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 1 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 Houes 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 scríosadh agus no focail seo a leanas a chur ina n-ionad:

bhfuil an Bille um an Tríú Leasú ar an mBunreacht, 1958, tar éis beachtaíocht thromchuiseach leanúnach a tharraingt i nDáil Éireann, gur dhiúltaigh Seanad Éireann dó, agus gur cúis imní agus easaontais i measc an phobail é,

Go gcinneann Dáil Éireann ANOIS AR AN ÁBHAR SIN leis seo gan beart den bhun ailt I 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 sóisialachta, polaiticiúla agus eacnamaí ocha na n-athruithe so 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 Lúnasa, 1959.

(Na Teachtaí Seán Ua Coisdealbha, Risteárd Ua Moalchatha).

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).

Mr. Desmond

Speaking on this motion last night I was endeavouring to stress one point which I consider it is more important to examine carefully than any other. I was trying to direct particular attention to the position, not as it may be after the next election— should this motion go through—and not as it may be in five years' time, but as it may be over the next 15 years. During the week-end the Minister for Lands said the next 15 years would be vital for our future policy. I want to concentrate on that facet of this issue. The Taoiseach is most anxious that the people should change from the system of proportional representation to the so-called straight vote. During the many discussions here members were inclined to over-estimate the volume of voting power there would be in each constituency under the proposed new arrangement. The new constituencies would be areas containing populations of between 20,000 and 30,000 people. It is safe to assume that the average would be about 25,000.

If we work out the actual number of voters in each constituency in ratio to the population, we get a figure of roughly one to three. That means that if there are 25,000 people living in a new constituency, the number of people on the electors lists entitled to vote would be approximately between 8,000 and 10,000 people. We know that it is an absolute impossibility to expect a vote of 100 per cent. in any one constituency. The result would be that in these new constituencies the number of people voting would be anything from 7,000 to 9,000 people.

Last night, some members said I was wrong. Apparently, they could not understand that position. Let us be more thorough in the examination of the position that will arise from the results in these constituencies. In ten years' time, should these proposals go through, it is safe to assume that conditions will be more or less normal. We may be in the position of having in each area a strong Government candidate, a strong main Opposition candidate and a candidate of a smaller group contesting the election. As I mentioned last night, in the rural areas the changes will not be so noticeable.

Let us examine the position that could arise in such a large industrial area as Dublin and, to a lesser degree, Cork, Limerick, Waterford or any large industrial area. If there is a fairly close contest between the Government, a strong opposition and a second opposition, no one candidate can expect to get a large number of votes. What then is to prevent the introduction into the political life of the Twenty-Six Counties of a new, deadly dangerous factor—the coming forward of a Party under an ultra-patriotic name claiming to represent highly-advanced Republican ideals and to be more advanced than anyone else in their determination to secure better conditions for the people? It is easy to see that this can happen and that such a political Party, ultra-patriotic by name, would carry with it a false ideology completely foreign to our people. But the people will not be told of the background and ideals of such a Party.

A voting strength of 2,300 or 2,400 in a large constituency in these highly industrialised areas could completely swing the balance in favour of the candidate of such a Party. At present it is imposible for that to happen. We may differ in relation to our aims, but under proportional representation the people who vote for a Labour candidate would be perfectly willing to vote 2, 3 and 4 for Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael after Labour, if they thought that by so doing they would help to keep out of this Parliament candidates of a reactionary Party.

I will give credit to the supporters of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael and say they would do likewise. After voting for their own Party, they would vote 2, 3 and 4 for the other established Parties. While we may disagree on economic principles and so on, we do not differ on the main issue. But, under this proposed system, the people who would vote for Labour can only put an "X" in front of their candidate's name. So also are the people who would be voting for Fianna Fáil tied down. They cannot combine, even if they would wish to keep out the candidate of a Party who may carry false principles in relation to the ideologies we hold sacred in this country.

Has the Taoiseach examined that situation? Does he realise that in ten, or, at the outside, fifteen years, we may be placed in the position that, owing to the election of such type of candidate, of such type of Party, between Dublin, Cork and the other industrial areas, we may have in this Chamber anything from 20 to 40 members of a Party whose sheer determination would be to carry out a policy in accordance with the dictates of a foreign Eastern power?

I am not accusing the Taoiseach of planning any such a thing. God forbid I should ever do so. I am not suggesting that any member of Fianna Fáil would wish for it. I know they do not. I am suggesting that, in their ambition to secure power for their own Party, in following the Taoiseach on his present line of approach, they have completely ignored the fundamental danger in relation to this issue. That is why I say, as a member of the Labour Party and as an individual member in this Chamber, that it is far more important for us to admit the right of the people to continue to vote according to a system they know and understand. After giving their No. 1 or No. 2 vote to the Party they are interested in, they can decide, if necessary, to follow up by giving Nos. 2, 3 or 4 to any other Party or any other candidate.

All I want is protection for the people, protection for the whole community. In the debate on this motion, that point has been completely ignored by the people who are so anxious to introduce a policy here which in other countries, we are told, worked so well. I am more interested in what may work well in the Twenty-Six Counties. I will not waste the time of the House by dwelling on whether it is good, bad or indifferent in England, America or elsewhere. We know that even in the United States the system of the straight vote has brought with it a greater state of corruption than we ever knew in relation to any system of election in this country. All the abuses that were said to have occurred long ago in the rural district councils, and so on, here, were honest in comparison with those under the straight vote system in some of the countries we hear so much about now.

I am not asking the Taoiseach to withdraw his motion. I do not believe in doing such a thing. However, I challenge the members of the Party supporting the Taoiseach, and himself, to prove where I am wrong in relation to this biggest danger-of all in connection with the possibility of the introduction of people and of members of a Party who, thanks be to God, were never able to show any strength up to the present owing to the fact that we had P.R. to protect us.

Under normal circumstances, and even with things as they are, I have a certain amount of sympathy with the Taoiseach. Like all other members of my Party here, I have consistently opposed certain measures. We supported the Taoiseach and his Government when we thought we were doing right. We all know that, in political life, there is no such thing as the completion of a man's job. We all know that anyone in public life who is anxious to do everything possible, who believes in an ideal and tries to put it into effect, cannot, when the time comes to retire, say: "I have done all I wanted to do."

I can understand the Taoiseach's difficulty. He has been the chief architect and the builder of a strong national Party. Over the years he, above everyone else, brought that Party to its present position of strength. Therefore, at the time of retiring, it is bound to be a problem with him as to whether or not the Party to whose success in the national life of the country he has devoted his life will in the future follow the headline he personally has set. I can appreciate that difficulty.

A bigger problem must rest with the Taoiseach. He may see that, in the next five years, his close associates— those who hold Ministerial rank and who, over the years and back since 1932, have held Ministerial rank—can be depended upon to continue the line of policy he has set down for them. But time is not charitable to any of us. I think it is safe to say that, within the next ten years, his successors must be moving on as he has to move on and as each one of us must move on, as time decides that we must be put on the sideboard of political affairs. That is why I am so anxious to ask the following question. Does the Taoiseach understand that, given what he asks for, the support of the people for this proposed system of election, within these ten years, if the Party are still in Government, power and control must, of necessity, be handed over completely to younger men who have not been tested as the senior men of his Government have been tested over the years?

I do not wish to repeat myself. I pointed out already the biggest danger of all. There is another danger and that is the tendency on the part of some of the younger members—but the men who probably would control the destinies of a Party and probably of a Government—to swing towards liberalism. There we have the two deciding factors. There we have the two opposing sections. Within the next 15 years, with a tendency of government towards liberalism and the introduction of a new Party with tendencies towards Communism, who will be the sufferer?

I am not offering my criticism in the sense of attacking a Government just because I am in opposition. I could not change my views irrespective of what Party may be in Government. Do we want to create a situation which, on one side of the House, will give a policy of liberalism and, on the other side of the House, 30 or 40 Deputies who, by their strength in the Chamber, will control to a certain degree the destinies of the people in the Twenty-Six Counties? That is a question that I want answered. It is the duty and responsibility of every Deputy, irrespective of the Party to which he belongs, to examine his individual conscience and to try to answer. Are we prepared to support a motion which is likely to give these results within the next 15 years? That is the matter on which the House has been divided.

As an individual and as a member of a Party, I have no hesitation in saying that I am prepared to go under direction to cast my vote which, in its own small way, will be a clear indication that, as a representative of a rural constituency, I am not prepared to be a party to the passing of a motion which can give us liberalism, Communism and a removal of the true Christian principle in government which has been recognised by every Government that we have had, whether it was a Fianna Fáil Government, a Cumann na nGaedheal Government or an inter-Party Government. That is one principle on which we never differed fundamentally. All Governments have been on one plane in that respect.

We can divide now and by the division can be forced into the position that the people will be asked, not what they think about P.R. or about supporting a new system of government, but whether they are prepared, having carefully estimated the results that may ensue in the future, to vote to retain P.R., whether they want to continue a system that has given representation to all Parties and which has been fundamentally safe for the protection of the people, or swing to a new system that may create a situation the consequences of which even the Taoiseach cannot foresee.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Belton.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Is there no speaker on the Government side, Sir?

Mr. Belton

In speaking in favour of the amendment, I should like to mention a few points. Deputy Mark Killilea last night asked us on this side of the House why we were afraid to let the people decide the issue concerning the abolition of proportional representation. I can assure Deputy Killilea that we are not afraid to let the people decide. If the Taoiseach and Government Deputies had their ears to the ground, they would welcome the amendment put down by Deputy John A. Costello and Deputy Mulcahy. They would welcome the amendment at this stage in view of the fact that the Bill was rejected by the Seanad because, I believe, public opinion is against the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill.

There was no public demand for the abolition of P.R. We are assured by the Taoiseach that he was approached by several responsible bodies throughout the country prior to the last general election who stressed that proportional representation should be abolished. It is a strange fact that the Fianna Fáil Party made no mention of that amongst their various promises during the 1957 election campaign. I can assure the Government that the people are very disturbed by the introduction of the Bill.

The Government introduced the Bill in the Autumn of last year and the Dáil and Seanad have spent practically full time for the last six to eight months debating it. At the same time, the Government have made no mention of the questions of unemployment and emigration which they highlighted as points of policy during the last election campaign, and have done nothing to effect any improvement in regard to those problems.

There is a very important series of points which I should like to bring to the notice of the House. One is the fact that, prior to the enactment of the Constitution, P.R., in the mind of the Taoiseach, was something that it was essential to retain. In 1937, the Taoiseach said:

The system we have we know; the people know it... ...we have to be very grateful that we have had the system of proportional representation here. It gives a certain amount of stability,... you have fair representation of Parties.

He said that if you take the countries where P.R. exists you get better balanced results than in other countries; that we get the benefits of P.R. here in reasonably balanced legislation. That was the opinion of the Taoiseach in 1937, when he introduced his Constitution. P.R. has been in operation here since native government was established. It has been mentioned that the people of other countries where the straight vote system is in operation have regretted the fact that they have not had the opportunities of voting under proportional representation.

The Taoiseach and Government speakers have referred to the question of stability in relation to the straight vote, which they are anxious to introduce. It is interesting to know that the average life of Governments in England is two and a half years. It is also two and a half years in this country but the two inter-Party Governments that were in power here each lasted for three years. In England, during the same period there have been eight Prime Ministers and ten changes of Government. In the same period in the Twenty-Six Counties we have had three different Prime Ministers or Taoisigh. It is obvious, therefore, that there has been more stability brought about in this country under proportional representation than there has been in England under the straight vote system.

In the early days of the debate on proportional representation, reference was made to the effects of proportional representation in France. I understand that France did not have proportional representation except in 1945 and 1946. It is a strange thing that Fianna Fáil speakers have not cited France as an example for the last few months. In my opinion whatever argument we may have against the type of Government that exists in the Six Counties it is really an argument in relation to the system that operates there. The system that operates there is the straight vote. At some time or another, speaking at by-election meetings or general election meetings outside the church gate, every Deputy has referred to the gerrymandering that has occurred in the Six Counties. Now, that gerrymandering can only occur under the straight vote system. If it is agreed, and I think it is agreed, that the voice of the plain people should be heard, then opportunities must be granted to minority groups to gain representation.

There is a move on foot now to abolish proportional representation for Parliamentary purposes. That is the forerunner to abolishing proportional representation for local authority purposes and that is the worst aspect of this whole situation. In the area I represent in the Dublin Corporation we have a Residents' Association representative; we have a Ratepayers' Association representative; we have an Independent; we have a Fianna Fáil representative, and I represent Fine Gael. That is the wish of the electorate in relation to representation in No. 1 area, Dublin City. Do the Government intend to deny the Ratepayers' Association, the Residents' Association and the Independents in that area the right to have representation in the Dublin Corporation?

We have had people of all shades of opinion, all shades of thought and different creeds speaking on this Bill. I wonder what world opinion will be if we do away with proportional representation in face of all the criticism over the last 30 or 40 years of the Unionist Government in Belfast? We have boasted of the fact that here in the Twenty-Six Counties we afford the greatest opportunity that any community can have for gaining representation in this House. We offer the Unionist element, and the other minority groups, proportional representation to afford them an opportunity of raising their voices in the Parliament of the nation.

Deputy Killilea said last night that Opposition speakers had made no case against this Bill. That is an expression of opinion. It is the opinion of Deputy Killilea. If he is right the onus is, of course, on the Government to make a case for the abolition of proportional representation. That they have not done. We have had proportional representation here for 37 years and, as I pointed out, we have had a more stable Government here than they have had in Britain where the straight vote system operates.

Deputy Killilea said that in 1927 Cumann na nGaedheal were dictators. Again, that is a matter of opinion. Again, if he is right, the question arises as to why they were dictators. They were dictators because the people now sitting on the opposite benches would not come into the Dáil and form a healthy Opposition. But that opportunity was there for them because the system of proportional representation operates here.

Several examples have been given of the ill-effects of the straight vote system. I shall just give two to strengthen the case I make. In the South African election under the British system—the straight vote—the Government Party got 598,685 votes; they got 92 seats. The Opposition got 608,165 votes; they got 43 seats. The Opposition had 10,000 more votes but they got 49 seats fewer. They got 50 per cent. fewer seats though they polled 10,000 more votes. That is a perfect example of how a minority can get control of Government.

In the Carnarvon Borough constituency in Wales, the Conservative candidate got 11,400 votes; the Liberal candidate got 11,100 votes; the Labour candidate got 10,500 votes; the Welsh Nationalist got 1,600 votes. The Conservative with 11,432 votes gained the seat. There were 23,300 opponents; 23,300 people did not wish the Conservative candidate to get the seat. Under the straight vote system he won it.

There was evidence during the last few days of a fairly good cross-section of British opinion, and British opinion in this instance is worth considering because the straight vote system has been in operation there since general franchise was granted. The leading article in the Manchester Guardian issued what amounts to a warning to the people here. We were advised to hold on to what we have and not to bother about the straight vote system.

In conclusion, I forecast another major Bill introduced in the Dáil. The Taoiseach received his first major political reverse in 1948; it was then for the first time he became dissatisfied with proportional representation. The first major reverse since he introduced this Bill last autumn was when it was rejected in the Seanad. I suggest that because of its rejection in the Seanad, after the next general election, the Taoiseach, whoever he may then be, if he comes from the Fianna Fáil Party, will have not 11, but 22 on the cricket team to ensure that any Bill which goes from here to the Upper House will be passed.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Childers)

I want to avoid mere repetition so far as possible. This whole question has been discussed for so long that the public, as a whole, is well aware of the position. I came across a few of the most perfect demonstrations of the kind of difficulties we believe will occur in the future, when the leaders of both sides of the House retire, and when the old traditions which divide the two major Parties have been forgotten by a younger generation.

This is an extract from the Netherlands News which is published by the Royal Netherlands Embassy at Hyde Park Gate, London. This is the May, 1959 issue. It was written without political objective, and certainly the author of it had no idea that it could serve any purpose in a discussion of P.R. in relation to the straight vote, in this, or in any other Parliament. It is simply a factual description of the kind of thing that can happen under P.R. when, as I have said, time passes and the great division of opinion that exists between the two major Parties ceases to have the same influence.

The article refers to the fact that Professor de Quay was appointed by Queen Juliana of Holland as Formateur to convene a Government which failed to make any progress and that the caretaker Government that had been formed in the meantime had ceased to exist. He then goes on to say:

Under Holland's electoral law of proportional representation, there are eight different parties in the new States-General, with the Catholic People's Party (49 members) and the Labour Party (48 members) in the lead. The coalition between these two in the old Chamber—when Labour had 50 members and the Catholic People's Party had 49—was strong enough, in its aggregate total of 99, to outvote all the other parties if the need to do so had ever arisen.

But as soon as the possibility of Labour going into opposition had to be faced, it became necessary for the Catholic People's Party to have not only one but practically all the smaller parties firmly on its side to be certain of an enduring working majority. Basically, this need for coalition is nothing new. Netherlands governments have been coalitions for ages. The new fact in the situation is the split-up between the two leading parties, which automatically increases the importance of the smaller ones.

In view of the fact that only the three Communists in the new Lower Chamber share the Labour Party's socialistic aims (though, of course, going much further in this direction than Labour), it would be child's play to unite all the other parties into a combination against Labour or Labour plus Communists.

It is not, however, a mere anti-socialist combination that is needed but a coalition which has to govern, and therefore has to have a programme accepted by all concerned for the next four years, at least on all principles and all main headings. In practice, this calls for a sort of survey of the policy points of all the different political groupings. Where, in a two-party country, the man entrusted with the formation of a Cabinet has not party aims to consider except his own, and to cast around for the most suitable men to carry out departmental duties, the Formateur of a Cabinet in Holland has to find out, in the first place, the different parties' precise aims. Next, he has to work out a policy plan to be submitted to each party in turn. He may find acceptance or refusal, or discover that certain modifications are necessary to lead to eventual agreement. This in itself is a lengthy process, entailing dozens of interviews with political leaders. The final stage, still beset with more than one difficulty, is to find representatives of the parties which have agreed to the proposed Government programme who are both willing and competent to accept the particular Cabinet posts intended for them. There may be situations in which a Party is willing to "come in" but is not satisfied with the particular Ministry offered to them; there may be competition for—or aversion against—one Ministry or another; there may be nine-tenth agreement, and discord on the last tenth. There may, it will be seen, be any one of scores of difficulties, minor or major.

That is why Professor de Quay's efforts have failed in the end.

It is true that this country is different from the Netherlands, that conditions may be much different in the future, but this statement made with absolute sincerity, simply as a report in the official issue of a publication by the Netherlands Diplomatic Service and, therefore, intended to be absolutely impartial and not to advocate, in itself, the elimination of P.R. in Holland but simply to state the immense difficulties under which they had operated for a number of years in forming Governments, seems to me to have some importance in relation to this discussion.

Apart from that, I want to deal with just one or two aspects of questions which require specific answers. We hear constantly from the Opposition statements to the effect that we are advocating minority Governments, that we are advocating the position in which if a Party secures, shall we say, 45, 48 or 40 per cent. of the votes, if the proportion of the votes gained by the other Parties is greater than that, then the Government are taking office as a minority.

We, in Fianna Fáil, want to make it absolutely clear to Deputies, and to the people, that we do not accept that conception of democracy. We say very definitely that the smaller Parties which together form a majority of the people have opposing policies, and it is not right philosophically to add their votes together and say they constitute a majority. It is absolutely right to say if these Parties choose to form a common programme upon which they are prepared to govern and if at all possible before the general election, and if then they gain together a total majority of the votes, they can elect a Taoiseach who, in turn, will elect the members of the Government from whatever persons he desires or in relation to the consents that he can get from the Parties.

Taking a specific instance, if the Conservative Government in Great Britain at the moment had 48 per cent. of the votes, the Liberal Party 9 per cent., and the Labour Party the remainder, and if the Liberal Party on many occasions votes with the Conservatives, so long as the Liberal Party declares that its policy is different from that of the Labour Party, we in Fianna Fáil wish to make it clear that we do not call that minority Government on the part of the Conservative Party.

I am prepared to state that there may be various philosophic analyses of the whole position but we claim, and we believe, that the duty of each elector is not only to elect his local representative to represent his area and to make sure that the problems of his area receive consideration, but it is also his duty to elect someone capable of either forming a Government or else of forming an alternative Opposition. We feel that the prime duty of the elector is to elect a person capable of forming a Government and we refuse entirely to agree that if Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael should gain something less than 50 per cent. of the total vote, that the Opposition Parties, having different policies even though they have an increased number of votes, constitute the majority.

General MacEoin

You would deem them to be the minority.

Mr. Childers

I have not said that they would be deemed to be a minority if they combine on a policy, but we would regard the Party with 48 per cent. of the votes as having the majority of the votes enabling them to form a Government. We do not accept that the minority Parties with different policies can add together their votes and then declare that they form a majority. We do not accept that idea in any way whatever. We do not believe that it makes for the formation of good Government or that it is a good political principle.

In quite a number of countries where the straight vote system operates there are, for long periods, absolute, complete majorities on behalf of the Government in office. In the case of Great Britain, where there are three Parties dividing the poll, there are periods when the majority Party gains all but a fraction of half the total vote. The position corrects itself from time to time. The existence of the straight vote system cannot prevent a new Party, with new ideas which are sufficiently practical to interest a large proportion of the citizens, from gaining office and throwing out a Party with a long traditional record of holding office, as was the case with the Labour Party in Great Britain in 1945 when they overthrew the Conservative Government and, for the first time, secured an effective over-all majority under the straight vote system.

I want to deal with another point raised in this debate. A number of speakers of the Labour Party have foretold the disappearance of the Labour Party if the straight vote system operates. I would say, knowing some of them, that they are being grossly over-pessimistic. If the Labour Party can devise a policy at an election which can interest all the people who hold trade union cards, and their families and friends, and if they can prove to the large majority of the workers that they have a policy, and ways and means of assisting the workers' interests which are so much better than those of Fianna Fáil, they cannot be prevented from playing a very preponderant part in the life of the Dáil.

If any member of the Labour Party will get up and tell the House the total number of people holding trade union cards, and the number of their families and friends, he will find that what I have said is true. The fact is that a great majority of the workers have voted for Fianna Fáil and some of them for Fine Gael because they feel that their interests have been protected and advanced through our social welfare legislation, through the establishment of the Labour Court, through protection of industry and through the many measures passed through this House since 1932. There is nothing the Labour Party need fear if they can produce the candidates and prove to the workers that Fianna Fáil has grievously failed; if they can do that they can gain support, under the straight vote system, of the most massive kind.

We are prepared to accept that challenge for the future and to defend our own position in regard to the protection and advancement of the interests of the workers. If we fail in that the Labour Party should then, if they have the men, the ability and the policy, meet great success in the future. I feel that Fianna Fáil have consistently stolen the thunder from the Labour Party and that it is for that reason that the Labour Party is in their present position in the Dáil.

I listened last night to Deputy Rooney. I think that of all the Fine Gael Deputies he has shown the greatest pessimism in trying to foretell the future of his Party should the straight vote system operate. He quite clearly indicated that, should the straight vote system operate in the country after the election, it would be 20 years before the Fine Gael Party could overthrow the Fianna Fáil Government. Underlying the whole debate is the fear that, although the Taoiseach is retiring from public life, Fianna Fáil is going to be provided with some miraculous powers so that for 10 to 15 years from now, when there will be threequarters of a million new electors on the register and conditions will have completely changed, they will be so perfect and so skilled in political life that there will be no chance of their being defeated under the straight vote system.

That does not happen in democracy. The world is changing very rapidly and I myself would feel that, however successful we may be in the operation of our plan for economic expansion, time will take its toll of any Party governing this country. I say this to all the people who are being deluded by the craven-hearted speeches of Fine Gael. It would be better for Fianna Fáil if we had a strong Opposition. A Government thrives on the work of its opponents. We would much prefer to see an Opposition with verve and vitality and to have people in Fine Gael who will say that "whether you change the system or not someone will throw you out sooner or later." A Government lives on a strong and active Opposition. A Government prospers when there is a strong alternative policy and a strong Opposition facing it from the Opposition benches. It is not good even for Fianna Fáil to have this kind of craven-hearted talk going around the country as though we could never be defeated, though for the past 30 years the same people, on the same benches, have been saying that Fianna Fáil have been preserved over and over again from total defeat because of the miraculous effect of the personality of the Taoiseach.

I can assure the House that some of the people who have been confused in the last few months over this talk of dictatorship are just beginning to wonder what it all means. I suppose that part of the fear expressed that the change of voting involves perpetual government for Fianna Fáil, however much circumstances might change, is due to a lack of understanding about the sort of changes in policy that are likely to take place in future. I want to repeat what I said on a previous occasion, that unless some very extreme Socialist Party starts in this country, it would seem to me that the policy changes in the future are likely to relate, not to the sort of dramatic questions that we used to have in the past when there was the conflict over the Treaty, when there was the conflict over the economic war, the conflict when Fianna Fáil started a State development programme of social services, housing and industry—

Mr. O'Sullivan

The cattle industry.

Mr. Childers

——the conflict is likely to take the form of arguments over highly technical questions. For example, the programme for economic expansion has been generally well received in all parts of the House, however much individual Deputies or Parties might like to give emphasis, to a greater or lesser degree, to one or other aspect of that programme and that being the case it would seem to me the political changes in the future are likely to be on highly technical matters, on matters relating to the expansion of our economy, the amount of investment by the State and private industry, the amount of investment by banks and commercial financiers.

Marketing questions in relation to cattle, pigs, and other products are likely to form the principal issue and, unless we can foresee the arrival of a strong Socialist Party—which at the immediate moment seems unlikely—I do not believe that there will be any major changes of economic policy for the next ten years. I think the arguments there are going to be close knit, and I think it is essential that the people should be given a chance of a form of election in which if a number of Parties join they will have to make compromises with one another, in advance of the election. They will have decided what their joint policy shall be, in order that there will not be confusion through a Government being formed as a result of the conflicting strengths of individual leaders and individual personalities, the conflicting strengths of Parties representing one point of view as against another point of view, the conflicting strengths of Parties representing the sectional interest of one group of people as against the sectional interest of another group of people.

It is because, as I said, the economic programme has received a large measure of general acceptance that I feel in the future our arguments here —unless there is a crisis, unless some extreme Party forms—are likely to be based on details of technicalities, on matters of investment, on allocations of taxation and that, therefore, it is all the more important to ensure the stability of government in this country, to ensure effective government.

I should like to repeat that we are not a country with large mineral resources, and with a world trade, established over centuries. We are not a country with so large a measure of development per head of our population that we can afford to have serious financial crises, balance of payments difficulties, serious disruption of investment through the invasion of some new Party which, by its membership in a coalition Government, can create an extreme lack of confidence in the people who tend to invest in the country and in those outside. I feel that almost the major consideration that we face in the immediate future is the fact that all of our people instinctively wish to have the sort of standard of living that is available in the sterling area, that our resources are far less than those in the sterling area and that if we are to succeed, we must, within that condition, absolutely ensure that our courses of production in both field and factory are kept at a competitive level. I am very well aware, from meeting people who wish to establish industries here, that their principal guiding policy is always: "Well, Ireland is a pleasant place to live in and you have not got the labour difficulties that are to be found in highly industrialised countries, but what are your costs? How much is it going to cost us to export the product?" Exactly the same holds good for our native industrialists whenever they seek an export market. They have to count up the costs, and one of the principal costs is the absolute remoteness from many of their markets and the extra freights they have to pay.

The same is absolutely true of the agricultural industry. There are a great many farmers who are taking advantage of the combination of the N.F.A. plan and the Government's plan for the subsidies for fertilisers, but who, all the time, are making calculations in their minds as to what the competition is likely to be in the product they are to sell. The difficulties we will experience, for example, in the growth of the pig industry, where competition is very tough, are a clear indication of the necessity for almost extreme financial stability. I cannot see the kind of negotiation you have taking place in Holland, which is a country with a long tradition of independence, with a world-wide commerce and a shipping industry, taking place here without disruption. They may be able to take Government crises in their stride when forming Governments, but I cannot see us doing that under our present circumstances and it is for that reason we on this side are recommending a system which will make sure, if there are minorities, that they shall, as far as possible, compose their differences—if they wish to form a Government—in advance of an election.

Finally, I should like to deal with another point. It has been suggested many times in the course of this debate that in countries where the straight vote operates, the minority viewpoint is not expressed in the Parliaments of those countries. That is sheer and absolute nonsense. You have only to read the debates of the House of Representatives in the United States of America to know that in the two principal Parties in that country, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, there are people pressing for almost every conceivable minority viewpoint, having that viewpoint debated in their committees, and pressed far forward. They may ultimately have Party discipline which may, on occasion, prevent a particular expression, a particular point of view, from becoming implemented. They may get half-way and see at least part of what they are advocating adopted by the Government, but no one could possibly say that in the United States, any more than in England, minority viewpoints are not expressed under the straight vote system.

In the United States, you have the freest expression given in the United States Congress and the House of Representatives to Prohibition; free expression given for the advocacy of a far higher rate of tariff than is now prevalent in the United States. You have people advocating isolationism— that it would be better for America to withdraw from world politics. You have people advocating penal reform; you have people advocating greater rights and privileges for women; and you have people, on occasion and when it is deemed necessary, expressing a particular religious view in regard to a moral problem in which the Government are involved, to mention a few examples of minority viewpoints freely expressed and, not only expressed, but considered by the major Parties. Exactly the same thing could be found in any country where the straight vote system operates and where in those countries it so happens that the Opposition and the Government are confined largely to the two main Parties. We could not possibly foresee, in this country, what would be the final result of the straight vote system.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Hear, hear.

Mr. Childers

It may not be that there will always be two main Parties. It might happen, for example, that there might be a Party largely representing the urban interests and a Party largely representing the rural interests with the same sort of general economic point of view who, in advance of the election, will decide and will make clear to the public what they will do, if together they get a majority. You might have the same result occurring with two or three such Parties representing different interests but making quite clear in advance to the electors, so that they know when the election comes, what the united policy is likely to be. It might be that the result will bring about the perpetuation of two major Parties where there will be plenty of minority expression and where the minority point of view, the special point of view, the point of view relating to new, untried policies, will have full expression and if they are worthwhile they will sooner or later gain their way in the course of the years.

As I say, it is impossible for us to predict what the ultimate future will be. I wanted to make these points clear and in particular to make clear our view with regard to minorities, that we do not add together the votes of minority Parties who together might have a majority of the votes. We consider that as these minority Parties have different policies, it is the Party with the largest number of votes having a common policy that should constitue the working majority for the purpose of forming a Government.

Mr. Donnellan

In reply to the Minister for Lands the challenge of this side of the House is that Fianna Fáil want a minority Government and if he were to talk for another hour he could not convince us that Fianna Fáil want anything else. I have here a pamphlet published by the research group of An Tuairim and if the Minister for Lands looks at page 12 of that document he will see where it gives an honest case for and against P.R. He will find on that page an example in which it says that if an election was held and if A got 34 per cent. of the votes, B got 33 per cent. of the votes and C got 33 per cent. of the votes, A would be elected although 66 per cent. of the voters in the constituency would be opposed to him. It says that therefore if there was a three-cornered fight in every constituency it would be theoretically possible for a Party with 34 per cent. of the votes to win every seat in the Dáil.

The Minister for Lands stands up here today and says that Fianna Fáil does not want minority government. Surely if they succeed in abolishing proportional representation, they are looking for a minority government? They want minority government because they know very well they would have no business going before the people again under the system of P.R. in the hope of coming back here again as a majority Government.

Mr. O'Sullivan

They have said so.

Mr. Donnellan

They have said so, and when the Minister for Lands stands up and asks: "Oh, why do the Opposition not join together and have a policy?" we may well ask what policy did Fianna Fáil put before the country in the last general election? What did they tell the people they would do? For instance, what about the 100,000 jobs that the Tánaiste was to produce? Where are they? That was part of their policy—100,000 extra jobs. They are in office now for over two years and, instead of providing extra jobs, over 50,000 people are rushing out of the country every year and there are as many unemployed as there were two years ago. They have not provided one of those 100,000 jobs mentioned in their policy.

It is easy for the Minister for Lands to say that there should be a united policy between Fine Gael, Clann na Talmhan, Labour and all the other Parties. Where is Fianna Fáil's policy? How much of the policy which they promised the people at the last general election has been carried out in the last two years? Absolutely none of it. Instead they have taken up the time of this House, time which could have been more usefully devoted to considering certain economic problems which confront us, with a proposal to change the electoral system so that they will have a chance to come back here as a minority Government. It is their only hope. The Minister says that they want vigour from the Opposition. He says that the Opposition are not vigorous enough to help the Government. God knows someone would want to help the present Government. However, they are trying to help themselves by trying to force a Bill—"rush" is the word—through the House in order to get back as a minority Government, as they know that they would never get back with anything like the majority they got in the last general election because of the promises they made.

They promised that unemployment would be reduced and they promised that emigration would be reduced. They promised £250 million for national development. All that was damn nonsense and nothing else; they deceived the people in the way in which they got that majority. Again, the Minister for Lands spoke about the curse of coalitions and the Taoiseach, or I suppose the ex-Taoiseach in a few days, also spoke in the same vein. Are the people not entitled to vote for any Party, or any group, or any individual they like without any dictation from Fianna Fáil, from the Taoiseach or from the Minister for Lands? Why should they have any dictation from anyone?

In 1948 the Coalition Government came into office and in the following general election they were turned out, not by the voice of the majority of the people but by the voices of a few Deputies elected as their supporters. Then they turned over and gave their support to Fianna Fáil. They were great people when they did that. Deputy Dr. Browne, now an Independent in this House, was the greatest man that ever lived when he did that but when they began to realise his position with Fianna Fáil it was a different matter. If you are with Fianna Fáil and agree with Fianna Fáil and say that everything that they say and do is right, you are the grandest fellow in the world but once you disagree with them one iota you are as black as the ace of spades and not fit for society. They believe that there is not a Deputy entitled to sit here unless he is a Fianna Fáil supporter. That is their view and that is what they are aiming at.

I should like to ask the Taoiseach to say, when he is winding up this debate, why he wants the single non-transferable vote to operate in only one type of election—in elections to Dáil Éireann. Why does he not have it for the Presidential Election? The transferable vote operates for the Presidential Elections and for local government elections. Why is it that it is wanted so badly only for elections to the Dáil? One reason is that by means of this non-transferable vote they expect to get the minority Government the Minister for Lands is trying to tell us they do not require.

The guiding light of the 1937 Constitution, according to the Taoiseach, was P.R., in that any Party could go forward and people could elect whom they wished. Now in 1959 we are seeking to extinguish that guiding light, to wipe out small Parties. One time they say that is their intention and another time it is not.

I listened to Deputy Killilea here last night. As in the case of the Minister for Lands, one would know his heart was not in it. One knows when people are speaking against their will. Many Fianna Fáil Deputies know this is their death-knell and that they will never come back to this House. Deputy Killilea reminded me of a child passing a graveyard whistling to keep up his spirits. Many Fianna Fáil Deputies and Fianna Fáil supporters throughout the country will not vote for the abolition of P.R. when the time comes because it does not suit them to do so. It was never the programme of Fianna Fáil but the wish of one man and one man only who is about to depart. May I pay him this compliment: by going he is doing the first good turn he has ever done for the country? In order to confuse matters the old warrior is throwing himself into the scales on the same day as the Presidential Election is being held so that as well as voting for the Taoiseach for President the people will also be inveigled into voting to abolish P.R. In answer to a Question in the House he said the two would not be held on the same day. The following day he said here they would be held on the same day.

A great deal of the time of this House has been taken up on this question. When the Bill went to the Seanad and was rejected I thought the first thing we would have would be a motion to abolish the Seanad. However, I suppose there will eventually be a change so that the Taoiseach will be able to nominate 22 Senators instead of 11 to make sure he will have a majority. We all know about the six Professors who wrote a letter to the paper expressing their views as to the danger of abolishing P.R. Of course they do not count. It is "Professor" Corry and "Professor" Killilea who count.

I should like to tell the Minister for Lands, since he is here, that there is a great deal of unrest in the country in relation to the policy which they were supposed to put before the people and which they said the other Parties should have. However, Fianna Fáil did not produce the 100,000 jobs and they abolished the food subsidies they were not to abolish. There is quite an amount of unrest in the country even in relation to the Minister's own Department. People are taking the law into their own hands on account of the Minister's lackadaisical attitude in his Department.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

These matters do not arise on the motion or the amendment.

Mr. Donnellan

I shall not press that. I just wish to point out to the Minister the unrest and the uneasiness among the people in regard to the Department of Lands due to the attitude of the Government.

Mr. Childers

The Deputy will get a shock when he hears the news.

Mr. Donnellan

The Minister will get a shock pretty soon. Something would want to be done quickly. This is a very reasonable amendment in the names of Deputies Costello and Mulcahy. It merely asks that a joint committee of the Dáil and Seanad should be appointed to examine this question and report back not later than the 29th August next. That is not a long period. Even at the last moment may I appeal to the Taoiseach to accept that very reasonable amendment?

The Government is rushing this legislation through. Deputy Killilea said some people were afraid. I never heard a speech from Deputy Killilea in which somebody was not afraid of something. I know who is afraid; it is Deputy Killilea who is very much afraid. He would not have spoken in the House were he not compelled to do so. There was no great rush about this measure. We have had P.R. for 40 years and it has worked very well. It is unreasonable to rush to the people and ask them to decide this question and the other issue on the same day so that the decision will be in favour of Fianna Fáil. I would ask the Taoiseach to accept the amendment so that this debate can conclude very soon.

In order to prove further how wrong the proposed system is I should like to refer to this pamphlet of the Tuairim Research Group. At page 16 it says in relation to England:—

In 1945 the Labour Party got 48 per cent. of the votes; yet it won two-thirds of the seats and the result was a major landslide in favour of the Labour Party. In 1951, following a general election, the Labour Party increased its total vote to 48½ per cent., but lost the election to the Conservatives who obtained a smaller share of the poll than Labour.

If there is a condemnation of the single non-transferable vote, it is that. We need not go to Tasmania, where the Minister for Health went, according to to-day's paper. In the 1945 general election in England, the Labour Party polled 48 per cent. of the total vote cast and won two-thirds of the seats. At the following general election, they polled 48½ per cent.—they increased their total vote by another half per cent.—and yet they lost the Government to the Conservatives. That is the greatest condemnation of the single non-transferable vote.

This is merely a gerrymandering job by Fianna Fáil and by the Taoiseach before he leaves this House. They intend to go before the country and gull the people into voting for the Taoiseach and for the abolition of P.R. That is their game, but, in my opinion, it is the worst thing that ever happened this country. At present the voter is entitled to give first, second, third or fourth preference, as the case may be, to any candidate to whom he wishes to give it. I hope he will not throw away that right.

Mr. Palmer

This is the first time I have spoken in this House on this Bill. I have been trying to think of something to say that has not been said so far, and I can assure the House I am up against an impossibility. From all sides of the House, views have been put for and against. It is a pity the situation ever came about in which there was a necessity to have this discussion, over the past six months almost, on a matter that should never have arisen. During the past 40 years, we have been voting under a certain system. It was first introduced in Sligo in 1919. I heard the Minister for External Affairs state shortly after the introduction of the Bill that P.R. was imposed on this country by the British Government. It was not. The only system of election imposed on this country by the British Government is the one that Fianna Fáil wish to go back to, the single non-transferable vote.

It has been said that all the libraries in Europe were ransacked to find out the situation in different countries, but it is easy to find out the reason why P.R. was introduced. For some years prior to 1919, the Corporation of Sligo had failed to carry out its duties and the finances of that corporation were in a state of chaos. There was only one Party represented on the corporation and they failed to enjoy the confidence of those who elected them. A ratepayers' association was set up to see what could be done to bring about a situation by which the business of that corporate city would be carried out. They tried several means. They studied as far back as 1911, when the late Arthur Griffith advocated the system of election under P.R. They also studied the recommendations made by the Proportional Representation Society of England. They consulted the then secretary of that association and they asked their then Member of Parliament, a Mr. Scanlon, to introduce a Bill into the British House of Commons by which the members of that corporation would be elected under the P.R. system. The Bill went through and the election was carried out under that system. An English official came over to help them and to show them how the system should be carried out, the votes transferred, and so on.

They elected a corporation that enjoyed the confidence of the people of Sligo for years afterwards and ever since. In fact, so much so, that other municipal bodies asked that that system be introduced throughout the country. It was incorporated in the Constitution of 1922 and in the Consitution of 1937. The statement of the Taoiseach on that latter occasion has been quoted often in this House during this debate in which he praised the system and went so far as to thank God that the people of this country had such a system by which all sections of the community would be properly represented.

If we go back to 1927, when Mr. Cosgrave was President of the Executive Council and when Fianna Fáil had not yet entered this House, we see that if Mr. Cosgrave had introduced a Bill to abolish P.R. in the 1922 Constitution, Fianna Fáil would not have entered the House at that stage and perhaps never since; but like the statesman he is, he did not do it because he was anxious that all sections of the Irish people should be properly represented in this House and because he favoured the entrance of Fianna Fáil, and so they came in.

I do not see what objection the Taoiseach and the Government have to P.R. During the past 40 years, did anybody ever hear any organisation or individual of any kind, at any Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael Árd Fheis or at any trade union congress, raise any objection to P.R., until the Taoiseach got his brain-wave in September last and announced that a Bill would be introduced for its abolition? It does not matter if Fianna Fáil say that its abolition is required for stable government. The people of this country are very wise. They can judge for themselves. I am perfectly assured that the members of the Fianna Fáil Party recognise, too, that P.R. has worked well in this country as it has worked well in the various European countries that have been among the most prosperous not only in Europe but in the world—in small countries like our own such as Norway, Sweden, Belgium and Holland. While their system may not be exactly the same as ours, nevertheless, their Governments are elected under P.R.

Our electoral system was changed by the Taoiseach when he reduced the number of seats per constituency—the majority to three seats. I am sure he did that, too, thinking at that time it would serve his Party. We all know that. We opposed it. It did not have the desired effect.

The Taoiseach may now think that, by abolishing P.R. before he leaves the political arena and introducing the single-seat constituency with the non-transferable vote, his Party will be in power at least during the period he expects to be at Arus an Uachtaráin so that he may still exercise the power he has exercised over his Party since, shall we say, 1927, when he entered this House. I assure the House that the people of this country are very wise.

Yesterday Deputy Killilea stated that we are a frightened people and a frightened Party. We are anything but that. I, for one, am not frightened of what will occur, nor did I hear any member of my Party or of any Party on the Opposition benches indicate they were feeling frightened even if P.R. is abolished. The new system might act and probably will act as a boomerang on the Government who introduced it.

Yesterday, Deputy Carew said that the best way to settle this matter would be to have a general election. I noticed that some members of the Government benches looked a bit scared at that suggestion. Deputy Killilea said that Fine Gael are out of touch with rural Ireland. If any Party is in touch with rural Ireland, it is Fine Gael. I can foresee the time when it can be said with truth, even as it can be said now, that the Fianna Fáil Ministers and leaders all have urban ideas. The Minister for Industry and Commerce is a good example. He never bothers about agriculture. All he is interested in is the advancement of industries.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think the Deputy is being relevant.

Mr. Palmer

I shall not go any further. I am referring to what Deputy Killilea said, namely, that we are out of touch with rural Ireland. The Fine Gael Party always helped agriculture in this country. We hold that it is the mainstay and the foundation of anything that makes the State prosperous.

The lecture by the Minister for Lands was most interesting, really. Somehow, it seemed as if he were lecturing the members of the Opposition and perhaps the people of the country as a whole on how they should form Parties. We have nothing to do with the formation of Parties. The people will decide that. It is their right to do it. There is no compulsion on candidates from the various Parties, prior to a general election, to come together to form a common policy. It is quite right that afterwards, if the combined Opposition Parties have a majority over Fianna Fáil, they would if they could agree on a common policy, form a Government because it is the business of the people to elect members to Dáil Éireann and that a Government be formed.

Some of the greatest and most successful Governments of the various countries of Europe and outside it have been coalition or inter-Party Governments. Whenever a serious emergency arises in any country, that is likely to happen. Suppose a war is declared in which Britain is involved. Do all the Parties not join together there, or at least as many as possible? The reason for that is that it has been regarded as the best means by which they can carry on the struggle and maintain the economic condition of the country.

My experience of the two inter-Party Governments was that when the different Parties met and when various important matters were being discussed, there was a certain amount of compromise, just as there is within a Party itself, just as there is within the Fianna Fáil Party when they meet. Have they not all different views? Surely they are not all "yes" men? They put forward their views and come to a decision. The only thing is that the people feel somehow that the Taoiseach rules the Party in a dictatorial manner. I do not know whether or not that is correct. The impression is abroad, anyhow.

The Taoiseach is regarded as responsible for the introduction of this Bill for the abolition of P.R. to ensure, as he thinks, that his Party will be in power for a number of years when he relinquishes the leadership. He may be right and he may be wrong. Nobody in this country believes, and neither do members of the Fianna Fáil Party believe, that this Bill is introduced and hoped to be put into operation for the welfare of the country—in order to bring about stable government. It is simply brought in, as the people know and as we have said from this side of the House and as I really believe, in order that, during the lifetime of the Taoiseach, when he expects to be President of the State, he will have his Party in office in this House so that he can still use his influence in connection with government because he is supposed to be a man who can never lose power during his lifetime. That is what people think; that is what we all think here. It is a perfectly honest view, whether it is right or not.

Nobody can hold that a system of election which has been so successful for the past 40 years in this country, and under which there has been no case of instability of government, can be said to be faulty and that a change should be brought about now. Nobody asked for the change. Deputy Booth stated that it was not necessary or correct that any organisation or that the people should express a view that a change should be brought about, as it was the duty of the Government in office to introduce any Bill which they consider is for the benefit of the country and get it enacted. That is a rather peculiar view. It is a kind of dictatorship. Any Party will try to carry out the views of the people who support them.

The Taoiseach called this a straightforward vote. There is probably something underlying that. Innocent people would think that this is a straightforward vote, not the straight vote, so, of course, they would say that the Taoiseach is right, that he is always straight. That is what his followers would say. They would think that now he is doing something straightforward. The Taoiseach will not refer to it as introducing the English system of voting or the Northern Ireland method of voting. That is really what it is. If Deputies carry their minds back to the time when P.R. was abolished in Northern Ireland, they will remember that the Taoiseach was loudest in protest against it, and rightly so, and that all the people in Southern Ireland were astonished and disgusted at the abolition of P.R. in Northern Ireland. I need not tell Deputies what has happened there since then, where one Party is in power and will be in power.

It was really too bad that the Taoiseach, at this time of his life, when he was inclined to move out of the political arena, should do anything like this, that is likely to cause serious trouble in the country in the future. If minorities are not represented in the House, where are they to go? In a troubled world, when, in this country, there are people of extreme views and when they have no right of representation in this House, there is a likelihood and danger that they will go underground and create serious trouble for the Governments of the future. Anything that would bring about such a situation, that would create unrest, is wrong.

The people were quite satisfied with the system of election that has prevailed here for the past 40 years. They have not asked for a change. They were used to the system. Now they are being asked to change it. It appears to be ridiculous that on 17th June next the Taoiseach will have brought about the situation that, when the elector enters the polling booth, he will be handed two ballot papers, one for the election of President, the other for the referendum. The President is elected under proportional representation. On the other ballot paper, the elector is asked to accept or reject proportional representation. It is a most peculiar situation. I believe that the two elections are being held on the same day deliberately to fool the people. As Deputies know, there are some electors, especially in rural areas, who are more or less illiterate, although there are not many of them now. Deputies know how such people can get confused. In the case of the Presidential election, they have to put the figure 1 before the name of either General MacEoin or Mr. de Valera and in the case of the referendum, they must mark the ballot paper with an X. Does it not seem rather cruel to ask people to vote under such confusing circumstances?

We, on this side of the House, have asked for the appointment of a commission to examine this matter. We do not mind whether the commission is comprised of members of the Dáil or Seanad or other experienced men. Such a commission could get all the information available on the various systems of election in other countries. Then the question could be considered as to whether the findings were acceptable or not. Whenever any peculiar position arose, a commission has been set up. There has been a Commission on Television. There have been many other commissions during the lifetime of this Government. There was a Commission on Vocational Education and on various other matters. Why not have a commission in this case? Then the question could be put to the people. Perhaps there would be a better system than either P.R. or the single seat constituency and the non-transferable vote. Dáil Éireann could decide which system they would recommend to the people. In that way, a great deal of trouble would be saved. It would save long discussion in the House and Deputies could be doing something better for their constituencies and the Government could be dealing with the many problems they have to solve and to which I shall not refer now.

It would be, perhaps, one of the greatest things in his life if the Taoiseach would accept the amendment, even at this late hour, or withdraw the Bill and let the system to which we have been accustomed be carried on until such time as a demand for a change came from the majority of the people, on the ground that the system of proportional representation had failed. I do not think the system has failed. It is a perfect system, giving rights to various minorities to be represented in this Parliament. It is a system which prevents unrest and perhaps revolution in the country. I am sure that, in the winter of his years, the Taoiseach would not wish anything like that to happen. I hope that at this late hour he will do the right thing for the welfare of the people.

Mr. MacCarthy

The motion before the House is that the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1958, as passed by Dáil Éireann be deemed to be passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, to which, of course, an amendment has been moved. The House should not have much difficulty in approving the motion in face of the fact that the Bill was passed through all its Stages by a big majority of this House after long debate. Then it went to the Seanad which, on Second Reading, passed and agreed to the general principles of the Bill, including, of course, the submission of the referendum to the people on the question of the straight vote. After many speeches and arguments, not a vote was changed simple or professorial, obvious or abstruse, but, by an accident of illness, two members being unable to attend, the Seanad failed in their final vote to stand by their previous decision, even though the balancing vote was available, but, being in the Chair, was inoperative.

Does the country feel that such a situation is sufficient as a basis for any act of legislation? I do not think that even members of the Opposition would suggest that it is sufficient sanction for any major proposal. Surely this Dáil, as the more representative, directly elected, Chamber, must have regard to the over-all picture of the two Houses in their decision. Certain elements in the Seanad were not pleased and a few professors, academically skilled but quite inexperienced in constitutional law and in political life, sought to lead the country in its decision.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has ruled that the actions of individual Senators are not open to debate on this motion.

Many comparisons have been made in relation to election results. When the people set out to elect representatives to this House, they seek to elect at the same time an organised body with sufficient strength to implement policy. On one occasion here, 68 members were elected for one Party, Fianna Fáil; 31 was the next highest figure; and there were four or five smaller Parties. Behind the scenes, a Government was formed from the 31—less than half the major Party—and a number of smaller Parties.

The last speaker said the people in England unite in time of war. During the last emergency here, Fine Gael were not able to keep the leaders of their Party together; they had to expel one of them.

We have been accused of rushing this matter. The complaint now is that the two issues will have to be decided on the one day. That is inevitable because of the delaying tactics indulged in by the Opposition during this debate.

Mr. McGilligan

Nonsense!

Mr. MacCarthy

In many countries in which some form of proportional representation is in operation, the people are often left for months with a caretaker Government. Such a Government can be disastrous and we propose to ask the people now to remove that danger and not tolerate a Government here composed of a leading Party wagged by the tails of four or five smaller Parties, the tail wagging the dog.

Mr. D. Costello

Several spokesmen from this side of the House have commented on the fact that since this debate began a great number of arguments have been put forward by Government supporters. They have commented on the fact that these arguments have appeared for the first time in very recent months. There is great validity in that point for many reasons. It is extremely significant that the many arguments we have heard here over the past few months were not voiced by any of the Government spokesmen before these proposals came before the Dáil or, perhaps, earlier when they came before the Fianna Fáil Árd Fheis. Up to that time, not one member of the Government Party who is now supporting this measure, to my knowledge, spoke on the question of P.R.—with one exception. None of the members of the Government Party who have now adduced many arguments against P.R., and are in favour of the proposal to change to the system which they now wish adopted, put forward suggestions concerning these matters before last autumn—again with one exception.

It is extremely significant that all these arguments have been thought up post hoc, and that Government spokesmen have now thought up many reasons why P.R. is not a good system, and why the proposed change is for the good of this country, but that before last autumn nobody spoke on these matters—with one exception. That one exception, as we all know, is the Taoiseach. Time and time again in the course of this debate, reference has been made to the remarks which the Taoiseach made concerning P.R. Whereas the Taoiseach suggested in 1937 when the Constitution was going through this House that he thought it was a system that worked well, and said he was in favour of it, it must be conceded that he had his doubts.

No other member, though, of the Government Party, none of the spokesmen who have taken part in this debate since last autumn, once suggested that they had any doubts about the system of P.R. I have listened to debates here, and I have read the speeches in so far as I was able, of many speakers on the Government side. So far as I am aware, with the one exception I have made, this is the first time they have criticised the system of P.R. which was adopted in this country in 1922 and 1937.

The significance of this is that these arguments have been thought up by Government spokesmen after the decision was taken by the leader of the Government. I do not accept the view, which is being canvassed in certain circles, that this decision was imposed on the Taoiseach by his back-benchers. If that were so, we would have heard them complain about the system of P.R. before autumn of last year—and we would have heard Government Party speakers indicating their opposition to P.R. before last autumn. Instead there was silence on the issue, and the spokesmen who have spoken in this debate, with that one exception, are able to point to no speech they made prior to autumn of last year denigrating, in any way, the system of P.R.

It is an inescapable conclusion that the decision which is now being put through the House, by the majority votes of the Fianna Fáil Party, was taken at the instance of the Taoiseach. Many arguments have been adduced since then to justify that decision. We have listened for many days to debates, arguments and theories showing that P.R. is not a good system, and to arguments and theories showing that what is called the straight vote is a better system.

It is clear now, at the end of these many months of discussion, that, in fact, there is really only one argument on which this proposed change is based, that there is only one argument which really motivated the Taoiseach's decision in this regard, that is, the dislike of the Taoiseach, and his colleagues now, of coalition government. It has been argued that P.R. leads to instability of government; we have heard it suggested that it was imposed on us by the British; we have heard it suggested that it led to dictatorship in Italy and Germany, for example; and we have heard the argument that it does not, in fact, lead to a good type of candidate and that the other system leads to better representation in the Dáil.

All these are arguments, I submit, that have been considered post hoc. All these are arguments that have been thought out to bolster up a case which depends completely on one argument only, namely, that P.R. leads to coalition government. I want this to be faced. I think it does; I think P.R. leads, as a likely consequence, to coalition government. I want to examine the argument that has been made by the spokesman of the Government Party, that that is a reason why it should be condemned. I do not think the Government Party have made the position very clear with regard to their condemnation of coalition government. I should like to hear, before this debate concludes, on what basis they place that opposition. Is it based on opposition to coalition government in theory, or is it based on opposition to coalition governments that have held office in this country? If it is based on opposition to coalition governments generally, I find it hard to see how such arguments can be substantiated without involving criticism of many other countries who have adopted coalition government, apparently to their satisfaction.

The situation, as we all know, is that P.R. is the system of election which every democratic European country, with the exception of the United Kingdom, has now and has had for a great number of years. Is the criticism of the Government against coalition government based on the fact that coalition governments are bad in themselves and if so, that all those Governments in foreign countries are bad? I do not think any such argument could be seriously put forward. Is it suggested, for example, to the Austrians, the Dutch, the Danes, the Swedes or the Germans, for that matter, that it is bad for them to have coalition government? Those countries which have had and have at present coalition forms of government have been able to govern themselves very well and very successfully and the system of P.R. which they have adopted has suited them and their needs and apparently has suited their political set-up in that nobody has suggested it should be abolished.

If, in fact, the Government's opposition is not to coalition governments in theory, then—and I think this is the real basis of their opposition—what the Government object to is coalition government in Ireland. The Taoiseach is on record as having said he hated this form of government. We have heard spokesmen very many times from the Government benches criticising coalition government in Ireland, and I think that the basis of the Government's opposition to P.R. is very clearly that they dislike coalition government in Ireland.

What I want to suggest is that the Government spokesmen who are approaching this very serious matter from that angle should now approach it in an unprejudiced and unbiassed fashion.

It is inevitable that when we come to discuss Irish affairs, and the merits and demerits of coalition Governments, the judgment of each of us is coloured by our experiences and by our own Party associations. I do not expect for one moment any member of the Fianna Fáil Party to applaud the coalition form of government. I do not expect them to suggest that coalition governments are good for this country. Equally I would suggest that they could not expect a member of this side of the House to denigrate the work of the inter-Party Governments.

It is my own firm conviction that the inter-Party Governments did a considerable amount of good work in assisting the people of this country to achieve better living standards, but I am fully aware that members of this House on the opposite side do not share that view. They are, in fact, now proposing a very drastic and radical change in our Constitution based on a decision which is coloured by political considerations. The Government have decided, because of their dislike of coalitions, because they realise that proportional representation is likely to lead to future coalition Governments, to abolish proportional representation, and I am suggesting for the consideration of this House that that decision is not an unbiassed or an unprejudiced one.

It has been taken as a result of their experience of being defeated by two coalition Governments. It has been taken as a result of their experience in fighting elections with different political Parties opposed to them and for that reason they cannot be expected to arrive at an unbiassed and unprejudiced decision. It seems to me that such an important and radical change of the Constitution should not be based, as it must be based, on their political prejudices and their natural bias-against two forms of two Governments which defeated them in recent elections.

For this reason I would have thought that the suggestion made early in this year, when this matter was originally discussed and which is again made in the motion now before the House for an independent commission to consider the matter, would be something that could be regarded as reasonable. I do think that an independent commission would come to the conclusion that it would be far better for the country to maintain proportional representation. Whether that is true or not and whether or not such a commission would arrive at such a conclusion it seems to me that, if the Government are bona fide in this matter and if they do not approach the problem from a prejudiced position, this motion would be accepted.

The Government are convinced that they are right. I accept that a number of the Government's spokesmen believe that what they are doing is right. I accept that they are sincere but sincerity is not enough. Whatever the position, the Government have made up their minds in this matter. They may have arrived at a sincere conclusion, from their point of view, but notwithstanding that, they have arrived at such a conclusion because they are naturally prejudiced against coalition Governments. I have said that that is the real reason why the Government are bringing in those proposals. I have no doubt that the real reason is the Government's dislike of coalition Governments.

All the other arguments put forward are so weak and feeble that they could not possibly provide the ground on which the Government have decided to bring about such a radical alteration in our affairs. It has been mentioned, for example, by the Minister for External Affairs, that proportional representation brought about dictatorship in Italy and Germany and it was intimated that this might happen in this country. I do not know if any person seriously believes that nor do I know how they could reconcile such a belief with the fact that proportional representation was put into the Constitution of 1937 in the heyday of Mussolini and Hitler. If it was thought then that proportional representation would lead to dictatorship, it was a very poor thing to insert it in the Constitution.

It has also been said that proportional representation leads to instability of government. The facts do not prove that. The facts prove that we have had fewer Prime Ministers than there have been in England in the last 37 years and that we have had fewer Parliaments than they have had in England in that period. The argument that proportional representation has been imposed on us by Britain is ridiculous and does not stand up to argument but the fact that that argument was used is an indication of how weak the Government felt their position to be.

I have said that this matter involves a very radical change in our Constitution. Is there any Deputy who will deny that? Is there any Deputy on the Government benches who will deny that the proposals involve a very radical change in our system of election and that it is likely to change the whole political set-up in this country? For that reason I feel that as far as we are able, from experience of other countries which have had this system of the single-member constituency, it is desirable before making this decision, which we are now called upon to make, to appreciate what is likely to happen if this motion is carried.

Figures have been quoted in this House, figures which have not been denied, which show that the single-member constituency system which operates in England can lead to minority Governments, Governments elected by a minority vote of the people. The figures for England which have been given in this House show that in recent years the Labour Party have been elected as a Government with a minority of votes but with a substantial majority of the seats in Parliament. The same is true of the Conservative Party.

One of the most striking examples of what is likely to happen may be seen in the recent elections in South Africa. In 1953 the Nationalist Party got 49.6 per cent of the votes and 92 seats. The Opposition Party got 50 per cent of the votes and ended up with 43 seats. The fact that these types of electoral results can occur, and have occurred in other countries, is a clear indication of one of the grave dangers that we have said should be anticipated, namely, that these proposals can lead, and have led in other countries, to minority Governments. In addition, of course, it is also clear from other countries that this proposed system leads to violent fluctuations in the manner in which the Parties are elected from one Parliament to another, and that the proportional representation system which has been operated in other countries minimises these violent electoral swings.

These are arguments we have put forward and we have been able to back them up by quotations and figures from other countries. They have not been answered and yet it does seem to me to be one of the dangers that we have to take into account, in deciding whether to adopt this system or not. It is quite possible, if this proposal is adopted by the people, that a two-Party system, such as has been recommended by the Taoiseach, and by some of the Ministers who have spoken on this matter, may develop here. It is also quite possible that it might not develop in this country for a great number of years, that is, the two-Party system which has developed in England, which has developed in the United States, and, to some extent, in South Africa.

An Ceann Comhairle

There was an arrangement that the Tánaiste would move a motion to sit late, at 6 o'clock.

Cuireadh an diospóireacht ar ath-ló.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 13 May 1959

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

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 13 May 1959