room. The only interest their Cabinet will have in them is to use them here to record that this is the alleged will of the people.

Outside this House, those Deputies will be engaged in parish pump politics. In a small constituency, every constituent will then be in a position to go to the home of a particular Deputy, when looking for a letter for this, that or the other, or when looking for favours in connection with certain matters where no influence should be used or even letters written. That system has been built up over the years. It is about to be cemented now and kept in operation under the single seat constituency, if it comes into force.

The Taoiseach says that the people can vote for whom they like. He is not being politically honest in saying that sort of thing. When I listened to him here the other night, he reminded me of the saying by Henry Ford: "You can have any coloured car you like, provided it is black." You can vote any way you like, according to the Taoiseach, provided it is Fianna Fáil. The return to this House of 75 to 85 well-trained, well-disciplined back benchers may bring a form of stability to the country, but it certainly will not bring progress. No progress can ever be made unless the streams of thought are allowed to flow freely. It is through the streams of thought which come from various tributaries that the main river gets its fill of water. The same thing operates in politics. The trouble with Fianna Fáil is that they believe they have all the streams flowing into the main river. They represent, according to Deputy Davern, businessmen, farmers, labourers, farm workers, professional people, every section of the community; and they want to say that in politics they can be all things to all people.

Whatever may happen in this House, I do not think that Fianna Fáil have a hope at the moment of getting this proposal through the country. We are likely to have a new Taoiseach within the next two or three months. It is quite possible that he will be a practical man. I believe it will be the Tánaiste and I would appeal now to him, at this stage, to cut out the nonsense, to get his present senior, the Taoiseach, to drop this Bill and let us get down to what the new Taoiseach has told us is in his mind. Let us get down to a discussion on his plan for progress, his plan for prosperity. That is what we want to hear about, not the measure which has been in the mind of the Taoiseach for so many years, searching as to how he could still keep his finger in Irish politics when he gets out. The new Taoiseach should not allow the ghost to haunt him here for the next couple of years in the form of this measure. Let there be a clear cut off and the start of a new growth.

I have not the slightest doubt that the Tánaiste is likely to be the future Taoiseach and that if the back benchers have the courage to support him at this stage, they can complete the big thaw which is developing now and enable a start to be made to improve our economic and social conditions. If that improvement comes, before it is too late, it will give hope to the youth who are to-day fleeing from the country in vast numbers. I would appeal to the Tánaiste to get his Leader, the Taoiseach, to withdraw this measure and give himself a chance to start on the right road.

General Mulcahy

Deputy McQuillan has just referred to the great thaw which is occurring and he has given us a general all-over estimate of it. I agree entirely with his analysis of the present situation in those terms, though perhaps I would put it a little differently. At any rate, if it is an ice that is there, it is not a naturally formed ice and the ice is breaking up. Just as the rainbow came out when the Flood was almost over, to show the different elements there are in life, so to-day we can see in a very clear way the different elements there are in Irish society, shaping themselves out in different ways.

The records published of the results of various general elections, volume by volume since 1948, show at a glance the elements which are trying to break through in their proper colours to give the country a clear unity of effort and a clear unity of mind in dealing with national affairs. If there is any county which, by its results, shows up that fact, it is the county which Deputy McQuillan represents. That constituency is represented in the House to-day by a Fianna Fáil member, a Fine Gael member, a Clann na Talmhan member and an Independent. If you could allow the literature period of this discussion to pass and look at a couple of practical aspects, I should like to ask, as a sample, the Minister for External Affairs and the Minister for Defence to look at some of the things they have been describing and saying, to look at a few figures and facts, and to do their part in trying to get an answer to the questions that are being put to them and that the people will be putting to them.

The Minister for External Affairs took Louth as an example. Looking at Louth, we find for the last four elections that the Labour Party, Clann na Poblachta and Sinn Féin have been trying to break through the cast-iron position the Minister for External Affairs feels has settled down over the whole country. In the last four elections, you had two candidates offered by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. In the 1948 election, you had the Labour candidate and two Clann na Poblachta candidates; in 1951, a Labour candidate; in 1954, a Labour candidate and a Sinn Féin candidate; and in 1957, a Labour candidate and a Sinn Féin candidate.

You may say that the Clann na Poblachta and Sinn Féin candidates represented some of the older people who followed Fianna Fáil but also the younger people who wanted to be rid of the cast-iron antagonism that the Fianna Fáil attitude has engendered between the two great Parties who previously formed Sinn Féin and who were the main antagonists in the struggle in which this State was set up. In the 1948 election, the results were, one Fianna Fáil, one Fine Gael and one Labour. In 1951, there were two Fianna Fáil and one Fine Gael. In 1954, one Fianna Fáil and two Fine Gael. At present, as a result of the 1957 election, there are two Fianna Fáil and one Fine Gael.

With that picture of the mind of the people growing free and shaking itself out of the rut in which the Treaty division put the electorate in Louth and the evidence that the people wanted to get away from that division, the evidence that the organised workers are endeavouring to express themselves in the parliamentary arena, what does the Minister for External Affairs suggest? I will give his own words, from column 258 of Volume 172, of the Official Debates:—

"Let us, for ease of reference, call the constituencies, North Louth, mid-Louth and South Louth. In County Louth there would be three Fianna Fáil candidates. Naturally, being the large Party, we would put up three Fianna Fáil candidates, one in each constituency. It could be agreed that Labour would put up a candidate in either North, South or mid-Louth and that Fine Gael would put up a candidate in each of the other constituencies."

Is that the clear expression of the mentality behind this Bill? I address my questions through the Minister for External Affairs back to every person in his Party who listens to him in any way and wants to understand him. I ask any Deputy for Louth or the neighbouring areas by what right of representation does the Minister for External Affairs say that the people who were represented by Clann na Poblachta and Sinn Féin can be forgotten and that it can be agreed—I do not know by whom— and tolerated by the brass-hats speaking from the base of Government that Fine Gael and somebody else will sit down in some place or other with some of the Labour people and select for one of the constituencies in Louth a Labour candidate? By what right does the Minister say that Fine Gael then—I do not know what you would call it— with an appearance of the effrontery that characterises the Minister for External Affairs' proposal, will put up candidates in the other two counties and claim they will get the support of everybody else?

This is a scheme for Croppies to lie down. I should like to understand in relation to the definite proposal put there in simple words and plain print and I shall ask Deputies to take their own constituencies and look at the records there as disclosed in the last four elections, the full returns of which are available, and ask what is the attitude of the Fianna Fáil members to the groups of people who put up their candidates and showed they were trying to break through the present ice-jam in Irish politics and what they think of the people who voted for them?

We are told by the Minister for Defence what he thinks of the people who voted for him and what ought to be done. He says, in column 1292, of Volume 171 of the Official Debates:—

"...if a person in the exercise of his own free will decides to disfranchise himself by voting for such a Party, it is wrong that the State should contrive, by an artifice such as P.R., to give him what is very often a decisive voice in the ultimate result, seeing that through his ill-considered use of the franchise he has done everything he could do to waste his vote."

A measure is being brought in here which might have inscribed across it "Croppies lie down". Who are the Croppies? Let us take a Dublin constituency, Dublin South-West, and see what the position was in 1957. Fianna Fáil put up four candidates; Fine Gael, three; Labour, one; Clann na Poblachta, one, and Independents, two. Here you had Labour, Clann na Poblachta, Sinn Féin and two Independents again trying to break through the cast-iron, iced situation of the political scene. Fianna Fáil got three places, Fine Gael, one, and Independents, two.

But what have the Fianna Fáil Deputies to say to the citizens of South-West Dublin, particularly those who supported Labour and supported the attempt to get out of the present cast-iron political situation in which Clann na Poblachta, Sinn Féin and the two Independents attempted to get representation in the Dáil? What have they to say to them? Do they say to them that, if they decide to support any of these smaller Parties and thereby disfranchise themselves, that is their own doing? It is not their own doing. It is the purposeful doing, or perhaps the purposeful wishing, of the Government in introducing this Bill.

Consider Tipperary, North and South; I would invite every member of the Fianna Fáil Party to look at the records in Tipperary, North and South, for the last four elections. In Tipperary, North and South, you have the Labour Party, Clann na Poblachta, Sinn Féin, Independents and Clann na Talmhan. All have shown at one time or another, during the course of these elections, that they are trying to break through, trying to represent a definite element, a definite outlook and definite interests in the life of Tipperary and, ultimately, in the life of the nation.

If you look at North Tipperary, in 1948, there were three Fianna Fáil candidates offering, two Fine Gael, one Labour, one Clann na Poblachta. The result of the election was that North Tipperary was represented by one Fianna Fáil, one Fine Gael and one Clann na Poblachta. The same Parties stood in the 1951 election; two Fianna Fáil candidates, two Fine Gael, one Labour and one Clann na Poblachta. The result was two Fianna Fáil and one Fine Gael. In the 1954 election, you had two Fianna Fáil, two Fine Gael, one Labour and two Clann na Poblachta; and the result was two Fianna Fáil candidates and one Fine Gael candidate were returned. In 1957 you had two Fianna Fáil, two Fine Gael, one Labour, one Clann na Poblachta, and one Sinn Féin; and the result was two Fianna Fáil candidates and one Labour were returned.

What do the two Fianna Fáil representatives of North Tipperary say with regard to the specimen plan the Minister for External Affairs has adumbrated for the treatment of another three-member constituency, Louth? What do they think of the philosophy of the Minister for Defence, who considers that anybody in North Tipperary who votes for either a Clann na Poblachta or a Sinn Féin candidate, or, as between one election and another, votes for Labour or a Fine Gael candidate, and whose choice does not head the poll, automatically disfranchises himself thereby? That is the picture clearly delineated in the official records.

I come now to South Tipperary. In 1948, in South Tipperary, you had three Fianna Fáil candidates, three Fine Gael, two Labour, three Clann na Poblachta and one Clann na Talmhan. In that four-member constituency, the electorate of South Tipperary were offered a very wide choice as between a number of very responsible candidates, each representing very definite interests from a group point of view and each having in himself personal experience of one kind or another germane to the general life of the area. The result was two Fianna Fáil were returned, one Fine Gael and one Clann na Poblachta. In 1951, there were three Fianna Fáil candidates, three Fine Gael, two Labour, one Clann na Poblachta and two Independents. Two Fianna Fáil and two Fine Gael candidates were returned. In 1954, there were three Fianna Fáil, three Fine Gael and two Labour. The result was two Fianna Fáil and two Fine Gael candidates. In the last election, in 1957, there were three Fianna Fáil candidates, three Fine Gael and one Labour; the result was three Fianna Fáil candidates and one Fine Gael were returned.

I want to know from anybody on the Fianna Fáil Benches—no doubt, in accordance with the Louth plan, whatever number of constituencies South Tipperary will be divided into, Fianna Fáil will put up a candidate in each constituency—what is the corollary the Minister for External Affairs has as to who may fight for the other seats? In South Tipperary, Labour are concerned to express themselves at the political level. Clann na Poblachta want to do likewise. The Farmers and Independents have shown evidence of wanting to do the same thing. Who is to sit down to decide who will be the candidate to oppose the Fianna Fáil candidate, to oppose him in such a way that the votes will not be split and the county will not be represented by a minority candidate? Can we have answers to these questions?

Do the Government mean: "Croppies, lie down?" Do they mean that if a voter votes for a Party which is just in process of gathering strength, showing itself, its personnel and its policy to the country, or to a particular constituency, as standing for some particular principle, or some particular interest of either local or national importance, that voter in so doing immediately disfranchises himself, in the philosophy of the Minister for Defence? These are questions. These are facts of primary importance which require the attention of this House and which require discussion in this House. Now that we have heard what European literature, and other literature, has had to say on the subject, let us look at the facts and interpret them in the light of our own domestic situation here and in the light of the position in which we find ourselves to-day.

There is, too, one other matter to which attention should be given in this discussion. At the moment there are, I think, 24 representatives for the City of Dublin. Can some kind of sketch plan be put up somewhere in the Library to show how these 20, or 24, little bits of Dublin will be devised by some boundary commission as a proper scheme of representation for the City of Dublin, its people and its interests? Let us consider the plan for Dublin. Any Deputy can look at his own constituency in the country, but let us consider the position of the capital of Ireland, sketched out on a draught-board. Let us have that plan and let us be told that that is the scheme under this Bill for Dublin representation, and all that Dublin stands for. Let us be told clearly that in relation to Independents, Sinn Féin, Clann na Poblachta—not to mention for the moment whatever the Government may have at the back of their mind with regard to Labour representation —those of the electorate who vote for any of these will be disfranchised thereby, and if they attempt to lift their heads, they can only do it at the risk of saddling themselves with a Government of the mentality that has introduced this Bill in the form in which it is and for the purpose for which it is designed. Could we, before we get very much further through the Committee Stage of this Bill, have some attention drawn to these matters and could we have some answers?

Mr. Carroll

When speaking on the Second Reading, I stated that it was my considered opinion that P.R. had given us stable Government. The present Government enjoy a majority greater than that enjoyed by any former Government. On Second Reading, I had the temerity to suggest to the Taoiseach that as it was inevitable that there would not be an agreed Presidential candidate, he should consider holding the referendum and the Presidential election on the same day. I went further and suggested that the Taoiseach should consider also having a general election on the same day under the same system as that which had brought about the power his Party now enjoy in the House and, indeed, consider the advisability of bringing forward the municipal elections one year. I had the idea that the apathy among the people that might be anticipated would in that way be minimised and that greater interest would be stimulated. I said that the suggested general election on that day should be carried out under the same system as the Presidential election, the system of P.R. There are two candidates in the Presidential field and, from requests for support made to me, I understand there is a possibility of a third candidate. Therefore, P.R. is undoubtedly suitable in that case.

P.R. has given us stable Government. It has also given us coalitions. The Minister for External Affairs suggests that in future the Parties or groups going forward for election will be obliged to put their policy before the people if they are contemplating coalition. Yes, I think that is a good suggestion. Out of evil cometh good.

When I was listening to Deputy Mulcahy, the thought struck me that, as it has been explained that the situation will be a case of Fianna Fáil versus the rest, will Deputy Mulcahy and the Fine Gael Party show the good example to this House, give the people what they want, set the headline, and leave Party politics outside this House and join what I would suggest as a group Opposition?

I have never been a member of a political Party. Possibly, I would not be accepted if I offered. I have no wish to become a member of a political Party, either Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, but I do not think that the interests of the people who elected me to this House have been neglected. We must consider the opinion of the man in the street. We are messengers from the people to this House. It has been suggested to me that I do not say very much in the House. On the other hand, the question has been asked when we will stop talking and do something for the country. I suggest to the Fine Gael Party, to those who are opposing the abolition of P.R., that we accept the situation——

General Mulcahy

What suggestion?

Mr. Carroll

——that is being put to us now, the abolition of P.R. May I finish? I did not interrupt the Deputy. I suggest that we accept the situation which has been suggested, that we who are speaking against the abolition of P.R. are afraid that we will lose our seats. It strikes me, listening to this debate, that a fear is prevailing on the other side of the House that seats might be lost. If that is not acceptable, why not go to the people once again under P.R., the system under which the Government came into this House? It is with that in view that I suggest that the situation be accepted as one of Fianna Fáil versus the rest.

It has been suggested by the Taoiseach and other speakers that there have not been enough years between the civil war and the present situation. I recognise the Taoiseach on one side of the House in that connection and I recognise Deputy Mulcahy on the other side. It is all right to suggest, as has been suggested, that the question of the civil war has been perpetuated. If that is so, the first example, the first lead, can come from a Party or Parties other than Fianna Fáil. I am young enough to have a keen recollection of that period. I have said on many occasions on ordinary committees, of which I am chairman, that they vote as they fought. That has become more evident since I came into this House. I should like to join with Deputy McQuillan in the suggestion that the progress of this country and the exigencies of the situation here are much more important than the matter at present under discussion.

I have been told that it is probable that the time spent on the discussion of this Bill will create a record. Yet, the most inane person and the man in the street know that ultimately it is all a waste of time. Undoubtedly Deputies must have the democratic right to ventilate their views.

I was deeply impressed when Deputy Norton, in reply to the charge that P.R. gives a multiplicity of Parties, pointed out the incontrovertible fact that, in 1923, you had three or four Parties and in 1959, taking four as being the minimum to represent a Party, you have only three Parties. There is the direct negative. P.R. has not given us a multiplicity of Parties. The suggestion is obnoxious to me. It means that I will be practically forced to align myself with some Party interest or other. It has been suggested by the Opposition and by other speakers that the back benchers, while they do not believe in this thing, must vote for it, if the Party Whip says so. That may be true. In my youth, I could not see my way to submit to everything and I do not think I have changed.

In conclusion, I would reiterate my appeal to the Parties to consider the situation that other problems are of more importance to the country. I have to remember the ruling of the Chair on that very important point on the last occasion and I cannot, therefore, refer to it, but I hope it will be considered.

Mr. Larkin

During the course of this debate, we had the picture which is presented to the House and the country so often. We have a debate initiated on a proposal and to a great extent based on discussions or decisions which took place 20 or more years ago. To my mind, it is not without significance that even to-day the Taoiseach and some members of the Government on the one side, and Deputy Costello, on the other, devoted themselves at great length to what each said in 1937.

I hold no brief for Deputy Costello or any of his colleagues. I do not pretend to hold any brief for anyone or to speak in this House on behalf of anyone except myself and my colleagues in the Labour Party. It appears to me that if the case for an alteration of the Constitution has to be made by the Taoiseach, who has been the Leader of this Government for many years, on the basis that, 20 or more years ago, some Deputy made a case against the introduction into the Constitution of the present system of election, his case is so much the weaker.

The principles and the details of P.R. were written into the Constitution by the Taoiseach. I do not think it unfair to say that the Taoiseach on more than one occasion in this House and outside the House, in this country and outside this country, indicated that he was very well satisfied with his work in furthering the present Constitution. I do not think it unfair to say that, until 1948, the Taoiseach and his Ministers could say that the system of P.R. had been of benefit to the Fianna Fáil Party.

It made possible from the first the taking up by Fianna Fáil of the reins of Government in this country. It contributed in no small way to that position in successive elections. One wonders why, in 1959, when the Government are led by the Taoiseach who introduced the present system of voting into the written Constitution of this country, there is this urgency to seek a change in the Constitution and why, when a Government less than two years in office with a very substantial majority and with many very serious problems on their hands, must devote their time, the time of this House and the country, to considering a proposal to change the method of election.

One wonders whether the basic and underlying reason for this proposal to remove from the Constitution and from the people the right of being represented in their several interests in this House is an endeavour to secure in the future the control of this House by the Fianna Fáil Government. The desire of the Taoiseach for this Bill, and the desire of his colleagues in the Government and in the Fianna Fáil Party, appears to have been born overnight on the basis that it might not be possible for them to go on for ever as the Government of this country. They might not be elected with an overall majority, or they might not be the Government kept in office by the support of a small number of Deputies.

That circumstance, and the expressed wishes of the people as shown in the ballot boxes, might indicate clearly and beyond all doubt, that the various sections of the community did not want a continuance of a Fianna Fáil Government. If ever an indication of that kind was given, it was given in the election of 1948. It was given, too, following statements made by certain Fianna Fáil Ministers prior to that election.

It may have been serious enough on that occasion from the point of view of Fianna Fáil, that circumstances could so provide that their reign in office would be interrupted. Of course when those circumstances were repeated, it looked as if the combined genius of the Taoiseach and his fellow Ministers began to examine the situation, and began to realise that the method of election which provided fair representation in this House for the various Parties, or the various groups, or various Independents, enabled them to go before the electorate and ask for their support in bringing about a situation where Fianna Fáil would not be the Government on a third occasion.

I do not think one would want to be a prophet to draw the conclusion that if this happened on a third occasion, it would possibly be the signal of the end of Fianna Fáil's chances of having a majority in this House and being the Government. So we have this Bill before us now, and in support of this Bill, we are told by the Taoiseach that Deputy Costello or Deputy somebody else opposed the introduction of the system of P.R. into the Constitution of 1937.

Can we not consider, calmly and objectively, as has been requested by the Taoiseach, whether or not the system of election by P.R. has resulted in chaos and instability, very frequent changes in the person who holds the office of Taoiseach and failure to have the citizens represented fully in this Parliament?

I do not consider it necessary to go into detail at any great length on the fact that Governments in this country since 1937 have been relatively stable. There have not been very many changes in the person holding the office of Taoiseach. The Taoiseach has occupied that position ever since 1937, with the exception of two periods, and during those two periods Deputy Costello was Taoiseach, so we can take it that there have not been many great changes.

The people have been represented on a fair and equitable basis since 1937. Any Party which they supported whether it was the Fianna Fáil Party with very large support, the Fine Gael Party with large support, the Labour Party with possibly not the support to which we believe it is entitled or other Parties or groups, have all been represented in this House during those years to the extent to which they have been able to win support in the country—no less and no more.

During those years, there has been an emergence of different Parties, some of which disappeared. Is that a bad thing? Is it wrong that if people believe they should join together and form a political Party, or an association, they should be entitled to do so and to go before the electorate, and if they can get support relative to the influence they exert, that they should have representation in this House?

There have been Parties down the years who have contested elections but have never succeeded in getting a Deputy elected to this House. Is that any reason why, if to-morrow a Party emerges which decides to contest an election, an attempt should be made to organise things so as to make it difficult for them to get representation in this House? The avowed purpose of this Bill is to endeavour to achieve that very objective.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce was kind enough to state, in the course of one of his speeches relative to this Bill, that he felt there might be a possibility that, if the system of election were changed, the Government would be a Fianna Fáil Government and the main opposition, or the only opposition, would come from a Labour Party. He credited— and I thank him for saying so—the Labour Party with having a social and economic philosophy different from that of any other Party in this House.

Even if that position could arise to-morrow, will the Taoiseach or any of his Ministers, or any member of his Party, state categorically that it is their belief that a representation of Deputies in this House could be fair if limited only to the members of one or two political Parties? It may not be very likely, but it may be quite possible that Fine Gael might be over there and Labour might be here and then what about the poor Fianna Fáil Deputies? Surely they are entitled to express a point of view, that is, if they have a point of view different from the main Opposition Party? We would not deny them the right for one minute.

In my opinion, the present issue is being put with increasing clarity on the basis that Fianna Fáil fear, and have very strong grounds for their fear, that, unless there is a change in the present system of election, their future as a Government in this country is limited to the existence and duration of the present Dáil.

I should like to refer to a few remarks made by the Minister for External Affairs who, unlike his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, dislikes ever giving any credit to the Labour Party or to the Labour movement, for that matter. However, he did give them credit for doing something in recent years which the two divided wings of Sinn Féin in this House have not done yet, that is, that when they had a dispute, they settled the dispute and in this House they now represent the united Labour Party. Before making comments like that, the Minister for External Affairs should examine the history of his own Party and that of Fine Gael. He should ask himself whether there is any difference, politically or economically, between these two Parties, other than the difference so clearly set out in the opening discussion of this debate as to a different point of view by two wings of what was once the same movement.

In his recent contribution, Deputy Carroll suggested that, following certain contributions made in this House, a practical proposition might be for Fine Gael, Labour, Clann na Poblachta, Clann na Talmhan and the National Progressive Democrats to combine against Fianna Fáil. I think that Deputy Carroll is quite misled. I am not making any reflection on him when I say that his difficulty is that he finds it very hard to know whether he should be in Fianna Fáil or in Fine Gael: he is pulled both ways. Therefore, possibly if his suggestion were amended and if Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael would coalesce, we might have the most reasonable suggestion that has been put forward in this House so far.

During the course of the debate we have had the spectacle of the Minister for Health quoting extracts from something like 14 authors and——

Mr. Corish

13.

Mr. Larkin

I thought there was an additional one yesterday. The last one was in reference to a royal commission in Sweden in 1954 which was set up for the purpose of examining the merits or demerits of the election system as it operates in that country. This is 1959. The Minister for Health did not indicate to the House—not while I was listening to him—whether or not that royal commission had reported and, if it reported, what conclusions were arrived at by the commission and what decision was made by the Swedish parliamentarians and the Swedish Government. Even if the recommendation of a royal commission in Sweden, sitting from 1954 to 1959, was for a change in the electoral system there and even if the Swedish Parliament decided to accept it, surely that is the business of Sweden, in their special circumstances?

While I do not think one would wish to deny the Minister for Health —even if one wished it, one could not achieve it—his right to introduce extracts from all these books, our basic concern is what is good for this country and, in particular, what system of election do Deputies consider a reasonable and a fair one.

Let us examine the proposal that there be one Deputy for a constituency. The constituency which I have the honour to represent is a five-member urban constituency stretching over various sections of the urban community. I submit that its representation is fair in relation to the interests of the sections of the community there. I may personally feel that we should have more Labour representatives in that constituency. Possibly in future we may, but we are elected on the basis that a fairly large number of people in Dublin North-East like to be represented by Fianna Fáil. We have the honour to have the present Minister for Justice as one of the Fianna Fáil Deputies and there is a second Fianna Fáil Deputy, Deputy Haughey. Fine Gael have support in the constituency and are represented by Deputy Belton and also by Deputy Patrick Byrne who stood as a Fine Gael candidate in the last election. I have the honour to represent the constituency from the Labour point of view.

I submit in all seriousness that only a Labour man can represent the Labour point of view. It is perfectly true that Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or Independent candidates have down the years received support from a large section of the people who would normally, or should normally, support the candidate of the Labour Party. However, I ask Deputies to remember that in any issue affecting their position as members of the working class, the people they come to for support and to speak on their behalf are not the Deputies they support in the election. It is the Labour Deputy in their own or in another constituency, for a very simple reason, that they realise that Labour represents and claims mainly to represent the wage and salary earning sections of the community.

If a Minister of this Government introduces anti-trade union legislation, the workers expect that the Labour Deputies will be on their feet in this House and outside this House denouncing it. If a Minister introduces any kind of anti-working class legislation or any legislation that hits hard at the ordinary working class section of the community, the people who are expected to speak on behalf of those sections are the Labour Party. If I were a Labour supporter living in the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown area, do you think, if the system were changed from P.R. to the single member constituency I could go with any confidence—in saying this, I mean no disrespect whatever—to the Deputy of that area, if it happened to be Deputy Booth, to represent a Labour point of view? Do you think if I were in County Louth, I could go on a Labour issue to the Minister for External Affairs and expect him to make a case for me? Of course, he would not make a case for me because he is a Fianna Fáil Minister and Deputy and has a Fianna Fáil outlook.

In the ordinary day to day affairs of Deputies, we know they will take up the individual, personal cases or group cases of people in their constituency. It is a clear duty, but the affairs to be dealt with by Deputies are not always the personal affairs of individuals in hardship or the affairs of, say, residential groups, groups of farmers or farm labourers. There are occasions and there must be occasions under the system of parliamentary government when a Deputy's political affiliations will clash with the views of people in the constituency. The present system provides that where there are diverse views in a constituency, the electors have the opportunity of electing people to represent those diverse views.

If a Fianna Fáil Government introduce a measure in this House that is obnoxious and unwelcome to some section of the community, say, in Dublin North-East, that section can go to a Fine Gael Deputy or a Labour Deputy and ask him: "Will you oppose this measure in the House?" If there is only a Fianna Fáil Deputy or, if it is a Fine Gael Government, if there is only a Fine Gael Deputy, what can that Deputy do? Can he in conscience say to a substantial group in his constituency: "Yes, I will support your point of view in the House because I am the Deputy for this constituency." He would be a liar in his heart if he did because he would know very well that when he came into this House the following day, he would either support the case made by his Party or sit silent, and if he could, find some excuse to get out of a division, if there was one.

Evidently Fianna Fáil desire to have a situation created in which one Deputy will be the spokesman for a community, a situation in which one Deputy can be elected by a minority of the votes in one area, a situation which, if repeated throughout the country in each area, would result in 100 members of the Government Party being returned to a total House of 147 Deputies, 145 or 130 Deputies, as the case may be, and only 30 or 47 members of the Opposition being elected. Those 100 Government Party Deputies could be sent into this House by 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. of the total votes of the electorate. If that is seriously submitted as being a reasonable and fair method of representation, then the professed regard, down the years, of Fianna Fáil and their spokesmen for the people of this country, has disappeared like a puff of smoke.

I do not want to delay the House unduly on this matter, but I should like to close by putting a question to the House and putting a query to the country. In other years, we have seen a situation develop in certain countries beset by economic and political difficulties in which the people in power in those countries, at those times, came to a conclusion that it might be a good thing to take the economic, political and other problems away from the immediate gaze of their citizens, and to set up a target, and to attribute to that target all the blame and all the responsibility for the difficulties facing their peoples. Many years ago, we saw the target in one country being set up in this order: the Jews, the Communists, the Catholics. They were blamed for every fault, every weakness and every failure in that country. The tactics, of course, are not always recognisable as tactics. They are what one might term diversionary tactics, so that one wonders whether or not behind the urgency from the Fianna Fáil point of view—and it is only from the Fianna Fáil point of view that the urgency of this measure arises—they think it is good tactics to divert the attention of the Irish people from their present economic difficulties.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

A discussion on economic difficulties would not be relevant.

Mr. Larkin

I am asking a question for the purpose of the Bill. I am not discussing economic difficulties. I am not discussing unemployment and emigration. I am entitled to ask whether or not a measure, brought into this House for the purpose of amending or changing the Constitution, has behind it a deliberate plan to divert the attention of the Irish people from their present plight, and to divert their attention from the specific undertakings given by the Taoiseach when he took office on the commencement of the life of this Dáil.

It is surely in order for me to ask whether this Bill has been introduced by the Taoiseach mainly as a diversionary measure since, at this juncture, we have spent six weeks in discussing a change in the Constitution which no section of the community has commented upon, and which no section of the community, as a community, has called for, in case our citizens, the families that go to make up the Irish nation, might feel disposed to hold that the Taoiseach and the members of his Government and his Party have some responsibility to carry out the undertakings given by them in this House at the commencement of the life of this Dáil. Surely I am entitled to ask whether this Bill is of more importance than measures dealing with unemployment and emigration?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is not entitled so to ask and the Chair is making that ruling. The matter before the House is sub-section (1) of Section 2, and the matters to which the Deputy now refers do not arise.

Mr. Larkin

I accept your ruling, as always, but I could as a representative of Dublin North-East express the view that a constituent of mine, who is unemployed, who has no hope of getting employment, is surely entitled to feel that, at least on the present system, he has the opportunity, at a time of election, of voting in such a way as will ensure that his interests will be represented and will be advocated here, as against a situation possibly arising whereby his interests, and the interests of his fellows, might be represented only by a single Deputy for the constituency, a single Deputy possibly representing completely contrary interests. However, in the course of the debate, I think Fianna Fáil spokesmen, time after time, indicated that the type of Chamber and the type of Government should be a type springing from a two-Party system, and that within one or the other of those two Parties, all sectional interests might be submerged.

I wonder whether Fianna Fáil in putting forward that point of view are being honest even with themselves. They were critical of the position in 1948 and 1954 when certain Parties— and even Independents—with different outlooks and different points of view decided to form a Government, on an inter-Party basis. Fianna Fáil, according to themselves, have within their Party various sections and interests represented. Now, if Fianna Fáil are the purists they wish to persuade the House they are, surely they are deceiving the House. They say, on the one hand, that they are such purists and, on the other, they are quite prepared to welcome, as they say themselves, capital, banking, commerce, large farmers, farm labourers and the labouring section of the community.

However, I do not think it necessary to mention in this debate, except briefly, one point in that regard. Fianna Fáil always manage to have in their Cabinet members who pretty substantially represent the interests of finance and credit, industry and capital. If any section takes a back seat in Fianna Fáil, you may rest assured it is the section who are mistakenly supporting them and should normally support the Labour Party and possibly will do so in the future.

The basis of the Bill is to limit the people's right of choice, to take away from them as electors and as individuals the system which has given them fair representation from the time this State was established. That basis is a basis which is unsound and is unworthy of the Taoiseach who is proposing the Bill.

General Mulcahy

I rise just for a moment to protest against the way in which the Government are treating this House this morning. The Minister for Lands has just come in. I should like to ask him if he has come in to give me any kind of an answer to the questions I asked this morning with regard to the details of the working of the electoral system under the proposals in this Bill. Can the Minister say if he has come in to answer those questions?

Minister for Lands (Mr. Childers)

I have not come in with any express purpose at all. I am listening to the debate to see if there are any points raised which may require an answer.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Everything the Deputy says has been said before.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Deputy Moher's colleague, Deputy Corry, spoke and I intend to deal with Deputy Corry's remarks later. There can be no suggestion that we on this side are going to sit mute and permit such a radical measure to go straight through the House to the country without a proper examination of it. In fact, it was our contention from the beginning that if it was necessary to set up a commission to examine the method of election of members to the Upper House, this was a matter still more important on which we could have brought together a number of experts, people who are competent to examine the pros and cons of our electoral system. Quite apart from the two systems we are now discussing, there may be others. But that was not done.

It was thought politic at one time that a commission should be set up, which sat over a very long period, to find out what it cost to produce one gallon of milk, but the Government launched this on an unsuspecting country without any demand from the public. No member of the House who has spoken on the Government side has dared to claim there was a public demand for this move. We stated at the very commencement, on the First Reading, that this was the last will and testament of the Taoiseach. Yesterday's decision has copper-fastened the truth of what we believed then. The very fact that it coincides with the retirement of the Taoiseach from politics confirms what we then contended and proves our belief right.

It is proposed in this sub-section to dispense with multi-member constituencies and substitute single-member constituencies. I am definitely of the view that the multi-member constituency is the better for the country because it gives the elector a better choice of candidate. We must remember that the choice must be made. You will have in each of these sectors of the present constituencies approximately 10,000 people entitled to vote— it could be 15,000. From within that constituency or possibly from outside it, they must select for submission to the electorate a number of candidates from whom the people will elect just one man or woman to represent the constituency.

Under P.R. and the multi-seat constituency, the rights of the electors are upheld because they have the right of nominating with some hope of election, but, under the proposed system, there will be backdoor intrigues which must arise from the necessity of having a very small number of candidates on the ballot paper. There will be the additional intrigues arising from the advantage that can be secured by a particular political Party or candidate through splitting up the votes of the other side. There will also be the loss entailed where organised political opinion in the constituency will have its wishes completely disregarded because they will have to pin their support to one individual. The rank and file of the members of a political Party will be denied the choice they now have between any number of candidates on a Party panel.

It is very interesting to look back on the elections in the past and see how well the people have been able to select from a panel the candidate they believed to be the best of the team. They will not have that opportunity in the future and the Minister for External Affairs recommends that there should be immediately launched a new series of backdoor intrigues to ensure that there will be elected, in these various pocket boroughs, candidates who will not be the candidates the people there would desire but who are at least preferable to what they would get, if this arrangement were not arrived at. That is throwing away the democratic right the people have enjoyed for the past 36 years, one which has worked well because we have seen in this House, in the results of various elections, a very faithful reflection of public opinion.

Take, for instance, the 1948 election. Fianna Fáil secured 68 seats, 47.5 per cent. of the seats in the House; Fine Gael got 31 seats, 26.7 per cent. of the seats in the House; Labour got 14 seats, 16 per cent., and Clann na Poblachta got 10 seats. At that time they represented only 2 per cent. of the House. These are faithful reflections in percentages of the seats gained as a percentage of the support received in the country. On the other hand, we find in Britain the extraordinary anomaly—something we have never experienced in our 36 years of self-Government—that Labour can secure a seat with 47,300 votes, Conservatives and allies—a very interesting addition; they could not do it without the allies—got a seat for 43,300; but it took 121,800 votes to elect a Liberal. Can we say that is democratic? Can we say it is right that in Northern Ireland, where practically every seat was contested before 1925 when they had P.R., to-day there are 20 seats in which Unionists get a walk over?

Can we say that there is a healthy, democratic Government in the North? Can we say that, in the single member constituencies there, there is a faithful reflection of public opinion? Is it not true that, if we have the introduction of the single member constituency, we will get a very different type of Deputy into this House? The man who will secure election will be the man who resides in the big town, with just that perimeter of rural area round about, and the Party which does not select an urban candidate will surely be inviting disaster if they cannot command that local block vote which would be available to the candidate selected from that urban area. Therefore, an immediate consequence of the adoption of the single-member constituency will be a very drastic reduction of rural influence in this Chamber. That is the first point.

The second point is that, if a man is to secure election under P.R., over the size of constituency that we have to-day, it can be taken that he is a candidate who has a general knowledge of a good sector of country, that he is conversant with the problems of varying classes of people in the country. Take my own constituency, the constituency which Deputy Donegan also represents, North Cork; and take the agricultural element in it. If there were a single-member constituency on the western side of the present constituency, bounding on the Kerry border, there the interests of farmers are those of pig feeders and small farmers—they are not grain growers. Over on the Mallow and Buttevant side, on the eastern side, we have a different type of farming; we have the grain grower and the big type of farmer.

Consequently, in journeying from one end to the other, one gets a general idea of the difficulties confronting agriculture from both points of view. On the contrary, if there is a Deputy representing one side or the other of the present constituency, he would naturally be obliged constantly to meet with the big problems affecting that small community; and he would be obliged in this House to reflect their particular problems, without cognisance of the impact of the solution of those problems on the agriculturist in the adjoining new constituency.

It is hard to imagine that such a small part of a county in future, if this referendum is passed, will be regarded as a constituency. We have difficulties enough in overcoming the parochial ideas that are so prevalent in the country, but the effect of this proposal would be to exaggerate those parochial ideas, and it would give a priority to the local "crib", genuine or not. There may be there an outrageous demand on the part of a section within that little area and their influence will be considerably exaggerated as one contracts the area in which they form a distinct body. The person who takes up that cause, be it right or wrong, is the person who will secure local support and that person could secure election, notwithstanding the fact that that could be still a minority of opinion in that area. We could have the situation which has occurred so frequently in Britain, where there could be a majority Government representing a minority of the electorate.

Quite distinct from the fact that we will not get a better type of Deputy in this House in consequence of the change to the single-member constituency, and apart from the fact that the people will in future be denied their choice of candidate, because of the intricacies which will emanate from the necessity of whittling down the number of candidates on the ballot paper, we think that the all-abiding objection is that that will bring upon this country problems which it never before experienced.

Of course, the ultimate result will be that it will deny to the minorities in this House the representation which they have now. Some people on the opposite side have tried from time to time to imply that the existence of P.R. is synonymous with the existence of a multitude of small Parties. It is an extraordinary thing that, despite the way in which the large group which dominates the Government of Stormont at this moment are treating the various minorities in the North of Ireland, throughout the entire period that has elapsed since they threw P.R. overboard it has been found impossible to bring the different groups representing non-Unionist opinion in that area, into one cohesive group that could exercise some effective opposition to Unionist domination in the North. The fact is that there are nine Parties in the Stormont House whereas we have nothing like as many Parties here under P.R. There are more Parties there than there are in Holland, Belgium or Switzerland: yet the people across the way say that an immediate consequence of P.R. is the creation of a multitude of small Parties.

The Minister for External Affairs repeated for the umpteenth time the Fianna Fáil hatred of Coalitions—they never participated in them and they never would. In fact, the Taoiseach, when he was looking around for some description of what he thought of Coalition Government, picked from creation the most awful creature he could find—the platypus—to describe Coalitions. He said, however, that, in 1927, he supported a Coalition—but he stopped at that. He did not say that he had gone around this House peddling Ministries, in his effort to secure a Coalition at that time. Deputy Corry alleged that a leader of the Farmers' Party in that election sold out a number of farmer representatives in order to become a Parliamentary Secretary. For the second time, speaking on this Bill, Deputy Corry frequently used the expressions "buying" and "selling". Of course, Deputy Corry speaks with all the venom and vindictiveness of the Deputy who was told that he himself would be a Minister of this Government.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely that does not arise?

Mr. O'Sullivan

Well, if the Deputy was permitted to make this allegation, I contend, with respect to the Chair, that I should be allowed the opportunity of replying. He stated here that the Leader of the Farmers' Party sold out the Farmers' Party in 1927 to secure a Parliamentary Secretaryship. If he was on the market, it was an extraordinarily bad bargain to make, seeing that in that very year Deputy de Valera sent Deputy MacEntee to Deputy Baxter, the Leader of the Farmers' Party, and offered him the Ministry of Agriculture.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

How does this arise?

Mr. O'Sullivan

It arises because Deputy Corry stated here that the Leader of the Farmers' Party in that year sold out for office. Of course, Sir, that was at a time when Ministers had to hold office when their lives were in danger and when one of them paid for his holding of a Ministry by losing his life. It was at a time when Ministers paid for their own transport out of what they received in payment while Ministers.

Yet the Minister for External Affairs tells us that never at any time did his leader or any member of the Fianna Fáil Party have hand, act or part in the creation of Coalition Governments. Yet, they offered the Presidency to Mr. Tom Johnston of the Labour Party and offered the Ministry of Agriculture to Deputy Baxter of the Farmers' Party. They were not going to take part in that Government; they were going to be of it but not in it. They were not going to take responsibility themselves as Ministers in that Government, but they were prepared to go around the Lobbies of this House offering Ministries to the members of small Parties to come together to defeat the Cosgrave Government. There will be an opportunity before this debate finishes for some member on the opposite side, preferably the Minister for Health, who was the Taoiseach's envoy in those days, to deny he made that offer.

The people on the opposite side talk about stability being associated with strong numerical Government in this House, but they do not advert to the fact that the average life of a strong Fianna Fáil Government has been two and a half years. They claim that the fact that inter-Party Governments did not complete their full term of office was indicative of instability in consequence of their coalescing for a period. We may ask, if this is true, what factors made it impossible for Fianna Fáil on so many occasions to run their full term of office. Why was it that the country experienced elections on an average every two and a half years when Fianna Fáil were in office? Consequently, we claim there is no foundation in that allegation from the other side.

When the Minister for External Affairs was drawing on his imagination as to what went on that brought about the situation in 1948, in which a number of Parties came together to form that Government, he went on to the period of 1954, but conveniently skipped an incident that occurred in between, in 1951. On the first day I was elected to this House, we realised that the people had specifically voted a majority of the Deputies into the House to re-elect an inter-Party Government. The majority of the Deputies elected had been elected on the basis that they were representing an inter-Party interest. But in consequence of a deal made by the Taoiseach of that time, he received the support of five Deputies elected to vote otherwise. For the three ensuing years, we heard Deputy Cowan saying he had been assured in that deal by the Taoiseach that that Government would last its full term of office. That was just another little promise broken.

It did not last its full term of office because the people expressed, in very quick time, their abhorrence of the method by which that Government secured office. Will there ever be as emphatic an example of the reaction of public opinion as the manner in which the people dealt with the five Deputies who made it possible at that time for the Fianna Fáil Government to come back and to interrupt the programme which the 1948 inter-Party Government had been pursuing? Consequently, when the Minister for External Affairs took it on himself to delve into that aspect of politics, he should not have forgotten that little episode. It is one that Fianna Fáil, and particularly the people, will not forget for a very long time.

It is extraordinary that after all that has been said by the Taoiseach in the past, decrying the manner in which the majority Party in the North of Ireland is dealing with its minorities, we should now be obliged to introduce an exact replica of the type of Government they have there. Is it a development of the mutual feelings of admiration of which Deputy Booth informed us here on one occasion when he said the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste were admired and respected by the Government in Stormont, while members of the Opposition Front Bench were persona non grata in that quarter? It is nice to see that the admiration is mutual, seeing that this Government now intend to copy the action of the Unionist Party in the North of Ireland in denying to the nationalist minority there the representation which is their due.

Deputy O'Malley yesterday sought to oppose Deputy Costello's contention that Frank Gallagher in his book, The Indivisible Island, had claimed that the change in the system of election was intended—and had succeeded —to prevent the nationalist majority from securing just representation. He stated that Mr. Gallagher had attributed the mismanagement in the North solely to gerrymandering, but in fact Mr. Gallagher on more than one occasion in his book allies the two and states that the gerrymandering and the electoral laws are both directed at suppressing nationalist representation.

The Taoiseach went so far as to say it was easier to gerrymander in the North than in the South because there were positive pockets of opinion there which we did not have in the Republic. If this system of election is changed, it will lead to the development where there will be extreme pockets of opinion in the Republic, as well as in the North. The Taoiseach said it was easier in the North. He did not say it was impossible to gerrymander in the South because he had tried his hand once or twice. On the last occasion I spoke here, I did not go beyond my own constituency to find an example of how it can be done.

I pointed out that, on the second last occasion on which the constituencies were revised, the sitting Deputy in my constituency, Daniel Arthur O'Leary, who lives in the Gaelic Hotel, Ballyvourney, found, when the revision was complete, that his house was the corner stone of the new constituency and that the people across the street and his neighbours across the road on his right were now in a different constituency. Of course, that resulted in driving that man out of public life because it made it impossible for him to secure re-election. Part of County Galway was brought in with County Clare at the same time and part of Cork City was taken away and divided up in a new constituency in County Cork. Could it have been purely a coincidence that Deputy de Valera was elected for County Clare and Mr. Cosgrave for Cork City? I suppose the people on the other side would say that there were altruistic motives there. It was not intended to exaggerate Deputy de Valera's personal vote in Clare and to reduce the number of voters who would cast their votes for Mr. Cosgrave in Cork City.

In the delineation of constituencies, it is accepted that regard must be had to geographical factors, as well as to population, and one wonders what motive there was in that piece of gerrymandering. One wonders what motive there was in taking the town of Youghal out of County Cork and transferring it across the Blackwater estuary into Waterford. Was it an accident that the sitting Fine Gael Deputy for that constituency happened to reside in the town of Youghal?

We agree with the Taoiseach in his statement yesterday that gerrymandering is possible, but it is not easy. Mark you, he tried it and, whether it was easy or difficult, he succeeded when constituencies were being revised. Is it any wonder that we contend, therefore, that not alone is the proposed system inimical to the interests of minorities, but, notwithstanding any facade the Government may seek to erect to cloak their purpose, it is quite obvious now that we shall have a repetition of the gerrymandering perpetrated on another occasion. We shall be confronted with a replica of the Northern Ireland operation in relation to which Mr. Gallagher said that both the gerrymandering and the electoral laws were directed towards suppressing nationalist representation.

But the people will not permit the Government to perpetrate what they now propose and Deputies opposite have another "think" coming to them, if they imagine that Deputies will not exercise their full rights in this Chamber in exposing the action of the Government and bringing home to the people what the consequences of the Government's intention will be, to the people what the consequences of the Government's intention will be, if they are permitted to bring their plans to fruition. Now is the time to do that. It will be too late afterwards. It will be too late afterwards for the people to complain that they have lost rights they enjoyed down through the years. It will be too late afterwards for them to complain that they permitted a strong Government, a Government with sufficient strength under P.R. to implement the grandiose programme they assured the electorate they would implement at the first opportunity prior to the last general election, to wipe out rights they have enjoyed for the past 30 years.

We have waited now for close on two years to see the programme implemented. Think for a moment on the business done in this House during that period. Business had descended to the level, towards the close of 1958, in which the House met for only one day in a week and adjourned for a fortnight because there was no business to transact. The Government must realise the difficulties in which the country is. The Government must realise their commitments. But the Government have signally failed to implement their promises to the people. They have failed to implement a policy to meet the requirements of the country and they have now launched on an unsuspecting electorate this piece of proposed legislation. Not alone that, but they have brought the House back at an unprecedentedly early date after the Christmas Recess, in an effort to push this Bill through as quickly as possible, a Bill designed to deprive the people of rights they have enjoyed for so many years.

Quite definitely, P.R. has not resulted in that instability to which Government spokesmen claim it is prone. We do not have to go beyond the shores of our own country to find an outstanding example of the success that can attend the proper utilisation of P.R. It has provided us with a Government of so stable a character that only three men have occupied the office of Taoiseach since the State was founded. In countries where P.R. is not utilised, there have been frequent and violent changes of government during the past 30 years.

Under a P.R. system, countries like Switzerland, Holland and Denmark, whose peoples speak different languages, have succeeded in welding those peoples together and have succeeded admirably in a progressive and democratic treatment of their minorities, welding their people together in a prosperous community. These are but a few examples to show the considerable success attendant upon the efforts of the respective Governments of these countries. They have not been hampered in any way in their development because of their system of election. Indeed, the confidence inspired by the faithful representation of minorities has resulted in a real stability, and that stability has been engendered because they have had the vision and foresight to elect Governments representing varying and divergent interests.

We pay no heed to the allegations of Government spokesmen here that there is instability associated with P.R. Speakers on the ministerial benches have tried to get it across that there is instability inherent in the system of P.R. and complete stability inherent in the British electoral system. The Government, in their efforts, are inspired by one motive, and only one motive. They believe that under the present system of election, their Party cannot hope for re-election to Government in the future. They bring in this Bill at the exact moment the leader of the Party decides to retire from active politics and the purpose behind this Bill is to cushion the Fianna Fáil Party against the severe blow it will suffer in the loss of its present leader. The intention is to substitute for the present system of election a system which will render it possible for the Party, with a minimum of votes, to assume Government and hang on to office for a few more years.

Mr. Booth

Or say something new.

Mr. Childers

Deputies have a perfect right to go on. They do not have to bear in mind what I say.

Mr. Corish

They will go on. I remember, in 1949, there was introduced a measure to do a tremendous amount of good, to give employment in rural areas, entitled the Local Authorities (Works) Bill. Does the Minister for Lands—I do not think any of the others were in the House at the time—remember the behaviour of two or three members of the Fianna Fáil Party on that occasion?

Mr. Childers

That does not arise on this Bill, anyway.

Mr. Corish

Does he remember that Deputy MacEntee and Deputy Moran, now Ministers in the Government, attempted over four or five weeks to hold up that Bill merely because it was going to do good? We are trying to hold up this Bill for the purpose——

Deputies

Oh!

Mr. Corish

We are trying to hold up this Bill in the House for the purpose of discussion in order to enlighten people. Now let Deputy Booth grin.

On that point, we could revise the constituencies by bringing a Bill into this House. That can be done and still the Taoiseach can come forward with his proposal to hold a referendum on the question of P.R. and the straight vote.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The Taoiseach revised the constituencies twice before without changing the system of election.

Mr. Corish

What urgency is there, I ask, about the introduction of this Bill?

The whole situation has taken a different turn. We are asked in this sub-section to agree to the single member constituency and that point will be put before the people. I spoke on Second Reading and said that I hoped this referendum would not be put to the people, where, in effect, they were asked: "Are you for or against de Valera?" I do not think it is fair to the people if, as the Taoiseach says, this is a nonpolitical question, that he should be thrown into the arena and that people should again be asked to "trust Dev." If the people are to regard this matter objectively, in my opinion, the question contained in this section should be put as a separate issue. I suggest that the referendum for that purpose should be held on a separate day and that we should not try to divide the people again by putting the Taoiseach up against the rest of the country. Again, in my opinion, it is purely another diversionary tactic of the Fianna Fáil Party. I expressed that fear on Second Reading and, unfortunately, it has come to pass.

There seems to be a big objection to a multiplicity of Parties. I do not see anything objectionable in what has been described over the past ten years as a multiplicity of Parties. It is true to say, and all of us must accept, that, as far as this country is concerned, we are not politically mature in the sense that there are three, four or five Parties in the House who can say that they were founded or established on some political philosophy. This may be repetition—not as far as I am concerned in this debate—but it could be said again that the two main Parties in this House were established at the time of the civil war and from the civil war.

Say what you like about the Labour Party; say what you like about its representation or lack of representation in this House, but as Deputy Larkin said this morning, the Labour Party was founded on a political philosophy. It has demonstrated that political philosophy in this House over the past 37 years, whether or not the other members of the House agreed with it or not. Can Fianna Fáil or any of the other Parties in the House say the same thing about themselves? Because Parties are not politically mature, there is and there will be for years to come, a necessity for Parties small, medium and big. I do not see any objection to having in this House Clann na Poblachta, Clann na Talmhan, the National Progressive Democrats, a Socialist Party. I do not see any objection to any group of people in this country wanting to be represented in this House as a political Party.

If the Taoiseach says that it is desirable that we should have two large political Parties, even if that were agreed, the time is still not opportune because the people themselves have not sorted themselves out and, as I said on another occasion, not in this debate, there is a loyalty, whether it be mistaken or otherwise, by certain people in this country, not so much to the Fianna Fáil Party, as to Deputy de Valera who is now the Taoiseach and, as long as that situation exists, it is an unreal situation.

I do not deny or begrudge the loyalty of the members of the Fianna Fáil Party to him, but it is not founded on any political philosophy. I do not think anybody could say it is. The Fianna Fáil Party could sort itself out and other Parties in the House could sort themselves out and form Parties founded on some political philosophy or with some definite and basic policy. There still is necessity to have different Parties represented in the House.

It has been suggested by, I think, the Minister for Health, that there have been 23 or 24 Parties represented in this House over the past 37 years. Such is not the case. Many of these Parties did not succeed in getting into Dáil Éireann. It is true that they contested elections, but, as Deputy Norton said yesterday, in 1922 or 1923 there were four political Parties; in 1959 there are still four political Parties. There are three Parties that could be regarded as Parties if we agree that less than five would not constitute a political Party. Otherwise, Deputy Carroll, Deputy Byrne or any other Independent Deputy could call himself a Party and that would make the case stronger for the Minister for Health. In any case, I do not see anything undesirable in that, but I do think it would be a dangerous thing if we were to adopt the system of a single member constituency, especially in view of the situation we have had in this country and in view of the situation we still have at the present time.

If, on the other hand, the constituency were represented by somebody who was very pro-Treaty and happened to be bitter during the years after the Treaty, people would be reluctant to approach him to put a point of view before him. I still do not know what the idea of Fianna Fáil is in trying to foist this proposal on the people. I am not one of those people who believe that if the suggestion in the referendum is accepted by the people, Fianna Fáil will be there for all time but I am one of those who believe that if the referendum is carried out and the straight vote and single member constituency adopted by the people, Fianna Fáil will extend their lifetime by a particular method. I think they will do it in this way.

I believe that if an election were held in 12 months' time under the straight vote, Fianna Fáil would get quite a majority in the House. They would then be in the position of being the only representatives in say, 90 out of 140 constituencies. I believe they would dig themselves in by distributing, as they have done in the past ten, 20 or 30 years, largesse. I believe that is the method which Fianna Fáil hope to employ. On the other hand, if the straight vote is adopted and if and when it would happen—I believe it would happen in 12 months—I believe that Fianna Fáil would get quite a majority. If that is the intention, I think it is a shabby fraud on the people, and the people, recognising that, will be quick to reject the suggestion that we should change from P.R. to the straight vote.

The county is the natural unit. It is the natural unit for sport, hurling, football and any game you care to mention. It is even the natural unit for ploughing teams. It is the natural unit for Red Cross teams. In fact, it is the natural unit for practically every type of competition. I do not think that the people of North Wexford, Mid-Wexford or West Wexford would be pleased to know that they might be left unrepresented as far as Labour, Fine Gael or even Fianna Fáil are concerned. I believe they want to be represented as a county. I think that for that reason they will also reject this proposal to change from P.R. to the straight vote.

Above all, I believe that the intervention of the Taoiseach into this contest as second choice to Deputy Aiken will not have a very good effect on the people. The cry has been for stability and unity. I think that the intervention of the Taoiseach into the Presidential contest on the day upon which the referendum is to be held will widen any split there has been among the people and will provide for instability rather than the stability which this measure proposes to give us.

Notice taken that 20 members were not present; House counted, and 20 members being present,

Mr. Cunningham

I just wanted to deal with one of the points made by Deputy Corish. Deputy Corish maintained that if he were elected for a constituency in Wexford, there are a large number of constituents who would not approach him and who would not put any of their problems before him. I do not agree with that and I can prove that he is wrong. For instance, in the constituency of Wexford before the last election, we had two Labour representatives. Two members in the Dáil represented the Labour element in the Wexford constituency. Therefore, we one Labour representative from the Wexford constituency. Therefore, we must assume that the number of voters who made up their minds not to return a second Labour Deputy from Wexford—they were Labour supporters— are now willing to put their proposals before a Deputy who is not of the Labour Party.

When that operates in the case of Labour supporters who have proved that they are willing to entrust their problems to and depend on a policy which is not a Labour one, I maintain it operates in reverse. As a matter of fact, the majority of my supporters in East Donegal are of the working class, people who are members of trade unions, the Federation of Rural Workers and so on. They support a Fianna Fáil Deputy, so that I think the argument put up by Deputy Corish is disproved, even in his own constituency. Under the new system, it will be disproved more than under the present system. The case he made does not operate at the present time and will not operate under the new system.

Mr. J.A. Costello

One of the arguments upon which great reliance was placed by the Taoiseach and by his ministerial colleagues in support of the present proposals was that this was the last chance of getting rid of P.R.

I must confess I was greatly intrigued by that argument and somewhat surprised that the implications inherent in that argument had not been appreciated by the Government. I began to wonder what it meant—"the last chance". There are two possible explanations. First, it means that they cannot get these proposals through the people without the name of "de Valera" being tacked on to them. I drew attention in the very first speech I made in this House on these proposals when I said on the First Reading of the Bill, that it was wrong that proposals of so radical a character as these should be endeavoured to be got through the country by means of a referendum, by adhering to old political loyalties and personal allegiances. That is very wrong.

It is very wrong, as I said the other day, that proposals, the effect of which cannot now be foreseen under conditions that we cannot see in the future, should be put through the people by the appeal: "Vote for these proposals because they are de Valera's proposals. They are his last proposals to the Irish people. Do not let the old fellow down". Is that not what is at the back of this suggestion that this is the last chance?

It is entirely wrong that sentiments based on past loyalties and personal allegiances should be dragged into a very important constitutional matter such as this is, and that people should go into the polling booths uninformed, uneducated, not really knowing what they are going to do but voting "yes" for the proposals "because Dev. wants them."

Is that not inherent and implicit in all this suggestion that this is the last chance? We did not know at the time when these arguments were put forward that the Taoiseach intended to stand as a candidate for the Presidency. We know it since yesterday and we know now the meaning of "this is the last chance. De Valera is going from the political scene to the comparative obscurity of the Park. This is the last request he is to make of the Irish people. Do not refuse it to him."

General MacEoin

He has not a hope of getting to the Park.

Mr. Norton

And if he gets there, there will be no obscurity. His ghost will be around here morning, noon and night.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order!

Mr. J.A. Costello

I wonder if——

Mr. Norton

He will haunt this place.

Mr. J.A. Costello

I insist very emphatically that it is wrong that people should be asked to vote for proposals on this basis. I said there were possibly two explanations for this "last chance" argument. The other explanation is a most interesing one. Fianna Fáil have now an overall majority in this House. They will never have one again. This is the last chance of a Fianna Fáil majority in the Dáil. It is the last chance they have of pushing through this Bill in the teeth of the opposition of every other organised Party. This is the last chance. Fianna Fáil will never have another chance of doing it again and therefore we must do it now. They can have a present of either of those arguments which are certainly not conducive to the public good.

At the outset of this campaign dealing with the proposed alteration in the Constitution when it was announced in the newspapers, to what I said on one occasion was a startled public, that the Government proposed to initiate these proposals, it was perfectly clear that the country was startled and bewildered. That bewilderment and condition of not knowing what it was all about, why it was being done now, what was the meaning of it—that condition of public mentality continued for quite a long time and certainly continued throughout the entire progress of the Second Reading of this Bill.

I am glad to say that, from my experience and contacts, that bewilderment is now very steadily decreasing. It has not yet been dissipated, and the function that we in the Opposition have to fulfil, and that every Party has been fulfilling in these debates, in this House, has been to dissipate that public bewilderment which was so widespread at the time these proposals were first adumbrated until a very late stage in the Second Reading discussion.

We are told that we are obstructing this Bill and that we should not discuss it. I know if we had let this Bill go through easily and if we had said: "Let the people decide", right through the length and breadth of the country, and in the newspapers, we would have been accused, and very properly accused, of not having done our duty as a constructive Opposition, that we had failed to do what we were sent here to do and what we had promised to do when the Government were elected.

So far from putting forward any excuses, apologies or extenuation for anything we have done, we glory in the fact that we have forced the Government to put up such vapid arguments as they have been able to advance in support of these proposals, and we have no doubt whatever first, that we have got the better of these arguments in this House and secondly, the people are now beginning to appreciate in a way in which they never did before, the issues on which they will have to decide.

We intend to continue, in this House and outside it, to do our duty to educate public opinion on the issues, the very grave issues for the future of this country, and not for the future of political Parties, that are involved in these proposals. We repudiate the notion that we ought to slow down our opposition here until the last argument has been ventilated and reventilated on every stage of this Bill. We will continue to use this Dáil as we are entitled to use it and as we are bound to use it in accordance with our duty to the people who sent us here, as a sounding board to get our arguments, and each and every one of them right down throughout the length and breadth of the country and to every section of the people so that they will appreciate that they have a duty to fulfil and that they will fulfil that duty, having been fully informed of what they have to do and the nature of the issues they have to decide on.

The old argument was repeated here yesterday when it was thrown out that we did not want the people to decide. I think it was Deputy O'Malley who repeated that ridiculous suggestion that because we had opposed the First Reading of this Bill, we were standing between the Government and the people. Of course, we stood between the Government and the people because we knew at that time the people were bewildered and did not understand, and it was essential no matter how we achieved it, to secure time within which every argument on this matter could be fully debated and fully placed before the people and that the people should understand from the very outset that we were unalterably opposed to the proposals contained in this Bill.

That is why we opposed the First Reading of this Bill, to make clear to them by that not unprecedented but very unusual action that we did not want the people to think we were even so far in favour of the Bill that we would let it be printed. We wanted the people to understand, from the very outset, that we were against these proposals, unalterably and fundamentally against them, to make them realise by taking that practically unexampled step that something was being attempted in this country of so radical a character which ought to be brought home to the public by shock treatment, if necessary, to waken them out of their bewilderment and shake them out of the state of ignorance in which they were at that time.

The Government wanted this to be done quickly before the people could realise what was at stake, before they had time to be informed and educated and led along the right path and given an opportunity of calm consideration, irrespective of political adherences or personal loyalties. I think we can say we have done our duty, and we will continue to do it. I think we can say we have achieved the effect that the public have now sat up and taken notice. The fact that the Taoiseach will be a candidate for the Presidency clearly shows what is at the back of all this performance.

I should like to refer to one other matter which has been persisted in by the Minister for External Affairs, I believe, even before this Bill came into the House. I think it was in a speech he made before the Bill came into the House that he laid down the astonishing proposition that this system of P.R., with the single transferable vote, which was embodied in the Constitution of 1937, was forced upon the people by Mr. Lloyd George and the British Parliament. It is astounding that, in the teeth of evidence to the contrary, he has still the impudence to persist in that mistaken assertion.

In the course of the Second Reading debate on this Bill, I gave in some detail the history of P.R., so far as it concerns the people of Ireland. I quoted in my Second Reading speech what Arthur Griffith said in 1911. I pointed out that when the Home Rule proposals, which were initiated, I think, in 1912, were put forward in the British House of Commons representatives of the P.R. Society of all Ireland sent a delegation to the British House of Commons and, as a result of their representation from Ireland, proposals for the P.R. system were embodied in the Home Rule Act which found itself at least on the British Statute Book in 1914.

Then, in 1919, apparently Mr. Lloyd George took a hand in forcing the Irish people: that is what the Minister for External Affairs says— in 1919. He hopes the Irish people will forget that on two occasions the Taoiseach has stated that he approved of those proposals in 1919. He referred to it on two occasions in this House. I think he referred to it in his final speech on the Second Reading and, again, in one of his speeches, in reply to something I said on the Committee Stage, the Taoiseach said that, in 1919, he was satisfied with the justice of these proposals. I think he originally said in his Second Reading speech that he was satisfied with the mathematics of them. Certainly, the other day, the Taoiseach said that undoubtedly he was satisfied with the justice of the proposals as they appeared to give just representation to minorities. The Minister for External Affairs ignored those two statements by his Leader that he was in favour of the proposals in 1919.

I also referred to the fact that it was the people of Sligo who asked that they should get, through an Act of the British Legislature, the power of carrying out their local elections in the Sligo Corporation under the principles of P.R. I think that was the first time that that was carried out. Then, in 1922, it was embodied in the Constitution here—not in the way in which it was embodied subsequently in the 1937 Constitution but embodied by saying that the electoral system should be based upon the principles of P.R. The principle adopted from 1923 onwards was the system of the single transferable vote.

With all that history, in 1936, when the Draft Constitution was being considered and debated in this House, when I put forward the proposition that has been so repeatedly quoted here by the Taoiseach and others, it was decided that P.R. be put into the fundamental law of the country. The phrase hitherto adopted since 1922, and which allowed of considerable flexibility, was "on principles of P.R.", but the then President of the Executive Council, who is the present Taoiseach, insisted that there should be a particular system of P.R. embodied and enshrined in the Constitution and that was done. This was argued not at very great length, but it was argued substantially along the lines that have already been stated and restated here. I do not intend to go over them again.

The one thing that was not stated in all those debates was that there was some danger that, if P.R. were not put in, some sort of unscrupulous people—presumably Labour and Fine Gael—would exercise unscrupulous propaganda about the omission which might cause the defeat of the Constitution. I challenge the Minister for External Affairs to produce any single line in the discussions of 1936 on the debate on the Draft Constitution where that argument was put forward. We argued the matter here perfectly calmly on an intellectual basis and on the basis of experience. I put forward my arguments and the then President of the Executive Council, the present Taoiseach, answered them. Nowhere was it suggested that one of the reasons for insisting upon the insertion in the proposed fundamental law of the country for the future of those proposals for not merely an electoral system based upon the principles of P.R. but an electoral system based upon one particular kind of principle of P.R. was that the omission might result in the defeat of the Constitution.

Again and again, the Minister for External Affairs has repeated this absurdity and he is going on with it. I have here a letter, which appears in to-day's Irish Independent, from the Minister for External Affairs commenting upon a leading article of the Irish Independent in which the writer took him to task for the assertions he was making in reference to the alleged imposition of this system by the British Government on the Irish people. This is what he says:—

"In your note on my letter of the 12th instant you did not repeat the allegation, made in your leading article (12th inst.), that there is not a ‘tittle of fact' to support my statement: ‘that the British imposed P.R. on this country to smash our national unity and prevent our will for independence from being effective.'"

That is the thesis of the Minister for External Affairs. I will repeat his quotation:—

"That the British imposed P.R. on this country to smash our national unity and prevent our will for independence from being effective."

I have already pointed out that the time he says the British were supposed to do it, Mr. de Valera, as he then was, expressed his view that it was a just system and he approved of it.

But the Minister for External Affairs goes on in his letter which appears in to-day's Irish Independent to say:—

"I am glad to see that you have thus accepted the incontestable evidence, reiterated in my letter, that the British imposed P.R. on Ireland in 1919 to smash our national unity."

I will pause in my quotation from this letter. There, the assertion is that the British in 1919 imposed P.R. on this country to smash our national unity.

Twice in this debate, without in any way referring to what his colleague, the Minister for External Affairs, said, the Taoiseach has said that he approved in the very year 1919—referred to and relied upon by his colleague, the Minister for External Affairs—of the principle of P.R. as being just, but he says that he has now changed his mind.

I shall skip a part of his letter which I do not think is relevant at the moment. Perhaps I had better read it in case I am accused of not reading everything. He goes on:—

"You conclude your note by asking me do I deny ‘that the British had no more to do with the Constitution and its provisions than Hitler or Stalin had'.

Not only do I deny it; I assert it."

In spite of the evidence, in spite of his own leader's repeated assertions that in 1919 he approved of it, the Minister for External Affairs insists on this blague that the British imposed it in 1919. He goes on to make this extraordinary statement:—

"The Constitution of 1937 was enacted by the Irish people themselves. It included P.R., one of the reasons being, apart from other considerations, that if it had not, unscrupulous propaganda about the omission might have caused the defeat of the Constitution, and left us with the old one which had been imposed by the British."

He says unscrupulous propaganda about the omission might have caused the defeat of the Constitution. Not one single word or line to that effect is to be found in the debates in Dáil Éireann or elsewhere. Now, 23 years afterwards, this alleged reason is produced and is produced, I submit to the House and will submit to the people, in order to cover up the nakedness of the arguments that have been advanced in favour of the abolition of P.R. They have felt the weight of our arguments against them and they are pressing home to the people false arguments and appealing to the old, anti-British instincts in the people.

They are trying to get it into the people's heads that P.R. is something that was imposed by the British on the Irish people and therefore that they should get rid of it. That is, in ordinary circumstances, a dishonest argument, but I do not need to say that now. All I can say is that it demonstrates to the absolute limit how weak the Fianna Fáil Party and the present Government feel themselves upon this issue when they try, in the teeth of the evidence and in spite of what their own leader has said in this House during the discussion on this Bill, to catch votes unscrupulously —the expression used by the Minister for External Affairs in this letter—by appealing to the anti-British instincts of the people on false and untenable grounds.

It is certainly a source of satisfaction to us to know that they are so hard pressed for arguments for this Bill, that they feel themselves on such weak grounds, that they have come to the conclusion that the only possible way they can get this Bill through is by saying: "Do not let the old man down. It is his last chance. Whether he goes to the Park or not, he will never be on the political scene again. Do not let him down". In case that does not succeed, they appeal to the anti-British instincts of the people by endeavouring falsely, in the teeth of the evidence and in spite of what their own leader has said, to suggest P.R. was imposed upon the Irish people by Lloyd George or the British Parliament.

This system was accepted by us and by our predecessors from time to time. It was an Irish acceptance. It was fully and freely adopted. Arthur Griffith approved of it. The present Taoiseach approved of it in 1919. The P.R. Society of Ireland was established in order to get it into operation and they succeeded in getting it into the Home Rule Bill and subsequently the Home Rule Act, 1914. It was adopted in 1922 and accepted by the overwhelming majority of the people in election after election.

In 1937, with all that experience behind us, with the knowledge, if the Minister for External Affairs is to be believed, that the false, brutal Saxon had imposed this form of election upon us, it was deliberately put into the Constitution and a particular system of P.R. deliberately accepted and inflexibly put in as part of the fundamental law. What had Lloyd George or the British Government in 1919 or at any other time to do with the matter in 1937? The then President of the Executive Council, the present Taoiseach, gave his reasons, and I gave my reasons. No single one of those reasons was as suggested by the Minister for External Affairs in his letter to-day. It is false and dishonest and not the sort of thing the Irish people should be asked to put up with.

If this Bill is to be accepted, let it be accepted by the Irish people on its merits after full argument, full reasoning and ample opportunity of knowing what is at the back of it. When a Government and a Party have to resort to this kind of thing, it demonstrates to what lengths the Party are prepared to go to put forward these proposals and have them accepted by some ignorant people who may not understand and some other people who may accept them because of political allegiance or personal loyalty.

I want to conclude what I have to say on this note. The Taoiseach, the then President of the Executive Council in 1936, adopted the P.R. proposals. I have already adverted on the Second Reading to the fact that the man who is now apparently to be Taoiseach, if and when the present Taoiseach goes, wherever he goes, approved of them in 1933 in an even stronger way than the President of the Executive Council, Mr. de Valera, approved of them in 1936. He had a proposition to abolish P.R. thrown out of the Fianna Fáil Árd-Fheis in 1933, and everybody knows now or at least ought to know— and it can be ascertained by examination of the facts—that Fianna Fáil would never have become the Government if Mr. Cosgrave's Government had not introduced as part of the electoral system and the law of the country the principle of P.R. and the single transferable vote. There is not a shadow of doubt about that.

This system, according to the then President of the Executive Council, in 1936, had served the country, by and large, reasonably well. It has served the country ever since reasonably well, and we were in the happy position that we were regarded by outside countries as an example to look up to, as democracy in action, democracy brought to its completely logical conclusion. I agree with Deputy Corish in what he said to-day that he did not take the view that this is going to put Fianna Fáil into office for all time. I do agree that it is an attempt to do so but the very fact that they say this is the last chance, carries by implication the fact that they know they will never again get an overwhelming majority in this House.

Mr. Norton

It is often extremely difficult for participants and contemporaries adequately to evaluate the circumstances which surround them, or adequately to measure the events with which they are dealing. Consequently, it is not possible, I think, for Deputies objectively to describe precisely the events which are happening to-day, but I am satisfied that when history comes to be written, the historians will describe this Bill, and the manipulations about the Presidency, as a monumental effort on the part of the Fianna Fáil Party to dope the people in such a way as to extend the Fianna Fáil period of office. That is the sole and sordid purpose of this Bill and of all these manoeuvres.

The pathetic and infantile efforts of the Minister for External Affairs to say that P.R. is a British instrument are, of course, completely falsified by the facts. The Minister's eyes are now cast so far over the world that he apparently is not at all able to see things too clearly. If he had taken the trouble to look at the electoral systems in Europe, he would see that P.R. was used as a method of voting in the small democratic countries of Europe in the last century; that, in fact, it was used for electing Governments, national and provincial Governments, in certain countries in Europe. To suggest, therefore, that P.R. is a British instrument is, of course, part and parcel of the cant and hypocrisy which surrounds the so-called arguments in support of this Bill.

P.R. is not a British institution. P.R. is not a British instrument. P.R. has its roots more in the Continent of Europe than it has in Britain, and the Continent of Europe has shown by the adoption of the P.R. system of election that you can have good Governments, that you can have democratic Governments, that you can provide for representation of a substantial cross-section of the people in Parliament and that, at the same time as you are doing all these things, you can give the people a high standard of living. Instead, therefore, of following the system which is now fondled by the Six Counties Government, which represents their method of election in the Six Counties, and instead of following the British method of election, what we ought to be doing is to see how we can use P.R. in such a manner as to make it work here, with all the safeguards that are apparently applied to its operation in Europe.

But, of course, one has only to look back over the period since 1923 to realise that—notwithstanding the cataclysmic events of that period; notwithstanding the periodic upsurges; notwithstanding the chequered and sometimes violent disputations which took place—in spite of all these happenings, P.R. was a steadying influence during that whole period, that P.R. gave us a balanced Parliament, that P.R. gave us balanced legislation and that in fact P.R., over all the events which happened here since the civil war, has given us a stable Parliament and stable Government and has been responsible, if you like, for Fianna Fáil being able to hold office for 20 years out of 26. P.R., therefore, has given us a stable Government in this country, a stable Parliament, and on the other hand, stable legislation which was not marked in the main by any hysterical actions, and any hysterical results, in one direction or the other.

Now, all that is to be abolished. Instead we are to take a leap in the dark, going over to adopt the British system of election. Mind you, whatever complaints the British might have against this country, they can certainly have no complaint against the Fianna Fáil Party. In 1936, this Dáil was called together, by telegram, for the purpose of repairing the British Act of Succession which was fractured by the fact that the king of the time went on strike and said——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise.

Mr. Norton

No, it does not arise, but what is worthy of mention is that the Fianna Fáil Party got the next king appointed king of Ireland. Now, in order to show their deep-seated admiration of the way the British do things, they have decided we will copy the British method of election as well as a method of election which is kept by only two dictatorship regimes in Europe. This is done at the instance of the Fianna Fáil Party. Deputy Cunningham intervened in this debate to show, or to attempt to show, what the results of the single member constituency would be. Here are the facts of the case. The most I suppose we can do in this debate is to rely on the organs of public opinion to acquaint the public with the facts, as we see them, in the hope that when the day of the critical vote arrives, the people will defend their own interests.

At present, if you have a constituency of four members, a Party which secures 40 per cent. of the votes can secure two seats. If that constituency is broken up into four single member constituencies, and the same Party can secure 40 per cent. of the votes in the four separated constituencies, just as they could secure that percentage in the single constituency of four members then, instead of getting two seats in a constituency of four seats, they will be able to secure the whole four seats. Let us take the case of Wexford, or the case of any county where there are four seats. At present, a Party with 40 per cent. of the votes can get two of these seats. If, instead of a single constituency of four members, you have four separated constituencies, then a Party which can get 40 per cent. of the votes on average, in each of those separate constituencies, can get each of the four seats. Instead of the representation of the people being divided in such a way as to give them seats in proportion to the votes cast, the position will be that one Party, if they are able to secure a minority of the votes cast, can collar the entire representation in the constituency.

If, as I said in another discussion on the Bill, a Party can secure 30 per cent. of the votes—even as low as 30 per cent.—there will be representation in the constituency for that Party, but there will be no representation for all the people who gave 70 per cent. of the votes cast to the other Parties, and that cannot be denied. In any single member constituency where there are four Parties contesting a seat, the candidate who gets 30 per cent. of the votes must win if the others divide 70 per cent. of the votes between them, none of them getting more than 30 per cent. That is the method of election now being offered, instead of the democratic method of election, whereby each substantial section of the people can secure representation in Parliament.

I want to contrast what happens under the existing system in a three member constituency. In order to secure representation and to get one of the seats, a Party has to get 25 per cent. of the votes. A Party that can secure 25 per cent. is not on the whole a small or insignificant Party, by any means; yet though that Party could get representation in the smallest constituency which we have, the three member constituency, by polling 25 per cent. of the votes, it can get no representation in the single member constituency in the future. Of course, that is the purpose of this Bill.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce said that the Fianna Fáil Party wanted a scheme of Parliamentary Government under which you will have a Government—which, in his view, would be Fianna Fáil, which he thinks has proprietary rights to Government—and that everybody else, no matter what their political complexion, must be forced into an Opposition. That involves, according to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, forcing into an Opposition a whole variety of people completely dissimilar in outlook, with different political philosophies and with no inclination whatever to merge with one another.

Of course, that has always been the argument of some people in this House. The famous Collins-de Valera pact of 1922 was devised to keep the Labour Party out of the Dáil, because it provided that those who then held seats would retain them. But fortunately, against the desire of the planners, there was an opportunity of contesting seats at that time. The Labour Party secured entry to the Dáil in 1922, and, in spite of all the misrepresentation of the Party down the years, it has been able to maintain that representation in the Dáil.

Even if this Bill should be passed by the people, I am satisfied that once the people realise the significance of what is being done, they will appreciate the necessity, in a democratic Parliament, of having a Labour Party as watchdogs for a section of the community who prefer to be represented here by the Labour Party rather than by any other Party. The vicissitudes of the years have not changed the allegiance of a section of the people to the Labour Party. Even, as I said, if this Bill is passed, I believe that there still will be sufficient loyalty to a Labour Party and to the Labour Party policy against the political staleness of what is offered to them and that they will continue to give their allegiance to the Labour Party.

However, I am satisfied that the people will not be deceived by the fraudulent manoeuvres now taking place which are designed to put the people in a straitjacket, designed to dope the people for sufficiently long to give Fianna Fáil the requisite authority to perpetuate their proprietary rights to government in this country.

In all this discussion, one aspect of the matter has not got the attention which it should get. In recent years, we have seen the emergence of the Sinn Féin Party. We know what the declared policy of the Party is. We know what the revolutionary background of this country is. The Sinn Féin Party contested the last election on the basis that they would not come into Parliament, that they would abstain from taking their seats. I think that was a great pity and a great mistake. I think they have a right to go to the people and put their policy to the people and if they secure support from the people, should come in and propagate their policy in this House, as they are quite entitled to do under the Constitution.

It is regrettable that they should ignore the existence of our people's Parliament, elected under a democratic franchise such as this is. Now, of course, it will be said by them, and with every truth, that the compass is being boxed here by the Fianna Fáil Party in such a way as to deny them the chance of coming in here, unless they can come in in circumstances which would require them to defeat every other Party in a single member constituency. That is not the way to encourage constitutional growth. That is not the way to guide and encourage people along constitutional lines. I believe that by its action in this matter, and in relation to the abstentionist Sinn Féin Party, the Fianna Fáil Party is generating a wind and that it may yet reap a whirlwind that can only be disastrous for the nation.

At this time, above all other times, we ought not to do anything which would take the eyes of the people away from Parliament. Whatever our imperfections are here, however slothful we may be in dealing with proposals, it is nevertheless the central authority of government. We should encourage political Parties to work here as a method of evolution and as a method of promoting constitutional growth. The steps which the Government are taking in this matter will add fuel to a fire which, if started, may take a long time to extinguish.

The Government are acting unwisely, even if you look at the Bill from that angle. Over and above that, we are to-day surrounded by more acute problems than affect any other small democracies in Europe which operate P.R. In the face of all these problems which crowd upon us with such rigour and vigour, the most we can do is dissipate the energies of the people and Parliament by discussing a Bill which, as I said, will not add a penny to our national wealth and will not take one person off the employment exchange.

The Government are guilty of a cynical disregard of the people. They received no mandate in the last election for a Bill of this kind and I hope the people will realise that this Bill is being introduced not for their benefit or in order to give them a better standard of living, but for one purpose, that is, to enable Fianna Fáil to hang on to office and to all that office means to them.

Minister for Health (Mr. MacEntee)

This debate on the Committee Stage of the Bill is a very extraordinary one. Usually interventions——

General Mulcahy

The Minister has come in four hours after the debate started.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister for Health is in possession and he should be allowed to speak.

Mr. MacEntee

As a rule, interventions on the Committee Stage are short, brief and to the point. What point was there in the last speech which we have just heard from Deputy Norton? It was a speech which, to my knowledge, lasted for half an hour.

Mr. Norton

The Minister is wrong as usual.

Mr. MacEntee

Mr. MacEntee

It is bearing on the fact that Deputy Mulcahy has risen several times in the course of this debate and made what I described before as tedious and meaningless interventions. I was pointing out that the purpose of this obstruction is to prevent the people voting on this measure. These gentlemen who profess to be democrats, to be so concerned with the rights of the people, are now doing everything they possibly can to prevent this measure going to the people. There has been no attempt to muzzle debate in this House. The Chair has rightly given great freedom in the method of approach by speakers to this issue. Nobody can say that any argument which he could think of, no matter how far-fetched, was prevented from being heard here. There would not be much greater latitude and liberty outside the House upon the platform. If we are so anxious to have the Bill debated by the people, if we are so anxious to let the people know what is in the Bill, as is now the profession of the Opposition, why not let the Bill out of this House and let us go to the people in regard to it? We shall not have Deputy Mulcahy intervening with the sort of interruptions that characterised his conduct during this debate to prevent people discussing coherently and sensibly the matter at issue.

I am afraid that is a detail which is probably out of order.

Mr. MacEntee

That is how Deputies acted, who are proclaiming now that we are muzzling the House, that we will not allow the House to discuss this Bill.

Mr. Casey

On a point of order, as a member who has been in this House only since 1954, might I inquire whether we are discussing the 1931 Bill or the 1959 Bill?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has already pointed out that the Minister is entitled to refer to previous amendments of the Constitution, so long as he does not go into the details of the amendments.

General Mulcahy

With all due respect, he has gone into them.

Mr. MacEntee

I have not gone into details as I do not want to revive bitter memories in this House. I would not have raised this matter at all, except for the conduct of Deputy Mulcahy and his colleagues in relation to this measure.

I am merely reminding the House that the 1931 Constitutional Amendment was a measure which contained very drastic provisions. This is a measure relating to the manner in which people may vote: the Deputy's amendment was one relating to how people were to be tried for their lives even for a misdemeanour.

Let us get back to Wexford. We shall leave South Africa to Deputy Norton. Does anybody tell me that with Deputy Corish standing as a candidate in an election for Wexford town, he would be one of three who would not get 60 per cent. of the votes between them? That is what Deputy Corish's leader said about him.

Mr. Corish

Have you carved up Wexford already?

Mr. MacEntee

If Deputy Corish stands in Wexford Deputy Norton believes he will be only one of three who will not win a seat and who, according to Deputy Norton, will not get 40 per cent. of the votes. What about Deputy Larkin? Surely there are five seats in Dublin South-Central—I am sorry, Dublin North-East; I forgot that the Labour Party had not been able to get a representative in Dublin South-Central. There will be five seats there, assuming that in general the existing constituencies will be divided up in that way. Are we to believe that Deputy Larkin, with his name and his record and with, of course, the support of the Labour Party, could not find one single working-class district in the whole of Dublin North-East to give him more than 40 per cent. of the votes which according to his leader would be just necessary to secure his election?

Surely the sort of argument we have heard from Deputy Norton is absurd and he ought to drop it. I am sure that when Deputy Manley hears Deputy Norton trying to do these simple exercises in mathematics, he must squirm.

Mr. Norton

Go and get a ball-frame for yourself. Start on that.

Mr. MacEntee

When I came in, Deputy Costello was in what one might describe as a tearing rage, repudiating the idea that the British imposed P.R. on this country. Deputy Costello is probably a purist in language and perhaps the use of the word "imposed" might provoke him to the sort of resentment he was manifesting when I heard him speak. We will drop the word "imposed" and say "introduced." We have the best authority for saying that the British introduced P.R. into this country, the system we now have, that which is called P.R. We have the very best authority, the authority of the man who put the Sligo measure through, the Local Government (Ireland) Act in 1919. It was the then Mr. Herbert Samuel, the present Lord Samuel.

Speaking in the debate on the Second Reading—if Deputy Mulcahy wants to have the source of the quotation, I would refer him to Volume 114, columns 175-176 of the Debates in the British House of Commons on the Bill—here is what Mr. Samuel had to say as to the reason why the system of P.R. was introduced into the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1919:—

"Mr. Samuel: At the general election, on the parliamentary franchise, 75 per cent. of the representation has gone over to the Sinn Féin Party. What is the declared object of that Party? It is to make local government in Ireland absolutely impossible and to break down British reign and rule in Ireland by capturing local bodies."

Major O'Neill, a Unionist in the North, asked:—

"Is it not the fact that the Right Honourable Gentleman never mentioned this question of the Sinn Féiners in his speech moving the Second Reading of this Bill? May we take it that that was the real reason why this Bill has been introduced?

Mr. Samuel: I did not mention the words ‘Sinn Féiners,' but I thought everybody understood from me that, owing to the impulse of certain political feeling in Ireland, the position the Government had to face was a serious one, and I pointed out it was a matter affecting not merely local and civic administration, but State administration also.... Who are you going to trust the administration of these things to? Are you going to trust them to bodies elected on the present franchise and under the present machinery—bodies which have been absolutely captured by people who call the rest of the United Kingdom ‘the enemy,' and whose object is to break down the rule of the ‘enemy' and make the whole administration in Ireland impossible?"

That merely shows the object, and how this P.R. system came to be introduced into this country. Whatever may have happened after the Treaty, it is quite clear that P.R. was imposed on the people by that Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1919, and imposed with one object in view: to break up the unity of the Irish people.

Mr. Norton

Then why did you put it into the 1937 Constitution?

Mr. MacEntee

One second. If I may be allowed make my speech without interruption from Deputy Norton, I shall continue. The point I am making is that P.R. was introduced into this country in the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1919. That measure was imposed upon the people of this country because the people of this country were not represented in the British Parliament of that day.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 15 Jan 1959

An Bille um an Tríú Leasú ar an mBunreacht, 1958—An Coiste (Atógáil). Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1958—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Deputies

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 15 Jan 1959