Tairgim Leasú a 3:
I move Amendment No. 3:
I gCuid I, fo-alt 2º a scriosadh agus an méid seo a leanas a chur ina ionad:—
"2º Is do réir na hionadaidheachta cionmhaire agus ar mhodh an aon-ghotha ionaistrighthe a toghfar na comhaltaí.";
agus
I gCuid II, fo-alt 2º a scriosadh agus an méid seo a leanas a chur ina ionad:—
"2º The members shall be elected on the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote."
In Part I, to delete subsection 2º and substitute the following:—
"2º Is do réir na hionadaidheachta cionmhaire agus ar mhodh an aon-ghotha ionaistrighthe a toghfar na comhaltaí.";
and
In Part II, to delete subsection 2º and substitute the following:—
"2º The members shall be elected on the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote."
In spite of insinuations made last night by Deputy Fitzpatrick that my amendment was not in keeping with the Second Reading of the Bill before the House, I think it was amply demonstrated by the Taoiseach that he was concerned mainly with the difficulties of the single-seat constituency when he spoke introducing this Bill. Indeed, he went to great lengths and dealt in considerable detail with the undesirable problems to which the multi-seat constituency gave rise. He explained in considerable detail the hypocrisy in which Deputies were encouraged to engage by pretending to interfere in the day-to-day administration of matters in which they had little or no influence. He explained that this was a source of great friction between Deputies, especially when these Deputies were members of the same Party. By engaging excessively in this type of rat race to curry favour with constituents, Deputies were tending to neglect their primary duties as legislators.
The Taoiseach explained that the single-seat constituency would encourage the Deputy to avoid appearing partisan for any one section of his constituents and that in time this would tend to build up a better community spirit and that the smaller area would lead to a greater knowledge of and intimacy with his constituents. Because of the direct comparison between one candidate and another at elections, the Parties would be encouraged to put forward candidates of the highest calibre and this would all help to improve the standard of the national Parliament.
The Minister dealt at great length with the long counts which are a feature and are becoming more a feature of multi-seat constituencies. He mentioned the haphazard methods in transfers and the large element of luck involved, especially when you get results involving ten, 15 or 20 counts. He mentioned that the average person could not possibly decide the relevant merits of high preference votes. He mentioned that at the Fianna Fáil ArdFheis resolutions calling for the single-seat constituency were passed almost unanimously. He made a case for the single-seat constituency and mentioned the needless competition, the sham, the bluff and the pretence to which the multi-seat constituency gave rise, not to mention the greatly inflated cost of administration which arose from this unnecessary competition between Deputies and the consequent high costs which in turn lead to higher taxation. The Minister said, on two occasions, since the Bill was introduced, that he was mainly concerned with obtaining the single-seat constituency and less concerned with the actual method of voting.
I agree with both the Taoiseach and the Minister in what they have said regarding the single-seat. I am in favour of the single-seat constituency and the straight vote. I believe that in a relatively short time this would lead to a two-Party system which would make democracy meaningful. I think the present system of proportional representation is an inefficient and cumbersome method of choosing Deputies. Because I believe that at the present time the straight vote is not acceptable to the electorate as a whole and because I believe it would be a national tragedy if we failed to secure any type of parliamentary reform, I tabled this amendment which would give us, I believe, a happy and honourable compromise. Those of us who believe we need the greater efficiency which the single-seat would give us would be satisfied, while those of us who believe in the necessity of retaining the principle of PR would also be accommodated.
I think this is a reasonable approach to the problem. I believe the public at large would be glad to accept it as a happy compromise. Otherwise we will be in a position that, no matter who wins the referendum, it is obvious that there will be a large number of voters who will be dissatisfied. We will have the unnecessary and pointless division of the people over something on which there could be unanimity. I know there are selfish men in all Parties who are not concerned with constitutional reform but are concerned mainly with themselves. I know there are some Opposition Deputies who believe, rightly or wrongly, that if the Government can be stampeded into going ahead with the straight vote, they will be defeated and therefore they feel—putting their Party interest before the national interest—the Government should be encouraged to go ahead. I can only hope the Government will not be so foolish as to take this misguided course.
Opposition Deputies have insinuated that I should never have tabled this amendment. Indeed, some have gone so far as to suggest I was encouraged to do so by the Minister himself or some other member of the Government. I can only reject this as childish nonsense. I would like to inform the members of the Opposition that it is my right—and indeed, as I see it, my duty—to table this amendment and have it discussed by the House, even if in doing so I am endangering the selfish ambitions and the security of tenure of some of those who shouted loudest because I have exercised my right and performed my duty in doing so. The public interest which has been shown in this amendment is ample proof that I am not alone in this belief.
I am not really concerned about the reflections on my character made by some members of the Fine Gael Party. I will confess I was disappointed that one prominent member of the Fine Gael Party, an ex-inter-Party Cabinet Minister and an ex-colleague of my father at that, of whom I thought better and from whom I expected more, suggested that because I took a different point of view from that which he took, there was something dubious in the whole thing and that I had no right to hold a different point of view. The crowning insult was when he dragged in my father's name and started attributing to him opinions and views which I know my father did not hold, in order to lend stature and respectability to this gentleman's out-of-date and old-fashioned ideas. This Fine Gael gentleman was very careful not to attack the Leader of the Fine Gael Party, Deputy Cosgrave, for holding the same views on PR as I hold. I wonder was this an omission or was it a calculated act on his part? Was I being used as a whipping boy by this gentleman to attack his Leader—which he did not dare do publicly? Was he afraid to attack the Leader of his Party, or is his own integrity suspect?
A great deal has been said by Opposition Deputies about the moral right of the Government to introduce a referendum now, since it is only ten years since the previous referendum was introduced and discussed. Indeed, so many Front Bench Members of both Parties made such a debating point of this that I feel I should like to refer to it. I would think it is reasonable to assume that the average voter votes over a period of 50 years of his life. If we assume that he commences to vote at 21 years and that he votes until he is 71 years, that would give us a period of 50 years. It is obvious that not every voter will vote when he is 21, and that many voters will continue to vote long after they are 71, but for a variety of reasons, it is also quite obvious that not every voter will vote for the full period either. I would think that an average of 50 years is a pretty fair estimate of the voting life of most people.
If we take 50 years as the average voting period, this means that in ten years the electorate would have a turnover of 20 per cent. At the previous referendum 58 per cent only of the electorate in fact voted and expressed an opinion. This means that not less than 42 per cent of the electorate did not express any opinion whatsoever. If we add this 42 per cent who did not express any opinion to the 20 per cent who will have reached voting age since then, we find that not less than 60 per cent of the electorate have not in fact expressed an opinion or have not had an opportunity of expressing an opinion on this question. If to the total of the 60 per cent we were to add the percentage of people who will have changed their minds since then, in either direction, on the merits or demerits of the straight vote, we find a position where possibly two-thirds of the people have not had an opportunity to express any opinion, or who could have changed their minds since then.
If we bear in mind that the previous referendum was defeated by only two per cent of the electorate and that at least 60 per cent odd have not had the opportunity to express their opinion, it is obvious that the referendum is wide open. The result might be anything, and the Government not only have a moral right but, indeed, on such a critical issue, a duty to introduce this referendum. This point was carefully concealed by the Opposition, or perhaps they did not realise it or look at it that way. It is certainly worthy of their attention.
Another point raised was the cost of the referendum and a great deal of foolish and unnecessary talk was indulged in on that point. A figure of £100,000 was mentioned. At the previous referendum approximately 1,000,000 voted. If you divide a cost of £100,000 by 1,000,000 people, it works out at approximately 2/- per voter. Does any Deputy seriously consider that the electorate are not worth considering because it would cost 2/-to get a man's opinion? With our glorified fight for freedom, home rule and independence, can it be that after 50 years of self-government we do not think it worth spending 2/- per voter in order to find out the opinion of the electorate? These points were so talked about and used to misguide the people that I thought I should mention them, whether or not they are strictly relevant.
I put down this amendment simply enough and I took the wording in the Constitution, Article 12, section 2, subsection 3º, dealing with the method of voting for the election of the President. This treats the whole country as one constituency with one seat and declares:
The voting shall be by secret ballot and on the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote.
My amendment reads:
The members shall be elected on the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote.
I deleted the words "by secret ballot" because this is already provided for in the section. My amendment has the merit of using a form of words which has already been approved in the Constitution, and about which there could be little or no valid argument. I do not want to repeat the arguments which have been made ad nauseam on Second Stage as to the respective merits or demerits of PR and the straight vote. I have already made it clear both in this House and outside that I am anxious to reform the Constitution in the interests of efficiency and political stability.
I believe that we should have the single-seat system, that we should have the two-Party system, that we should have a system that would give us real democracy, that we should have a system which would give us a genuine Opposition which would offer constructive counter ideas to those proposed by the Government and not merely an Opposition opposing for opposition's sake, an Opposition that would offer the people the choice of an alternative Government if they should so desire, an Opposition that would not use this Dáil as a status symbol club, an Opposition that would be really competitive and that would have fresh ideas and a sense of urgency, and not a club where all the power lies in the hands of the ruling few who are in danger of becoming complacent because there is no real or vigorous opposition.
In introducing the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, the Taoiseach said the primary concern was not to maintain Fianna Fáil in office, that naturally he would wish his Party to continue to be the Government but that that was not the primary concern. I accept that statement. Like all Members of the House, I respect the Taoiseach's integrity and hold him in high esteem but I do not think the motivation behind this Bill is important. In any event, the result would be the same. At election time this can produce big swings. This will ensure that while the tide is running for the present Government they will have a larger majority, and when the tide turns against them we will have a complete break, a clean sweep, and a strong alternative Government. We have become so stagnant in this Parliament that the danger is that the centre of debate will pass from the House to outside bodies whose members and motives might be more suspect than we are ourselves.
Tugadh tuairisc ar a ndearnadh; an Coiste do shuí arís.
