Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 6 May 1959

Vol. 174 No. 12

An Bille um an Tríú Leasú ar an mBunreacht, 1958—Tairiscint (atógáil). Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1958—Motion (resumed).

Thairg an Taoiseach an tairiscint seo a leanas, Dé Céadaoin, 29 Aibreán, 1959:—
DE BHRÍ go ndearna Dáil Éireann, ar an 29ú lá d'Eanáir, 1959, an Bille um an Tríú Leasú ar an mBunreacht, 1958, a rith agus a chur chun Seanad Éireann, agus gur dhiúltaigh Seanad Éireann dó ar an 19ú lá de Mhárta, 1959,
Go gcinneann Dáil Éireann ANOIS AR AN ÁBHAR SIN leis seo, de bhun ailt I d'Airteagal 23 den Bhunreacht, go measfar an Bille um an Tríú Leasú ar an mBunreacht, 1958, mar a ritheadh ag Dáil Éireann é, a bheith rite ag dhá Theach an Oireachtais."
The following motion was moved by the Taoiseach on Wednesday, 29th April, 1959:—
"THAT WHEREAS the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1958, was, on the 29th day of January, 1959, passed by Dáil Éireann and sent to Seanad Éireann, and was on the 19th day of March, 1959, rejected by Seanad Éireann,
NOW THEREFORE Dáil Éireann, pursuant to section 1 of Article 23 of the Constitution, hereby resolves that the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1958, as passed by Dáil Éireann, be deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas.
Athchromadh ar an díospóireacht ar an leasú seo a leanas ar an tairiscint sin:—
Na focail uile i ndiaidh an fhocail "go" sa chéad líne a scriosadh agus na focail seo a leanas a chur ina n-ionad:
bhfuil an Bille um an Tríú Leasú ar an mBunreacht, 1958, tar éis beachtaíocht thromchúiseach leanúnach a tharraingt i nDáil Éireann, gur dhiúltaigh Seanad Éireann dó, agus gur cúis imní agus easaontais i mease an phobail é,
Go gcinneann Dáil Éireann ANOIS AR AN ÁBHAR SIN leis seo gan beart de bhun ailt 1 d'Airteagal 23 den Bhunreacht a dhéanamh go dtí go bhfaighfear tuarascáil ó Chomhchoiste de Dháil Éireann agus Seanad Éireann, a cheapfar chun scrúdú a dhéanamh ar iarmairtí sóisialacha, polaiticiúla agus eacnamaíocha na n-athruithe sa chóras togcháin atá beartaithe sa Bhille um an Tríú Leasú ar an mBunreacht, 1958—an tuarascáil a bheith le tabhairt ag an gComhchoiste tráth nach déanaí ná an 29ú lá de Lunasa, 1959."—(Na Teachtaí Seán Ua Coisdealbha, Risteárd Ua Maolchatha.)
Debate resumed on the following amendment thereto:—
1. To delete all words after the figures "1958" in line 2 and substitute therefor the words:
"has given rise to serious and sustained criticism in Dáil Éireann, has been rejected in Seanad Éireann, and has caused disquiet and division among the people.
NOW THEREFORE Dáil Éireann hereby resolves to postpone action under section 1 of Article 23 of the Constitution until a report shall have been received from a Joint Committee of Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann, appointed to examine the social, political and economic implications of the changes in the electoral system proposed in the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1958—the Joint Committee to report not later than the 29th day of August, 1959. —(Deputies John A. Costello, Richard Mulcahy.)

When the Dáil adjourned last night, I was dealing with an interjection by Deputy T. Lynch to the effect that we were imposing a British system on the people. Taking it for granted that it is a British system, is that any reason why we should not adopt it, if we think fit? I remember seeing on the front benches opposite no less than eight members of the legal profession, and, to my knowledge, I never heard any objection to the fact that we were adopting the British legal code holus-bolus in 1922. We have amended it and added to it since then, but it is the legal code that we work on.

To take a simpler comparison, for our measurement system here we took for distances feet, yards and miles; for weights, we took tons, cwts. and ounces, and for liquid measure we took gallons, quarts and pints. I never heard any objection to these systems simply because we took them over from the British. If, for instance, we were to adopt the metric system, would it not be simply because we felt that it was better than the system we have at present, and not because we wished to abandon the system which we have been accustomed to and which I think is generally agreed to be the British system? However, we do not propose to adopt the straight vote system simply because it has been used by the British, and perhaps might be regarded as the British system. We are proposing to allow the people a chance of adopting it because we think it will be good for the country in the future.

I listened to Deputy Costello speaking on his amendment and I asked Deputy Dockrell a question when he was supporting that amendment. I asked him what advantage had the system proposed by Deputy Costello; what difference there was between the discussion here and in the Seanad and the Opposition proposal. I must say I found the explanation he gave me very unconvincing. I can imagine a number of Deputies from this side of the House, and a number from the opposite side, sitting down from now until next August repeating the discussions which we have had at such great length, and at the end of that time, reporting back to the Dáil that the Deputies on this side had no report and that the Deputies on the other side had one, two or three reports. We would have to go through the process again and hold this referendum and ask the people to support our proposal.

Deputy Norton's suggestion was that we should have a general election. Why, in the name of goodness, we should have a general election I do not know, because even if we did have a general election and succeeded again in getting the confidence of the great majority of the people, we would still have to use the referendum if we were to put our will through. I do not see any sense in either of these suggestions.

Lastly, I wish to refer to the caustic comments made by Deputy Norton about Deputy Booth's statement last night. One would think that Deputy Booth had committed a criminal offence by referring to the people of Northern Ireland, whether Unionists, or Nationalists, as Irishmen and Irishwomen. I regard these people as Irish, no matter what way they vote or think. They are as much Irish as we are in the south, every one of them. I remember reading many years ago——

Every one of them ?

Every one of them, yes. They are as much Irish as we are. I was just going to say that the Republican movement which, in our youth, we helped, was started in Northern Ireland, as far as I can remember, by the very people whom Deputy Norton condemned Deputy Booth for talking about last night and naming as Irishmen. I am proud of the people of Northern Ireland notwithstanding the views they hold. They have something really good in them and I am always hoping the time will come when we shall have the benefit of the tenacity and the wisdom of these people in Northern Ireland in helping to build up a united Irish nation.

I do not despair of that happening, perhaps not in my time but certainly in the foreseeable future. I hope the day will come when nobody in this Parliament will suggest that because people in the North hold a different viewpoint from ours, they should be regarded as anything but Irishmen. They are Irishmen and Deputy Booth was quite correct when he made that statement here last night and Deputy Norton was wrong and very unwise when he condemned Deputy Booth for making that statement.

He did not condemn him for making that statement.

The amendment before the House in the names of Deputies Costello and Mulcahy has everything to commend it. We are not so much discussing this experiment for the first time as discussing it for the last time in the life of the average Deputy here. If P.R. goes and if the disappearance of P.R. has the effect desired by Fianna Fáil, what Fianna Fáil are pleased to describe as splinter Parties or crackpot Parties will disappear and we shall have a House in which year after year Fianna Fáil will have an overwhelming majority of the Deputies present.

There is a very good example of that arising out of references made here yesterday, one by Deputy Major de Valera and another by Deputy Loughman who has just spoken. Those two Deputies indicated that one of the abiding ambitions of Fianna Fáil since 1944 has been to abolish P.R. That seems to be at variance with the Taoiseach because the Taoiseach told Deputy Dillon here on the First Stage that it was in 1948 that he got the infanticidal instinct to smother his own child, this portion of the Constitution. Anyway, Deputy Major de Valera and Deputy Loughman told us yesterday that, since 1948, Fianna Fáil were anxious to do away with P.R. and would have done so if they had the requisite majority in this House. It is a good thing that P.R. stood between the Fianna Fáil Party and the achievement of that desire.

It strikes me as being strange, and I am certain it will strike the people as being strange, that if Fianna Fáil did want to abolish P.R. since 1944, they should wait 15 years, until the year of grace 1959, to make public that ambition. This is the time and place to comment on the doubtful political morality of obtaining from the people the requisite majority to force this matter through the House without at any time in those 15 years seeking a mandate from the people on the issue which appears to have been burning in the Fianna Fáil heart since 1944.

It is wrong that a Party like Fianna Fáil should occupy political platforms ever since 1944, right through the 1948 general election, the 1951 general election, the 1954 general election and the 1957 general election, without one being candid enough to say to the people: "What we really want is a majority strong enough in Dáil Éireann to do away with the electoral system by which we are being elected at the moment." It is all very well to say in a nice innocuous sort of way: "This proposal is the most democratic thing in the world. All we are doing is going to the people and asking them to endorse the view we are putting before them." There is a more democratic way of doing that and that was open to Fianna Fáil every time they faced the electorate in a general election since 1944. The very fact that they did not do so shows they are afraid of the views of the people on this matter and I hope and believe these fears will be confirmed.

There are many aspects of this question which could be investigated by the committee which Deputies Costello and Mulcahy suggest should investigate it. There is a growing and widely held belief among the people that there is room for an infusion of new blood in public affairs. If this proposal passes through the House and if the Irish people are ill-advised enough to endorse the Fianna Fáil views on it, the country can be quite certain that there will be a strangulation of political growth and a blockage of new blood in public affairs.

The Tánaiste over the weekend addressed the International Junior Chambers of Commerce and there mouthed the pious hope that he would see young people taking their place in government not alone here but in other governments in the world. I say "mouthed" because any Deputy who votes in favour of the abolition of P.R. is well aware that he is also voting to keep young blood out of this House. Most of the younger Deputies here have graduated the hard way. They have stood as a second or third string within a group of candidates to the older candidates or sitting Deputies and have eventually got into this House. However, if we revert to the old system of the single seat constituency with the non-transferable vote, it is plain that we shall have the same wearying and weary old men being put up by the Parties on both sides of the House and sent back here year after year. There will be no opportunity for any young man to introduce his personality to the electorate as the candidate for his Party—maybe only the second or third choice of his Party but nevertheless a candidate—and to stand on a platform and become intimate with his constituency. That is what the abolition of P.R. means and that is one of the aspects of this proposal that should be examined by the committee suggested by Deputies Costello and Mulcahy in their amendment.

If we want to achieve a gradual rather than a revolutionary change in the political pattern of this country, we should maintain P.R. The growth of the Clann na Poblachta Party in 1948 is a perfect example of that. In 1948, obviously the Irish people were ready to supplant Fianna Fáil, and maybe Fine Gael, if Clann na Poblachta were able to deliver to them the goods the Irish people needed. They gave Clann na Poblachta a limited vote of confidence in the 1948 election and had the Party lived up to the hopes the Irish people entertained for it, it is quite possible that by now one or other of the big Parties here would have been supplanted by Clann na Poblachta.

The efficacy of P.R. was shown in the manner in which Clann na Poblachta were able to return 10 Deputies here, and the dreadful fears of the Fianna Fáil Party that splinter groups of this nature could take over permanently in this House, no matter how good or bad they were, were exploded with the disappearance from the political scene of Clann na Poblachta at a later stage. The good common-sense of the Irish electorate sat in judgment on the Clann na Poblachta Party and banished it from this House with the aid of proportional representation.

There is only one other aspect of the discussions which have gone on in this House to which I should like to refer, and that is the cold-blooded approach of the speakers on the Government benches to minority Parties—what they are glad to call splinter groups and crack-pot Parties sent here by cranky voters. The Tánaiste suggested here that there was no reason why minority Parties should disappear, that they could come in here by joining the Fianna Fáil Party and by becoming part of the Fianna Fáil Party, that in that way minorities would get a voice in this House. That is the most cold-blooded suggestion I have ever heard made from those benches—that all men are equal provided they speak from the Fianna Fáil benches, that all men may give their views provided they have been sifted first in the Party room and have received the imprimatur of the political boss.

These are things which are anathema to the average citizen of this State, things which should be investigated by the committee suggested in this amendment. They are things which will be investigated by the Irish people if Fianna Fáil force the Taoiseach's motion through this House and it goes to the Irish people. It would be better that Fianna Fáil should think even at this late stage and submit to a committee of this House and of the Second Chamber the views which have been expressed both here and in the Second Chamber. In my submission the second thoughts which Fianna Fáil would get in having those views would mean we would not have to discuss this proposal any more.

This controversy has been going on for a long time but, unlike most Deputies, it is new to me because I was lying on my back in a Dublin hospital during most of the discussions and all I knew was what I read in the papers. This is a serious matter for the country and Fianna Fáil should think twice before embarking on this proposal. What we want here is peace, quiet and respect for the dignity of man. We have had far too much political turmoil over a long number of years. Those of us who took part in the old struggle are not embittered of heart. We want unity of purpose; we want every man of goodwill to come together again, forget the past and realise the aims of those who lived and died in those stirring times. The introduction of the straight vote will bring more dissension and bring us back almost to where we left off in 1922. I would appeal to the Taoiseach, as a figure in those stirring days, to remember what we achieved when we had unity. We achieved big things. That was not done by splinter groups; it was done by the will of the people united under proper leadership.

We can achieve the same ideals again if the Taoiseach is big enough in his retiring years to do what the President has asked us to do—forget the past, come together in the present and build up for the future. I am not in the Fine Gael Party for the purpose of opposing Fianna Fáil or of helping myself. I am keen on political life for the good of the country. I know that the vast majority of those in Fianna Fáil are decent, good men. What I find wrong with them is that they are too quiet with their leaders. They accept things silently. They should not do that. I would not accept things lightly from my leaders, if they were cutting across my views. I would tell them where to get off, both in the Party room and in this House. If we had had more of that attitude in the Fianna Fáil Party over the past 15 or 20 years, I believe we would have national unity to-day.

This issue is dividing the people at a time when there is an enormous amount of work to do. We have been a glorious failure over the past 15 or 20 years. We have thought about everything, but we have done nothing. Emigration is still in full stream, unemployment is the highest ever, and there is not the slightest hope of removing the Border in our country because we are making no effort to do so. Those are matters with which we should be concerned. The people are sick and tired of this ballyhoo and of this rushing to the country for an election every two or three years. It makes no difference whether a general election or a referendum takes place for the removal of P.R.; the people are sick and tired of it and I would tell the Taoiseach that to his face. I know, too, that the Fianna Fáil members themselves are sick and tired of it. These elections are expensive and trying on every Deputy; we are all sick and tired of them. When we are elected, we expect to get a four or five year term to give us a chance of doing something for the people.

The youth of Ireland require leadership. There is no use in thinking we are young fellows. The people are sick and tired of the whole lot of us. We have been here 40 years wrangling and fighting, and doing very little. The youth are marking time, seeking leadership, and I want to see that leadership coming from this House. The Taoiseach had the respect of everybody in this country for many years. He had my respect and my admiration up to the time of the Treaty Debates. I came out of prison at that time thinking that all our leaders were united and that things were looking very bright for the country but I was not in Dublin five minutes when I found a split had taken place.

Could we have something about the motion before the House ?

Deputy Vivion de Valera went into great detail on this yesterday. He wanted to show how Fianna Fáil emerged from 1922 onwards. There was no hardness of heart in any of us. Even though I joined the National Army I had no bitterness towards the men on the other side.

The Deputy really ought to come to the motion.

I shall now. Not one of them had any hardness of heart towards me. The whole division of the country is artificial. If the straight vote is introduced, you will have an underground movement in this country. I would almost prophesy that before eight or ten years, you will have trouble, turmoil and revolution here; and we had too much of that in the past. If we carry on with this proposal, this House will find itself with one big Party, a very much reduced Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party almost wiped out and the Independents gone. Will anybody tell me that the Labour Party—a progressive national Party and one that has done its duty at all times—will take that lying down; or that if you drive Sinn Féin underground, they will take it lying down? That is not the temperament of the Irish people.

The Irish people are a temperamental, fighting people and if they once get into a fight, it is hard to stop them. At present the country needs noble and dynamic leadership of an almost revolutionary kind; we cannot carry on with place hunting and the old "scratch me" policy. We need more backbone in the Members of this House because we are not serving the people as we should. The people will respond if they get half a chance. By embarking on this move after long years of turmoil and trouble, the Taoiseach will throw the country back into the melting pot as it was in 1922. I cannot believe that is happening. I would like him to tell us why he is doing it. There is no use in saying it was because two weak Governments were brought in in 1948 and 1951. That was the people's wish and it is none of our business. They can throw the whole lot of us out if they like.

I am proud of the 1948 and 1951 inter-Party Governments. They did more in their time of office than Fianna Fáil did in their 20 years. There was work for our people here and the nation was built up. There was an advance in agriculture and we had the limestone scheme, the land reclamation scheme, the Local Authorities (Works) Act and other projects were implemented. We had the Trade Agreement with Britain and the position was brought about in which agriculture got a chance it never got before. These Governments may have broken up but they were no more unstable than the Fianna Fáil Governments. The inter-Party Governments lasted every bit as long and there is no use in the Taoiseach or anybody else making pin-prick arguments of that kind.

We need something big and noble from the Taoiseach and I believe he is capable of it. I know him because I meet him at private functions. We always meet at the Muintir na Tíre annual congress and we have a friendly talk. I never met a nicer man in private life but when it comes to a question of politics he is a different man altogether. I do not think that should be the case. He should be big enough to realise that the Irish people are dissatisfied with the present situation and they want to get down to to bedrock. The nationally-minded people want unity——

I do not like to interrupt the Deputy but really he is not speaking, or attempting to speak, to the motion or the amendment.

I am trying to get in something on both the motion and the amendment.

I have given the Deputy about ten minutes latitude and surely be should be able to come to the motion in that time.

I believe P.R. has served the people well. It was reasonably satisfactory in most counties. In my own county of Meath there was one Fianna Fáil, one Labour, and one Fine Gael Deputy and we represented all the people as a united body. We did not work in opposition to each other. We found results were better when the three of us went to a Department on behalf of the people. We got good results and we can do the same to-day. If we do away with P.R., Fianna Fáil will gobble up all the seats in my county. I would regard that as a mean and scurvy thing to do. All sections of the people are entitled to representation in Parliament. We should see in this House those who represent the different elements, Labour, Independents, Clann na Poblachta, Clann na Talmhan, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil. All those are fully entitled to be here and if the people wish to bring in small Parties, the people's wish should be fulfilled. There is no use in thinking that all the wisdom of the country lies in the Taoiseach's brain. I believe it is not. He can be wise in ways but the nation is wiser than any of us.

If P.R. is abolished I do not feel the nation will be well served. Under the straight vote we will get back to the old landed gentry. We country Deputies on both sides represent the people; that is the right type of representative to have in an Irish Parliament. Under the straight vote system none of us, because we are small men financially, will be able to stand up to the stress and strain of straight voting. We have no big wads of notes. You will find the lords and ladies coming to the fore and the ordinary people will be left out.

I would ask the Taoiseach to think twice about all this. We need real representatives of the people and we have them today on both sides of the House. I do not mind which side is in government provided they get in through the will of the people but I do not want to see a minority caste coming back to control this country in their own interest and in the interests of outside Powers.

We see what has happened under the straight vote in Northern Ireland. It has crushed down the minority so that they have not the slightest hope of raising their heads again. They are the most repressed people in the world outside Russia. The Six County minority is being made become smaller because they are forced to emigrate. We are making no effort to help them down here. Craigavon and his clique brought in the straight vote and are we now going to prove that the Northern Ireland junta did the right thing? If so, we are impostors because we know the purpose for which that clique brought in the straight vote— to make sure the minority would never become a majority. We are about to do the same thing. I think this is a diabolical approach to national affairs, an approach of which we shall later be ashamed. The Northern minority always looked to the South for a ray of hope; now they find they are being stabbed between the shoulders as straight voting is being brought in here and we shall never have any hope of the reunification of Ireland.

I would ask the Taoiseach in the name of patriotism, in the name of the living and of those who died, to make every effort to unite this House to deal with all the problems we must face. The unification of the country should be foremost in our minds but if straight voting is introduced we are making sure we shall never have a united Ireland. Under P.R. we were all satisfied that those representing the nation were the right type of people and I think we should be slow to change that system. Irrespective of Italy, Germany or France, we know what the Irish people want and we know P.R. has served them well for a long time. If the Cosgrave Government in 1924 or 1925 had brought in the straight vote as they could have done and had as much right to do as the present Taoiseach has, they could have ensured that Fianna Fáil would never enter this House. Mr. Cosgrave was noble enough, however, to make every effort to bring in the revolutionary Party of Fianna Fáil and get them to conform to normal Parliamentary procedure. He did that, and suffered a great deal over a long number of years and he was proud of having done it. He worked with them until 1932, until they were a constitutional Party and ready to take over Government.

We are all proud that they took over in a noble way. We are also proud that when they were defeated in Parliament later on, they stepped out and the other Party who had been sitting on the Opposition benches walked across and took up the reins of Government. That was a splendid achievement that Mr. W.T. Cosgrave brought about and he should be respected for it. If he had wanted to keep Fianna Fáil out at the time, he could have done so but he took the big, the Irish and the noble way of approaching the matter.

I would ask the Taoiseach to-day to do what Mr. W.T. Cosgrave did in his time. I am quite sure the people are fully represented and that if minority Parties come into this House, they do so because it is the wish of the people. It is the wish of the people to have the type of representative they have. I have no objection to small Parties in this House uniting, if they think fit. There is no crookedness and nothing wrong about it. There is no use in saying that things are done behind the people's backs. The inter-Party Government put up a programme and worked according to it.

There is no use in thinking that a labour representative and a farmer representative cannot sit down side by side and work for the betterment of the country. Is it not glorious to think that they can do so? It is glorious that we can get those men to sit side by side and to work for increased wages, holidays for workers, and so on, and get the consent of the farmers. These things should count and I believe they will count in the future.

In my view, the people are now well enlightened on this question. We have no apology to make to the Government for the long debate that took place here. It was done for the sake of the country. I am quite satisfied that the verdict of the people will be in favour of the retention of P.R. because they are not the fools Fianna Fáil think they are.

This is a golden opportunity for the Taoiseach, after a lifetime in Parliament, to do the big and the noble thing. The recent appeal by the President to come together is a noble one. The Taoiseach should withdraw this Bill and allow P.R. to continue as our electoral system. It would be the right thing for him to do and he should confine himself to making efforts for the unification of everything that is good and national in this country.

We want a new approach. We are at the end of an epoch. Politics have reached a position of stalemate and are at a low ebb. The country and this House needs new blood, new life, new energy and new drive. It is not getting that leadership. This country always had good leadership when it needed it. I am satisfied we shall have it again if we give young Ireland a chance to take its place here, if we get new men into the front benches as fast and as soon as we can. For the past 40 years, we have been looking at the same old faces on all sides of this House and the people are sick and tired of it. They ask if these people will ever go out or die and give the young people a chance. Even as things are, some generations have had no chance.

Down the country all the boys and girls are marking time and waiting for a lead in something that is noble and good. They do not want to join Sinn Féin if they can come into this House and work from here. The Taoiseach has it in his power to heal the wounds of other days by forgetting much of the past, giving up the political present and thinking in terms of a noble future, a grand future, a future in which our young men and women can take their rightful place in the country and in this Parliament, led by the Taoiseach and the members of this House.

These are the things the people are waiting for. There is too much turmoil and trouble in Irish politics, but it is all ballyhoo because there is not the slightest bit of sincerity in it. The promises which were made at the last election and then broken were enough to sicken the people. "Put us in. Get cracking. We will give employment to all the people. Get your husbands to work." Over the past two years, there has been a wave of unemployment and emigration that would sicken anybody and not the slightest effort has been made to stop it.

The Deputy ought not to travel along that line.

I am about the best sitter on any side of this House. I listen to every speech the whole year round practically. Yesterday, for hours, I listened to this class of speech and not a word was said. You may not have been in the Chair at the time.

I cannot allow that criticism, by a sidewind, of my colleague in the Chair.

I obey the Chair. This is the type of motion on which people will ramble because it covers a big field.

Not so wide as the Deputy is travelling.

Knowing myself as I was when a young fellow, and all the generation of that time, what we were like and felt like and what we would do, I am satisfied that the young generation at present are in the very same mood. They want to be given a lead. If we give them such a lead as will induce them to look to this House instead of elsewhere, we shall do a great deal of good for the country. We do not want revolution and turmoil. We want peace, concord, goodwill and a real effort to solve the three or four major problems. We shall do it under P.R. but it will not be done under the straight vote.

The straight vote will throw us back into the melting pot again— exactly what we wanted to get out of. It will bring a new gentry upon this country, a new class with the money in their wallets and big organisations behind them so that they can come into this House while the simple countryman who can represent his constituents here under P.R. will be kept out. We do not want that. We want an assembly of the Irish people. We have that. All we want is a better leadership. We want none of this tomfoolery of glowing promises and no performance. We want work for the people. We must try to stem emigration as quickly as possible. We must make every effort to give hope to the Northern minority that we are working on their behalf to unite Ireland and that everything possible will be done to unite the nation.

A divided Ireland has been the cause of most of our troubles. Our economy will never really prosper while we have Partition. The Taoiseach should concentrate on those three objectives—to stem emigration, to give employment to our people at home and to unify the country. We shall have plenty on hands if we try to solve these problems without starting out on an errand of danger. We do not know where we are going. The Taoiseach brought all this about. The Fianna Fáil Party are not united in this because 50 per cent. of them hate the day the Taoiseach mentioned it. They do not want it. I remember the day in the Fianna Fáil Party Room when Deputy G. Boland struck the table in front of the Taoiseach and said, in effect: "We want none of this. The people are sick and tired of that. We want work, peace and plenty." I was informed that there were not 12 votes out of 70 in favour of the abolition of P.R. I can prove that because I was told it by a Deputy who took part in the discussion. The Taoiseach went on with his work and said that it must go through. The Fianna Fáil Deputies sat there docile and silent. If the straight vote method of election comes about, there will be very few of us on any side of the House who will come back.

It is no harm.

The Deputy is quite right. Nobody is worrying whether he comes back or not.

Is Deputy Moher speaking for himself?

If I want to come back, I can come back under the straight vote or under P.R. because I am one of those who served the people all the time, irrespective of politics. The Fianna Fáil Party are as disunited as they possibly can be. They do not want the abolition of P.R. If a minority of them were to speak up in their Party rooms and even in this House, manly and straight, the country would have a ray of hope. Some members of that big Party over there are sitting with their heads down, being silent while others get up and make false speeches against their conscience and beliefs. I cannot believe that Irish people are so spineless. What has become of the Fianna Fáil Party? Is there none of them sufficiently independent to tell the Taoiseach in this House what he thinks of the introduction of the straight vote and the abolition of P.R.? Deputies opposite know very well that the nationally-minded people will be shoved out and the lords and gentry will take their place again.

We heard a speech from Deputy Booth yesterday. I know what that speech signified. It signified a resurrection of the old Tory system. He wants no one in this House except the well-learned, the cultured and those of a different outlook from ours. That is the type of man who can get up and have the neck to insult his own back-benchers, talking about the Orange Order in the North and saying that everything was right and saying that in the North people are ground down because of their own fault. Such rot to be expressed in this House and Deputies opposite listening to it! Deputy Booth almost brought in the Union Jack over his shoulder. It was the first time in 40 years that I heard such an Orangeman's speech in this House and he got away with it from the Fianna Fáil Party. I thought some of the Deputies behind him would have the courage to give him a crack on the back of the head and tell him to sit down but they would not do it. We had to listen to a spineless type such as was never seen or heard when there was trouble, who always made sure to be in good business and to be able to pull the coat tails of the Government. That type can insult the Nationalists of the North and the South with his reference to Orange lodges and the Orange Order. We want none of that.

I conclude by saying: abolish P.R. if you like. You can do it if you wish, but the people will not let you or, if they do let you, you are in for a period of misery, revolution and turmoil and the country will be back to the sick and rotten days of 40 years ago. Do what you like; do what you will; but the Irish people will not respect you for what you are doing. What the Irish people want at present is that the Government will get on with the job, get on with what they promised them: work, a stop to emigration and the unity of our country. That can be done by united effort but Fianna Fáil are making no effort.

The President has made an appeal but the Taoiseach did not listen to the appeal. Other members of the Fianna Fáil Party did not listen to the appeal. I belong to the old-I.R.B. and the old Republican movement. We still meet as brother Irishmen in the one hall. We fought on both sides in the Civil War. We are asking for unity, unity of purpose. We are asking that the past should be forgotten and that we should build a decent present and future. That is what we want. It is only from those people who were together in the past that the real inspiration and initiative will come.

I would ask the Taoiseach to forget this business about the straight vote. It is only a red herring, an effort to side-track, an effort to deceive the people and keep them bewildered. Let us have elections when we must have them, but when the election is over, let Parliament run its full term. I have been in the House for the past 24 years and never got a three years' run. I fought three elections in one year. Simple countrymen cannot afford that. We are in the House because of our patriotism, our fighting spirit and our love of politics. There was an election two years ago under P.R. There will be another election and a Presidential election and, if the Taoiseach is defeated in the straight vote, I suppose there will be a general election. The people do not want that. They do not want the expense, the worry and the trouble of it. They want work, peace, concord, goodwill and a unified effort by good men to make the country a place worth living in.

This discussion would not arise but for the action of the Upper Chamber in defeating the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill. That poses a question which should be closely considered as to the continuance of the Seanad. I intend to preface my remarks by reference to that question. A good deal of discussion has taken place through the years as to whether or not we should have a second Chamber. The Government maintain that we should because, having abolished the Seanad, they set it up again, possibly with a view to giving soft jobs to their henchmen who could not secure a seat in this House. There are others who believe that the Seanad does useful work. The Government have seen to it that it is extremely difficult for the Seanad to defeat a measure which has been approved by this House. Despite that position, which arises mainly from the fact that there are 11 nominees of the Taoiseach in the Seanad, the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill was defeated by the Seanad. It was defeated after close and careful consideration by people representative of every walk of life.

This is a unique situation. During my membership of this House over the past eight years, the Seanad never defeated a measure submitted to it by this House for consideration. In some cases, they made minor amendments. If the wish of the Seanad is being flouted openly by Fianna Fáil, on the pretence that they are entitled to do so under the Constitution, why should the country have to bear the expense of a second Chamber? Is it to be clearly understood from the Taoiseach's actions on the first occasion that the Seanad defeated a measure that he has no regard for that House or its views and that the only reason he has it there is that it is helpful to providing, as I have said, nice secure posts for some of his own henchmen?

That does not arise because the Seanad is not under discussion.

I am quite aware of that. Before you took the Chair, I prefaced my remarks by saying that were it not for the action of the Seanad in defeating the Bill, this motion would not be before the House. We are discussing this motion as a result of the action of the Seanad.

The Deputy is in order in discussing the action of the Seanad but not in discussing the Seanad itself.

I claim that I am entitled to make a passing reference. I have stated that this matter was examined by the Seanad, the Upper House, by people representative of all walks of life, including six representatives of the Universities. As a result of their deliberations the Bill was defeated. No notice whatsoever is being taken by the Leader of the Government of that decision of the Seanad. Instead, he avails of constitutional rights and brings in a motion here to nullify the action of the Seanad.

That is a matter of the utmost importance. This body costs the country thousands and thousands of pounds yearly. The first time it defeats a measure presented to it by the Government, the Taoiseach and his Government decide: "We will not accept your decision. We have no regard for it." Is that not what the Taoiseach and his Ministers are saying of the decision in the Seanad, not only here but throughout the length and breadth of the country? I think I am entitled to refer to the existence of the Upper House, particularly since it receives no recognition from the Government of the day. I bow to your ruling. Sir, and I shall leave the point now, though much more could be said on it.

Mention was made yesterday that the people were thoroughly conversant with the issue before them; they knew the pros and cons, it was said. Some Government speakers expressed their annoyance at the continuance of the debate here. They held there was no need for the debate to continue and the matter should now be left to the people to decide. Let us examine whether or not that is the position. I do not want to reflect personally on any member of this House, but a Government speaker yesterday—he had a lengthy document before him—told us that this measure was of little or no importance because whether or not it was passed, it would make little difference. He substantiated his claim in the following manner: he said that in 10 constituencies in his part of the country at the last election 37 Deputies were elected; he said of the 37, 36 would have been elected, irrespective of whether the straight vote or proportional representation applied.

Surely there never was such a ridiculous or nonsensical statement made in this House by a Government speaker. Everybody knows that the proposal is that we shall have in future single member constituencies and, therefore, instead of ten contests to elect 37 Deputies there will in future, if this measure is passed, be 37 contests. Yet, this Government speaker felt that no matter what system applied, the result would be the same, with the exception of one out of the 37. Is it not reasonable to assume that if a member of this House is labouring under such a delusion, many people throughout the length and breadth of the country must be labouring under some delusion, so far as the outcome of this measure is concerned? Clearly, they cannot be conversant with all the pros and cons and it is only right therefore that every effort should be made here and elsewhere to make them clear as to the issue which will confront them.

Deputy Booth spoke on this measure and he received a good deal of publicity from the Fianna Fáil newspaper. During the period in which I listened to him yesterday, he made it quite clear that he believes, in relation to the position which obtains in Northern Ireland, that the representatives there are thoroughly representative of the people. He believes that the Unionist representation in Parliament is fair and adequate representation for the Unionists and that the other Parties similarly have fair and adequate representation. That was very definitely stated by Deputy Booth, one of the most enlightened members—so he is described—of the Fianna Fáil Party.

Will some Fianna Fáil Deputy explain for us now the many statements made over the past 40 years by Fianna Fáil speakers that there is nothing in Northern Ireland but gerrymandering and dictatorship and that every effort is made to deny the Nationalist groups proper representation? I have heard many Ministers make such statements; I have heard many Fianna Fáil Deputies make such statements. Yesterday, however, this enlightened member of the Fianna Fáil Party came in here and said that all these statements are nonsense; that there is no truth in them; that there is no justification for them; that Northern Ireland representatives are truly representatives of the people; that there is nothing wrong—good, bad or indifferent—with the membership of Parliament in Northern Ireland.

The Deputy should quote Deputy Booth.

That is exactly what Deputy Booth said.

That is not exactly what he said.

This is the new lead in Fianna Fáil education.

(Interruptions.)

Someone may ask, listening to the discussion here, why are the Opposition annoyed about this? I have listened to Opposition Deputies saying that, when this goes before the people, the people will defeat it. I would warn these optimistic members of the Opposition to be cautious. They are not alive to what is happening. The Government expect that sections of the people throughout the country who will not be conversant with the issue may not go to the polls and, as a result of their apathy, the measure will go through. Opposition Deputies should bear in mind that throughout the country, there are small Fianna Fáil groups active in every district preparing for this contest and hopeful of getting their voters to the polls. There is nothing wrong in that, but how do they expect to get them to the polls? How do they expect to provide the transport and the finance necessary? They expect to derive both as a result of the letter which was sent out by the Taoiseach-designate, the Tánaiste and Minister for Industry and Commerce, to various people throughout the country, particularly industrialists and businessmen, demanding subscriptions from them.

That does not seem to arise.

I think it does arise.

Will Deputy Murphy bear with me for a moment? It seems to be a matter of organisation. It is certainly not a matter for discussion on the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill. The question of where the money comes from to fight an election does not arise on this motion.

I prefaced my remarks by commenting on some of the statements made by Opposition Deputies that when this issue is referred to the people, it will be defeated. I warned Deputies that they should be cautious because certain people were securing through these letters and through the device of-should I use the term?—blackmailing businessmen funds for the forthcoming election contest.

I object most strongly to that attack on Fianna Fáil. I shall not suffer it without protest. No blackmailing is indulged in on this side of the House and I enter the strongest possible protest against the allegation made.

A letter from the Minister for Industry and Commerce to industrialists and businessmen?

I do not care whom it is from. There is no blackmailing of anybody. That allegation is uncalled for.

The question of raising funds for the fighting of elections does not arise on the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill. It is a matter of organisation.

I am discussing the position which will obtain. The election which will take place has a bearing on this and I am entitled to comment, in the same way as other Deputies were entitled to comment, on election activities and particularly on the action of the Minister for Industry and Commence and his close relative, Deputy Haughey, in demanding money from certain people in the State.

That does not arise.

It should be done by the Secretary of the Fianna Fáil organisation.

We will not allow a charge of that sort to be made against the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Why did you leave yourselves open to it?

Is it not in black and white?

Is the Fine Gael Party now supporting this charge of blackmail against the Minister for Industry and Commerce? I should like to know if they are or are not.

Certainly.

And that is what the business people think.

It does not fall for discussion on the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill.

I am surprised at the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance getting heated over this matter.

You think you can say anything about the Fianna Fáil Party.

From newspapers of recent date, May 3rd—it is apparent as the appeal was published in both papers——

I have already pointed out to Deputy Murphy that that is not relevant and that he must get away from it. He may get another opportunity of dealing with it, but it is not relevant to this discussion.

(Interruptions.)

Make your own speech.

I shall make my own speech.

The statement I have made while discussing the methods by which the Government——

Did you get any funds?

——are elected is quite in conformity with the rules of the House.

The Chair says othewise.

The Deputy is entitled to his opinion but the Chair says that this is not relevant.

What do Fianna Fáil aim at achieving by the adoption of this system, and what is the background to its adoption or to the proposal to adopt it? We need go no further than the Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party for the answer to that question. Time and again, over the past seven or eight months, he has made it quite clear that the reason for this amendment of the Constitution, the reason for the proposed change from P.R. to the single-seat constituency, is the action of the Irish people in 1948 and 1954 in electing an alternative Government to the Fianna Fáil Government, and placing him and his Party in Opposition. Is that not a peculiar excuse for the leader of the Fianna Fáil Party to put before the people to secure their approval to a change in the method of election to this House?

It was not the excuse given.

I have read not one but several statements and that quite clearly appears to be the main excuse given by the leader of the Fianna Fáil Party.

The formation of coalitions.

What is the need for a general election, if it is not to give the people the opportunity of voting for whatever candidates present themselves, and allowing the people to elect the candidates they favour most, and when these candidates are elected and become members of this House, they assemble here and determine by majority vote who will be the Leader of the Government and of the House. Is that not what the elected representatives of the people did here in 1948 and in June, 1954? Was there anything wrong with that procedure? The Taoiseach believes there was, and that it was so wrong that he is taking steps to ensure that never again will it happen.

The second excuse proffered by the Taoiseach regarding the reasons for the implementation of this measure-and it is secondary only to the first excuse—is that "if we do not take advantage of our over-all majority now, never again will we have an opportunity of doing so." With that statement, the Head of the Government makes it clear to all and sundry that he does not expect Fianna Fáil ever again to get back with an over-all majority under the present system. That is the only reasonable interpretation which can be placed on his remarks. Why should he believe that, having regard to what I may term the very substantial majority which he now enjoys, a more substantial majority possibly than we have seen in any Parliament since the State was set up?

Why should he make such statements or have such a pessimistic outlook as to the future support he will get from the Irish people for himself and his Party? He knows very well, that during the last election campaign his Party took advantage of every possible situation, international situations and otherwise, to belittle the efforts of the inter-Party Government, and he knows very well that the future Taoiseach, the present Tánaiste—if Fianna Fáil ever again win-made such statements as the one he made in Clery's Restaurant in O'Connell Street that 100,000 jobs would be provided for the workers of this country if Fianna Fáil were elected. Naturally, these statements and assurances were responsible for getting a sufficient number of votes for them, to bring about this big majority they now enjoy in the House. Seeing that none of these promises have been implemented or are likely to be implemented, the Taoiseach knows it will be extremely difficult for his Party at the next election to get any promises similar to those which will gull the people again.

That, to my mind, is the second reason why we have this measure before us. Indeed, one may say this is a very peculiar time for the introduction of a measure on the basis of a fear of instability of government and that we should have it brought in 40 years after the establishment of the State before a Parliament which, as I have said, has the strongest majority of any parliament back through the years. Is there any evidence of instability, as a result of the system in operation, in the fact that Fianna Fáil got an over-all majority at the last general election and enjoys a majority of ten or eleven? Is that evidence of instability, and as I mentioned before when speaking during a previous debate, is it a majority of 20, 30 or 40 they want? Is their majority of some 9 or 10 not sufficient for them? What happened in previous Parliaments? Was not their lifetime, as has been pointed out by various speakers in this debate, as long as the lifetimes of Parliaments in other countries who operate under other systems of election.

The only short-lived Parliaments we had in this country were when the Taoiseach did not agree with the decisions of the people and he dissolved the Dáils set up in 1932, 1937 and 1943 within a year of the preceding general elections. He was not satisfied to seek help or support from any of the other elected representatives in this House. He wanted dictatorship, as he wants and hopes to get it through this measure. That is the clear-cut aim of the Fianna Fáil Party. Does not everyone know there is no system devised which gives a fairer and more effective representation in this House—and in any other Parliament—than the present system obtaining in this country?

Without quoting from this book-I seldom if ever do quote from any document—I ask does it not clearly prove that the charges made by such people as the Minister for External Affairs that the conditions which obtained in France, Italy and other countries, that as a result of the P.R. system they had instability in their Governments and had frequent elections, clearly disprove those charges? It is a book written by an independent research body and it disproves all these statements.

It does not.

I am not quoting from it.

Read it first.

I have read it and read it carefully, and it has been quoted from by a number of speakers in this House.

And try to understand it.

We are told by the Government Party that they made a mistake in the past, that what they stood for in the past was entirely wrong, that the Taoiseach and other members of the Party who were so strong in upholding P.R. in 1937 and other periods now admit they made a mistake. We are told it was wrong when the Irish Press said it was a fair, simple and effective method of election. They say now that viewpoint was quite wrong and that they should have agreed long ago to follow the Northern Ireland decision to change from P.R. to the straight vote and single seat constituencies.

They argue now that statements and adverse comments which they made regarding the Parliament established in Northern Ireland were without foundation, and some 30 years afterwards they say that the Northern Ireland system of election is the correct and proper system, and should have been introduced here long ago. They claim to be fully conversant with the admirable merits which they allege will flow from the abolition of proportional representation. Years ago they had not that admiration for anything British, but the wheel has gone around full circle, and what was correct some years ago is now incorrect and what was incorrect some years ago is now the correct procedure.

It would not be impossible to compare conditions obtaining here and in Northern Ireland and England as far as elections are concerned. At the same time let us examine what is happening in Northern Ireland and what is happening in England during elections. It was mentioned that a number of constituencies in Northern Ireland do not even know what an election is because there is no need to have elections in them at any time. Some constituencies have been arranged in such a way that one Party is bound to secure the seats and it is futile to oppose that Party. That does not obtain in elections to the English Parliament. Irrespective of whether a Party is strong or weak, an election takes place in every constituency, but what is the result of this system in England?

It is not proper that we should comment on the English people, possibly, but I do so because the Fianna Fáil Government say they are satisfied that the English system is an admirable one. However, everybody knows that probably no fewer than 70 per cent. of the seats in the British Parliament are known and termed as "safe seats," and that even though a contest takes place in those constituencies the results are well known in advance. It is well known that a Conservative, or a Labour candidate, will be elected in a certain constituency and does not everyone know what happens if a member in one of those safe constituencies retires or dies? Is what happens there not likely to happen here? If the Conservative member for a constituency in Northern Scotland dies or retires, is there not a move made by potential members of Parliament all over the country to be nominated for that constituency even though they may not be known in the constituency? They know that if nominated by the Party Chiefs they will be elected. Is that not what happens? If that system were introduced here could it not happen here? Take the constituency I represent, West Cork, one of the furthest removed from this House——

Civilisation.

Suppose there is a safe seat for one Party in that constituency and, in case Deputy Booth or Deputy Haughey find fault with me, I shall base my assumption on the fact that Fianna Fáil had that safe seat in West Cork. I shall assume they had a two to one majority and that the existing Fianna Fáil representative retired. Headquarters in Dublin would know it was a safe seat. They would have a number of applicants from the area, but possibly those applicants would not have sufficient influence with the big noises—if I might use the term—and possibly Deputy Booth or Deputy Haughey. having lost their seats in Dublin, would get the nomination.

Not for West Cork?

Does it not happen frequently in Britain under the British system of election? How often does it happen that a Party-man from London seeks and secures nomination in a constituency in Scotland or Wales? From Deputy Booth's own knowledge I can say he must know that happens and it is likely to happen here if the P.R. system is abolished.

What will you do in County Clare?

Thank you for the nomination.

Send Deputy Vivion de Valera to Clare.

Deputy Rooney should behave with the decorum fitting to the Front Bench.

The two main points I had to make was that the Taoiseach completely ignored the recommendation of the Upper House and that I wish to deplore in no uncertain terms, and in the most vehement manner possible, the action of the Minister for Industry and Commerce in sending out this circular to people throughout the country who may have many business dealings with his Department.

Is é an aidhm atá ag an Rialtas faoin Bhille seo seans a thabhairt do mhuintir na tíre breith a thabhairt ar cheist atá fíorthábhachtach, sin, arbh fhearr leanúint leis an ionadaíocht chionúir le Teachtaí a thoghadh do Dháil Éireann nó arbh fhearr athrú a dhéanamh agus glacadh leis an Vóta díreach. Sin an dóigh daonlathach leis an cheist seo a shocrú ach de réir dealraimh ní hé sin an bharúil atá ag Fine Gael. Síleann siadsan go bhfuil sé níos daonlaithí coimisiún a bhunú leis an cheist a shocrú agus nach ceart cead a thabhairt do na daoine vótáil a dhéanamh air, ar chor ar bith.

Tá muidinne ar an taobh seo den Teach go láidir ar son athrú a dhéanamh ar an chóras toghcháin atá againn faoi láthair. Tig an-chuid páirtithe beaga as an ionadaíocht chionúir agus as sin tagann Comh-Rialtas agus, mar is eol duinn go maith in Éirinn anois, is ionann Comh-Rialtas agus droch-Rialtas, Rialtas nach bhfuil polasaí aige agus nach féidir lena bhaill réiteach le chéile ar cheist thabhachtach ar bith.

Ní muidinne amháin atá in éadan an cinéal seo Rialtas anois. Is féidir liom a rá go bhfuil Fine Gael agus an Lucht Oibre ina éadan anois. Díreach i ndiaidh an Dáil seo a bheith tofa tháinig an Lucht Oibre le chéile ag Ard-Fheis agus d'aontaigh siad, d'aonghuth, nach nglacfadh siad páirt a choíche arís i gComh-Rialtas ar bith eile. Ina diaidh sin thosaigh ceannairí Fhine Gael ag iarraidh ar mhuintir na hÉireann a vótaí a thabhairt do Fhine Gael i dtreo is go mbeadh Rialtas láidir Fhine Gael sa tír, acht tá fhios ag an Lucht Oibre agus ag Fine Gael nach bhfaighidh siad an tromlach sa Teach seo faoin chóras atá againn anois, agus mar sin is féidir a rá nach gcreideann na daoine ar an taobh thall den Teach na rudaí atá a rá acu.

The Government's aim in introducing this Bill and asking that it be deemed to be passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas was simply to give the people an opportunity of deciding for themselves whether they preferred to continue to elect members to Dáil Éireann by the present system of proportional representation or whether they preferred to change to the proposed new system of the single non-transferable vote. I was always led to believe that it was the essence of democracy to give the people the opportunity of deciding important questions such as this, particularly questions involving constitutional changes. Evidently the Opposition believe that it would be more democratic to set up a commission to decide questions of this kind but we on this side believe in putting the case to the people.

We also believe in agreeing to whatever decision the people come to. When a change of such importance as this is proposed it is obviously the duty of every Deputy to examine the proposed new system and decide for himself whether or not it will give better Government. Unfortunately nobody is perfect and it was clear from the beginning that the human element was bound to enter into the question and that this whole matter would be examined more from the point of view of its effect on the Party and the individual Deputy than from the point of view of whether or not it would improve the country's Government.

We are convinced that the change is necessary. The present system, as has been stated on numerous occasions, lends itself to the creation of small Parties. Where we have a multiplicity of small Parties we must have coalitions; there is no option. As we know, not only from the effects of coalitions in other countries but from coalitions in our own country, they ultimately tend to economic and political disaster. Coalitions are formed by Parties which are often diametrically opposed to one another, as happened here with Fine Gael and Labour. The leaders of these Parties are lured by the very human desire for power and proceed to explain away their deviation from long-held and oft-expressed principles by saying that they are sinking their differences and working together for the good of the country. We know from our own experience that coalitions have never gained the confidence of the country.

They got a majority of the votes.

The result of the National Loans has been an example of that. We have been told on a number of occasions that coalitions on an average have lasted as long as single Party Governments. While this may be true to a certain extent——

It is true.

——it is not a question of any intrinsic merit on the part of coalitions but rather because of the peculiar historical circumstances in which this country found itself. It was a fact because in the first place the country was divided roughly in half— pro- and anti-Treaty. Secondly it was because the coalitions were faced with one single Party which refused under any circumstances to betray the principles for which it stood for the sake of gaining office.

What principles?

The ultimate result of the proportional representation system would be that we would have four or five Parties forming a Government and three or four Parties forming an Opposition. Then we would be faced with the grave dangers which we have already pointed out. We would have no agreement on policy and we would have a constant shelving of responsibility as we found during the period of office of the last two coalitions. It is common knowledge that on each occasion when the coalitions broke up the supporters of Fine Gael—I do not say the Party, or the leaders who were always hoping for another coalition—said that everything would have been all right except for Labour and the Labour supporters said that everything would have been all right except for the ultra-conservatism of the Fine Gael Party.

That was in the Irish Press.

It is only right to say that we on this side are not the only Party opposed to coalitions. Immediately after this Dáil was elected, the Labour Party decided unanimously that they could not take any further part in a coalition. That proved, of course, that they must have felt ashamed of their part in previous coalitions. Shortly after that a number of the Fine Gael leaders called on the people to rally around the Fine Gael Party and to give them sufficient support to form a Government composed only of Fine Gael. For that reason, I have a certain amount of sympathy with the Opposition speakers who quite obviously do not believe what they are saying and are opposing this change in the election system simply for the sake of opposition. It has been said on numerous occasions here that by introducing this Bill we are endeavouring to take away the rights of minorities from having representation in this House. Of course that is not true.

It is true.

Generally speaking from an electoral point of view there are two types of minorities. One is a body of people who are racially, culturally or traditionally different from the vast majority of the people among whom they live. I would agree that if we had such a minority here there would be a necessity for certain constitutional safeguards, but we have not got that type of minority here. The closest we could come to it would be a religious minority. However, during the debate on this proposed change the only two independent members who claimed to represent religious minorities as such voted in favour of the change, that is. Deputy Sheldon and Senator Cole.

Senator Cole is the Taoiseach's nominee. What do you expect a member of a cricket team to do except play the game?

The other type of minority would be a group of people who have a policy and who believe this policy would be the best for the country. It is the duty of this group to endeavour to the best of their ability to put their case before the people and to change this minority into a majority, and that will come if the people believe the policy advocated by them is the best policy. It is clear that under the straight vote system they would have a better chance. If a minority really believe in what they advocate they will not want to remain a minority. They will want to become a majority so that they can put that policy into effect. It appears that in some cases Parties are set up not because they may some day become a majority but because some day they may have the opportunity of bargaining for a post in the Cabinet in return for their support.

We have in this country, whether the Opposition like to agree to it or not, two great bodies of opinion, one which believes that the Government of the country would best be left in the hands of the Fianna Fáil Party and the other which believes that an alternative Government would be best. Obviously the straight vote system would help best in the election of these two bodies. It does not suit the Opposition to agree to this because it pays them better to go forward with opposing policies to get votes, like Fine Gael, for example, with their policy of lower taxes and the Labour Party with their policy of improved social services. Fine Gael got support from the people who felt it was better to have lower taxes and Labour got support from people who thought it would be better to have improved social services. Those two Parties came together afterwards in spite of the fact that those two policies were entirely opposed to each other, because one of them meant a reduction in expenditure and the other meant an increase in expenditure.

One would imagine from listening to the various arguments put up by the Opposition in regard to the right to have all types of opinion in this House, that Dáil Éireann was a political shop window rather than a body elected to govern. It has been stated here already on a number of occasions that the abolition of P.R. would lead to dictatorship. In fact it has been said that was the object of this Party but we know that from a study of conditions in various countries—I do not want to go into this because they have already been mentioned on numerous occasions——

And repudiated.

From a study of the conditions in various countries it was shown that the countries that had the single, non-transferable vote system remained democratic such as the United States, Canada and Britain, while countries like Germany, Italy and——

Scandinavia.

France. France is dropped.

Switzerland.

——those countries which had the P.R. system, became dictatorships. Somebody has referred to this booklet which has been published by Tuairim and mention has been made of the fact that there were conditions which led to Germany and Italy becoming dictatorships other than the P.R. system. The fact is that because they had the P.R. system they were not able to grapple with the problems which evolved from the conditions after the War and that in itself helped to bring these dictators to power.

Deputy Norton has on every possible occasion stated that our object in bringing in this Bill was so that Fianna Fáil would rivet themselves in power. The facts are that in a democracy the votes of the people determine who will be in power. If the people want the Fianna Fáil Party in power they will vote for them in sufficient numbers to put them in power and if they want another Government in power they will vote in sufficient numbers to return them. The will of the people is paramount.

When one vote equals three.

We have had many references to what the Taoiseach said at certain times and what he did not say. We are inclined to believe, as they believe in every other country, that whatever might have happened, that whatever disasters overtook other countries because of a particular system of election, these disasters could not possibly overtake us. Until 1948 the majority Party, the Party who had the greatest number of seats in the House, always formed a Government but in 1948 a change came and while the Party with the most seats in the House had more seats than all the other organised parties together and was obviously the choice of most of the people, the other Parties formed the Government.

Not at all.

Instead of that majority being returned as would naturally be expected we had all types of small Parties forming the Government with a policy which they did not or could not possibly put to the people before the election. We were asked why we had not mentioned P.R. in the last election and we were told it was wrong to bring in a Bill of this kind without referring to it in the previous election. That might be justifiable criticism if the Dáil had power to change the Constitution but of course the Dáil has no such power. The Dáil simply gives the people the opportunity of voting on this question.

Was it not the policy?

Deputy Dillon opposed the proportional representation system at one stage; he now favours it. If Deputy Dillon genuinely believes that he was wrong the first time and that he is right now, it would not only be his right but it would be his duty to change. But one cannot help doubting his sincerity when one listens to the type of argument he has put forward to bolster up his case. He began by stating what is a fact:— that there is no true democracy in Stormont, that while there may be a facade of democracy, the spirit of democracy is dead as far as that area is concerned. But then he proceeds to argue that the adoption of the single non-transferable vote system in the Six Counties was responsible for this. Of course, that is entirely wrong and was refuted by Deputy Booth in the figures he gave last night.

The facts about the absence of true democracy in the Six Counties are these. In the first place, that area was specially selected by the British Government in conjunction with the Unionists to ensure that, as far as humanly possible, power would remain in the hands of the Unionist ascendancy. In the second place, specific areas where it was not possible to ensure this were gerrymandered in order to ensure it. Under any system of election the Unionists will control Stormont because, as I said, the Six County area was specially designed for that purpose. Surely Deputy Dillon does not pretend that should anybody wish to gerrymander in this part of the country, it would be possible to do so? The division of the Six Counties is along well defined lines; in this part of the country that is not so. Deputy Murphy also mentioned "Northern Ireland." I do not know where that is, unless he meant Donegal.

Referring again to the Six County area, I have given the true reasons why there is no democracy there. If that is the Deputy's main argument in favour of proportional representation, it shows the extreme weakness of his case. I have no doubt that when the people get the opportunity—which we are giving them and of which the Opposition would like to deprive them —of voting on this very important issue, they will change the election system to the system of the single non-transferable vote.

Two very comforting facts emerge at this stage of the progress of the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill. One is the absence of a motion to abolish the Seanad, and the other is the near deification of the people by the Fianna Fáil Party and at every possible opportunity their obsequious devotion to the will of the people. We in this Party welcome that great constitutional development.

It has been suggested, no later than by the last speaker, that it was our object to keep this matter from the people and not allow them to give their ultimate decision on it. I can say for the Party to which I belong that we have at all times accepted the will of the people on all matters of national importance and that we are prepared to accept the ultimate manifestation of the people's will in this referendum, but we are not prepared to allow this matter to leave Parliament without full and adequate discussion upon its various facets.

In considering the demand for this change and the motives underlying it, one would have thought, to use Deputy Faulkner's phrase, that, after all, Parliament is the will of the people. Parliament here is composed of the Oireachtas—the President and two Houses. By virtue of their majority —which they freely admit, even from the Taoiseach down, they will never have again—it has been possible for the Fianna Fáil Party to push this motion through Dáil Éireann, but not without that full and adequate discussion which they sought to stifle under the guise of the necessity that it should be given to the people at the earliest possible opportunity for their decision. Having been passed through this House, it moved into Seanad Éireann and was defeated by the Seanad which, after all, represents to a very great extent, too, the will of the people. When one takes the 11 nominees of the Taoiseach from the 28 members of Seanad Éireann who voted in favour of this measure, one is left with 17 members out of 60 supporting it. And of that 17, one—Senator Mrs. Connolly-O'Brien—has declared that at the ballot box she will vote "No." So that, you are left with 16, and I would suggest that even of that 16, the Fianna Fáil Party are not certain what each and every one of them will do on the polling day for this referendum.

It has been suggested here that the two Independents, who represent what Fianna Fáil now would like us to believe is the only minority in this country—a religious minority—have voted in both Houses in favour of the measure. It is true that Deputy Sheldon voted in this House in favour of the Government's proposal. However, I think I can leave it at that and say no more about Deputy Sheldon's vote on this occasion than that it is in keeping with his traditional position in this House of voting with the Government in power and supporting them in all proposals they bring in. As for Senator Cole's support in the Seanad, well, one could hardly expect that a nominee of the Taoiseach would go against him in a matter of that kind. In fact, if you examine the various votes in the Seanad, you will find that Senator Cole absented himself on two occasions at least——

I have intervened on several occasions to intimate to Deputies that discussion of the personnel of the Seanad is not in order and that the actions and decisions of the Seanad are not open for discussion here.

But, Sir, the Taoiseach mentioned it.

I am ruling. and I have already ruled, that the Seanad is an integral part of Oireachtas Éireann. It is entitled to reach decisions and its decisions and the personnel who reach these decisions cannot be made the subject of discussion here.

May the actual decision be the subject of discussion—and the consequences of that decision?

Is that not what the motion is about?

The decision of the Seanad may not be made the subject of discussion here.

Although the motion which is being brought in here is a motion to override the decision of the Seanad?

No. It is a decision of the Seanad.

But this motion, in the name of the Taoiseach, is a motion to override that decision?

The Seanad, as I have pointed out, is entitled to reach a decision and we may not make that decision the subject of discussion here. Otherwise, we would be discussing their decision over which we have no control, and seeming to say that we have control over their decision.

Of course, I must accept your ruling on that point, but I should have thought that the actual motion here is a motion to get this House to overrule a decision of the Seanad and in opposing the motion, we are asking that the decision of the Seanad be upheld here.

It is a motion seeking to put into operation a provision of the Constitution.

A provision which gives the power to override the decision of the Seanad. However, I shall leave it. In relation to this measure, we must consider if there is any public demand for it and the lack of such demand from any section of public opinion, coupled with the lack of any mention of it in the course of the last general election by the Government Party, affords the proof that there was no demand. If it were in the minds of the Fianna Fáil Party at the last general election, they carefully kept it from the public whose will they now purport to respect so very much. There was no public demand, and I challenge the production of one title of evidence from any Fianna Fáil Party member to show that at any level of national or local government, in borough council or urban council, in Muintir na Tíre, Macra na Feirme or the Country Women's Association, in Church or State, in any shape or form, there was any demand for this change, or even any debate prior to September last in which P.R. was the subject matter of discussion.

If we had any doubt that the Taoiseach's press conference last September was the first time this proposal was mooted to the public, that doubt was dispelled by the recent letter which was published over the signature of the Minister for Industry and Commerce appealing for funds for the referendum and for the Presidential election. In that, he is asking for funds that will ensure a vote "worthy of Mr. de Valera," as he puts it, and "sufficient to carry the proposals in the referendum which he has proposed." There we have it from the Tánaiste himself that the proposal comes from the Taoiseach.

That leads me to the attempt of Deputy Booth yesterday to distinguish between boss control and Party discipline. Deputy Booth sought to tell us and to impress on us that boss control was entirely absent from the Fianna Fáil Party; that Party discipline was their guiding rule. He defined Party discipline as "that discipline that emerges after a full, free and frank discussion within the Party of any contemplated changes" and that "after a vote in the Party upon such changes, majority rule was accepted and made the Party policy". How can anybody dare to say that Party discipline, as so designed, guided the introduction of this proposal into the House from the Fianna Fáil Party, when the Taoiseach himself in September told the members of the Press that he had not even discussed it with the Government, that his own Ministers did not even know what was in his mind at that time? Eventually, I suppose it came to them. Then it came to the Party meeting at which we were told there was unanimity. We have also heard otherwise, but that is of no consequence because, as Deputy Norton put it yesterday, when paint and feathers for war are required, every member of the Fianna Fáil Party dons the necessary equipment and prepares for battle at the Chiefs slightest exhortation.

We had the same thing at the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis—not a dissenting voice—and now we have been debating this subject in the House for practically six months. Why was this House summoned for January 7th this year instead of in February, as usual? Deputy Loughman told us today— and I take it he was speaking with the authority of the Fianna Fáil Party —that were it not for the fact that Opposition speakers spoke for so long and obviously so ridiculously this referendum would be taking place in this month, and that that was the intention of the Fianna Fáil Party and, obviously, the intention of the Taoiseach.

Why were we recalled on 7th January? It was a fraudulent move to secure a fraudulent objective. The Fianna Fáil Party had taken into full consideration long prior to the Christmas recess that there was a possibility that they might be beaten in the Seanad. They had taken into consideration the 90 days' delay that would be the inevitable consequence of such a defeat and, making allowance for the actual speaking power on the net talking days in Dáil Éireann, they made certain, by recalling us on 7th January, that the referendum would take place on the same day as the Presidential election and that it could not go beyond it.

I solemnly believe that; I believe that the vast majority of the country believe it, in spite of Deputy Loughman's pronouncement to-day that it was the intention of the Fianna Fáil Party to hold it this month, in which month, by the way, the Presidential election could not take place.

We must examine, then, in the absence of demand, in the light of the Dáil being summoned unusually early, in the light of all that has taken place and all that has been said, the motive behind this proposal. We are asked to believe that its purpose is to give effective government. We were told the other day by the Minister for Education that it means our economic survival. We have been told by various Government speakers, including their Ministers, that it is an effort to avoid the calamities that overtook other European countries as a result of P.R. Nobody has proved in the course of these debates that, where countries did suffer calamities, P.R. was responsible. Neither has anybody proved that the particular form of P.R. —of which there are upwards of 200 forms—being used in those countries where violent changes took place politically was the same form of P.R. as we have here.

In regard to the form of P.R. we have here. Deputy Dillon has been taken to task for being at one time opposed to P.R. and now seeking to defend it. If I interpret what Deputy Dillon said on all the occasions which are brought up against him now, he was opposing P.R. as debauched by the Electoral Acts of 1943 and 1947 by the Fianna Fáil Party in reducing the multi-seat constituencies, coupled with gerrymandering in some of the constituencies, in order to effect a Fianna Fáil majority at all costs.

The motive is pretty clear. Whatever we may hear about economic survival and whatever we may hear about other countries, the motive is the very simple one of trying to get rid of any possible circumstance wherein the Fianna Fáil Party might be defeated again and to ensure—I use Deputy Norton's words deliberately—that they rivet themselves in power on the votes of something around 35 per cent. of the electorate. Last evening, Deputy Loughman solemnly avowed that he understood the P.R. system. He gave us examples and tried to make deductions to prove a certain point. All he succeeded in proving, in fact, was that either he did not understand the system or that his case was not sound.

Deputy Loughman took the constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny as an example. He sought to prove that the five persons elected for that constituency were the five persons who secured the five highest number of votes and that the single non-transferable vote would make no difference in Carlow-Kilkenny. However, he omitted to demonstrate that the people there with the five highest number of votes were three Fianna Fáil and two Fine Gael Deputies. But if the Carlow-Kilkenny constituency is divided into five neatly-arranged strips, the result at the next election will be not three Fianna Fáil and two Fine Gael candidates but five Fianna Fáil candidates, which is exactly what the Fianna Fáil Party want on a 35 per cent. vote.

On the Second Reading of this Bill, Deputy J.A. Costello asked the Taoiseach what had brought about the change of mind since 1937 when he used the now well-known phrases "The system we have we know. We have to be grateful that we have P.R." Everybody knows these phrases now. At that point. Deputy Dillon interjected and said "1948". The Taoiseach, apparently for once off his guard, gave a straight answer and said "Precisely". His attitude was: "P.R. defeated me and my cohorts in 1948 and again in 1954 and I am determined to abolish it, lest the Party I am now attempting to leave should, without my wisdom, counsel or almost mystical presence, suffer similar defeats again."

This is not a question as between single-Party government and coalition government. Nobody has proved here that coalition Governments are any more unstable or less effective in the implementation of policy than the single-Party Government or that, even going further, in countries where the Straight vote operates or, as I prefer to call it, the "limited" vote, there are fewer coalitions. In England, in the period from 1924 to 1942, it is a fact that in only 5½ years of that time did a single-Party majority operate in the House of Commons. As Deputy Norton also said, I fear that appeals to the Taoiseach at this stage to pause and listen to the voice of reason, to give the matter further consideration, would be useless having regard to his history in all those respects.

Deputy Loughman said yesterday that all symposia arranged by chambers of commerce and other bodies had been arranged beforehand obviously in collusion with various members of the Opposition. I have spoken at some of these. There was no such collusion. Everybody who came to them was interested. At some of them, votes were taken. As they went on, it was remarkable that it was the Fianna Fáil Party that first objected to votes being taken at such symposia.

I am going to a symposium shortly, organised by a voluntary organisation. Before the Fianna Fáil Party agreed to send a speaker, they sought to impose three conditions—(1) that there would be no vote; (2) that there would be a neutral chairman, which is normal enough, and (3) that the Press would be allowed to give only a summary. There is an example of muzzling the meeting with regard to a vote and muzzling the Press with regard to what would be said at the meeting. I am happy to say that that voluntary organisation did not accept those conditions. I am equally happy to say that Fianna Fáil, having failed to establish those conditions prior to sending somebody, are now sending a representative.

The very latest argument by Fianna Fáil as to what might emanate from P.R. was given to us yesterday afternoon by Deputy Booth who said that P.R. might give Communism. He quoted a gentleman named Togliatti, who wrote an article in the real Pravda under the heading, “The Possibility of Using the Parliamentary Path for the Transition to Socialism.” That is the brand new reason for abolishing P.R. Side by side with that. Deputy Booth sought to tell us that the evil of proportional representation was that it created a political minority and cited and named Deputy Dr. Browne as an evil of proportional representation. I wonder what the 6,000 or 7,000 people—I am not certain of the figure—in Dublin South-East who voted for Deputy Dr. Browne think of Deputy Booth's indictment of them? Deputy Booth says: “Much worse, it allowed him to create a political Party”.

To what end are we moving? Do we propose, through the medium of Parliament, to stifle all independent thought? I would have thought that it would be better to have a Parliament made up even of independent men of widely divergent views, irrespective of what those views were, once they were sent here by the various people in the various constituencies rather than that the people in those constituencies would be deprived of the right of electing whomsoever they wanted to elect. Deputy Booth bewails this opportunity, inherent in proportional representation, as he says, to create political minorities. Why cannot there be political minorities? What is wrong with them once the people will it?

I have already referred to the obsequious pandering in words to the will of the people on the part of speakers on Government benches. What is wrong with the will of the people once its result is either to create or to elect minorities? I find Deputy Booth very much at variance on this minority question with the Minister for Health and Social Welfare who, as late as 1951, on the occasion of the General Election, said they wanted minorities. He was referring to P.R. when he said that Fianna Fáil did not want to destroy minorities, that they wanted to have them represented. Again, of course, they have changed their minds in that respect.

Deputy Booth also referred to the operation of this system of the single-member seat and the single nontransferable vote in the Six Counties of North East Ireland. He was quite complacent about it. He said it was right there, that the result was right and everything was grand and that if the Opposition had lost face in any way, had lost strength in any way, it was their own fault. I do not know if that is the view of the Fianna Fáil Party now or not, that the situation in Northern Ireland is to be approved through their spokesman, Deputy Booth.

I asked him a question, "What about the uncontested seats?" He ran away from that. Really, the big trouble in the Six Counties resulting from the uncontested seat is the absence from the minds of the people of any idea in relation to Parliament or its relationship with them. Such a situation cannot be other than frustrating in the extreme. It drives people into channels of thought and action into which they might not be driven if they were afforded the opportunity of sitting side by side with, or even opposite to, the representatives of other interests in the Northern Ireland Parliament. I am firmly of the view that if proportional representation obtained in Northern Ireland, even with three-seat constituencies, in most of the constituencies there would probably be two Unionists and one Nationalist elected. I do not care whether you identify Unionists with Protestants and Nationalists with Catholics or not. If there were a situation in Northern Ireland whereby, say, the three members, two Unionists, Protestants, one Nationalist, a Catholic, would be going on deputations to the Minister and would be conferring together about matters of common interest, it would start that healing and unifying influence within that area much better than the present frustrating situation admits of and, indeed, actually impedes.

I want to be perfectly clear on this. In a country of our history, whose political maturity is not as yet of the highest, by reason of historical movements and various consequences of political changes, the initiation of native government, civil war and all the other things that go to make up our political history, I would not support the system if it meant, for instance, that there were to be three Fine Gael Deputies in the area which now makes up my own constituency of North Mayo. It would be embarrassing in the extreme. The ease with which a person can appproach the person who represents him in Parliament is very important in the political life of a nation, particularly in our political life. In the present scheme of things, those who elect me in North Mayo write to me when they want anything done. When I am in Government they write to the other Deputies. In the main, the people go to the Deputy for whom they vote.

It would cause considerable embarrassment if the people had to move away from that system and had to go to Deputies for whom they did not vote and ask them to do something for them. Eventually, after a few elections—this could happen in favour of Fine Gael or of Fianna Fáil or of Labour—we would have a situation where people would stop contesting elections in certain constituencies and you would be faced then with the problem of a discontented minority who would lose all interest in the public weal, who would take no part in public life, good, bad or indifferent, who would say: "Let them carry on from one election to another". That is the situation which obtains in Northern Ireland at the present time. It is certainly not a situation that I would welcome here.

There is another point. Assuming that the referendum goes through, a great majority of constituencies will be built around towns or heavy centres of population and the result could be that there would be an urban Dáil as opposed to a rural Dáil. In certain parts of the country there would be vast numbers of people who would be unrepresented. It is possible that on the reorientation of all these matters you might have a stretch of country for which there would be Fine Gael Deputies only and another vast stretch from which you would have only Fianna Fáil representatives in the Dáil. The opposing people outside Parliament in both stretches would be unrepresented and their voices never heard. I do not think that is a situation which the rank and file of the Fianna Fáil Party appreciate—I speak particularly now in relation to rural Deputies—but it is appreciated by those who represent the towns and cities.

You will not bring about any unity as a result of this referendum—that unity of which the Minister for External Affairs spoke here yesterday. With the exception of the natural antagonism of the Labour Party, as a minority, to the abolition of a system and its replacement by one designed to make that minority a still smaller one, I think—this cannot very well be denied—this whole campaign both inside and outside the House is being fought on the resurrection of hatreds, bigotries and indifferences of opinion which should have long since subsided.

Not for one moment do I profess to be a saint because, under provocation and in the heat of argument, one thinks up the counter-argument—an argument that very often would be better left unsaid. But, human nature being what it is, one will have that heat in debate, in argument and counter-argument, engendering further hatreds and bigotries and resulting in a situation in which unity and unified effort become well-nigh impossible.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce in the course of the Budget debate spoke of his longing for the day when this House will really become a deliberative assembly. The amendment in the names of Deputy Costello and Deputy Mulcahy asks that this House should act as a deliberative assembly now. Speeches have been made, principally by Ministers, in the course of this debate which would have been better left undelivered. They were calculated only to revive bitternesses which might prove useful in a subsequent electoral contest.

I cannot leave this discussion without referring to Deputy Haughey's speech. I want to know principally whether it is the Fianna Fáil creed that policies are something to be implemented for the good of the people, or whether they believe they are something deliberately conceived to bluff the people? Here is what Deputy Corry said at Col. 1399 of Vol. 174:—

"Surely no one will tell me that if Deputy Mulcahy, Deputy John A. Costello, Deputy Dillon and the rest of that Front Bench spent a third of their time thinking out a decent policy for the next election—if they could agree on it—they could not bluff the people?"

Is that what is inherent in policy? Is policy something with which to bluff the people? I should hate to think that even the Fianna Fáil Party would have that view and I should like some responsible Fianna Fáil speaker in the course of this debate—whatever little is left of it—to disown that statement categorically, a statement which more than impliedly asserts that policies are something conceived deliberately for the purpose of bluffing the people. At times, we know that they do. People are bluffed. Nevertheless, I should hate to think that it would be a sustained and progressive part of our political development that the bluff would go on proportionately to still greater lengths, until eventually we would reach the stage wherein Parliamentary institutions and the public men who constitute them would be in the same position as the boy who cried "Wolf!" too often.

Parliament, as Deputy Faulkner pointed out correctly, is the manifestation of the will of the people. It is something sane. It is something sound. It is something that should be preserved. It is something in which opposition, whether it be made by one Party or by several Parties acting together, is essential to ensure that very necessary vigilance vital to the national life of any democratic country.

In this debate on proportional representation we have rambled all over Europe. I heard the Minister for Health say at a disputation in the Marian College in Ballsbridge that proportional representation was something, in the last analysis, designed by mathematicians. That, I felt, was a statement of gross disloyalty to his mathematician leader. In all the ramblings all over Europe, France was pretty well abandoned fairly early on when it was discovered that proportional representation was in operation in France only for a few years after 1945.

The arguments in relation to Germany and Italy are unsustainable when viewed in their proper perspective. Mussolini rose to power in Italy in 1922. Hitler was well on the road to power in the early '30s. Ascribing their rise and the tragedy that followed to proportional representation merely has the effect of belittling the intelligence of those responsible in the Fianna Fáil Party for putting proportional representation into the 1937 Constitution after the example of the 1922 Constitution.

I do not think one needs to go outside our own country at all. It is a geographical unit and within that unit, a singular contrast exists. Contrast what happens on one side of the Border with what is happening on the other side. If the desire is to abolish proportional representation here to achieve the set of circumstances, which Deputy Booth holds rightly obtains in the Six County area at the moment, then, surely, the motive is to give an assured long-standing majority to one political Party and a voice in the affairs of the nation to no other Party, or Parties.

I view this whole proposal with suspicion in face of the avowed statements by the Taoiseach and those supporting him that this is designed to prevent coalitions and ensure stability when neither of these arguments can be made to stand in face of analysis. Deputy Gilbride gave a fair interpretation of these proposals when he came into the House on the Second Reading debate and said that the Fianna Fáil Party were loyal to their leaders, loyal to their country, loyal to those who sent them here, namely, the Fianna Fáil voters, and it is for that reason they are willing to take a chance: "We are loyal to those that come after us and we are willing to take the chance to give them security." That kind of security is riveted in Craigavon and Brookeborough or the succession of less safe heads in the Kremlin.

I do not believe you will achieve any unity by this. I do not believe you will achieve anything in the way of national well-being or advancement. I believe that once again a division is being created among our people that will have no other result than the impeding of the national effort, the destruction of public confidence, an added impetus to emigration, and no cure for the unemployment which besets us.

I do not know whether it is too late —in fact it might be even too early— to make a final appeal, not to the Taoiseach, but to the younger people on all sides of the House, to consider the matter in this way: Do they know any shopkeeper or any farmer, big or small, who, having arrived at the end of his effective days, calls his sons together and says to them: "The system which made my shop or my farm a success over all these years was a bad system; you change it now to another system which I think will serve you better"? Do you know anybody like that, and if you did, would you not suspect his motives, and would you not think that such a desire for such a change was far removed from the advancement or betterment of his family?

I am afraid that last simile was out of joint. One main difference, at any rate, has already emerged between the opponents of this proposal and ourselves. We in this Party are united on it and there is no qualification whatsoever to that unity. We are satisfied to take the judgment of the people.

It is strange that a very prominent leader of the Fine Gael Party, Deputy Dillon, who declared himself in 1947 as being against P.R. and who, having been challenged on his opposition to it, now goes back and in column 1425 of volume 174, No. 10, repeats his conviction that P.R. should be abolished. He says:

"I urge on the House that, perhaps, the best thing it can do is to pass this Bill in order to manifest to the people the obvious fraud that proportional representation has become in this country. That would be a valuable step towards the abolition of this system of election"

—Here are the operative words which I want to emphasise—

"and the substitution therefor of single-member constituencies with the transferable vote."

Perhaps I should complete the quotation:

"It would ensure that the individual who ultimately secured the support of the largest numbers of voters residing in the constituency would be elected to represent them in this House..."

Deputy Dillon referred to the reduction in the numbers of seats. Originally in my constituency of Galway, we had nine seats, but, because we reduced some of the constituencies down to five, four or three seat constituencies, we are said to have "debauched" the system of P.R. What adjective or description is one to apply to the single member constituency with the transferable vote? I do not know exactly— somebody referred to it here last night; I think it was Deputy Booth—how you can refer to the single individual as giving a constituency and all the interests in it, proportional representation, unless we have regard to the claims which have been made, again by Deputy Dillon himself, of being capable of representing all interests. If I had my choice as between a ten seat constituency, and the transferable vote in a single member constituency, I would plump every time for the ten seat constituency. The single member constituency with the transferable vote is more capable of manipulation than our present arrangement of multiple seats.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary develop that? That is interesting.

I should like to, but there have been many speeches made on this. I have not, I think, made a speech on the question since the debate began, and I should like to tell the Deputy that I became quite bored listening to the repetition in the speeches of others which hardly had even a difference in words, one from another.

Let me try to give an example. Take a constituency in which you have Fianna Fáil as the largest element; the second largest is Fine Gael; and there is only one other element interested in representing the constituency, and let us say that is Labour. You must now remember the area is only one-third the size of a three member constituency—I am assuming that it will not be cut down by more than a third— so is it not quite obvious to the Deputy that if you get a highly organised third minority in that small area, that minority is much more easily capable of manipulation and machining for the benefit of the second minority than is now possible in a three, four or five member constituency? I certainly would not take the risk of it. Anyway, I prefer, as I say, the seven, eight, nine, or ten seat constituency to that type of arrangement.

In any event, it is not P.R. and we have here the words, in 1947, confirmed in 1959, of Deputy Dillon, who is one of the most prominent members of the Fine Gael Party, declaring himself publicly as being against P.R.

As debauched.

Where is the use in Deputy O'Sullivan trying to sidetrack me on the matter? Will he say "yes" or "no" to a simple question: is one representative for a constituency, in which there are three or four interests elected in this way, any kind of an edition of P.R.?

I shall answer that when I speak, unless the Parliamentary Secretary gives way to me now.

He will not answer it now. Why throw in a bone like "debauched"? If the Deputy is not prepared to answer he knows well that what I am saying is right.

There have been many references to the Civil War in this discussion, but so far as I can recall there has been no reference to the Civil War from this side of the House. I think it regrettable that the Civil War should have been mentioned and I do not see why it should be brought in at all. I do not see why any arguments about P.R. and its application and results 30 years ago should be brought in. Let us judge the question on the results as we now find them. I think that is the sensible thing to do. I was very resentful last night when I heard the leader of the Labour Party referring to the 1922 Constitution, P.R.'s being in it and to strife. He used these three words. I know he did not use the words "Civil War", but he did refer to the 1922 Constitution, P.R. and strife.

I think he might have left the reference out for this reason: in my constituency of Galway, the intrusion of the Labour Party into the 1922 election for the purpose of breaking the Collins-de Valera pact had a very regrettable and tragic result, the very memory of which causes the greatest bitterness in the ranks of the old I.R.A. in County Galway. Associated with what I am saying is the name of Liam Mellows and I shall just leave it at that.

Is this a line which we can all follow, Sir?

Deputy O'Sullivan might allow me, by the very moderate comment I have made on remarks by the leader of the Labour Party, to prevent their being repeated and thereby causing further bitterness. What he said last night can have that effect on the people who were very active at that time in both the political and military operations. That is my purpose in making any reference to what the leader of the Labour Party said last night. He told us that there was no doubt in the world that Fianna Fáil will be walloped—that is the word he used—when we bring this question to the people. That has been said by various Opposition speakers since this debate began. If they believe that to be true, why not let the people decide it? Why make cross-road speeches in this House? Why not let the people have a say and take the matter out of Leinster House and let the ordinary work of Leinster House—and this is a very busy time for it—go ahead? The public are completely conversant with the arguments which have been put up. Whatever arguments have been put up by the Opposition have been made over and over again.

Deputy Norton instanced countries where P.R. is in operation—Denmark, Sweden, Belgium and Switzerland— and said that they have no emigration and no 10 per cent. unemployment, because they used P.R. and we did not. This is somewhat analogous to the argument which was attempted in relation to what happened in Sligo in 1919. He says that we have not made progress in these things because we did not use P.R. Let us examine that statement. Who are the people who did not use P.R. when they got into power? After all, Deputy Norton was three and a half years fiddling with the Social Welfare Bill and in the end he did not succeed in bringing it in. Was he not the one who did not use P.R.? We were only six months in office when we were able to bring in a Social Welfare Act, so we did use P.R.

You had the Wages Standstill Order, too.

I could argue about the Wages Standstill Order but the Chair would not allow it.

It would not be relevant on this motion.

What the Deputy has said indicates to me that he has no comment to make on what I have just said. I shall give him another matter to comment on now. There has been talk about using P.R. for the economic and social development of the country. We commenced to establish a transatlantic air service. We bought the planes and assembled the maintenance staffs. There is another example of our using P.R. for the economic development of the country. But when the first coalition came in, they scrapped that plan. The planes which had been bought for dollars were sold for pound notes which were not re-convertible into dollars.

This does not seem to be relevant.

But it invites comment.

I am replying to an argument that P.R. is a good system for the social and economic development of a country, if it is used and that Denmark, Sweden, Belgium and Switzerland have P.R. and used it and have no emigration and no unemployment, but that here in Ireland we did not use it. I admit that neither Deputy Norton nor I should have touched on the matter, but the Chair has always been fair in allowing every thrust to be parried.

The first coalition went out of office and later when they got into power again, I was aghast one day to hear Deputy Norton, who had become Minister for Industry and Commerce—originally, he had been Minister for Social Welfare and had failed to bring in a Social Welfare Act —referring in favourable terms to the setting up of a transatlantic air service. Can Deputy O'Sullivan comment on that?

I could but in deference to the Chair's ruling, I shall not comment on it now.

Deputy Norton asked another question: what has happened since the time when the present Taoiseach was so enamoured of P.R.? Well, the World War happened, for one thing. We have a good imitation war here, too, and it happened since the first coalition came into office. In spite of the fact that this House is the only authority for declaring war, nevertheless we had a war and the coalition have put up an extraordinary proposition, that we should prosecute the war through the medium of the district courts.

This is a very interesting but very wide field. No doubt, we can all traverse it.

Deputy Norton said that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael should merge. I have heard this argument time and time again in this House. Usually it came from the Labour ranks. I often heard Deputy James Larkin using it when he looked at our serried ranks, obviously thinking: "Break up that Party and Fine Gael will get an element out of it and Labour will get an element out of it and we shall all gain". I suggest to Deputy Norton that if he is planning for this amalgamation of Fianna Fáil with Fine Gael, he should also add Labour to it. So far as I can see, his political philosophy applied to national economics when he gets responsibility is not a lot different.

I do not know of any capitalists who went to the United States looking for assistance for industries who could have done any better than Deputy Norton did when he told the industrialists of the United States that one of the advantages they would have here is cheap labour.

On a point of order——

I was about to make the point that this has no relevance to the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill. Deputy Norton's policy, as Minister, does not seem to arise at the moment.

Deputy Bartley seemed to miss the Budget debate.

I want to indicate that if there is any fundamental difference in this House, it is between practically the whole lot of us and Deputy Dr. Noel Browne. That is what I am coming to, that there is nothing fundamental in the Labour Party and in the Labour Party political philosophy, as expounded by Deputy Norton, and that really there is no reason why the whole House here, should not resolve itself into two divisions, and that will give us Government and Opposition. Now, there is a new element introduced and the one person giving expression to it is Deputy Dr. Browne. More than once, he said quite frankly that he is a Socialist. I do not mind the term "Socialist" because he wants us to believe that this country, in fact, is not socialist already. I maintain that it is. I maintain that England is Socialist and that the United States is Socialist, particularly since President Roosevelt came into office in 1932. References to socialism when I was a young man were somewhat equivalent to the references we now hear to Communism. The horror of Communism now is no greater than the horror of Socialism when I was a young man.

I am afraid we seem to be getting away from the motion and amendment before the House. I cannot see the relevance.

Very well, but I do think it is important to stress the need for an exact meaning of terms—dictatorship, socialism, and all the terms that are being bandied about. Nobody knows exactly what is meant by them. I take it, therefore, I shall be in order if I refer to Deputy Dr. Browne as being the only person who has expressed a view, fundamentally different from that held by the rest of us, from the point of view of political philosophy. I shall delay the House for as short a time as I possibly can, but I do think Deputy Dr. Browne is entitled to a reply.

He said that we have not replied to a great many questions that had been put and, for that reason, we should refer this matter to a commission. I want to say that I am satisfied he believes every statement he makes and, if his statements or opinion are open to question, it is probably due to lack of the fullest information. I believe he is quite honest in all his statements, in all he believes, and, that being so, I think it is up to us to give him our opinion on the questions he puts and on the opinions he himself expresses. For instance, he says that political figures, political institutions, had been discredited as a result of the conduct of the political Parties. I do not know whether he can apply that to Fianna Fáil. We had 78 Deputies returned in the last general election and, as a yardstick of discredit, I do not know how he would like to apply that.

He makes a statement like this: "The most efficient—if it is efficiency you want—the most efficient type of government would be Fascist or Communist dictatorship." I should like to know what he means by efficiency and, for that matter, what does he mean by socialism, communism and dictatorship? I freely agree that dictatorship will give you the best military machine, but we do know that it did not give the biggest supply of butter to Germany before the war, nor to Russia at the present time. It is true, of course, that, whatever shortcomings there may be, dictatorships do not allow people to say anything about them. I also question their efficiency, even in the military field. The democracies seem to have won every time, though, perhaps, it took them a little time to do so.

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

I want to express my thanks to Deputy O'Sullivan. He evidently thinks my speech is worth listening to, and that it is something Deputies should not miss.

I should like to have his colleagues share the view.

I am most grateful to him. Deputy Dr. Browne seems to think that there should have been a different approach in the presentation of this question to the people and he made a statement like this: "The proposal originated from an individual. There should have been an incessant demand from the cumann to the Ard-Fheis." Let me say that I appreciate that tribute to the Fianna Fáil cumann. It has been a very much abused institution for the past quarter of a century in this House, and I am glad one of the freshest and most vital thinkers we have amongst us has such a good opinion of it that it is so good an institution it should have been the sieve through which this proposal should have come.

Where I join issue with him on this matter is that he evidently dislikes leadership. A Government are elected by the people and they give their whole time to the thinking out of the handling of matters of this sort. It is the duty of the Government to show initiative in all matters of public concern, to propound a plan and submit it. Another criticism of his was: "There is a certain lack of acceptance of the idea that an individual can, at will, change a very important aspect of Government." I agree, but that has not happened in this case.

When he was in the first Coalition did his leader not indicate that the name of the State was to be changed, and make the announcement in Canada? There was great use made of the change; it was described in fact as a declaration of the Republic. That declaration was made in Canada; and, only two days ago, there was an article in a paper which indicated that Mr. Seán MacBride, who was Minister for External Affairs at that time, had actually informed the then British Minister that there was no intention of repealing the External Relations Act, while at that very time the leader of the Coalition was making in Canada the announcement of the change. If Deputy Dr. Browne remained in the coalition Government as a Minister, after that took place, how can he find any fault if, as he suggests, this proposal has come about in the way he suggests?

He said that this question could be debated for 20 years before the full truth could be ascertained in relation to it. He indicates that it has not been sufficiently debated and that there has been no demand for it, but I can tell him that this year I shall have been 34 years continuously in public life, and I have heard P.R. debated by election workers and organisers at every general election that has taken place during that time. I have heard people of very high intellectual attainments making the most erroneous statements concerning it. Therefore, it is not true to say that it is a system of which the people have become enamoured because of their acquaintance with its workings.

A commission, of course, is the easy way out. As a comment on the complaint of Deputy Dr. Browne about our unwillingness to refer this to a commission and our readiness to submit so many other matters to commissions, I would say that whatever about vocational organisation of society, banking, arterial drainage or a great many other things on which we have commissions, the public are well informed about the system of election. They are sufficiently well tutored to be able to make a comparison for themselves and I do not believe any commission set up to enlighten the people would produce one tittle of enlightenment for them. In fact I have heard highly intellectual people making the silliest remarks with regard to it. This is a matter which has far more intimate relationship with the public than the type of matter that usually is referred to these commissions.

There was a commission on the election of the Seanad.

Táim ag fánacht leis an chuid eile de. Another comment Deputy Dr. Browne made is that if the people choose coalitions it is because they like them, because they regard them as a better form of Government. I do not want to cavil at the Deputy's line of argument, but he had no solid argument. Does he not know when he makes a statement of that sort that the people have no other choice and when you have no other choice you have to take Hobson's? Another statement Deputy Dr. Browne made was that if a Party wants to make itself felt it should not be outlawed so long as it observes all the democratic ritual. Here again the Deputy deludes himself. There is a little more than ritual required. I take it that if we were to do what he suggests with regard to the administration of the economic affairs of the country and were to nationalise everything from top to bottom, whether they succeeded or failed Deputy Dr. Browne would be satisfied so long as the ritual had been observed. A failure with the proper ritual is far more acceptable than success under private enterprise in the absence of the ritual.

I have given most of my attention to the arguments and comments put forward by Deputy Dr. Browne because he is the only speaker I have heard who seems to entertain a fundamentally different point of view about government from what the rest of us hold which goes a little deeper and further than the difference between P.R. and the single member system of voting. He said a Socialist Party could very easily catch the rest of us out under this straight vote system if it were to go ahead, and this is the only thing about it that appeals to him: that it might come about under the proposed system that a majority of Socialist Deputies would be elected to this House by a minority vote. He says they would then be imposing on the majority of the people a system of Socialism in Ireland and he puts that up as an argument against what we are doing. My answer to him straightway is that we shall accept his proposition.

Let us put the thing somewhat conversely to the way he has put it. If he can get a majority of the voters of Ireland to be so indifferent as to whether the largest minority is elected as a Socialist Party then I say: "good luck to him" and he is entitled to his majority. But if you have any issue that is of fundamental importance, he can take it from me the majority who might be greatly divided on one hundred and one other things would unite to form a solid phalanx against him. Therefore he has nothing there on which to hang anything. We are not proposing to do anything irrecoverable. I know that is scoffed at.

This is a new slant.

How is it a new slant?

I thought if it was done now, it would never be changed; or if it was not done now, it would never be changed either?

Then Deputy Mulcahy believes the fairy tale that if we abolish proportional representation and substitute the straight vote for it, Fianna Fáil will remain as the Government of this country for all time.

That is what the Deputy believes.

It is. That is what the Deputy's words mean. If they do not mean that and if Fianna Fáil do not remain in office for all time and if Fine Gael replace them, will Fine Gael not be able to move legislation through this House, as we are doing, to undo what we are doing now?

It may be so. Suppose we do not succeed? Suppose proportinal representation stays?

Then we get in the next time.

All right. Now you are coming round to my point of view.

Now we are filling in the ten minutes.

If Deputy Mulcahy had ceased his interruptions I would not use up the ten minutes in this irresponsible fashion. But seeing that the Deputies over there are anxious to speculate about the future, I think we are entitled to speculate. It helps the public mind to form a judgment as to what is likely to happen and that is a reasonable thing to do in connection with what we regard as a fundamental change.

I concede to Deputy Flanagan that the time will come when the Fianna Fáil Party will be a minority Party like the others. We could not hope to be a majority Party always. I am saying to Deputy Flanagan that there will be no other majority Party if proportional representation remains. In that situation you could not pass this legislation through the House and proportional representation would be a fixture; but the straight vote will never be a fixture. That is the fundamental difference between the two. Having said that I should like to demonstrate to Deputy Mulcahy that I am not seeking to use up the ten minutes irressponsibly.

Tá seo á dhéanamh againn ar mhaithe le muintir na hÉireann. Táimid sásta go dtuigeann muintir na hÉireann céard tá á dhéanamh againn, agus nach bhfuil aon ealaíon ar siúl againn. Táimíd sásta nuair a bhéas deis ag na daoine a mbarúil faoin gceist a thaispeáint ar an 17 Meitheamh go h-aontóidh siad leis an dtogra mar a d'aontaigh siad le tograi eile chuir muid os a gcomhair le cúig bhliain is fiche anuas. Táimíd sásta gur breith maith agus breith chríonna a thiurfas siad air.

Anois nar thugas cabhair dhuit?

Having listened to the Parliamentary Secretary meandering for a time in the English language and reverting to Gaelic in an effort to fill up to 3 o'clock, I do not think there is very much in what he said to which I can reply. He commenced his observations by referring to statements which Deputy Dillon made on an occasion when he was referring to the system of election. At that time he found fault with the action of the Fianna Fáil Government in relation to the number of large-member constituencies in—if I may borrow the phrase to which the Parliamentary Secretary took so much umbrage—debauching proportional representation by the great increase in the number of threemember constituencies.

In the course of his remarks he challenged me to support the point of view that the single-member constituency with the transferable vote had any advantage over the single-member constituency with the non-transferable vote, which the Government are now submitting to the people as the alternative to proportional representation. I do assert that when the people under proportional representation used their lower preferences they have very effectively given a clear indication of what they wanted. If three candidates go forward in a single-member constituency— this is what the Parliamentary Secretary asked me to reply to—and if you have not the transferable vote, then it is clear—and it has happened repeatedly in Britain—that a candidate securing a minority of the votes cast gets the seat, and it is quite probable that the majority who are not represented, if they had a following preference could have indicated another choice.

We have all watched counts and repeatedly down through the years we have seen how effectively our people have grown to use proportional representation and how emphatically they have declared, by virtue of the competent use of the ballot box, their desire to have a succeeding choice in the selection of candidates.

It was alleged by the Parliamentary Secretary that when the first inter-Party Government was formed, it did not have a mandate. We looked with interest to the first occasion that arose to discover whether there was in fact anything in that allegation. The first opportunity that presented itself was a by-election in West Donegal. There were three candidates. Fianna Fáil headed the poll on the first count. There was a second count and, on the elimination of the Clann na Poblachta candidate, there was a higher proportion of transfers to elect the other inter-Party candidate than had been experienced in the previous General Election as between two candidates in the same group. That was clearly an endorsement of what the inter-Party Government had done in forming the Government in 1948. Let us examine the situation which exists in Bournemouth.

Cuireadh an diospóireacht ar athló.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn