Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 26 Mar 1968

Vol. 233 No. 8

An Bille um An Tríú Leasú ar an mBunreacht, 1968: An Dara Céim (Atógáil). Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1968: Second Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following amendment:
Go scriosfar na focail go léir i ndiaidh "Go" agus go gcuirfear ina n-ionad:—
"ndiúltaíonn Dáil Éireann an Dara Léamh a thabhairt don Bhille ar an bhforas gur togra atá neamh-dhaonlathach go bunúsach an togra sa Bhille suas le 40 faoin gcéad de bhreis ionadaíochta sa Dáil a thabhairt do roinnt saorá-nach thar mar a thabharfaí do shaoránaigh eile."
To delete all words after "That" and substitute:—
"Dáil Éireann declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill on the grounds that the proposal in the Bill to provide some citizens with up to 40 per cent greater representation in the Dáil than other citizens is fundamentally undemocratic."
—(Deputy Cosgrave).

This debate has ranged over several days and there is little left to say so far as the pros and cons of the two proposals before the House are concerned. It is not my intention to go back on statements made in the debate that took place in 1959 because that would serve no useful purpose. So far as the merits of proportional representation are concerned, they were, I think, admirably summed up by the President in 1937 when he told this House that the system we have we know; the people know it; it gives fair representation to all Parties. No change has taken place in the interim which warrants bringing before the House at this stage the two proposals to amend the Constitution. The President summed up the position very well in 1937.

We know from the statistics provided by various speakers that proportional representation has given fair representation. The Government Party have benefited to some extent by getting a slightly higher percentage of seats than their actual first preference votes would entitle them to and I can see little reason, therefore, for this proposal now before the House, a proposal that is taking up a great deal of the time of the House and will later take up a great deal of the time of the Seanad. But there is another consideration: this referendum will cost a great deal of money which could be utilised in a more gainful manner. It can be safely assumed from the opinions we hear expressed in the country generally that this referendum has no chance of succeeding. The people will reject it because they know it is not brought in from the point of view of the national interest; it is brought in purely and simply from the Fianna Fáil point of view. Fianna Fáil in general, and the members of the Government in particular, believe that, if our electoral system were changed from proportional representation to the straight vote, they would have a good chance of remaining in office for the next ten or 15 years.

We did not do too badly under the old system—30 years out of 36.

That is so, but, for the Parliamentary Secretary's information, there is a trend which clearly shows that Fianna Fáil are slipping.

We have been hearing that since 1932.

We will not go back to 1932. We will go back to Thursday of last week, 14th March. I should not like to jog the Parliamentary Secretary's memory so far.

Fianna Fáil Ides.

It is so seldom Fine Gael win a by-election.

The Parliamentary Secretary forgets Galway.

Five out of the last six.

So far as the recent by-elections are concerned, the Labour Party was the chief gainer because they increased their first preference votes while Fianna Fáil dropped 5,000. In view of that gain and in view of the trend, it is most unlikely that Fianna Fáil will secure a majority of the seats here in the next general election. I am satisfied that beyond any shadow of doubt this referendum is being imposed on the people. I think the people are aware of that because changes have taken place here in recent times, changes of which cognisance must be taken.

I believe we have overlooked in our discussion here the discovery, if I may use that word, made by Deputy Cluskey, of the existence of an organisation known as Taca and all that goes with it. The reason I mention this is that I think it is completely out of place for the Government of any country, but particularly the Government here in Ireland, to be prepared to accept substantial sums of money from individual members of the community, from firms or from business people to help them along in their political campaign.

How does this arise on the Third Amendment of the Constitution?

I shall relate it to the amendment before the House. To satisfy the demands of the Chair, if the electoral revisions that are now proposed were to be approved, what, Sir, would happen? Unless people who would normally look to the Government for something to which they were possibly not entitled, such as planning approval, import licences and so on, which could be of great financial advantage to them, were members of Taca and unless they subscribed to Fianna Fáil, there would be little use in their making representations to the Government. I condemn vehemently any such system. It is unfair; it is unjust. It is a system that should not be tolerated and the people should know the purport of the Government's acknowledgment of the existence of a group of well-to-do people who, by virtue of even the smallest contribution, can buy favour from the Government.

How does this arise on the Third Amendment of the Constitution?

It arises from the fact that, if Fianna Fáil were to get their way, this country would be administered in such fashion that only those who were members of Taca or of some other Fianna Fáil organisation could expect to get even more than justice and fair play and opposition groups and those who had no inner say with the Government would suffer.

I think the Deputy should come to the Bill now.

That is incidental.

It shows the frame of mind of the political Party which the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Carty, has stated has been in power for 30 out of 36 years that they are prepared to accept private subscriptions. I do not think that would be tolerated in Britain or in other democratic countries.

Where do the Labour Party get their funds?

What has this got to do with the Bill?

Do they get their thousands from the trade unions, Liberty Hall? Explain, please. We would like to know.

Is it not about time you mentioned it? So far as the Labour Party are concerned, any funds they get are got from a union. They are vetted by public accounts and they come from a corporate body and the amounts are stated for the public benefit.

That is not relevant. I would ask the Deputy to get to the Bill.

Those are points Deputy Carty wanted answered.

If Deputy Murphy wants to continue he might do so now. We have discussed Taca and Labour Party finances, which are not relevant to the Bill.

It is for the benefit of our good friend, the Parliamentary Secretary. If Deputy Carty interrupts, I must answer him.

No, there is no necessity to answer him. It is not in order.

It would be discourteous of me not to answer him.

I will be courteous to the Deputy. If he does not wish to discuss the Bill, he might resume his seat.

I have no intention of resuming my seat. When I started, I intended to speak for ten minutes because all the pros and cons have already been discussed, but now with your indulgence, I may stay a little longer.

On the Bill. One is reminded of all the bad things the British did in the past, all that they have been guilty of, the time we were to build a wall, so to speak, around Ireland and have nothing to do with them, we should ignore them completely. Discussing this measure brings one back in memory to the time when we had the slogans: "Burn everything British except their coal" and "Thank God, the British market is gone and gone forever". All those come to one's mind in discussing this electoral reform because what we are being told by the Tánaiste and by the Government is that so far as electoral systems are concerned, the British were correct all the time and we were wrong, and as Deputy Carty has stated, it took Fianna Fáil until 1959 to know that this electoral system was not the best system and that it gave false representation so far as the election of parliamentary representatives was concerned.

It suited Fianna Fáil at one time to advocate PR and to speak most favourably of it. I have given a quotation from our President. Were it not for proportional representation, we would not have had Fianna Fáil government in this country for so long. We would not have the man who is supposed to be behind the schemes, the present Minister for Local Government, as a Member of this House, because even though he asserts now that the kind of electoral system which is in operation elects people on fourth, fifth and sixth preferences and it elects them with a small number of first preferences, he had not such great luck with it when he first tried to get into this House. Even with all the advantages that are supposed to be embodied in that system of representation, to get in here with relatively small support in the constituency, the Minister for Local Government failed to do so until, due to a stroke of good luck, a vacancy existed in the constituency because one of the Deputies did not go forward and he availed of that to get in here. He was then promoted to Ministerial rank, not on any personal qualification but due to circumstances which are well known to the House. Now he is the Minister who is lecturing us on electoral reform. He is the Minister who is telling us about TDs vying with one another for kudos in their constituencies. He never had to make any representation in that line. He had the good luck to get into the top ranks as soon as he succeeded in getting in here under the proportional representation system.

Now we are following Northern Ireland. It is no harm to mention our neighbour. There was a by-election in Lisnaskea a few days ago. This was something big in the place. I think it was—the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—the first or second contest——

The first contest in 20 years.

In 40 years— since 1929.

Twenty years.

The papers inform us that the Nationalist Party has 40 per cent of the votes in that constituency, but due to the system of election, there is no use putting forward candidates and the people in Lisnaskea, as in every place in Britain, have to be satisfied with the candidate imposed on them by the majority Party.

We are told by the Minister for Transport and Power, of all people, that this change in the system would bring in young men of marked ability, that it would remove duds from this house and that we would have a big rush of young intellectuals coming in here to promote legislation and we would be all more or less in heaven henceforward. This proposed system, in fact, instead of being conducive to that end, would produce the opposite effect because once a person is in here from a constituency which has a majority support for a particular Party, it would not be possible for others, even though they might be better fitted as public representatives, to become Members of this House so long as the outgoing Member felt like going forward for election. That is what has happened in Britain.

The Deputy is not showing any sign of going out himself?

No, that is all right. We will hold it.

No, but I am a bit worried about Fianna Fáil followers in South-West Cork. I am pleased that my good friend, Deputy Collins, is here with me when I say this. There are 10,000 supporters there, and if the straight vote system is introduced, those 10,000 people will have no representative in this House. I am not worried from a personal point of view if the Parliamentary Secretary is anxious about me.

Very anxious.

I am speaking from a general national viewpoint. May I say in further reply to the Parliamentary Secretary that I would not like to see that happen. I believe those people are entitled to representation in this House and I believe the present system will continue to operate and they will continue to have a representative here as they are entitled to have by virtue of their numbers.

The Minister for Transport and Power had a great deal to say about the merits of the straight vote. He mentioned young intellectuals coming along here under the straight vote system, removing some of those who are not deemed to be intellectual. Mind you, the Minister has had his difficulties. He mentioned people being elected on fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh preferences. The Minister was very glad to get fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh preferences in some past elections. I know that he had a painful time, particularly at a few elections in the Longford-Westmeath constituency, where his share of the votes according to him would not secure his election on the second seat and as a result he had to change his constituency to Co. Monaghan. The Minister for Transport and Power made it clear that the Party who had the majority of first preference votes was the only Party entitled to a representative from a constituency. If he were honest about that he would not be a Member of this House at all never mind a member of the Government because it so happens that in the Monaghan Constituency the Minister's Party did not get a majority of the votes of the people even though they got a majority of the seats.

Statistics show that Fine Gael got a majority of the first preference votes recorded in the Monaghan constituency. He had the audacity to assert here that those who were entitled to be Members of Parliament were only those who had received the most first preference votes and that subsequent votes should not be taken into account. We had others offering us advice in this debate as to what is good for the country. I think I must refer to the contribution of a former member of this Party, Deputy Patrick Norton, who has brought forward an amendment here and he has got great publicity for it.

Look over your shoulder.

Deputy Norton, as any other Deputy, is entitled to offer his views in this House.

Hear, hear.

Mark you, we must bear in mind that had the system, which Deputy Norton now wishes changed, not operated since 1959, Deputy Norton would not be with us to give us that advice. The alternative vote system in the first election he contested failed to secure his election. It was only because of the system of proportional representation that the Deputy now condemns that he is a Member of this House. I am not saying this by way of reflection on the Deputy. It is a factual statement. Were it not for PR the Deputy would not be hear to give us advice on the election system or what could or could not arise from it. He is one Member who quite clearly owes his election here to the present system of proportional representation.

I hate to interrupt the Deputy but that is not so. If we had the single-seat constituency and the alternative vote, and the Westmeath area was taken off my constituency I would be elected at any rate.

Your election arose as the result of the death of your late lamented father. Unfortunately, you failed to get elected then. It is quite clear that if we had not the present system you would not be here with us now.

It is different with a single seat.

I do not want to interrupt but Deputy Murphy should be allowed to proceed.

I hate to interrupt Deputy Murphy. It is in the interests of truth and fact that I interrupt him.

The Deputy should be thankful for this system because—and I repeat it again—it is quite clear that were it not for that system he would not be a Member of this House. The Deputy did not get the highest number of first preference votes and in the system which operated in the by-election he was the first candidate eliminated. The Fianna Fáil people were not anxious to change this system in the 1920s, neither were they anxious to change it in the 1930s or the 1940s. In the late 1950s they were anxious to change it because they felt at that time that there was a likelihood or a danger of their Party slipping and that unless they got a higher percentage of the votes their term in government might come to an end. We had Deputy Childers, the Minister for Transport and Power, and also Deputy Carty, the Parliamentary Secretary, telling us they were going to be in power forever under the PR system. I do not think so. The President thought that in 1948 and he got out of it. We had the inter-Party then.

Call it by its right name. It was a Coalition.

That is one of the best things that ever happened in this country. Fianna Fáil at that time were going along on a dictatorial line. They felt then that there was no need for a change in our electoral system. They were defeated in 1948. In 1951 I became a Member of this House and I am well acquainted with what the inter-Party Government did for this country in the two periods we had that system of government. We were headcause—an ing towards dictatorship. Unless you were a member of the Fianna Fáil Government or a known supporter of the Party it was unlikely you would get justice as far as grant applications and other entitlements that people would apply for were concerned. You were told that if you wanted to get benefits under Departmental schemes or Government schemes you must be a member of the local cumann.

The inter-Party Government in 1948-51 was set up as an alternative. I am well aware of the work done during that time. I was a public representative, even though I was not a Member of this House until 1951. They did a very good job. They did very good work in regard to housing and agriculture. They did very good work as regards the land of this country. They drained the land.

They flooded many of the rivers.

Their work was so good mark you that our President had to leave the country for a long term at the time. He took a long holiday during the first inter-Party Government period and stayed away from this country. By a fluke, although this would hardly be regarded as Parliamentary, they were defeated in 1951. Unfortunately, an opportunity arose over the health scheme at that time which resulted in the inter-Party Government not being defeated but being removed from office by Fianna Fáil getting the support of a few Independents. We know how they got that support and how they have paid for it since. Mark you, it must be said that in respect of this change which the present Government brought about with the support of Independent Members Fianna Fáil have honoured their obligation to some of them. Did that ever strike the Parliamentary Secretary?

A lot of things struck me about the two inter-Party Governments and it struck the country as well.

This Fianna Fáil Party has this idea, and they have got away with it for too long, that they are the only people who should rule Ireland, that they have a monopoly of rule and that their rule should not be broken. Under the present system the number of people who oppose the Government is far greater than the number who support them but due to fragmentation in the Opposition Parties Fianna Fáil were able to bring about a situation in which they got a higher percentage of seats than the votes given them. Of course under the other system they feel that the proportion would be much higher.

You will have under the other system an alternative Government.

Let us know what you will have under the other system.

An alternative.

Once you have a TD elected in one of your constituencies, unless and until a local applicant for a grant moves along with him, despite what Deputy Boland says, the grant will be withheld.

Why were the grants not paid in 1956-57? You are only warming up. Move up to 1956 and let us know all about that.

I do not like the Parliamentary Secretary interrupting me, but I do not take umbrage at it. We will have a system which to some extent is working to-day whereby in reply to letters of representation by special Deputies, Ministers imply that certain grants or pensions would not be granted at all were it not for the representations of these Deputies.

Nobody would believe them. That is cod.

I have read the letters. Do not ask me to produce one.

Do; produce one.

Is Deputy Carty worried about 1956?

Yes, why the grants were not paid.

We had an inter-Party Government in 1948 and in 1954 the people decided to elect another inter-Party Government. Unfortunately, we had the Suez crisis at the end of 1956 and to use the words of the Fianna Fáil people, owing to international circumstances, there was a scarcity of funds in the latter part of 1956. I stand by truth and do not hide or deny anything. I was in the House and I felt disappointed that the Government should have had the election at the time they did. I have no doubt that had the Government attempted it, in view of the work they were doing and in view of the confidence they were getting from the people at the time, we would have had many more periods of inter-Party Government since 1957.

I want to make it clear, giving my own personal views, that unlike Fianna Fáil, we are all unanimously against it. There are 70 of you at the present time and would any one get up and say: "I am in favour of PR and against the straight vote system." No one would do that.

What would happen if Fine Gael got up and said it?

They will speak after me and you can start examining them then.

Deputy Corry would Flanagan perhaps.

There would be some over there, too—Deputy O.J. Flanagan maybe.

They are not all in favour of the retention of proportional representation but they must row in with the Party. To do otherwise would be political suicide, so to speak. In so far as politics are concerned, as happens in Eastern Europe at the present time, their mouths are closed.

In the Labour Party we have a democratic set-up, much more so than exists in Fianna Fáil. I am quite confident, expressing a personal view, that our two periods of inter-Party Government were successful.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

I am not ashamed. I know there was consistent co-operation in those Governments.

What about the Minister for Social Welfare you had?

Would Deputy Allen please restrain himself?

When the inter-Party Minister for Social Welfare took office in 1948, he had to change the system which obtained up to that time whereby old age pensioners had to collect allowances under two headings, one as social welfare from the Department of Social Welfare and the other as a home assistance allowance from the local health authority.

My references to periods of Government other than Fianna Fáil were brought about mainly by contributions such as that made by our Minister for External Affairs—our man in Havana, or man in New York—and the Minister for Transport and Power, who stated that there is nobody else fit to rule Ireland or form a Government except Fianna Fáil. I disagree with that, and I hope that if the electors so wish it, this disagreement will be proved by the people. There are many people in the country who want to give Fianna Fáil a rest at the present time. I think they should be given a rest. We have this arrogant approach on the part of some Ministers which is due possibly, as Deputy Carty would say, to their being in office too long.

Do not be putting words into my mouth.

We have that arrogance, which we have had from the Minister for Local Government, the man who has sponsored this Bill. You would not find in the world today a more arrogant Minister than he. I am not speaking behind his back. I have had the pleasure of telling him that when he was sitting where the Parliamentary Secretary is now sitting.

We had this attempt nine years ago to bring about this electoral reform bringing in the straight vote, and the Government are renewing it now in view of the position that exists throughout the country, particularly among our honest working people, and the existence, to which I referred earlier, of a decline in Fianna Fáil circumstances. I think Deputy Childers and the Tánaiste need not be worried that an alternative Government can and may be achieved.

I mentioned at the outset that the ground of discussion on this Bill has been very well covered by previous speakers and I know that this particular point has been covered, but I should like to refer to it briefly as I have already referred to it. This safe seat business can arise. It has arisen in England. We know what happened to Gordon Walker.

Strange things often happen in the Labour Party.

If our Minister for Local Government were defeated, and mark you, from what we hear around the House and from people conversing in public, he has not much more than a 50-50 chance.

Do not back him at 50-50.

If he were defeated, some poor man like the Deputy who came among us last week, Deputy Barrett of Clare, would be asked to resign. They would say to him: "We will try to get you a seat in the Seanad or a job on some commission or board, but we must make room for this big man who unfortunately was unable to make it in his own constituency." Is that not what is happening in England? The Tánaiste said the English system is right. There is a by-election coming up in England which involves a seat deemed to be safe for the Conservatives. An existing Member is retiring and not going forward in the next election. They have 35 applications, according to last Sunday's press.

I am delighted to hear the Deputy is reading the Sunday Press.

It was the Sunday Express.

The Sunday Press was very interesting last Sunday. You must have been asleep.

That is what is happening. There are candidates from all over the country coming along to have their nominations considered, taking into account that it is a safe seat. That cannot happen under PR. All the Members of this House, with few exceptions, reside in their own constituencies. The exceptions are because of Government office or there is some other valid reason for Deputies residing outside their constituencies.

PR is a system I wish to see continuing and I cannot see any value in the argument put forward by Government speakers that it is too difficult for Deputies to get around their constituencies because multi-seat constituencies stretch distances up to 100 miles and that therefore it is extremely difficult for them to get around. If that is so, Deputies have a way out. During the 46 years this State has been in existence, there has been no shortage of candidates for the various Parties in elections, and if a sitting Member feels he is not physically or mentally capable of performing the duties appropriate to the multi-seat constituency system, there is nothing to prevent him from giving way, and there are many willing——

Martyrs for old Ireland.

——applicants to take over. The present system gives —as the President said in 1937, and it is as true today as then—fair representation. Statistics have been given in the House in support of the present system. They were submitted by Deputies M.E. Dockrell, James Tully and others, and there is no need for me to repeat them. As the President said in 1937, what we have we should hold.

With my colleagues on the Labour Benches, I violently oppose this proposed system of election. It has been brought in by the Fianna Fáil Government in the hope that even with declining support, they can hang on to office for a further period of ten to 15 years. We cannot look too far into the future. The motive for this proposal is purely personal. Their objective is selfish and I have no doubt that when it comes to referendum day, the Irish people will give them the answer they deserve.

Let me say a word about this tolerance business. Tolerance would suit me all right. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach has said, because he and his Party have been in office so long, many of the people had to emigrate from West Cork.

Your time has not yet come.

As a result, we have had to extend the constituency from time to time in order to keep pace with constitutional obligations. I agree with other speakers that the proposal to give better representation to western areas has been introduced as a kind of sauce for the PR proposal.

Cream sauce.

It is a method of trying to get the people in the western counties to vote for the proposal to abolish PR. Deputy Carty will agree that the two were to have been a package deal but that was knocked on the head after the Minister for Justice announced it on Telefís Éireann. From the point of view of tolerance, and speaking from the point of view of the constituency I know best—South-West Cork—Deputies Cotter, Collins and I are adequate to represent the constituency.

I should like to see as much representation as possible given to rural constituencies in the West, and if this proposal had been introduced on its own, there might have been a different viewpoint about it. Rural Deputies possibly have more to do than urban representatives, but at the same time I am not satisfied that the motives behind this proposed amendment of the Constitution on this question are good. Therefore I recommend that the House reject this as well as the proposed Fourth Amendment.

First of all, there may be a few among us who do not understand the dictionary meaning of "Fianna Fáil", which I understand to be "soldiers of destiny". I wonder, then, whether Fianna Fáil are doing this for their own good or in a lofty moment of thoughtfulness, for the country and its people. The PR system has been in use here since the foundation of the State. It installed Fianna Fáil in office and helped to keep them there threequarters of the time since. Why then do they come to us and say, as soldiers of destiny, that the best thing for Ireland would be to change it to what they call the straight vote and I call the British system—the first past the post system?

Politicians are pragmatists who think of the practical and are not usually of the lofty nature of the idealists who went before them in 1916. We have got to look at this from the point of view of practical politicians deciding what is best and most practical for the Party and secondly, for the people. I want to prove, if possible, that Fianna Fáil think that it is best for them that PR should go. It has been pointed out that because they have won five or six by-elections, Fianna Fáil would feel happy under PR in the next general election. The fact is, of course, that by-elections tend to be easy meat for one Party or another. For instance, I do not think they would like a by-election in my constituency at the moment. At the last local election, we polled 4,000 more votes than they did. We have 13 Fine Gael councillors, ten Fianna Fáil councillors, one Labour councillor, one Independent—a young decent lad who was not selected by Fine Gael—and one Sinn Féin.

He must be a Donegan man.

Yes, he is, a very good Donegan man. In that situation, I do not think they would like an election in that constituency. A win for Fine Gael, if there were a by-election in that constituency—if I walked under a bus, which I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary would not like——

I would not wish it.

We would give the Deputy a great funeral.

But if Fine Gael won that by-election, that would not prove that Fine Gael would win the next general election. What would indicate a change would be a trend over the six by-elections. In the six by-elections referred to by the Taoiseach, the position was that there was a swing away from Fianna Fáil and a swing towards Fine Gael and a swing towards Labour.

I want also to point to a complete mathematical mistake in the Taoiseach's speech — something that should be pointed to and must be adverted to. I hope the mistake was made by his aides and not by himself. He said only one parcel of surplus was looked at. That was done only in the Seanad election under proportional representation where each vote counts as 1,000 and where it is felt that the distribution could not materially affect the issue.

I have been confirmed by the Parliamentary Secretary in my assertion that the swing in six by-elections was against the Government. I just want to refer to the last countrywide test, the last test in which every voter in the State had the opportunity of recording his preferences under proportional representation, and that was in the local elections of last year. The Taoiseach, in opening this debate—he will have an opportunity also of closing it—made very strong moment of his belief that these elections did not count, that when the big guns came in, such as the Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries, the results would be reversed. That was an admission that the results were against him.

I would refer to the number of county council chairmen as a result of the local elections in 1967—the chairmen being elected either by a straight vote of Fine Gael versus Fianna Fáil or by the selection in the normal vote for chairmen, which is a type of proportional representation, of a Fine Gael man or a Fianna Fáil man or a Labour man; there was a virtual disappearance of Independents last year.

In Ulster, there was a Fine Gael chairman in Cavan and Monaghan and a Fianna Fáil chairman in Donegal; in Connacht, there was a Fine Gael chairman in Sligo and Leitrim; an Independent Fine Gael chairman in Roscommon and, in Mayo and Galway, Fianna Fáil chairmen; in Munster, there were Fine Gael chairmen in Kerry, Limerick and Tipperary North——

What is an Independent Fine Gael chairman?

An Independent who supports Fine Gael and makes no secret of it. You had your spoiled five. One of them is still acting as Chairman of the Hospitals Commission as his payoff.

There is no such thing as an Independent Fianna Fáil man.

They have gone on for election.

In Munster, there were Fine Gael chairmen in Kerry, Limerick and Tipperary North. There were Fianna Fáil chairmen in Cork, Clare and Waterford. There was a Labour chairman in Tipperary South.

I now come to the province of Leinster. In Westmeath—and this is where your tolerance comes in — Louth, Offaly, Laois, Kildare, Carlow, Kilkenny and Wexford, there were Fine Gael chairmen of the county councils.

Thanks to Labour.

A very interesting point, and one that proves our point, namely, that if Labour wish to use proportional representation and if we want to use it for them next year, that is our right, prerogative and privilege. Deputy Allen has made a very interesting point. There was an Independent Fine Gael chairman in Longford, an Independent in Meath—Deputy James Tully can say whether or not I am right in my judgment there—and one lonely Fianna Fáil chairman in the entire province of Leinster, in County Dublin, and a Labour chairman in Dublin. A Fianna Fáil chairman in County Dublin——

A Fianna Fáil Fine Gael——

I am crediting Fianna Fáil with having a Fianna Fáil chairman in County Dublin. Deputy Tully says something else.

And a good one.

I accept the Minister's definition absolutely. You have a good Fianna Fáil chairman in County Dublin—he is the one you have left in Leinster, where the most of the votes are—and there is a Labour chairman in Wicklow.

How many Dáil seats?

It is unlikely that the Fine Gael people voted for the Fianna Fáil man or that the Fianna Fáil people voted for the Fine Gael man. Therefore, Fianna Fáil may take it that they have lost seats in Leinster.

I am talking about Dáil seats.

The last countrywide test made Fianna Fáil make up their mind. Here are the figures for the whole country—15 Fine Gael Party chairmen of county councils; two Independent Fine Gael; one Independent; seven Fianna Fáil and two Labour. Under the proportional representation system, on the last occasion of a test, that indicates to me that the Fianna Fáil Party are pragmatists, that they believe—and rightly so—that, after the next general election, they will be over here and we shall be over there. In that belief they have decided that the best thing they could do would be to imitate somebody who has gone from this House to somewhere perhaps higher in status and who used to say that when he wanted to know the wishes of the Irish people he looked into his heart. Fianna Fáil have looked into their hearts to find out what is best for them to do. That is why they want to change the electoral system.

The result, in fact, of the local elections last year was a gain of 78 Fine Gael seats and a very considerable gain for the Labour Party—I have not the figure. The final proof of this is that, when there came to be elected the Chairman of the General Council of County Councils—which is the exact corollary in local government, as far as strength is concerned, of electing the Taoiseach here after a general election, which is the election that decides the Government—the person elected was a Fine Gael man. Furthermore, when it came to the election of chairman of the General Council of County Committees of Agriculture the person elected was the Fine Gael shadow Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Clinton.

Following on that, I should like to say—and there is no secret about it— that two studies have been done, based on the votes cast in the local elections, on the result of the next general election. One study was done by Senator Garret FitzGerald and the other study was carried out by Senator Dooge, both front bench Fine Gael Senators. They gave us the results which I might not be too wise today in announcing to the House because they could be twisted. It could be suggested, for instance, that I was not producing an overall majority for my Party; it would not take Fianna Fáil very long to use such an argument. However, the result of the two studies, which approximated closely to each other, was 65 seats for Fianna Fáil, 55 seats for Fine Gael and 25 seats for Labour. That is based on the number of votes cast for each Party in the local elections last year.

Based on fantasy, in other words.

I have had the opportunity of examining this study and I am sure the Minister will believe that I examined it clinically and honestly. I do not think he has found me out in much dishonesty in this House.

I am not saying you are dishonest. I am saying it is based on fantasy.

I can tell you what I have found from this study. Fiftyfive and 25 equal 80: the balance is 65. So that it could well be that if there were no change since last year in the support for the various political Parties, the decision on who would be Taoiseach after the next general election might lie in the hands of the Labour Party and they might have the responsibility of deciding which of the major Parties would have a policy which was nearest to their desires.

That is a position that looks like developing and, as a result of the possibility of that position developing, the Government addressed themselves in the most clinical and detailed way to the problem, with one end in view. When they wanted to see what was best for the Irish people, they looked into their own hearts to see what was best for themselves, just as somebody else used to do over the years.

They are desirous now of introducing a system whereby they will be there for the foreseeable future. Are they doing this in a straight, honourable way as far as the people are concerned? I submit to this House that they are not because on the last occasion that there was a referendum in regard to proportional representation, there was being held at the same time, in the same polling booths all over the country, an election for the Presidency. At that time Fianna Fáil, because they had what could be regarded as virtually the strongest possible candidate in the shape of Mr. de Valera for the Presidency desired to get the people to vote "Yes"; "Yes" on two separate ballot papers. On this occasion they want the people to vote "Yes"; "Yes" on the same ballot paper to two proposals. The thing we must remember when taking part in this debate is that we are debating not only the Fourth Amendment but also the Third Amendment. It would appear to me that too little attention has been paid to the Third Amendment and perhaps too much to the Fourth Amendment. I want to deal with the Third Amendment.

In 1958 when, in the course of their direction under the Constitution, the Fianna Fáil Party had reorganised the constituencies to preserve the directive in Article 16 whereby there would be one man, one vote and that the changes in population should be corrected every 12 years——

There was no such direction.

In Article 16?

Very well then; I will deal with that.

Quote the article.

The Minister should not be bandying words.

There is no reference to "one man, one vote" in the Constitution, no principle that can be interpreted as meaning that.

Very well; I will deal with that in due course. Article 16 of the Constitution says—and when Deputy Belton obliges me by getting a copy for me, I shall read it for you and prove that it says, what you wish to amend—that between 20,000 and 30,000 is the number of population which shall elect one Deputy.

Yes—"population".

Not "voters".

No. "Population", yes.

A completely different thing.

I agree that it is "population". This does not change my argument and no matter how much the Minister interrupts me, I shall develop my argument and deal with it.

I do not want to interrupt.

In 1958—what is coming now is what the Minister did not like—a private citizen in the shape of John O'Donovan took action against the Attorney General on the basis that in the division of constituency seats, he as a private citizen who might offer himself for election to Dáil Éireann was improperly treated. The case was heard before Mr. Justice Budd. Mr. Justice Budd's ruling—in the High Court, mark you—was that as far as is practicable, there shall be the same number of population per Deputy all over the country. Mr. Justice Budd elaborated on that ruling and instanced that if, perhaps, there was a village which it might be necessary to carve into two slices, you would not do this; the normal practicable amount of tolerance would be allowed but that the practical limits could not be elastic, could not be extended either way to an extraordinary degree, and he defined as in or around four per cent average discrepancy as something that might be accepted as conforming to Article 16, which I intend to read for the Minister very shortly. That meant one man, one vote.

It does not mean one man, one vote. It means that it would take 33? per cent more in parts of the country than in others.

If that is so, why is there such a thing as the Third Amendment? If that is what that means, if Article 16 means that, before you start, why have you put on the Order Paper of this House the Third Amendment of the Constitution which says:

A determination of constituencies shall be so effected that if

i. with respect to each of the constituencies, the number of members to be elected for it is divided into its population (as ascertained at the census last preceding the determination), and

ii. the average of the quotients of the divisions is ascertained,

none of the quotients shall be greater, or less, than that average by more than one-sixth of that average.

I quote from Part II of the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, which we are discussing. If what the Minister says is correct and you can vary by 33? per cent under the existing Constitution, why have you put in Article 3 in this Bill?

That is not what I said.

Then it would be better if the Minister did not say anything. Does the Minister deny that Mr. Justice Budd ruled that wherever practicable it shall be one man, one vote?

Yes, I do.

You deny that?

Yes, I do, certainly.

In that case, we may as well proceed. Why, then, did the Government not appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision in favour of John O'Donovan?

There was no time, for one thing.

Why did you not appeal after the election if it was so important? Why did you not bring it to the Supreme Court?

I do not know whether Mr. Justice Budd was right or wrong.

If in a case where a private citizen takes an action against the Attorney General and succeeds, not in the highest court—that is why I made very clear that the case was in the High Court—and if the Government do not appeal to the Supreme Court, is that an admission or is it not an admission that the Government accept the ruling of Mr. Justice Budd?

Possibly, yes.

Possibly, my foot. It is.

Let us say it is. I do not care whether it is or not.

The situation is that now you knew that under the Constitution which your present President instituted in 1937, you had to have——

The people instituted it.

The people, yes.

It would be much better if the Deputy would address the Chair.

Quite right, but there are times when the sort of thing the Minister tries to perpetrate and get across and which has to be dealt with leads one to be over exuberant or annoyed. I am sorry if I have addressed anybody but the Chair.

The point I am trying to make is that far more important for the people of Ireland is the Third Amendment than the Fourth Amendment, notwithstanding the great importance of the Fourth Amendment, and that, in fact, Mr. Justice Budd ruled in the High Court in 1958 that it was one man, one vote and that ruling was not appealed to the Supreme Court and the Minister's only excuse for that is that there was not time before the general election. The Minister and his Government have had since 1957 until the present day the opportunity of appealing to the Supreme Court and they have not done so. Even if the appeal could not be taken before the election, there was no reason at all why they could not have lodged the appeal.

I want to say also that the effect of this tolerance would be that three votes could be made to equal two somewhere else. Deputy Costello suggested that from the starting off point there could be a 40 per cent discrepancy. If we leave that out as something that is arguable, there is no doubt at all that there can be a discrepancy of two votes as to three.

I want to tell the story of my constituency and the constituency next to it, Monaghan. In one general election, we came near to electing two Deputies and reducing Fianna Fáil to one. In 1954 we did that. The best Fine Gael area in Louth is the Ardee area. A slice was taken from that area, 4,000 votes, and put into Monaghan because at the time——

By Judge Budd.

That is a very interesting comment. "By Judge Budd" is right. I am trying to tell you what you did through Judge Budd. You took the best slice—you had only four per cent to play around with — of Louth Fine Gael-wise and put it into Monaghan to stop me from getting my second Deputy, but inside one more election, you barely got home with your Minister in Monaghan by 120 votes and you have not a chance under PR of maintaining your two seats in Monaghan on the next occasion, or the two seats in Louth either—and he ran out of Longford before that.

The point I want to make very clearly is this—the Minister interrupted on this point—if there was limitation by Mr. Justice Budd, what could the Government have done if they had 33? per cent tolerance? If they could have made Louth smaller or Monaghan larger, Cavan larger or Monaghan smaller, or any other combination on the advice of their Deputies all over the country, how many Fianna Fáil TDs would we have here either under the system of proportional representation or under the system of the straight vote? I quote from subsection (2) of Article 16 of the Constitution, lest the Minister disbelieves me.

I know it well.

The quotation is:

The number of members shall from time to time be fixed by law, but the total number of members of Dáil Éireann shall not be fixed at less than one member for each thirty thousand of the population, or at more than one member for each twenty thousand of the population.

That has nothing to do with one man, one vote.

All right, but Mr. Justice Budd ruled within those two covers that there is one man, one vote.

Then why did you not appeal it to the Supreme Court?

He ruled that the ratio of population per Deputy must be the same in every constituency. That has nothing to do with one man, one vote, as the figures supplied by me in reply to a Dáil question today proved.

Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Surely, if it is a case of more children in one constituency than another, that is something not of serious moment? There may be constituencies where the average age is lower and you have fewer children. But I agree it is per population. For practical purposes, it means one man, one vote. Put it the other way—so many votes, so many men. In other words, within each constituency, there shall be so many Deputies per population. That means, as far as practical purposes are concerned, one man, one vote.

No, it does not.

All right; I want to deal now with a few other items. I am convinced that this question of tolerance offers the opportunity of gerry-mandering. I believe that is the reason why Fianna Fáil have brought it in. I am also convinced—when the Minister interrupted me five minutes ago I was almost put off it—that Fianna Fáil are now adopting the same strategy as in 1959. They are putting two questions to the people. On that occasion one question was: are you voting for Mr. de Valera as President? The second question was: do you want to get rid of PR? They hoped for "yes" in each case, and they very nearly got them. They got one "yes" in relation to President de Valera and went within 36,000 votes of getting the other. They are now asking two questions. One is Do you want tolerance? Do you want to have 33? per cent tolerance as to population per Deputy? The second question is: Do you want to get rid of PR? No matter how much I talk in my constituency, no matter how much reporting I get from my local and national papers, no matter how much effort from this side of the House to try to get across to the people the meaning of the tolerance issue, it would be quite impossible between now and June, or whatever summer month the Government intend to go to the people, to disentangle the two issues and to get on the same day in the same polling booth every person going in, or even a majority of them, to decide on "yes" for one issue and "no" for the other. The Party bosses producing their literature and posters saying "yes, yes" will find their supporters to be "yes, yes" on that side of the House and "no, no" on this side of the House, that they will go in and vote primarily for Party.

You cannot get the people to understand the tolerance issue—a most detailed issue which the Minister and I could debate on Committee Stage for hours—and at the same time to understand the abolition of PR. You have got to differentiate between the two and have two separate votes. The ordinary decent working man or woman, who, unfortunately, in many cases has not had the advantage of a secondary education, particularly the middle-aged people, will not be capable of differentiating between the two issues. The hope of Fianna Fáil is that this will be a Party vote and that they will get home.

How many people fully understand PR?

The Taoiseach did not, anyway.

Obviously, Deputy Donegan does not. The Taoiseach's speech was absolutely correct.

It was absolutely incorrect.

He did not know what he was talking about. He was talking about the Seanad.

He was talking about the Dáil. Pure chance: you might as well toss a coin or draw a name out of a hat.

Deputy Molloy——

Through the Chair.

I will be corrected by the Chair and not by young Iosagán Molloy. Deputy Molloy asked me how many people understand PR. I am ready to say a lot of the decent working people in this country, who did not have the opportunity of a secondary education and who are perhaps 30 years from national school, may not fully understand all the details of PR. But they do understand one thing and that is, if they put No. 1 on a paper for Mr. Boland and No. 2 for Mr. Donegan, it means their second preference in that case is for Mr. Donegan and the first for Mr. Boland. That is sufficient to allow them to utilise PR, to get representation in the order of the strength of the vote within the constituency.

They do not know how votes are distributed.

That is sufficient for the people to understand and use PR. If this gerrymander is available to Fianna Fáil, if they are no longer bound by Mr. Justice Budd's ruling, they will see to it that the 65 out of 145, if you add one for a slight increase in population, which was produced by two outstanding economists, will become, if they can make it, 80 or 90. Then they hope there will be a disappearance of support for the other Parties, due to lack of hope, and that they will get themselves installed— even though, as Deputy Murphy says, they are in a minority at present—as the majority in Dáil Éireann for the next ten years. That is their effort; that is their reason; that is what they are after.

One economist you mentioned recommended single seats for this country. In the booklet Tuairim, David Thornley recommended single seats.

I did not mention Professor David Thornley. I mentioned Senator Dooge and Senator Garret FitzGerald.

I thought you were referring to television.

I did not refer to the television commentary at all. I want to suggest that one of the things that could be done in the West with this gerrymandering would be to take Fianna Fáil from the unsatisfactory position they find themselves in and instal them in a very satisfactory position. There are 23 Deputies in this House from Connaught, 12 being Fianna Fáil and 11 Fine Gael. The trend has been an increase for Fine Gael and a decrease for Fianna Fáil. If one were to take the almost level distribution of Party support all over that area, it would be possible to denude the West of Fine Gael representation if they got the tolerance and if the Third and Fourth Amendment Bills to the Constitution were passed.

That is part of the operation because they could use the bait to the people of the West: "You are going to get more representation in Dáil Éireann. You have been denuded in population through emigration and we will give you more representation. We will allow rivers, fields, pigs, horses and cattle to count in the enumeration for a Deputy." The slight majority Fianna Fáil had is deteriorating and there has been an increased figure for Fine Gael. If they could spread the bread and butter equally and make it into areas of Party support so far as the constituencies are concerned, they think they would be able to get their nose ahead and Fianna Fáil would be established and Fine Gael would be run out of the West. Fine Gael are entitled to almost equal representation. We have 11 Deputies here against 12 for Fianna Fáil.

You are a lousy economist if that is the way you work it out.

I wonder is it in order to refer to me as a lousy economist?

I take it that it is an expression of opinion.

I will take it as that, but I will not take much more. I will leave if there is any more of that.

Another thing I should remark on is that the west of Ireland is a fertile field for that sort of activity because of swings of votes. Massive swings of votes in any election in any part of the world are caused by one of two things: success on the part of the Government or lack of success—lack of economic activity—and the people reaching the end of their hopes and turning against the Government. That is what has happened in the West. When I came here, they had something in the order of 15 seats in the West but that has now been reduced to 12:11. That reduction has been steady. The West has given up hope and because Fianna Fáil have been in office during that period, they lost hope. Fine Gael have gone up and Fianna Fáil have gone down. If it were possible to get rid of the Deputies from the West on this side of the House, Fianna Fáil would hope that they would not get back again. Lack of economic activity in the West has meant not a massive swing of support, but a constant drop in votes for the Government.

Another matter that must be completely and absolutely criticised is the kite-flying by the Minister for Justice who will be Minister for Education tomorrow. When a Minister goes on television or any other medium, he should realise that he is speaking as a Minister of State. He said that there would be two questions and only one answer. Fianna Fáil saw the bad reception given to that kite.

It was not a kite: it was a decision.

It went inside of ten days.

You could not understand it. We did not want to confuse Deputy Donegan.

I remember attending the Irish Sweeps Derby about four or five years ago with a very respectable retired local government official. I was not one bit horrified when I saw a Minister of State in sports coat and flannels reaching over the heads of six or eight people with a bookie's ticket to collect a few bob, but that man was horrified and said the Minister should have been on the stand in a dark suit. I do not worry about dark suits but I want to say this. The behaviour of Ministers of State in this country is rather like monkeys performing on a stick. The Minister for Justice went on television to fly a kite and see what the reaction would be among the people of Ireland to changing their system of voting which has operated since 1922. This was like a monkey performing on a stick or hanging on by his tail.

He was not flying a kite.

What was he doing?

He was saying what had been decided.

He said there would be one answer to two questions.

That was right.

It was changed inside a few days.

That was the decision. He was right.

Is the Minister for Justice who sits with the Cabinet entitled to go on a mass medium like television and fly a kite in that fashion when the Cabinet decision was the other way?

The Cabinet decision was not the other way. That was the Cabinet decision.

You changed over from it.

We changed it when you started to cry and whinge that you could not understand it, that it was too involved.

I can tell you this——

We did not want to confuse you.

——that was the first time Fianna Fáil changed anything in response to a desire to keep the Opposition happy.

We did not want to confuse you.

The Minister is a bit heavy but he is now performing on a stick. They discovered the bad reaction to that kite and they are now flying another. In the Sunday Press last Sunday, the political correspondent said that the alternative vote with the single-seat constituency would be seriously considered by the Government. That is Deputy Norton's amendment. I hesitate to cross swords with Deputy Norton. I never did since he came in here, because I had a great regard for his father.

The number of votes cast in 1959 for the retention of PR amounted to 486,989 and the number of votes for the abolition of PR amounted to 453,322. Would it not suit the political thimble-riggers if they could split by any thimble-rigging the 486,989 who voted against them on the previous occasion? With the first past the post system, there would be no transference of second preference votes. If Deputy Norton's amendment were accepted— and let us forget about its validity one way or the other—the voter would go into the booth and he could vote for the first past the post system, or the single-seat with the alternative vote or he could vote for the continuance of PR. That would split the votes. Therefore the position is that whether or not Deputy Norton puts this amendment down, it would be the action of a political thimble-rigger to accept it, because it would not give the people the chance to vote on the one issue— either PR or the first past the post system—because they will not have PR available to them in this referendum. If they had three choices, they could vote for PR first and if that were to be defeated, they could give No. 2 to the single seat proposal with the alternative vote, and if they wanted to vote the other way, they could give No. 1 to the first past the post system and No. 2 to the alternative vote. If they wanted to go for Deputy Norton's proposal, they could indicate that and having done that, they might make a choice of PR or the first past the post system. That possibility is not available to them on this occasion. There should be an opportunity either to preserve PR or choose the first past the post system but everybody must come out horse, foot and artillery against any third question, and any third question is nothing but Fianna Fáil as usual trying to trick the Irish people.

It was you who suggested it.

The political correspondent in your pet newspaper——

He is not our political correspondent.

The political correspondent employed by the newspaper of which the proprietors are the de Valera family——

Nothing to do with us.

If you go to Dublin Castle and spend a shilling and look up the shareholders, you will see what I say is correct.

Deputy de Valera is against the straight vote.

If the people of Ireland are to have an opportunity of deciding they can only get that opportunity by having a second choice, either PR or first past the post. The task of making people understand anything else would be quite impossible. In fact, the task of making them understand that there is also offered under Fianna Fáil the chance of making three votes in one place equal to two votes in another is probably beyond the politicians on this side of the House. We shall try to ensure that Fianna Fáil do not take over as they mean to do but the task before us of making people understand that there are two issues, the tolerance issue and the first past the post issue, is so great that it is quite possible that when the people go to the polls, very many of them will not fully understand the two issues at stake. We shall try, with every atom of our being, to enlighten them.

It is an interesting situation, again with the limitation imposed by Justice Budd in the case of John O'Donovan versus the Attorney General, that Deputy Norton should say while Deputy Murphy was properly speaking that if Meath and Westmeath sections had not been added to Kildare, thus making a three-seat constituency into a four-seat one, he would have been all right under any system and so would the Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael members representing that constituency. Let us see how this change was made. Kildare in 1957, the year when there was a swing towards the Government, was extremely unsatisfactory to Fianna Fáil. They received 13,171 votes; Labour got 7,088 and Fine Gael 6,339. The result was one Fianna Fáil seat, one Fine Gael and one Labour. That meant that in this particular instance Fianna Fáil got very bad value for the 13,171 votes. Immediately afterwards what happened? Deputy Crinion, my wife's first cousin is over there looking at me, and he knows. A slice of Meath and Westmeath was put into Kildare and they made a three-seat constituency into a four-seater.

It had to be done.

This was done under Mr. Justice Budd's limitation and, very nicely, it gave two to Fianna Fáil, one to Fine Gael and one to Labour, an improvement for the Government Party. What would they do if they had 33? per cent tolerance?

It was not done until Mr. Justice Budd made it be done. It was not in the original revision.

That is not so, and the Minister knows that well. The situation was that you had gerry-mandered a previous revision of the constituencies in a highly successful manner and when it came to the time to gerrymander on the second occasion and the period had gone by which was covered by Mr. Justice Budd's limitation, this is what was done. I have given instances where Fianna Fáil succeeded either in preventing a gain for the Opposition or in getting a two-two instead of a one-two result with the limitation.

Mr. Justice Budd decided that Kildare could not have three or four seats. He imposed the limitation under which we had to work.

But you could have worked in another way.

We had to take population from Kildare or transfer population to Kildare.

I do not accept that. Finally, I should like to comment on this point. I have been here or in the Upper House since 1954 and in every by-election held since, I did my stint. That brought me all over the country as it brought many other Deputies on both sides of the House. The great difference I now see between the period 1954-1958-9 and the present day is that where you often went into a constituency at that time and found Fianna Fáil had a fair organisation or a very good organisation, you might find that Fine Gael had a very mediocre organisation and perhaps Labour had no organisation at all. But if you come through the decade up to 1968 —and I have been in every by-election in which I could have been during that period; I missed one in 15 years when I was ill—you find there is a reasonable organisation for every political Party in every constituency and also in the rural areas the number of cars available to bring people to the polls—private cars, perhaps, not working for political Parties but just bringing neighbours—is such that you will have a much higher poll, perhaps ten per cent more, than it was in 1957-58 or that period.

If this is so, and if it was so in 1954, 1955, 1956 and 1957 when Fianna Fáil were reorganised in some places and the others were not organised at all, and there is a swing against the Government, then the position I have outlined in the local government elections of last year will be repeated in the general election of perhaps next year. If that is so, that is a reason why there should be a change so far as Fianna Fáil are concerned. The organisation of both Opposition Parties will obviously improve. If you went to Wicklow—I went all over the county— you found a number of young Labour workers busy putting up posters and canvassing. I met them and discussed matters with them. I suppose I met some of them again in Limerick. I also met Fine Gael youth workers and others equalling in numbers and activities those available to the Government Party. With all that activity, there will be no such place for the Government as the soft seat anywhere under PR but what the Government desire to do is to fragment the voting so that Labour Party preferences will not transfer to the Party whose policy is nearest to theirs, and then take the first past the post system under which perhaps 40 per cent representation from the people will give Fianna Fáil a 65 per cent representation in this House.

What about the antipathy that will exist between town and country if it takes three votes to elect a Deputy in one area for every two it takes to elect a Deputy in another area? When we come down to the question of industrial grants, road grants or allocations for housing or other things that the Minister sitting there has to decide upon and if, in the places where because of the gerrymandering that would exist, because of the two votes being equal to three, it is found there is more money going there than to other areas, will the Minister be able to answer the criticism that he is deliberately favouring the areas where there are most Fianna Fáil Deputies? This is a very real problem, and the town versus country situation is bad enough as it is without making it any worse.

When the Budget is introduced and the fellow down in Dublin North East or in some other such constituency sees the farmer getting an extra £10 million which he may very badly need the townsman will say: "That is because every two of their votes equals three of mine." The Minister may smile, but if he goes down to his own constituency, say, to Ballyfermot, and sits down in some of the houses having a cup of tea he will find what I say to be true, that there is a great antipathy towards the farmer in his constituency as there is great antipathy towards the town dweller in parts of my constituency.

The Deputy's Party is only trying to promote that. It does not exist.

That is not true. The working man down in the Minister's constituency, who perhaps watches television but does not read too deeply, will say: "Those farmers get everything for nothing." And if you go to a meeting of the National Farmers' Association down the country they will say that the industrial wage is double what a man with £10,000 worth of land is earning down the country. That situation will be magnified and there will be created a town versus country antipathy which will be bad for this nation.

I do not want to delay the House too long on this matter except to say again that we must fight for proportional representation and keep to the ruling of Mr. Justice Budd. There is no hope that the highly detailed arguments that can be put forward on both sides will be understood by every voter. Even if this is delayed until September, there is no hope that such understanding will grow. In such circumstances all that can be done from this side of the House is that Fine Gael and Labour will advance together against Fianna Fáil and see to it that when they ask their questions the answers will be "no", and "no" a second time.

Reference has been made by the previous speaker to my constituency, Kildare, into which was put a portion of Meath and Westmeath; in fact, 4,000 votes in Westmeath and 4,000 in Meath were put into Kildare. I have a very good knowledge of what it is like to try to become known in such a constituency and how complicated is the working of a constituency that has portions of three counties all very close to one another. First, we have three county councils to work with. That involves a fair amount of work considering that each county council has a different system of grants, different systems for various matters, and difficulty arises in trying to remember all the regulations governing them.

It can be rather embarrassing when in the one constituency there are people living close together some of whom will get grants from their county council and others who will not. One is trying to represent the people of all those areas. It is particularly difficult where people have been used to turning their attention in one direction— for instance, the Westmeath people would be turning towards Longford-Westmeath or Westmeath itself—and to have to ask the Meath and Westmeath people to join up with Kildare.

Possibly there would be no difficulty in regard to Meath joining in with parts of Kildare, because it is a very long border, between 30 and 35 miles, and there is a good deal of intercourse between the people there particularly in regard to postal arrangements. Kilcock and Enfield cover an equal area of Meath and Kildare, and when I say an equal area I mean a very big portion of those counties. For Enfield the telephone system goes right down to Ballivor and our whole telephone system is in that portion of Meath and about half the portion of Meath that is in the Clane electoral area. It is hard for people to be suddenly changed and put in with another county, and if the Referendum did not go through, I would hate to see constituencies being carved up again. Possibly 30 constituencies out of the 38 of them, would have to be changed. People prefer to be left alone, to be left in their own particular units that have been set up through tradition or over a long number of years.

With the single-member constituency, it would be much easier for Deputies to represent their constituencies. I am talking about my own constituency which is probably no better or no worse than any other rural constituency. Ours is only a four-seater constituency which ranges from within less than a mile of Carlow town on two sides to within less than a mile of Mullingar on three sides of it; there are three roads going into the town. It stretches across possibly from Rathangan to Celbridge, and it ranges from 40 to 60 miles. Take a five-seater constituency in this city. It might be only four miles by one mile, and a person could cycle or walk around it in an afternoon. We have a very big area to cover and it takes an amount of driving to do it. It entails a great deal of travelling to get around the whole constituency, although you would have a colleague to take a certain amount of the load away from you. Even still, people from different areas will be seeking your advice and there is a good deal of overlapping in the work to be done. This is particularly so where anything of a public nature is involved and the four TDs will be consulted. In an area like that, it is important to provide the detailed attention to problems which the people deserve from their representatives. If you had an area of 15 to 20 miles, containing some 11,000 to 12,000 votes, it would be easy to cover that area and you would know all the problems.

The Taoiseach said that the people should not look for anything like that from their Members.

Only the other day I had a letter dealing with some trouble in a school and the four representatives are being asked to a public meeting.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn