I was referring before Question Time to the fact that very considerable dissatisfaction exists where the single non-transferable vote operates and there is a great volume of opinion in favour of adopting the system which we are now asked to discard. I was referring to recent occurrences in the constituency of Bournemouth where a member of the Conservative Party disagreed with the action of his Government on a certain episode, which, no doubt, is a very serious occasion of difference to very many people throughout Britain. Because that Member of Parliament exercised an independent viewpoint, we find that it is possible under the electoral system for his Party to take such action that it would be impossible for him to secure re-election to the House of Commons. If that country had the system that we are now asked to abandon, it could be left to the electorate in his constituency of Bournemouth to register an opinion as to whether that Member was right or wrong in the views he expressed and the action he took.
In the North of Ireland we find that, there again, there is a fellow Irishman, a member of that Legislature, who expressed views that differed from his Party and his Government and he, likewise, has been subjected to complete abandonment and a situation created where it would be impossible for him to secure re-election. At any rate, the pros and cons of these controversies are not resolved by the ordinary people. They are resolved by the Party bosses. These incidents support the claim we make that the single-member constituency and the non-transferable vote will lead to "bossism" and dictatorial control over members of Parliament, a control which cannot be exercised under the more democratic system of election by proportional representation.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance travelled over a wide field. He used some expressions of opinion, adumbrated during the course of the debate by Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy Norton, for the purpose of lecturing us on the various types of government there are in the world. He attempted to adduce that some of our economic ills flow from the fact that Governments here, since we attained self-government, had not used P.R. effectively. He cited particular examples. He challenged me to reply justifying the action of the inter-Party Government in selling the Constellation aircraft on their accession to office in 1948.
The answer I shall make is that the Government at the time assessed different priorities as compared with the Government that preceded them. They felt the first needs of the people were houses, hospitals, sanatoria, better services in regard to health, land reclamation and so on. When all these things had been attended to, then it might be possible to look at the more expensive, but less lucrative and less beneficial idealistic priorities which found favour with the previous Government. That is why the inter-Party Government at the time took that action.
All this is, of course, quite unrelated to the system of election. It must be agreed that the Party now in office secured longer terms in office and greater majorities than any other Party in the State and they cannot claim that they were hampered during all those years because of a system of election which their own Taoiseach had written into his own Constitution as recently as 1937. It is rather late in the day to try to pass off the failures to implement policy as being due to the system of election. Surely, if that were true, the system of election would have been adverted to when the people were called upon to elect a Government on the basis of policy and on the basis of the economic situation prevailing.
On no single occasion in the course of the last general election did the Party now in office say that, given a majority, they would initiate all this controversy at a time when the people expect them to apply all their energies to solving the problems affecting the country generally. The introduction of this controversial measure has disrupted the business of this House. It has disrupted the attention of the people. It involves considerable expense, expense that could have been saved and the savings devoted to bringing about an improvement in economic conditions generally.
We are upbraided for not permitting this issue to go to the people with the utmost despatch, as if this were something upon which there was a time limit, as if an amendment of the constitution were something that should be treated lightly, something that must be got out of the way as quickly as possible. When this proposal was first mooted, the country was shocked by the announcement that it was proposed to put this issue in front of the people at this stage. It is a serious matter. It is a matter which this House, representing the people, should examine home in all its facets. It is a matter in relation to which every opportunity should be given to our people to learn the true value of the system they have—the system, as the Taoiseach says, they know so well, the system that has worked so well and for which they should be so thankful.
Rather than permit the people to take a leap in the dark and, by doing so, impose on this part of our country the iniquities and injustices that operate in Northern Ireland and in Britain under the system of election our Government are now asking the people to adopt, we felt that all the disadvantages involved in the proposed change should be brought home clearly to the entire electorate before they went into the polling booths to register their opinion.
It is particularly regrettable that the people will not be permitted to give their opinion on this issue as a separate issue, divorced from all other issues. The Constitution provides that, in relation to a particular issue put before the people, that issue should not be confused with any other issue. In framing the Constitution, the Taoiseach was careful of the necessity to divorce any constitutional change from any other issue. Despite that lip service paid to that principle in the Constitution, we are now told that the people will have, on the same day, in the same polling booth, and possibly in the same ballot box, to register their opinion as to the identity of the individual who will occupy the position of President.
A large volume of opinion in the country is resentful of that and resentful of the fact that important personalities are being thrown into the issue on the side of the referendum, the results of which will operate not alone for the lifetime of whatever President may be elected, but for the lifetime of the youngest among us today. It is in that atmosphere that the people will be given an opportunity of registering their opinion. They will not unfortunately be given an opportunity of calmly and deliberately examining what is really contained in this proposal presented to them by the Government.
We resent the allegation that the Opposition are delaying the decision of the people on this matter. The Government say they are anxious that the will of the people should prevail. It is of vital importance that, before the will of the people prevails, the people should be informed. We have been told that every forum has been provided, every opportunity availed of to bring home to the people what is involved in this issue. Yet, when the Government Party were challenged to appear in the main forum of our capital city, namely, in the Mansion House, to meet members of the Opposition in open debate, they declined the challenge. Why? They declined because they dared not stand before the electorate in the city of Dublin in open debate with members of the Opposition in defence of the action they are taking in steamrolling this through this House. There were other occasions in which the opportunity for public debate was stifled because the Government Party were not happy about the case they would be compelled to make before an intelligent audience. We have no apology to offer for having availed of every moment here to examine home all that is implied in this proposal.
This matter has been re-submitted to the Dáil because the Upper House rejected the Government's proposal. I am aware that we are not permitted to refer to personalities in the Seanad, or to criticise the decisions of the Upper House, but we respect the volume of public opinion which is represented in that Chamber just as we respect the volume of opinion represented in the Dáil. We can claim that in the Seanad there are individuals who are very learned people, people who represent spheres of higher education and who, no doubt, gave grave consideration to this measure. Despite the fact that the Government were never before defeated in the Seanad on any other issue, they rejected this Bill. We must take cognisance of that fact.
It is alleged that this is something which the House should not adopt, that an amendment of the Constitution should be submitted to a commission. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance referred to commissions in general and described them as "an easy way out." I wondered if I were hearing correctly, because I sat on the opposite benches when a thundering Fianna Fáil Opposition demanded, day in and day out, that a commission be set up to deal with the costings of the production of a gallon of milk. That would suggest that Fianna Fáil had some faith in commissions set up by this House.
We have had commissions on many subjects. We have even had commissions on electoral reform, and it is not long since the Government bowed to public opinion which was expressed in that respect in relation to election to the Seanad. That was certainly something to which the Government had to hearken and they set up a commission, but, mind you, it was not empowered to examine the position in relation to Senators nominated by the Taoiseach. It was confined to Senators nominated by outside bodies. At any rate, the commission sat but its establishment was in response to public demand.
We on this side assert and repeat that there was no public demand whatever for what the Government are now doing. I do not accept that commissions are set up by any Government merely as an easy way out. They are set up because the problems to be examined are complex, and because we have, within our society, experts in various walks of life who are competent to sit down and examine in detail all that is involved in the problem presented to them. Here is something that is fundamental to the entire future of our country and we say it is something that should not be rushed, something which no Party should steamroll through the Dáil, but which they should think over well and send to a competent commission for examination and report. In this issue, we are asking the people to abandon the system they have enjoyed for 38 years and to adopt merely one alternative, an alternative that we see operating unjustly and unfairly within our own shores in Northern Ireland, as if there were no other alternative.
We again refer to the fact that the first Constitution enshrined a form of P.R. as the most suitable for this country and, having had experience from 1922 to 1937, the Taoiseach, in the prime of his life, presented a new Constitution to the country and enshrined a particular form of P.R. in that new Constitution. We are told by the Minister for External Affairs that he, in fact, thought otherwise at that time, that he held other views, but that he was afraid the Constitution would not be passed, if such a fundamental matter as a change in the system of election were included in it at that time.
We know that having secured the passage of the Constitution, there were several years after its enactment when, by legislation here in the House, the system of election could have been changed without a referendum. We made an effort to discover what occurred to change so radically the Taoiseach's mind—as he is solely responsible for the presentation of this Bill at this time—and we were told it was the fact that he was displaced in office in 1948. That is a political statement. The Taoiseach and others may say that there is something vile or something retrograde in what the people did in electing an inter-Party Government, but that is a political issue. It is not an issue to be resolved by changing the Constitution.
We could advert to countries that have succeeded admirably under P.R. and that annihilates any contention that there is any economic benefit to be achieved merely by changing the system of election. Even in Britain— and we know that the system of election is a vested interest there—there has been considerable complaint about the operation of Parliament. Sir Winston Churchill had this to say—and I ask those Deputies who think there is some great wand that will be waved merely by a change in the system of election which will secure for the country some great economic benefits to listen—about the situation in Britain:
We have certainly reached a parliamentary deadlock or stalemate differing in its character from any in living experience. It is not true that the Liberal Party here, or, what is of far more importance, the Liberal Party in the country, can by simply throwing its weight on to one side or the other, determine the issue. Any step that was taken as a mere bargain or deal might not only be difficult to implement, but might well produce unfavourable reactions for those concerned. The nation might deeply resent the feeling that its fortunes had been bartered about without regard to principle by a handful of politicians no matter what party they come from, and that its vital interests were but a piece in a jigsaw puzzle.
We know, of course, what could occur under the system the Government would have our people adopt. We know that if we, on the Opposition side, are to preserve any hope of securing election to this House, we have been advised to go behind closed doors and engage in a type of intrigue which this country never knew before, where the Parties or the Party bosses and the candidates come together and barter among themselves: "You take that pocket borough and I shall take this; you dissuade your people from putting forward candidates to contest your area, because if you do not, I shall not reciprocate in my area." That is what we are told to do because it is conceded by the Government Party that where they are opposed by more than one candidate, without having the transferable vote, the Government would get the seat. That is admitted and we are told that the solution to that problem is to engage in this back-room intrigue.
Surely it is an important matter that where three or four candidates go forward in a single-member constituency, as would happen if the people vote "yes" in this referendum, the situation could arise—and it has arisen often where the system operates which we are now being asked to adopt— that one candidate would get 5,000 votes, another candidate would get 4,000 votes and a third would get 3,500 votes, that there would be only the one count and that the candidate with the 5,000 votes would be elected and the other 7,500 votes would be discarded as if the voters had no second preferences. The Taoiseach simplifies that and asks: "Why should we accept it that the man or woman who got 4,000 votes was preferred by the people to the man with 3,500 votes, rather than the man elected at the top of the poll?" That is why proportional representation gave the people the opportunity, in their lower preferences, of exercising that opinion among Parties and candidates.
That is one of the most beneficial results of P.R. In the previous debate here I cited examples with which I shall not weary the House now, but we do know how effectively the people used P.R. and expressed their desire to record more than one choice among the candidates presented to them for election. There are people who might like to see a smaller constituency. I was amazed today to hear Deputy Faulkner say that Deputies opposing the Government on this issue were doing it for Party and individual advantages. There is not a Deputy who would not like to have a constituency embracing one-third of the area that he has to cover at present, or one-fourth, or one-fifth, as the case might be. There is not a Deputy who would not have a better sense of achievement from having less people to look after and from having a smaller area to cover and, incidentally, less expense to incur. It cannot be alleged that any Deputy who spoke here on behalf of multi-member constituencies was acting in any selfish fashion.
The advantages to the Deputy elected under the straight vote system will be readily recognised. We know the advantages enjoyed in Britain, where one-half of the members of the House of Commons reside in the City of London. Certainly under that system they have nothing to complain about, a system that will re-elect them; they need not go near their constituencies because they have succeeded in getting into favour with the Party bosses. In that country, and in the other countries where the system operates, the safe seat develops. It is alleged, truthfully, that it may not exist here now but if it does not exist that is a tribute to P.R. because that is one of the greatest evils that could come upon any country. What do we find? We find that since proportional representation was jettisoned in the North of Ireland, there was a vast increase in the number of uncontested seats. In 1921, when they had P.R., every single seat was contested and the highest number of uncontested seats in 1925 was eight. They changed the system of election and in the first election subsequent to the change nobody could be got to contest a seat against the Unionists in 22 constituencies. Since that time six or seven elections have been held and on many occasions no fewer than 20 seats were uncontested.
Is the Government hoping to create a situation here where they will secure the uncontested return of a number of their outgoing Deputies? If that is their hope they are doomed to disappointment, should the people be foolish enough to adopt the system that would make that possible. That would be fought by the Opposition in the same spirit as they are opposing the proposal to create the situation that would make it possible.
We are told that all the problems that exist in the North are attributable to the gerrymandering which has been perpetrated there. We know that they gerrymander in the North but when Mr. Gallagher was writing his book The Invisible Island, he adverted to the fact that the system of election was also contributing to that. Others have also adverted to it and have proved that it was the amalgam of gerrymandering and the system of election that has made it possible for those in control to treat the minorities as they are treated in that area.
I heard the Minister speak here recently and he referred to the fact that proportional representation led to a multiplicity of small Parties. He said that there were several small Parties in Opposition in this House. I do not know what he would call a few, or much, or several, but of course everybody realises that we have not got several small Parties in this House. If he wanted to look around to find some Parliament where there were several small Parties in Opposition he would not have far to go because he would find that situation in Stormont, under the system we are told would lead to a situation where there would be only two Parties in existence.
There are nine recognised Parties in Stormont to-day, despite the fact that they have not had proportional representation since 1925. Surely that disposes of the argument that proportional representation is responsible for the creation of a number of small Parties and that, obversely, the straight vote system—the British system—leads to two major Parties and the elimination of all the smaller groups? At any rate, there is a considerable difference of opinion among Ministers as to the consequences of the enactment of this change in the Constitution, if it should be effected. Every kind of guess is being advanced as to what the consequences would be. Surely before a Government would embark on such a serious step, or ask the people to adopt such a change, they would have been in a position to assess the consequences of that step?
We know, of course, that an assessment has been made and we can fairly well guess the reasons why this is being done at this particular time. But we do urge on the Government that they have missed an opportunity of presenting this whole matter to an impartial commission. They have missed an opportunity, without losing face, of realistically examining all that is involved and letting that commission present a report. The report might recommend a system different from the one we are now exercising, but which also might be different from the system which the Government are presenting to the people as the only alternative to the system we have operated so effectively and for so long.
We are informed that the Government are desirous of giving the people every opportunity of examining all that is involved and we have had a slight example of what life would be like if the Opposition, and the minority groups, were squeezed out of existence by a change in the electoral system. We saw last week that a motion tabled in the Seanad, which referred to the provision of information for the public on this issue, was regarded so contemptuously by the Government that for the first time in the history of this State no Minister was sent to the Seanad to sit in and listen to the discussion. That is indicative of the contempt which members of the Government have for the provision of information to the public. I am not saying whether there was much sense in that motion or not, but it was intended to convey more information to the public about the pros and cons of this issue. The least that could have been done was to have honoured that House with the presence of somebody who would represent the Government, who would listen to what was said and reply to it.
