Last night I was going into detail to explain that the reason for the Fourth Amendment was that from studies carried out by all political Parties, it was clear that Fianna Fáil would not have an overall majority after the next election. I cited the fact, and perhaps it was not entirely politic to do so, that two members of our Party, men of considerable standing, experience and qualification, Senator Garret FitzGerald and Senator Dooge, had carried out studies into this matter which were not alone related to constituencies and counties but in extreme detail down to electoral areas. The result was that they decided that if everybody voted Party-wise as they did in the local elections, the result would be 65 seats for Fianna Fáil, 55 seats for Fine Gael and 25 for Labour, that is, taking——
An Bille um an gCeathrú Leasú ar an mBunreacht, 1968: An Chéim Dheiridh (Atógáil). Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1968: Fifth Stage (resumed).
Thank you very much.
I am not being generous, ungenerous or difficult, and I hope——
Just silly.
I am merely giving the results of two mathematical calculations carried out by two people individually, whether the other Parties like it or not.
Nor am I suggesting a Coalition; I am suggesting something else on which I will dwell in detail during the next half hour or so. The position then will be that Deputy Cosgrave will be proposed as Taoiseach, and unless there is some more of the hurly-burly which went on last time, the present Taoiseach will be proposed from the other side and no doubt Deputy Corish will also be proposed. When the referendum has been defeated, there will be 144 people voting here and it is upon them will lie the responsibility of deciding who shall be Taoiseach. If they are conscientious and honest politically, as I know most of them are, it shall follow entirely on the question of policy: policy will decide.
I was rather horrified by the Leader of the Labour Party using the word "Coalition" because Fianna Fáil's effort over a number of years has been to paint the two inter-Party Governments as Coalition Governments, as people who had subjugated their aims, ideals and policies in order to be in power. That was not so. I was not here for the first one but I was here for the second inter-Party Government and I was proud to go into the Division Lobbies and support them. Neither the Labour Party nor the Fine Gael Party subjugated one iota of their ideals, aims or policies at that time in order to remain in power. In fact, the record of the Fianna Fáil Party has been that they were quick to run out of office when they felt they had not got the support of the country behind them.
After the next election, the people will inevitably be faced with the sight of politicians within the Parties deciding what policies they shall support. I hold that it is quite possible for any two Parties with a majority to come together and agree on a policy for five years which will include the maximum amount of their own policies that they can have included by negotiation. If they can find it within their hearts to do this on that basis, there can be another inter-Party Government.
Since the Minister for Local Government has gone to great pains many times during the debate on the Third Amendment and in this debate to cast slurs on what he calls the Coalition Governments, which were not Coalition Governments, it is perhaps wise that I should indicate what the reasons were for the downfall of the inter-Party Government on two occasions. One reason was that there were Independents kicking around the place at that time, and Parties which were decreasing in numbers and had no hope of forming a Government themselves in the future. They were not, as the Fine Gael Party and Labour Party were, of old standing and of known policies, and the support within the Dáil was something that was at times questionable. I suggest that in 1968 a similar position does not exist. There are now three main Parties, with the Independents virtually wiped out, and the position is that it is absolutely open, on an agreed policy conforming to the policies of the two different Parties who might go into an inter-Party Government, and not a Coalition, to form an inter-Party Government after the next election.
The reason we are having a referendum now is that Fianna Fáil see that the studies which have been carried out are correct and that the figures will be 65, 55 and 25. I see Deputy G. Collins smiling over at me, but I will give him two figures which will set him back on his heels. In 1954 I went as a young Deputy of Fine Gael to fight an election in one of the most difficult Fianna Fáil constituencies. The candidate at that time was an excellent candidate, Deputy Jones, the present Leas-Cheann Comhairle. At that time Fine Gael got 9,300 votes out of West Limerick. As director of elections for Fine Gael, I fought against Deputy Gerry Collins in as friendly and vigorous a manner as I could and I took 3,000——
What was the Fine Gael increase?
1,000 votes.
And what was Fianna Fáil's increase?
It was nil. I can give the figures. The Deputy may be thinking of the increase on the previous general election. Fianna Fáil had considerably more votes in 1955 than they had in 1967 and Fine Gael took 1,000 more votes out of it in 1967 as compared with 1955.
That is the pattern developing all over the country. Let us face the fact. Let us be honest and sincere about it. The Labour Party did extremely well in both Cork and Limerick. We did not do as well as we would have liked in Limerick city. Fianna Fáil had less than they like——
We won the seat.
Of course, but let us look at the figures which have, so far, not been refuted. If every Party had done as well in 1955 as they did last year, the situation would be 65, 55, 25. There is the average. Yesterday, on the debate on the vote for Industry and Commerce, I tried to give certain facets of Fine Gael policy which might be different from certain facets in the policies of other Parties. At the same time, I tried to show how we, a progressive Party, would have certain policies closely approximating to the policies of other Parties. Where is the Fianna Fáil policy, whatever it is, allied to the policy of any other Party in this House?
There will be no Fianna Fáil majority at the next election; that is quite clear. Let us remember, too, that on the occasion of the last referendum to abolish proportional representation, it was decided to run simultaneously the most noted politician in the country, if not the best loved politician, for the office of President. He is President at the moment and far be it from me to denigrate him. On the occasion to which I refer he was put forward for the office of President in the hope that the dual decision which had to be taken would result in the abolition of proportional representation because the people would be confused. That failed. On this occasion another dodge is being tried. The Third and Fourth Amendments will be decided on together. The Third Amendment, if passed, will provide for the straight vote with 33? per cent tolerance. I know the Third Amendment is not now under discussion and I merely refer to it en passant. Mr. Justice Budd did not mention any five per cent but the Fianna Fáil Government, in order to get down to the butchery of constituencies, limited this tolerance to five per cent. That is one end of the scale. If you limit yourself at one end, you can carry out the subsequent butchery regardless and now they want absolutely limitless tolerance at the other end to enable them to carve up constituencies any way they like and create a situation whereby three Fine Gael or Labour votes could in any particular instance be mathematically proved to equal three Fianna Fáil votes. That is not democracy. That is putting Party first. There was a leader of Fianna Fáil who said that Party came before Church and that he would go against the Church, if necessary, to keep his Party right.
And did it.
Did go against the Church?
Certainly.
And the Minister would do it again?
I certainly would.
That is, in my view, a complete exposé of this attempt to keep Fianna Fáil in office for the next 20 years.
The Minister has already demonstrated his hostility to the Church.
I agree, but this statement now is clear, explicit and positive.
I am trying this morning not to be hypocritical, I can assure the Deputy. But that is the way it is and the Minister now says the Fianna Fáil Party is prepared, for its own continuance in office——
Not for its own continuance in office. The Church has its place and the State has its place.
But the Minister is putting Party first.
Not Party interests.
That is what he said.
I said the person the Deputy referred to, who is the President of this State, did oppose the Church when the Church allied itself with people who betrayed their Republican principles and this Party stood out against that and succeeded.
And the Minister said he would do that again.
I certainly would.
That is good. My purpose this morning is simply to indicate the result after the next general election unless there is a landslide one way or the other, and Ireland is not noted for landslides. I like to tell the story about what happened in Louth when the first couple of results happened to be against Fianna Fáil and a very astute Fianna Fáil county councillor and I were discussing the situation. I asked him how he thought things would go and he told me I need not worry. He said: "The way it is in Ireland, all we have to do is to wait until the good, ignorant republican constituents start to come in." That is the philosophy. It is known that the people will not swing and the purpose now is to establish a system of voting and a method of carving constituencies whereby Fianna Fáil will keep itself in office with as little as 43 per cent of the electorate. Personally, I would not give a thrawneen about the system of election if the other issue were not stuck on to it. But, because Ireland is not a place of swings, Fianna Fáil, irrespective of policies, irrespective of whether they do well or badly in Government, will be elected again.
Fine Gael will never get in so.
Yes, we will, and when we do, we will be extremely hard to get out. I explained how the two inter-Party Governments were dislodged from office; a chain is as strong as its weakest link.
Order.
There is a gentleman at the present moment who is still Chairman of the Hospitals Commission at £1,000 a year because Fianna Fáil had to get his vote to get the inter-Party Government out of office. Do Fianna Fáil Deputies want any more particulars? They bought votes from the very first day they came in and they would do it again tomorrow, just as they would go against the Church.
Tell us how the 18 disappeared in 1956?
I have given one example. If Deputies opposite want a few more, they can have them.
I have given Deputy Donegan a good deal of latitude, but I am afraid we are getting away from the Bill. It deals with the single-seat constituency, the non-transferable vote and the setting up of a commission.
Yes. I want to suggest that, if this referendum is successful for Fianna Fáil, Fianna Fáil will install themselves in office for the next 15 or 20 years.
That is a great compliment.
If we defeat this proposal in the referendum—and we shall—the position is quite simple: the Independents are gone and there are within this Dáil three Parties and then there will be the decision upon which the people here will vote to elect the Taoiseach and on that you will have a Government. I pray and hope that the Taoiseach will not be a Fianna Fáil Taoiseach and that the Government will not be a Fianna Fáil Government because the country would be well rid of the whole lot of them.
I am very sorry that Deputy Donegan is rather peeved having come up last night from County Louth expecting a vote which did not take place, thanks to the filibustering of his own Party and their allies in this contest.
From listening to the speakers here in this debate one would imagine that there was something sinister about Fianna Fáil and the Government asking the people—mind you, the people —not Fine Gael or Labour, but the people—to decide what system of voting would best suit their country and, secondly, to do this for the second time in a period of a decade. Since this question was first voted on at a referendum some eight or nine years ago, many new voters have come on the register. Is it the negation of democracy, as Deputy Donegan stated last night and this morning and as Deputy Larkin stated, to give these people an opportunity of deciding on the system we now have, whether it is the best system for the country, whether it is the best system to give this country a Government?
I have always regarded a general election as an exercise to find a Government for the country, but listening to the speakers from the Opposition benches, one would imagine that the purpose of an election is to return Deputies. The people do not take that view. The people regard a general election as an exercise for the purpose of forming a Government and giving that Government the power to rule and to govern and to initiate laws. I was rather disillusioned to hear that that is not the purpose of a general election in the minds of the Opposition speakers. What they would want is to break up, divide and make an election a divisive process whereby every minority, whether left or right, would have an opportunity of saying what they had to say instead of forming a Government.
Here last night Deputy Gibbons stated that the proper way in which proportional representation should be operated was to make the whole country one electoral area and to have every opinion reflected in Deputies as they were returned to the Dáil, whether they were for this or that— anti-drink, pro-drink, tenants' associations, the Georgian Society—every one of them to be in here—and then you would get proportional representation and then you would get the kind of Government you want or that, apparently, the Opposition want.
When the people go to vote at a general election, the primary purpose is to elect a Government and the secondary effect of an election is to select the best men to form that Government, some to be actual members of the Government, some to support.
Fianna Fáil, the present Government, have decided to give the people an opportunity of making up their minds on the electoral system for the second time in ten years and there is nothing wrong in that. I heard it described last night as forcing it on the people, ramming it down their necks and all the rest of it. It is the negation of democracy, we were told, to give the people an opportunity of deciding for themselves. If the people do not vote the way we hope they will, well and good. We are not trying to perpetuate ourselves in government, as we were told. We did very well under the system now prevailing. We have been in government for 30 years out of 36. We are told this new system will perpetuate us and I heard Deputy Donegan say this morning, regenerate us, that we are on our way down, on our way out. We only won six out of seven recent by-elections but, apparently, the great victory that has been achieved in this country over the past few years is the election of a Fine Gael county council in Louth, of which Deputy Donegan has assured me he is the chairman. I come from a county that has elected a Fianna Fáil county council and a Fianna Fáil chairman for 35 years and we do no bragging about it but when Fine Gael get it in Louth, through the aid of farming organisations and every mal-content in the country, that is supposed to be a great feat in Louth.
Ah, but you come from "an ignorant republican constituency".
I do not know how often they have had a Fine Gael majority in the past 20 or 30 years but we have had a Fianna Fáil majority in Galway for over 35 years and I was chairman for a fair good while and did not come into the Dáil to brag about it.
There has been a high emigration rate there for the past 30 years. That is your record in Galway.
If Labour want to contest any constituency, we will be delighted to have them.
The young Galway people are in London, not in Galway.
Why did we introduce this proposed amendment of the Constitution at this juncture? As the Constitution stands, it is incumbent on the Government to revise constituencies every 12 years in the light of the latest census returns. The latest census returns show that there have been population movements. So it is incumbent on the Minister for Local Government who is charged with the responsibility, to prepare, now or soon, a revision of constituencies and if there are any further changes in the population and if the constitutional position is not changed as we hope it will be, it will be necessary for another revision of constituencies to take place.
The time was opportune in the light of the constitutional obligation on the Minister to revise constituencies. The time is opportune again, within a period of ten years since the last referendum, to give the people a chance to say: "When is this thing going to stop? Will there be changes in constituencies, new constituencies, after every census return and in the period of every 12 years?"
It is right and proper that there should be some continuity in constituencies, that a person would not represent, say, South County Dublin at one election and South-East Dublin in another election, and so on—Dublin North-East, Dublin North-West—the lot of them—according as population movement takes place. We think, first, that constituencies should be single member and, secondly, that there should be some continuity about constituencies. We also think that this system of the transferable vote in multi-member constituencies, if continued, will lead us into trouble time and again. We have only to look at continental countries to see how they fare under PR. Look at them now. For five and a half months, there has been no Government in Italy, where they have PR. Intrigue, bargaining and all the rest have been the order of the day. Look at what has happened in France—the ganging up of smaller Parties not to rule but to put out a Government, not to give the people stability but to create disorder and divide.
Is the Deputy suggesting that France is in need of Fianna Fáil rule?
We will send Deputy O'Leary over to France. I am sure he can settle it.
I thought he meant Fianna Fáil rule was needed in France and Italy.
The single-seat constituency is the system that prevails in the United States and in England.
The flesh is worn off my bones trying to work in a multi-seat constituency.
A fair amount still stays on, I am glad to say. The Deputy has not gone to a shadow yet.
We are told that the present system we have operating here is the ideal one. I would like to hear from Deputy O'Leary the countries in which this system is operating. I only know of one, Tasmania.
The time for talking is over. You should have the referendum as soon as possible.
You will get the biggest land of your life in this referendum.
I think you will.
I have been listening to you people over there telling us that we are going to be defeated and that there will have to be a general election. When the result of the referendum is announced, I think it will be different from what you expect. You are asking us all the time to get on with the referendum, that you are going to beat us ach beidh a mhalairt de phort againn nuair a bhéas an reifreann thart.
I see nothing sinister in having a referendum and in referring to the people important issues for decision. If you people over there see something wrong in it, believe it is not right or proper to consult the people on an important matter like this, I do not see anything wrong in it. The people will decide. They will decide it is right and proper to have an electoral system that will give stability of government and enable Deputies representing single-seat constituencies, representing perhaps an area adjacent to where they live, to look after the people of that area to the best of their ability. I speak as the Deputy for a constituency which must be one of the biggest geographically in the country, East Galway. It is about 90 miles from north to south and 45 miles from east to west. If the people of that constituency think their interests can be served better by having a Deputy nearer to them, whether it be a Fine Gael or a Fianna Fáil Deputy, rather than having them scattered all over the constituency and hard of access, they will decide for themselves what system suits them better, what system will give them better service and will give the Deputies themselves a better chance of looking after the interests of their constituents.
The proposals in this Bill are the most important to come before this House for a long number of years. I regard them definitely as a retrograde step. No matter how Deputy Carty may whistle passing the graveyard, when this Bill comes before the people in a democratic way, they will reject it. It is a blatant attempt to prevent Parliament being representative of the views of the people, because it will interfere with the legitimate rights of minorities. I am not alone in thinking that this Bill will be defeated when it comes before the people. We know that the Fianna Fáil Cabinet were almost equally divided on it. The Minister had to come in here week after week and speak at length to hold up the passage of the Bill in order to give the Fianna Fáil Cabinet time to come to a decision.
Who is holding it up now?
This is a free and democratic country. I am entitled to my right to speak.
So am I.
Certainly. Your Cabinet was equally divided. Some of your Ministers had to thump the table and say they would not allow a vote at a meeting, although we were assured by Fianna Fáil that morning that there would be no meeting. Despite the fact that the Cabinet were divided and that some Members advised the Government they would be defeated on this, the strong men in the Cabinet had their way and a statement was issued that it was a unanimous decision. You would want to get the Oxford Dictionary to define the word "unanimous" because now, according to Fianna Fáil, when they are almost equally divided, they are unanimous.
Scéal Fhine Gael atá agat, a mhic.
Ní hea. A Minister like Deputy Colley——
What about all-night sittings and a majority of one?
You may talk about all-night sittings and a majority of one. Your information is completely wrong. You had eight Cabinet meetings and about eight Party meetings before you could finally come to a decision.
Not on this subject. We have a Party meeting every week and two Government meetings every week.
What is contained in this Bill is contrary to our democratic traditions. It will lead to an unrepresentative Parliament, an arrogant Government and may pave the way for dictatorship. There is no denying we have the makings of many young dictators in the Fianna Fáil Party. We have men who cannot bear criticism. If priests appear on television and tell the people the truth, they are "so-called clerics" and "misguided people".
That has nothing to do with the Bill. Might I point out we are on the Fifth Stage and only what is contained in the Bill is relevant. All the other matters the Deputy mentioned are irrelevant.
The straight vote contained in this Bill will render it more difficult to achieve the ending of Partition, something we all sincerely hope for in our day.
Even those who created it.
We have people who preached something for years and they are now over 30 years in Government and have not lifted a hand to free the people of Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland, in fact, is being cemented——
The Deputy may not discuss Partition on this Bill.
They have let down the people in Northern Ireland. They do not give a jot about them. They are feathering their own nests and Taca is there to support them. It is a case of: To hell with the North and the people of Northern Ireland. They have no respect or regard for them and have long forgotten them.
Partition does not arise on this Bill.
If the Minister taunts me about these things, it is my right to reply and if he does, I shall certainly reply.
I believe this measure has not been demanded by the people. Therefore, I claim that in present world conditions and in view of our economic circumstances, with our problems of national debt, emigration and growing unemployment, it would be much better for the Government to devote their time and abilities—if they have any—to ending these problems instead of introducing this British system of election. The measure we are discussing is described as the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill——
It is not.
Sorry; the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill. The moment I had it said, I knew I was wrong. I did not think the Minister would notice.
The Deputy does not know what he is talking about.
I think the proper title would be the the Fianna Fáil Ascendancy Bill. The word "ascendancy" has perhaps a bad taste and smell in this country but there is not the slightest doubt among the majority of our people that the aim of Fianna Fáil is not to give Fine Gael or any other Party a chance of becoming a Government but to rivet Fianna Fáil in power for as long as possible. They know now, with the results of recent by-elections and general elections, that their vote is dropping and they are trying to get 65 per cent of the seats here with 38 to 40 per cent of the votes. They know they cannot win the game under the present rules and therefore they want to change the rules in order to win.
We are dealing with a Party who know all the rules of the game, a wily Party steeped in deceit and corruption and no matter what any member of Fianna Fáil says, I have no doubt they will try to gerrymander the constituencies as they have so often done in the past. Even in 1947 they tried to defeat the aim of PR by making 21 three-seat constituencies. Things did not turn out to their liking and when they found in many of those constituencies instead of getting, as they expected, two Fianna Fáil and one other Deputy, they got two Fine Gael and one Fianna Fáil or one Labour, one Fine Gael and one Fianna Fáil, they moved away from that position as quickly as possible and introduced many four-seat constituencies.
We have been told that PR is a British system and that the new system, according to Fianna Fáil, is the straight vote system. I do not want to go back on what President de Valera said about the system that we had and knew, but I think it fair to say that the present President spoke in favour of PR in 1919 and again in 1927 and if it is true, as Fianna Fáil now tell us, that PR is a British system, why did the President speak in favour of it on those occasions? Why did he copper-fasten it into the Constitution in 1937? That is what he did and he is a man respected by the majority of Fianna Fáil. Does the Minister now want to say that it is a British system, inspired by the British Government and the English people, despite the fact that Fianna Fáil enshrined it in our Constitution of 1937?
We gained our freedom in 1922 and in an Irish Parliament composed of men like Arthur Griffith, General Mulcahy, Seán MacEoin, the late W.T. Cosgrave, Kevin O'Higgins, Paddy Hogan and others, we had this declaration at that time:
Dáil Éireann, sitting as a Constituent Assembly in this provisional Parliament, acknowledging that all lawful authority comes from God to the people and in the confidence that the national life and unity of Ireland shall thus be restored hereby proclaims the establishment of the Irish Free State and in the exercise of undoubted right decrees and enacts....
Article 16 of that Constitution provided that Dáil Éireann shall be composed of Members elected to represent constituencies determined by law and that the system of election be in accordance with the principles of proportional representation.
That was one of the first acts of an Irish Government elected in 1922, to proclaim to the world its existence, to declare the manner in which it would control its own affairs and the manner in which people would be elected to Parliament. I sincerely hope that nobody on the opposite benches will tell me that men like Griffith, Mulcahy, MacEoin, Cosgrave, Hogan, O'Higgins and the others I have mentioned, who took over the country from the British in 1921, who fought to put the British out of this country, were willing to adopt any system at the dictates of the British Government and enshrine it in our Constitution. There was no fear of them doing any such thing. They were Irishmen, inspired men doing their best for all sections of the people irrespective of class or creed. They wanted to give fairplay to all and especially to the Protestant minority here.
The founders of the State adopted PR and we had an election in 1932 under that system, and the Fianna Fáil Party came in as the largest Party and took over the Government. If the Cosgrave Governments between 1922 and 1932 had done away with PR, they might have kept the Fianna Fáil Party out of power, but recognising the rights of Fianna Fáil or of any other legitimate Party who were prepared to govern within the provisions of the Constitution, they did not try in any way to prevent those Parties entering this Parliament. History will give them credit for that, but they have got very little thanks from certain people.
I find it hard to accept that Fianna Fáil would have any liking for minorities. When Fianna Fáil were in a minority away back in the 1920s, they had very little respect for the majority point of view. Now that they are themselves in the majority, I suppose it would be hard to expect them to have any respect for minorities. We on this side of the House believe, as indeed did those who have gone before us and led this country in the earlier days through hard and harsh times in order to build up this country, in the legitimate rights of all minorities, whether it be labour, farmers or any other section of our people.
We are an agricultural community, and I claim that the farmers should be represented in Parliament by a farmers' Party if they wish to be represented here. The farmers are a minority group. I see nothing wrong in the principle of producers, farmers, coming together and putting forward their candidates in an election and having them elected to Parliament to fight for their rights and to fight for justice and fairplay. Under proportional representations, farmers would have a reasonable chance of having their candidates returned, but if the Minister for Local Government and the Fianna Fáil Party get their way, they will not have a chance in the world, under the British system of election, of having representatives returned to this Parliament.
The trade union movement is perhaps the biggest organised body of men in this country. If this Bill is passed and we adopt the British system, we shall have the situation here in which the doors of Leinster House will be closed to a James Larkin or a James Connolly. We could have a situation in this Parliament where the doors of Leinster House would be closed to the representatives of 800,000 organised workers.
Is that a minority?
In various constituencies.
Yes, in certain constituencies, it would be.
Are 800,000 workers, plus their wives and families, a minority?
800,000 workers are a minority; it is different if you include their wives. In any case, I claim that labour and the farmers are entitled to representation in an Irish Parliament. Nobody can deny that both of those sections, labour and the farmers, make the largest contribution to our national economy. If they are denied representation, which could happen under the system now envisaged by the little dictators in the Fianna Fáil Party, they will still be subject to all the penalties, shall we say, of citizenship while being denied their fundamental rights as citizens of this State. It will be a case of paying taxes, rent, rates and everything else, but being without the proper opportunity of getting representation in this Parliament.
If this Bill is passed, we all know that, according to figures that have been produced by independent experts on Radio Telefís Éireann and other independent experts in this country, Fianna Fáil could get anything from 94 to 110 Deputies, while the Labour Party could be reduced to six, eight or nine Deputies. This is most unfair, and it is certainly a system we would not stand for.
What are these figures based on?
The last general election.
These people are independent experts.
Independent nitwits.
These are figures produced by independent experts from election results, county council elections, and by-elections. They are entitled to take all relevant factors into consideration.
If these independent experts are basing their figures on the results of elections, the way the people expressed their preferences, and if the people continue to express their preferences in that way, we shall still have a Fianna Fáil Government.
Fine Gael stooges.
Do not talk about Fine Gael stooges. The majority of the people in RTE were put there by Fianna Fáil.
Not a solitary one.
Not a majority of them but many of them are sick and tired of the carry on of Fianna Fáil, and because many of them believe in freedom and democracy, they might not now be toeing the Party line as the Minister's Party would like them to toe it. I also believe that another minority, Sinn Féin, are entitled to representation. If the Sinn Féin Party are prepared to put up candidates for an election, to recognise the duly elected Government of the country and accept the authority of Parliament, I believe they should be in a position to command representation. Indeed, it might be no harm to say in passing that we had people at another stage of our history who were not prepared to accept the authority of Parliament, but they had a safety valve at that time. They had PR and that gave them a chance of procuring seats in an Irish Parliament. They ultimately availed of that chance and they entered this House, away back in 1927, I think.
The safety valve should still be left there. If Sinn Féin or any other body want to put forward candidates who have a reasonable chance of being elected, they should be in a position to do so. That can be done only under the PR system of voting. It certainly cannot be done under the British system of voting which Mr. Boland and the Fianna Fáil Party are trying to introduce——
The Minister for Local Government.
——which the Minister for Local Government and the Fianna Fáil Party are trying to introduce into this country. I believe a man should have the right to stand for any Party because, when we consider the matter properly, it is the individual candidate who counts—or it should be in any case—and not so much the Party. If good men are nominated on behalf of any small Party, they should at least—and I say at least—have a reasonable chance of election. They now have a reasonable chance under PR, but they certainly will not have a reasonable chance under the British system envisaged in this Bill.
We know what happens in Northern Ireland. We need not go any further for a glaring example of the injustice of this system. I also claim that if this Bill is passed, the British system envisaged in this Bill will lead to unrepresentative Parliament and to arrogant Governments. Indeed, many of the young Ministers in the Government are arrogant enough with 74 or 75 out of 144 seats. What would they be if they had 104 or 110 out of 144? The ordinary people of the country, whether clerics, laymen or anything else, would have a very poor chance under the so-called Minister. If this Bill goes through and we have the British system instead of proportional representation according to Party strength, we will have disproportional representation. No other system is as fair as PR.
It could be said, and it has been said, that the British system of voting is one of the biggest gambles on earth. We need go no further than across the water to our neighbouring country for an example. In 1945, the Labour Party in England polled 48 per cent of the vote and got a two to one majority of the seats in the House of Commons. In 1951, Labour polled 48½ per cent of the vote, half per cent more than they got in 1945, and they lost the election to the Conservatives who polled between 44 and 45 per cent of the vote. In 1953, in South Africa, the Nationalist Party with 590,000 votes secured 92 seats and the United Party with 608,000 votes, 18,000 more, got only 43 seats. They did not even get half the number. That is the system which the Fianna Fáil Government wish to adopt here.
I believe this system would lead to arrogant and dictatorial government. Indeed, so far as I know, it could be a plan to have permanent dictatorship here for years to come by keeping one Party in power. We all know that power leads to corruption. We want a Government under which everyone will get a fair crack of the whip. We know it is the aim of Fianna Fáil to rivet themselves in power, to get 104 or 110 seats. They know as well as I know, that if a Party have no representation in a constituency for a certain number of years, it is very hard for any young candidate to make up ground there, fight his way, and get to the top. It is the idea of Fianna Fáil to get this Bill passed and get into power, and with their 100 seats, to gerrymander the areas. I want to say this can be done and I have no doubt that they would try to do it again as successfully as they did it in the past. I also claim that the abolition of the PR system which we have, the system we know, the system that has served us so well, reading from the——
Gospel.
At any rate the President said that at one time. We know that if the British system is introduced here, it will make it much more difficult to end Partition. We were told very often in the past—at least at every election—that the ending of Partition was one of our top priorities, that it was our outstanding problem. As I said earlier to the Minister, Fianna Fáil seem to be content and happy to forget about it and when they are in the saddle, they hardly mention it until the next election. We were told in the past that it was the problem nearest and dearest to the hearts of the Fianna Fáil Party. Where their hearts are now I do not know. They are far away from Partition. We were told that the Government had plans to end it in the past, but nothing has been done. If Fianna Fáil were serious about ending Partition, the last move in the world they would make would be to give even the appearance of seeking one-Party domination here in Ireland.
The representatives of the Northern Ireland Government know how the British system of election works. They know they have been able to stay in power for about 40 years. They know what they have been able to do with majorities. Indeed, the Unionist Party in Northern Ireland, who know so much about the British system of election, who know exactly how that system works, who know exactly how it has ground down minorities and kept a particular Party in power, will not come in here as a minority under this system, because they themselves know what one-Party domination can do under this system.
According to some Fianna Fáil speakers, if proportional representation is abolished, we shall get a better type of Deputy and we shall have less deadwood in the Parties. That certainly is not true. If this British system of election is adopted here, we shall get the Deputy the Party bosses want us to get and no other, and this is the greatest disadvantage of the proposed system. Let there be no denying that it will lead to the growth of the power of the Party. The choice of candidate will rest with the Party machine and not with the people. He will be foisted on them. If they are supporters of the Party they will have no choice but to vote for that candidate.
Is that not what is happening in Fine Gael at the moment? How did you select the candidate for the Clare by-election? Miss Murphy was told to withdraw.
Her name went to the convention.
Deputy L'Estrange, without interruption, please.
There were not enough footballers.
I shall deal with that in my own good time. I now want to quote Pope John XXIII.
Is he in Fine Gael now?
They way you attack the "so-called clerics", I do not know——
Could I ask that somebody would preach a sermon on charity because there does not seem to be any here?
Deputy Burke can have his turn next.
The quotations appeared in the Irish Catholic of 23rd December, 1958. Pope John XXIII——
When did he speak in the Irish Catholic?
He was calling on the faithful to participate actively in the political life of their country and to be very careful in the selection of their parliamentary representatives. If this Bill goes through, the people cannot participate actively or select their representative.
(South Tipperary): Deputy P.J. Burke is completely outclassed this morning.
I shall have to resign.
Blind him with white smoke.
I want to read a quotation from a speech by Pope John XXIII which appeared in the Irish Catholic of 23rd December, 1958. Pope John XXIII was reported as saying:
Voters must choose their representatives with the greatest wisdom and knowledge because their choice is of particular importance in a democratic regime in which the representatives of the people have legislative power. The moral rectitude, the practical capacity and the intellectual powers of Parliamentary Deputies are, for the people of a democratic regime, a matter of life and death, of prosperity or of decadence, of recovery or of perpetual ill-condition.
Hear, hear.
If this Bill goes through, the Party conventions will be held and the Party bosses will select the men.
Is Deputy L'Estrange now describing Fine Gael machinery? We do not do it that way.
Fine Gael do not have a convention—only a mock-convention.
In the past, under proportional representation, the people voted for Party candidates in the order of their choice. Deputy P.J. Burke, under that system, might well receive 10,000 votes more than his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, Deputy Boland. The people have done it in the past. However, if constituencies are divided up, then, whether or not the people like, for example, the Minister for Local Government, if they are supporters of the Party, they will have no choice but to vote for him. Under the present system of proportional representation, with, say, five Fianna Fáil candidates in an area, the people supporting the Party can exercise their preferences in relation to the candidates. They can vote No. 1, P.J. Burke, No. 2, a footballer——
Is Deputy L'Estrange talking about Deputy Donnellan?
I am talking about your fellow: sorry, I cannot recollect his name.
Deputy Foley.
The people can give their No. 2 vote to Desmond Foley, their third and fourth votes to somebody else and their fifth vote, perhaps, to Kevin Boland and, when the results become known——
The Minister for Local Government——
——we may find that Mr. P.J. Burke has received 10,000 more votes than the Minister for Local Government. That is democracy. It is giving the people of Ireland the opportunity to use their brains to the best of their ability in selecting the people they think most suitable to represent them in an Irish Parliament. If the British system is introduced, then, in a particular part of county Dublin, whether the voters be clerics or any other section of the community, if they intend to support Fianna Fáil, they will have to give their vote to the present Minister for Local Government, Deputy Boland, whether or not they like it. That system is wrong.
Is Deputy L'Estrange saying the English Parliament is not a democratic Parliament?
We are talking about conditions in Ireland. We are talking about the system the people know and understand, the system which, according to Mr. Éamon de Valera, the President, has served them well for so many years. Despite the fact that your own President has praised proportional representation, you are now trying to introduce the British system of election—and I suppose you have often gone down on your bended knees and prayed to God that "Dev" would be returned. The people will become nothing but a cod: the Party bosses will do the work. The people will have to support the candidate the Party bosses select, whether or not they like it. The same will happen as regards other Parties. The people themselves will have very little power —and I believe it is the people who should have the power. As reported at column 238, volume 171 of the Official Report of Dáil Éireann, Mr. Éamon de Valera, the Taoiseach, as he then was, the present President——
That is what he then was, too.
——talking about the rivalries about which Deputy Molloy was talking a few minutes ago, said that of course there were rivalries of various kinds in multi-member constituencies but that they would not be there any longer. He said that the rivalries were very dis-edifying and tended to bring democratic representation into disrepute. If they had those things at Fianna Fáil conventions, and they must have had when the President——
References to conventions are out of order. We are discussing the Final Stage of this Bill.
Under this system the people will not have a choice; it will be the Party bosses who will have the choice. I did want to refer to a question Deputy Molloy asked but if it is not in order I will only mention it briefly.
This is not Question Time.
I could tell him what happened in Carlow-Kilkenny, in Sligo-Leitrim, and what happened in Wicklow.
Would the Deputy please keep to the Bill?
I was quite prepared to answer his allegations if I could.
We are not going to have any discourse on these matters this morning. I would ask Deputy Molloy to cease interrupting.
If this new system is adopted, a man can be foisted on the people and the people cannot have a choice. I remember in Roscommon where the Fianna Fáil Party selected three candidates but they would not select a particular man——
The selection of candidates is not in order.
——but the Fianna Fáil National Council afterwards put his name on a ballot paper. We are told that under the new system, the British system, we will have stability and strong government. This is an argument commonly used in support of the abolition of PR. I want to say that strong government is no substitute for good government. What we want, especially at present, is good government and not strong government. If Fianna Fáil had not been in power for the last number of years, there would be no real necessity for discussing this Bill because it is through their mismanagement of national affairs, because the dead hand of Fianna Fáil descended on the people and 1,300,000 people drifted from rural Ireland——
Again, this is not an economic debate.
I know it is not, but we would not have this discussion otherwise because the people would be in rural Ireland and the Government could not make the arguments they are making that if they do not introduce this system, they will have to carve up the constituencies.
That is the Third Amendment which deals with tolerance. The Fourth Amendment deals with single-member constituencies.
This country, I might say, unfortunately, has had experience of strong government in the past. It had the experience of strong government under Oliver Cromwell and under Lord Salisbury of the Tory Government who in Parnellite days said that 20 years of resolute government would be a cure for all Ireland's ills. Do Fianna Fáil want to follow in the footsteps of Lord Salisbury and say that 20 years of Fianna Fáil strong government will be a cure for all our ills?
Neither I nor anyone belonging to me has anything in common with the people I mention. Those with skeletons in their cupboards should keep their beaks closed.
Are you not part and parcel of the class?
What do you mean by "class"?
The Ascendancy class.
I am Irish and proud of it. I do not believe in class.
A Deputy
Or selling out to foreigners?
Anything I sold I sold to my own and thanks be to God I bought again out on the main road. If it was to a foreigner, why did the man only pay five per cent? Why was it not 25 per cent? Because that was the law. If he was a foreigner——
This discussion is not in order.
——there was some slip up. I worked hard for it in my younger days and I did not rob a bank——
Would the Deputy keep to the Bill?
If insinuations are made against me, I want to answer them. I do not want to go back into the past and I do think that it behoves each of us to say the best we can about the other fellow. I could tell the Minister a few home truths about his youth but——
Would the Deputy please keep to the Bill?
——the less said about it the better. Fianna Fáil are now adopting the role of the oppressors as well as trying to foist on us the system of the oppressors. It should be the concern of all to get and to retain good government. As I said, other countries have strong government but it is no substitute for good government, and many of those countries would prefer good government and wise government and not strong government. Power is not necessarily beneficial, and power corrupts. In the past there was strong government in Germany and we know that there was a strong government in Italy, but is that the type of government the young, mohaired dictators in Fianna Fáil want to see here if this British system of election is introduced? Russia has strong government today but it is a one-Party government and only one candidate's name is allowed to appear on the ticket. Is that what we are heading for? We should be careful because if the young dictators in Fianna Fáil got their way they would, backed by the moneyed classes about which the Minister has been speaking, and Taca, give us that sort of strong government. There is a strong government in Poland and in Hungary. We know what happened the ordinary people there in 1956 when they tried to rise up and fight for their rights. The Russian tanks went in and the people were mown down in their thousands. Do we want to introduce that type of strong government here? There is strong one-Party government in Yugoslavia and in Czechoslovakia. There is strong government in Red China. Do we want that type of government? Is that the direction in which we are heading.
We have heard a good deal about stability. Arguments have been advanced that we have not now, and have not had in the past, stability under proportional representation. These arguments are fallacious. We have had stability, no matter what members of Fianna Fáil may say. Since the foundation of this State, over 45 years ago, we have had only four Taoiseachs. There is no other country in the world which can claim that record. From 1922 to 1932 we had a Government of young men, a Government which had a hard task, a Government which took over from the British, a Government which had to build up this State, a Government which founded both the Garda Síochána and the Irish Army, of which we are so proud.
This matter of Governments is not relevant to this discussion.
But all this was done under proportional representation, under a system in which minorities had a real chance of being elected to Parliament. That Government got the co-operation of the people in those days because the safety valve was there: people could stand for election. I am, I think, entitled to make the case that had we then had the system now proposed, that would not have been the evolution of events at that time. The Government at the time had to be a strong Government because of the opposition with which they had to contend.
Governments are not in question. We are dealing with the electoral system.
Am I not entitled to refer to the stability that we had? Under proportional representation we had only one change of Government from 1922 to 1932.
A reference may be in order, but certainly not a discussion.
There was a change of Government in 1932 and Fianna Fáil came into office. No one can claim that that Government were not a strong Government and a stable Government. They were elected under the system that has served us so well for so long.
Do we want the type of stability and strong government the people have in Northern Ireland? Under the system of election proposed here, the British system, elections are a mere farce. Half the constituencies are not even contested and the results in the majority are known beforehand. I doubt if strength is the only quality required in a government. The bitter lesson of history is that governments can be stronger than they are wise. What we want here, what we have under the present system, is government representative of the people. That is something which cannot be procured under the proposed system.
The President, as quoted in the Irish Press of 20th January, 1948—he was then Taoiseach—had this to say:
A government is strong only if it has a majority in parliament because in our system, the government depends on the majority it has in parliament. It is a weak government if it has not a strong majority. It is not strong merely because it has a parliamentary majority. If it can be suggested that the government is not supported by the people then the government, by that very fact, is a weak government.
Under the system which Fianna Fáil are trying to foist on us today Fianna Fáil could get 65 per cent of the seats here with only 38 to 40 per cent of the votes of the people. The President said:
If it can be suggested that the government is not supported by the people then the government, by that very fact, is a weak government.
Do we want weak government here?
We have been told that this system, the British system, is the best system for this country. Arguments have been advanced that proportional representation leads to a multiplicity of Parties. That is not in accordance with the facts. All the evidence is to the contrary. In 1923 we had four Parties— Sinn Féin, Cumann na nGaedheal, the Labour Party and the Farmers' Party. Three of these Parties were represented here. The remaining Party were sulking outside the gate. They came in later.
In 1959, under proportional representation, we had only three Parties. More Parties were born and died under proportional representation than came to maturity and, in the intervening years, we had the People's Party, the National League, the Farmers' Party and the Centre Party. We have had only three large Parties over the past 36 years. At the moment we have only three major Parties and the two major Parties have something like 121 out of the 144 seats available. If my memory serves me correctly, the three major Parties have 139 or 140 of the 144 seats in this Parliament. That is the result under proportional representation. The argument of the Minister that proportional representation leads to a multiplicity of Parties does not, therefore, hold water. The Minister's argument was that, if we introduced the British system, we would have only two Parties. It is not the function of any Government to dictate to the people and say they should have only two Parties. That is a decision for the people themselves.
I object to this system being foisted on us. It is the British system and I believe that when the people are given the opportunity they will clearly show that they are not in favour of it. If we take away the safety valve, there is the danger that we might drive people who, under our present system, can get representation in this House, underground. If they can get representation, and they can get it under proportional representation, they will seek it through the normal channels in keeping with the Constitution but if they are denied that chance of getting representation in this House—and the Bill introduced by the Minister for Local Government is an effort to deny them that God-given right—those people can be driven underground.
Who is stopping Sinn Féin at the moment?
Who was stopping Fianna Fáil one time in the past from adopting the very same tactics they are adopting today, perhaps, by sulking and staying outside? The danger is that if they are not given the chance of getting representation here, they may seek other means of making their presence felt and the danger, indeed, of such a development is quite obvious. It has happened before in this country and, indeed, it can happen again. Suppose that the right of representation in the Dáil or in the Seanad were to be taken from, say, the Labour Party, they are strongly organised at the present time and if they wanted to at any time in the future, they could cripple the country. No one can deny that the strength of the trade unions totals over 800,000.
Will the Deputy explain that remark?
I am not saying that they should do that.
Will the Deputy get to the Bill?
They could not be blamed for doing this if this system of election was introduced, the British system, as envisaged in this Bill and if they were denied a fair chance of getting representation here in this House.
The Deputy is implying that the Labour Party and the trade unions are saboteurs?
I certainly am not.
Interruptions will not be permitted.
No such thing.
You did so.
I am implying that if the doors of Leinster House were closed through the passing of this Bill to the representatives following in the footsteps of James Larkin and James Connolly and if they had not a fair chance of getting representation in this House, nobody could blame them, perhaps, if they did cripple the country. They would not be blamed. That is the idea of Fianna Fáil and the power-drunk Ministers in it: to cripple all organisations.
Now you are twisting.
I am twisting nothing.
You are twisting.
At this stage, again, the Chair must point out that interruptions are inviting irrelevancies. Would Deputy L'Estrange keep to the Bill before the House?
It is interesting to hear Fine Gael policy being enunciated.
Deputy Molloy will cease interrupting.
It is no such thing as Fine Gael policy.
You are on the Front Bench.
What happened when Fianna Fáil were in Opposition from 1922 to 1927, when they sulked?
We are not going to have a discussion on past history at this stage.
Hear, hear.
Deputy Molloy will cease interrupting.
I will quote Mr. de Valera when he was speaking at one time about strong government. This system can drive people underground. Here is what Mr. de Valera said:
If you deny people who are animated with honest motives, peaceful ways of doing it, you are throwing them back upon the violent ways of doing it. Once they are denied the peaceful way, they will get support for the violent way that they would never get otherwise and there is no use in my preaching that doctrine to the Executive Government.
That is what he had to say at one time about the very same thing that I am speaking about at present. Do you believe that he was wrong, that your President was wrong, the man that you go down on your bended knees to pray for?
The Deputy will keep to the Bill.
Yes, Sir, but I am saying that if this measure is passed, there is this danger that Mr. de Valera referred to at one time, that if you deny people who are animated with honest motives peaceful ways of doing it, you are throwing them back upon the violent ways of doing it. Now, Deputy Moore, your own President said that at one time, and that is the danger.
The Deputy will address the Chair and not invite interruptions from other Deputies.
We want the reference for that quotation.
Volume 40, column 56, of the Dáil Debates?
What date?
The Deputy will have to look up the date. All I am expected to do is to give the volume and the column. The Deputy can run down to the Library. I may not be finished for another ten or 15 minutes. He can bring the volume and if I am wrong, he can correct me.
What year?
I did not bother getting the year. It is hard to get everything. I have given the volume and the column—Volume 40, column 56, of the Dáil Debates. I suppose I have stated enough but it is only right to say, as Mr. de Valera said, that there is this danger inherent in the British system of voting. If Fianna Fáil now get their way with the abolition of proportional representation and the introduction of the straight vote, that could result in a minority getting the majority of the seats. That is what Fianna Fáil want now. They know their percentage of votes has dropped in the last ten or 12 years from 55 or 56 per cent down to 43 or 44 per cent in the recent by-elections and county council elections. They know it is still dropping because the Irish people have found them out and they want to secure, under this new system, 70 to 75 per cent of the seats here with 38 to 40 per cent of the votes. They are not going to get away with it.
Let me say, it is a revolutionary proposal which could have very serious repercussions on the political system and on the people as a whole. It could have repercussions that none of us can foresee. We are taking a leap in the dark. I believe that we should retain the system that we have, the system which, as our President has said, has worked so well, which Deputy Lemass told us in the past has worked well and which even Deputy MacEntee told us in 1953 had worked well.
What did Deputy Cosgrave say about it?
I would like to tell you what the Minister for Industry and Commerce told us about what happened at a Fianna Fáil Cabinet meeting, when they were equally divided, and, further, I should like to say that one of the Ministers had to say to Deputy Lynch: "Will you leave this Party? The fact that you are not leaving means that we have now three Taoiseachs in the Fianna Fáil Party." That is what happened.
This is irrelevant.
Throwing up dirt.
Deputy Molloy will cease interrupting, as the Chair has told him already.
It is a false statement.
Deputy MacEntee said that the Irish people had PR and should not let anybody take it from them. I appeal to the people now not to let anybody take it from them and impose upon them the British system of election. The only solace that the Minister for Local Government and the Government can offer to our suffering people today is to tell them to forget their troubles, to forget about emigration and the high cost-of-living, that they are all right and that Fianna Fáil will give them the reforms that are contained in this Bill instead of living up to the promises that they made in the past. The present Government even under the present system provide a shield for the strong and a mockery for the weak. While they give lip service to the Proclamation of 1916, cherishing all the children of the nation equally, with Taca money, they have very little regard for the weak.
This Bill is not concerned with any matters other than single-member constituencies and the non-transferable vote.
With 74 seats out of the 144 in Parliament, this is the type of government we have—a shield for the strong and a mockery for the weak. If they get this Bill through and succeed in obtaining 100 or 110 seats out of 144, there will be very little chance with Taca money of their doing anything for the ordinary people. We know that Fianna Fáil are crafty and will be prepared to stoop to anything to get this passed.
I am sorry that this Bill is before us and has been discussed for so long because it is opening up quarrels about the past and the present; and we may find that in all this argument we may lose the future. We were forgetting the evils of the Civil War and the things that kept us divided in the past. There was a chance that the people of all Parties would come more closely together and work in the interests of the country. But this effort to take from the people their democratic rights shows that Fianna Fáil again want to open old wounds and perpetuate the divisions of the past. We would all like to forget the past, forget this futile wrangling and look to the future.
The Fianna Fáil Party are like leopards crouching to spring at the throats of the people. But the Minister for Local Government will not get the chance to carve the joint this time. In 1959 the Irish people rejected Fianna Fáil and they will certainly do the same again. They will be helped by the division in Fianna Fáil, by the fact that half the Fianna Fáil Party are not in favour of this measure. While the Minister may strut around here like a peacock, when the referendum is held, the people will cut him down to size. When Fianna Fáil speak about democracy and tell us this Bill is in the interests of democracy——
Interruptions are inviting further irrelevancies at this stage.
The Minister feels about democracy as if he were holding a wolf by the ears.
What about the tigers?
In this case Fianna Fáil will certainly not get the palm, but they will bite the dust. It happened before. In trying to take from the people their just rights, Fianna Fáil have forged a bond of common interest between those who love fairplay. They have built for us a bridge across the gulf of the differences that divided us in the past and kept us from uniting and defeating Fianna Fáil. But we will unite and defeat Fianna Fáil on this. Even if we had to fight it alone, we would fight and we would neither flag nor falter. We have been in the vanguard in the past. We are not fighting this fight alone at present. A spirit of comradeship and companionship with those who love, cherish and believe in true democracy will allow us to move forward steadfastly through the storm to final victory.
Let the people have faith and know that, as far as the Opposition are concerned, we will not fail them and that Fianna Fáil will be defeated. This Bill shows that Fianna Fáil have a mania and an appetite for the exploitation of our people purely for Party political motives. The Irish people are not fools. They dearly love their freedom and their rights. I confidently forecast that the sacrifices and exertions we expect of them in the coming months to defend their rights will not be in vain.
The first thing we have to make clear is that Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or the Labour Party cannot abolish PR. In the referendum the people are being given the choice of what type of system they want. They are being given this choice because that is what is contained in the Constitution. I wish Opposition speakers would stop trying to confuse the issue by alleging that the Fianna Fáil dictators are trying to deprive them of their fundamental rights. In the Constitution, which was created by the Fianna Fáil Government, the people's rights are safeguarded. I believe we will get this over to the people and that they will act accordingly and give us the system which is in practice in most modern democratic States.
We heard this morning the most disgusting speeches in the debate so far. Deputy Donegan came in here in very bad humour, I am told. He took an attitude which has caused much strife by trying to embroil the Church in this debate. It may sound strange to Deputies who did not hear him but I was here and I would remind him that in some countries in the thirties there were politicians who tried the same thing and it resulted in a sad time for the Church and for the people. It is despicable that a Deputy, in trying to make a case, should embroil the Church here. I do not know what he hopes to gain but whatever he gained, he certainly gained no personal kudos here.
We had an attempt by Deputy L'Estrange to give PR a biblical origin. Whatever I have read in the Bible I have never seen any reference to PR there but Deputy L'Estrange began to quote from some Bible—I do not know from which one——
There is only one.
I am glad the Deputy made that remark because Deputy L'Estrange seemed to have his own. However, we accept the Gospel according to St. John but I think the Irish people will not accept the political gospel according to Deputy L'Estrange.
This is a very serious issue, but listening to Deputy L'Estrange all I can say is that he is good for a laugh. His contribution must be one of the poorest ever. He spoke about the Labour Party and the trade unions. I have no right to speak for the Labour Party or the unions. He threatened that if the Labour Party did not succeed under this new system, they would sabotage the country. I am pointing this out to the House to show the depths to which the Deputy would go to have the referendum defeated. I regard the people as having a much higher degree of intelligence than Deputy L'Estrange believes and I believe they will reject these futile arguments in favour of PR.
It may be mentioned that some of the newspapers are coming out with vicious articles in favour of PR. One paper in particular I shall mention is the Irish Times which has published vicious leading articles advocating the retention of that archaic system. It is not really strange to find the Irish Times taking up this attitude because throughout its existence it has always tried to preserve the status quo. We had a very small minority known as the Ascendancy and the Irish Times always championed their cause. Perhaps these people fear the future under the new system and may have decided that they must hold on to the unjust system. We are told that it is one man, one vote, but we know very well, because of vested interests, by various means they can influence public opinion not in the cause of the country but in the interests of maintaining the status quo. That is why they publish these vicious articles calling for the retention of PR.
We believe that every voter is equal and entitled to a vote which would have the same weight as the vote of a wealthy landowner or capitalist. The Irish Times are backing the Labour Party to a great extent on this issue and have come out against the mass of the people trying to deprive them of the right to have a different system of election. We hear about minorities being injured if the PR system goes but the only minority that will be hit are the people of the Ascendancy type who want to go on governing this country, not from Government benches or Leinster House, but from various old seats of power. The people will see through this, I believe, and will give us the system that operates in England where I do not think anybody could say the Government are undemocratic.
Deputy Donegan spoke about the position in the six occupied counties. It is ridiculous to suggest that if PR operated there, you would have a Nationalist majority. Deputies know there is more involved than that. Last week, at a Nationalist convention, one of the speakers said that we were losing touch down here. We certainly are if a Deputy here gets up and contrasts the position in the Six Counties with the Twenty-Six Counties as regards voting systems. He should know that many factors operate against the Nationalists having a majority in the North. I am not defending the gerrymandering activities of the Northern Government but even if the PR system were introduced there, while it might bring some change, you would not find a Nationalist majority there for a very long time. Therefore, it is a very unfair argument to use here for the retention of PR.
The attitude of Deputy Donegan and Deputy L'Estrange was hypocritical. They took on themselves the defence of the Church and other institutions, something they had no right to do. On another occasion Deputy Donegan offered a pact to the Labour Party to join in an inter-Party or coalition Government and then he turned to these benches and made a further offer. His attitude was, I think, that "we do not care with whom we shall coalesce so long as we get into power". His projection for the next general election was not very impressive. I think he gave the Labour Party 25 seats. I doubt if Deputy Corish would be satisfied with that.
I have demanded a recount.
He should demand a recount of the Deputy's whole speech. I think the time has come when the Labour Party might re-examine the position. They cannot be too happy when they are being backed by the Irish Times and the Fine Gael Party.
What about a few words from the Irish Press?
They are very good to the Labour Party.
Very fair too.
They are all the same to me but Deputy Moore wants to make the Irish Times the whipping boy.
They are also fair to the Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Parties. Truth in the News.
The "weekly liar".
I do not want to delay the House but the big task for us here is to get across to the people that they are the final arbiters in this case, not Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or the Labour Party. They must decide whether to maintain an archaic system of election or have an efficient system that will give the country strong and good government. This talk of Party bosses dictating who will stand for election may be justified from Deputies opposite. I do not say they are wrong because they know the Fine Gael Party. Our Party is a very democratic one. You go through the convention and if you are fortunate enough to get through it——
That is at the moment.
Always.
When the straight vote comes, it will change. Matt Finegan gave you your answer.
I do not want to discuss Alderman Finegan with Deputy Belton.
The Minister does not know where to pick his seat now.
I should like to conclude by reiterating the statement I made at the outset, that it is the duty, the task and the privilege of the people to decide this question in the autumn. Neither Fianna Fáil nor anyone else can foist anything on them, and if the Fine Gael Party are so sure of winning, I am wondering why the great filibuster is going on. I believe the people will on this occasion vote in favour of reforming the electoral system because the proposed system is a good one, a system which operates in Britain and which would operate in France, in West Germany and in Belgium if the Governments were strong enough there to put this option to the people.
Listening to the last speaker, one would imagine that there was a tremendous national demand for this change in the electoral system. I am unaware of anybody asking for this change except the Fianna Fáil Party, and it is the Fianna Fáil Party who must take responsibility for a prolonged debate on something that nobody wanted except themselves, and indeed in the minds of a great many people considerable doubt has grown in the last month or so as to whether the majority of Deputies in Fianna Fáil want this change or not. The Minister may as well know the sad truth that they have no more chance of winning this referendum than the man in the moon. They forced this issue on Dáil Éireann simply because they were in a position to force it with their overall majority. It is a repetition of what was rejected by the electorate in a secret ballot nine years ago. I have sat through this debate, and I have spoken very little. In fact I have not spoken since the Second Stage.
The Deputy has not sat through it either.
Who would want to do that?
I have sat here and listened to the Minister speaking in isolation in his own benches when his own Party would not even give him the distinction of sitting behind him and listening to what he was saying, for the simple reasons that he was repeating himself from beginning to end. One of the major arguments put forward by the Fianna Fáil Party was that they wanted stability. In the world very recently we have seen the revolt against constituted authority, and this revolt has come in most countries from minorities. What the political pundits assess as the reason for that is that there is not enough contact between political representatives and the smaller minorities. Therefore to safeguard and maintain democracy as it is one of the most essential things is—and this is evident from happenings in recent weeks—that minorities should have an opportunity of being represented in Parliament. If they are represented in Parliament they are then in a position to voice their opinion, and this creates political stability, even among extreme sections of the community.
We have listened ad nauseam to talk about the French system. Will the members of Fianna Fáil get it into their heads once and for all that the French system is not the straight vote system? There is an election in France at the moment, and they have what they call the first choice. They had an election last Sunday.
But it is a straight vote.
It may be a straight vote but——
The Deputy said it was not.
I said—if the Deputy would only listen—it is not the same as what the Minister for Local Government is trying to force on the Fianna Fáil Party as well as on the rest of the country.
Nobody said it was.
The straight vote is the Canadian vote, the direct vote. It is the vote of the United States, and it is the vote of Britain. These are practically the only countries in the world that have it. The vote in France is different: if you are first past the post, in other words, if you get an overall majority you are in on the first count. That is the principle we are trying to defend on this side. We want a system whereby a person who is elected is elected by a majority. What Fianna Fáil want is to get control of the country through a minority of the votes. There is no other explanation for it. There is no use in Deputies getting up and making futile speeches. As regards the last Deputy who spoke, I have no idea whether he is for or against proportional representation. I could not understand what he was talking about: I do not think he even knew himself.
All we have had from Fianna Fáil are interruptions and a long monologue from the Minister saying the same thing repeatedly, that he wants to see a strong Opposition and a strong Government. Was there not a strong Government in France? Is there not a strong Government in Germany, and was there not a strong Government in Italy up to quite recently? In order to have stability in a modern democracy, the entire electorate must be represented. If not, the trouble that has come to the other countries will eventually come here. In Germany they have a huge majority today and still they have got stability. In a free democratic Parliament, with the continuing encroachment of bureaucracy, due largely to weak Ministers, we must ensure that all sections of the community are properly represented.
Everybody in this House knows I am not what one would call a left-wing thinker by any means. My views would appertain more to conservatism and I am not ashamed of that. Many people over there are conservative and would be ashamed to admit it. However, I recognise the fact that the Labour Party, who appear to be moving in the direction of being largely representative of the trade union movement, are entitled to representation here, and are entitled to that representation in the proportion in which they get the votes. That is the meaning of PR.
The Minister and his Party are introducing a Bill for which there was no demand from any public authority in the country; even the smallest urban council or town commissioners never passed a resolution asking for it. There were very few letters in the papers about it, and any there are are obviously written by some Fianna Fáil hack to try to cover the political opposition that is growing towards this Bill.
They can go ahead with this Bill if they want to, but I suspect myself that there are other motives behind it as well.
The Fianna Fáil Party want to eliminate, to put it politely, some of the driftwood in their ranks. They want to nominate people who suit them in particular constituencies. This could happen very easily in a constituency where there is a majority for the Opposition. We do not know what the constituencies will be because they will be arranged by Fianna Fáil. It could happen in a constituency where there is a majority against the Government, where there is an overall majority of 300 or 400 in favour of Fine Gael or the Labour Party or even an Independent as against Fianna Fáil. They can introduce what is known as stooge candidates. These people can be forced on a constituency and that constituency would have representation in Parliament which had no interest in it whatsoever.
Under the system which the Minister is so keen on, the British system, at the moment there is in Britain a vacancy in what is known as a safe seat. The Conservatives have a majority of 12,000 there. There were 83 applications for the seat and the final choice rested between two. Neither of those two lived in the constituency or had anything to do with it. They were being foisted on the local organisation——
Like Deputy T.F. O'Higgins and Deputy Lindsay.
Whom was he foisted on? He is from Mayo.
The moment I try to tell them some home truths they seem to get very annoyed. Deputy Molloy can get up and answer me when I have finished and I guarantee that I will listen and not interrupt him.
Deputy Esmonde.
I am trying to tell them some painful truths.
Deputy Esmonde should be allowed to make his speech.
I shall have to appeal for the protection of the Chair if this continues. Deputy Molloy has shown that he is alive to the situation by interrupting practically continuously no matter who is speaking. It may be that we will not have him representing Galway unless he suits the pundits of the Party. Someone else will be foisted on the area. I know very little about Galway but I am sure Deputy Molloy is au fait with the situation in his constituency, and unless he conforms fully with the policy of the Party, whatever that may be for the time being, it looks as if he and his friend from Donegal may be eliminated from their constituencies and someone from Dublin with heavy funds at his disposal, a considerable contributor to the Fianna Fáil Party fund—I will not mention the organisation because it engenders such heat and I hate to see people getting angry —will be foisted on the constituencies and the local personal element which is so paramount in Irish public life, and which has been such a strong defender of the democratic system, will be abolished.
I do not think this proposal will go through. I do not think Fianna Fáil would lose any face by withdrawing it. It must be absolutely crystal clear at the moment that it is recognised in the country that the Government are wasting valuable time. There are many other things we could be discussing to the betterment of the country, instead of having this futile, senseless debate and listening to the Minister for Local Government—and I do not say this in any personal way—droning on defending a lost cause. This will be bad for the prestige of the Fianna Fáil Party. The figures produced this morning by Deputy Donegan seem to have annoyed Fianna Fáil. Looking at it from the Fianna Fáil angle, I have the unhappy feeling that if they are routed at the referendum, they will be routed at the subsequent general election, and everyone will say to the Minister: "Why did you ever introduce this Bill and leave us in the cart as you have done?"
I do not intend to speak at length at this stage of the Bill, but I should like to make a few points, not so much on the merits of the proposal in this measure as on the mechanics of the referendum and the debate in this House. I do not know what the Fianna Fáil discussion on this matter was like. I cannot say whether this Deputy or that Deputy was for or against the proposal, or whether there was a Cabinet split. It seems to me that no matter what the personal feelings or views of the members of the Fianna Fáil Party were, they are now unanimous in their view that they will back this proposal and it will go to the country. This is what we want to see as quickly as possible.
The discussion which has ensued over the past three or four months to a pretty large extent has been a futile exercise. It was obvious from the start that the issues were clear cut, that no substantial amendment would be proposed from the Government benches, and that no substantial amendment would be accepted from any of the Opposition Parties. The views of the three Parties were made known very clearly on the Second Reading of the Bill. In other matters which come up for discussion here our decision is final. We can approve or disapprove of legislation. We can pass or reject Estimates. That is the final decision and that decision must be implemented. What we are doing in this case is deciding whether the Government's proposals will go to the country. It must be obvious to everyone that because Fianna Fáil have an overall majority, these proposals are going to the country some time, and why we should have this long debate I cannot imagine. I see the Minister looking at me as if he were blameless on this point.
Who is holding it up?
The Labour Party cannot be accused of holding it up.
They certainly can.
I do not pretend to talk for Fine Gael. They can talk for themselves. It appears to me that a fortnight ago when he made his speech on Deputy Norton's amendment, the Minister decided to stop what was obviously a filibuster because he was reading out senseless information to the House. Everyone knows my views on this proposal, and Deputy Molloy's and Deputy Esmonde's, but for weeks we have had this criss-crossing of information and futile discussion. I do not want to curtail discussion but, as Deputy Esmonde said, there are many other things we should be discussing in the House on which we could make a final decision. We have not done this. We have wasted the time of Parliament, while there are other things to which we should have devoted our attention, this year on this measure and last year on another proposal by the Government when they introduced the Marts Bill.
It is working well.
What is?
The Marts Bill.
The point I was making was that the discussion was too long and much of it was futile.
Whose fault was that?
I am talking for myself and for the Labour Party. If the Deputy wants to address remarks about that measure, he should address them to Fine Gael. When I speak, I speak on behalf of myself and the Labour Party.
We are not giving any new information to the people on this subject. The press cannot devote all their pages to this debate so they cannot convey an absolutely proper and true picture of this debate. I therefore believe that what we should do now, and what the Government in particular should do, is to initiate debate in the country particularly by way of television, radio and, of course, the press are able to look after that job themselves. The people must be allowed to participate in this decision in a greater way than in 1959 and in a greater way than I believe it is intended they will be allowed to participate before this referendum comes along in the autumn. The people should know the absolute facts. This can be done by public speeches by the various Deputies and particularly by way of radio, television and the press.
I do not believe the people should be led by any political Party purely in a political fashion. This decision should be made with an awareness of the proposals and of the counter-proposals.
We are quite amused at the concern about the Labour Party. We can look after ourselves, as we have done since we were established and particularly as we have done in the last two elections. I do not know what the results will be of the next election: naturally, I do not accept Deputy Donegan's figures. We have made gains progressively in the last two elections—in the by-elections and the local elections. We hope to continue that trend. Let nobody be over-concerned about our future or our activity. The trade union movement, apart from their affiliations, some of them to the Labour Party, also know their own business as they have demonstrated. They will always get representation in this House, no matter what the system.
We are for proportional representation. In this discussion, we have not dealt with the matter with an eye on the next election or on the election after that. The usual procedure is to determine how Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or the Labour Party will do under the straight vote. We should not engage in that sort of exercise because, in so doing, we make obvious that our concern is for our Party's future. It is a matter of importance but it should not be related, as such, to the proposals in this measure.
We are for proportional representation because we believe it is the fairest system of election for the reasons we have given, particularly on Second Reading. Whether or not it is of any use to anybody, we are unanimous in this view. We are not concerned about the individual opinions of those in Fianna Fáil or in Fine Gael. I respect Party decisions.
The same as ourselves.
It is, and always has been, the unanimous view of the Labour Party that we should retain the system of proportional representation. Every effort should be made by the Government to ensure that all the arguments will be put before the people through the media of radio, television and the press. Unless we do that, the referendum will be somewhat of a farce.
I do not speak in this debate because I feel I might have something new to add at this stage, when all the arguments from all sides of the House have been put fairly comprehensively. I rise because of certain remarks that Fianna Fáil have delayed the passage of this Bill. This suggestion must be refuted because it is absolutely untrue. It must be obvious to anybody who has followed the debate that it has been carried, on our behalf, mainly by our Minister for Local Government, Deputy Boland. It has been our wish to place before the people, through him, the facts of the issues and to leave it to the people to decide. Any delays in the passage of this Bill have come from the Opposition Parties, especially Fine Gael. It is rather strange for Deputy Corish to make the type of appeal he has just made. Why did he not do something about the matter in the earlier stages of the debate so that the members of his Party would not prolong it?
Which they did not do.
Fifteen out of 19 spoke on the Second Stage.
They were entitled to do it.
Furthermore, a big number spoke on Committee Stage.
I am talking about Committee Stage. They did not——
The Deputy announced his policy.
We are now only wasting time.
We have consistently stated that it is our wish to put this proposal before the people and we shall accept their decision. We wonder at the stalling tactics of the people who have tried to delay the passage of this measure. The issues have become very clear during the debate. One would imagine that our motives, in putting this Bill forward, were anything but honourable if one were to judge by all that has been said by Opposition speakers. If there was anything dishonourable in the promotion of this Bill I, for one, would certainly not be associated with it.
Hear, hear.
It is most disheartening and indeed frustrating to have to listen to the remarks that Opposition speakers can freely make here, knowing in their hearts that the statements they are making are not true and that the motives they are attributing to us are not true. These tactics are dragging Irish politics further down and the blame can only be laid at the feet of the Opposition Parties.
As a young person in politics, I find it most disgusting and discouraging. Indeed, any young people interested in devoting their time and their lives to the service of the Irish people through politics could not but be deterred, by reason of this type of tactic by any Party in the Irish Parliament, from following that worth-while pursuit of devoting one's time to the service of the people. I should like to see the standard of debate and the workings of the Dáil raised to as high a level as possible. I should like to get away from that type of petty interruption and the slinging of remarks which are known not to be true but which are made in the hope that at least some of the mud that is slung will stick and that to some extent we will be tarred. There is only one reason behind this Bill—and it is the unanimous decision of the Fianna Fáil Party, no matter—
A speaker yesterday said it was a majority decision.
There is nobody in the Fianna Fáil Party who does not think that the single seat and the straight vote are the proper course to put before the Irish people.
The Deputy knows that that is wrong.
What I say is absolutely true. The Deputy is continuing the type of remarks and statements and interruptions to which I have referred.
The Deputy spent his morning interrupting.
This is what I am explaining, that it is frustrating and discouraging to have to listen to false statements being made.
That is what he is making now. Fianna Fáil were not unanimous.
Deputy L'Estrange spoke at length and he should now allow Deputy Molloy to speak.
The fact is that the whole of Fianna Fáil were unanimous. They have always been unanimous.
The Deputy should not talk nonsense.
This is absolutely true. We know that this is not true of Fine Gael. They made no secret of the fact that their Leader thinks the same as we do. I appreciate the difficult position in which the Fine Gael Party find themselves.
You look after Fianna Fáil and we will look after Fine Gael.
Perhaps this is why they are shouting so loudly and throwing so much mud, trying to cover the fact that there is so much confusion among them. The integrity of their Leader has never been questioned either by us or by his own people.
Deputy Lenihan, Deputy Colley——
Deputy Boland.
I said that he will have his way despite the Party he leads.
Order.
I would say that every Deputy in his heart and soul could not but wish for single-seat constituencies. Most of the Opposition Deputies do not have the type of experience which the Government Party have had when there are two Deputies of the same Party in the one constituency. But the position is no different for them where you had three, four or five different area. The whole system seems to me to be highly inefficient because we had Deputies running around each trying to convince the constituents that he was a better man than the others. We know, too, that a lot of surplus work was being thrown on to the civil servants because of multiplicity of representations. It would be much better if a man were elected for a smaller area, if the man who got the most votes, no matter how many were contesting the election, were elected and he would stand or fall in the area on his performance and the next election would decide whether or not he had been satisfactory to the electors. There would be no question of a candidate getting in on the coat tails of somebody else or by the transfer of votes from another candidate.
Opposition speakers say that this proposal is undemocratic but that does not hold water. The PR system is a dishonest system of voting. How could one say that it was honest to transfer a vote of the same value to a No. 2 if that vote had been given as a No. 1? It could not be deemed to be an honest or truthful expression of the wishes of the voter. If a voter votes No. 1 for Fine Gael and votes No. 2 Fianna Fáil, he has voted for two different Parties and two different types of policies; yet in the counting of the votes that man can end up voting for Fianna Fáil. That is the system that exists here and this present system exists nowhere else in the world.
The situation in the North of Ireland has been instanced as resembling the type of situation we would have here under the proposed system but that again is dishonest because everybody knows that political circumstances in the North of Ireland are completely different from those which exist here. The main factors there are religious and that is how the voting is determined, not so much on policies as on religion. This is unfortunate but it is true. As well as that we know there has been plenty of experience of gerrymandering. That has been going on——
That is happening here.
It is not. There will be a Commission on which all Parties will be represented and how can you have gerrymandering under an independent judge? Why not face up to the issues and not try to fool the people?
Another point which was made was that it was Fianna Fáil's ambition to perpetuate themselves in office, but this is absolutely untrue. I have no ambition to belong to a Party which is going to be the Government ad infinitum, whether the people want it or not. I do not think that any other Deputy in my Party either wants to see that type of situation arise. This is the impression that Opposition Parties are trying to create, that this is what we want and what we mean by stable government. By stable government, we mean that whoever is elected will be able to form a government and that we will not have the situation which exists today in so many European countries. Because of the proliferation of small Parties in Belgium, they have been unable to form a Government for many months.
The most important thing after an election is that a government should be elected as soon as possible and we want that Government, whether it is a Fianna Fáil Government or not, to be in a position to operate as a Government so that we will not have the type of situation we had when we had coalition Governments in which deals were being made every day and in which there were all sorts of trickery and promises which were not in the interests of the people. We do not mind who is elected as long as it is a Government the people want and as long as it can operate during its period of office until the next election.
If we are not elected, we want to be in the position that we can go into opposition and fight hard to get back into government again. That is the type of political situation we are looking for, the type of society we want to see. It is not fair to say that there is no demand for this change. There has been a demand down through the years for the single-seat constituency and for stable government, and not for what the Fine Gael Party say we mean by stable government. We want a Government that can operate freely, a unified Government and not a collection of individuals or small groups, of which we have had too much experience here and throughout Europe. Even at present our newspapers are carrying stories about different countries in which Parties are not able to get a majority in elections and not able to form Governments and as a result deals have to be made. This has been to the detriment of the countries' economies because investment from within the country and from outside is slowed and deterred by that type of situation. In the long run, it is the people who lose when you have not got stable government because you will not have investment in the country.
As I said, it is untrue to say that our wish is to stay in office. Under the present system, we will remain the biggest Party; Fine Gael will be the second biggest; and the Labour Party will remain the third biggest. There will not be any substantial change in the political situation for 15 or 20 years because no matter what percentage change there is in the electorate at times of general elections, there cannot be any great difference in the number of seats won by any Party because of the transfer of votes under PR. Under the system we are proposing, a small swing in the number of votes can make a tremendous difference in the number of Deputies elected for a particular Party and a small swing can put in a Government or put it out. This makes for big Parties or small Parties at the wish of the electorate and the wishes of the electorate are conveyed much more clearly and much more specifically through the straight vote than they are under proportional representation, which is purely and simply designed to maintain the status quo, a stagnant political situation. We do not mind if we are not the Government, but, whoever is, they should be able to operate as an efficient and successful government, as a government having the confidence of the people; and, if the people elect them with a majority, then that is the wish of the people and the people must have confidence in supporting them.
I cannot understand how the Opposition have done so much shouting about our anxiousness to stay in Government. A small swing on the straight vote could put us out overnight. We are the very Party who stand to lose most under the straight vote. After all, we have been in Government for 30 out of the last 36 years under proportional representation. Why then should we bring forward this proposal when we are the people who have benefited most from proportional representation? Because our reasons for making the change are genuine and sincere; because we have the responsibility of the government of the country at the moment; because we have a sincere feeling of responsibility for the future of the country in the next 15 or 20 years. If we do not change the system, then in the next general election, or the one after that, if we, the biggest Party, do not get a majority to form a Government, who will be the Government? That question has gone unanswered all through this debate.
If the Labour and Fine Gael Parties can tell the people that the alternative to this Government is a joint government between Labour and Fine Gael, then let them say so now. I know Fine Gael have made certain approaches because the people in Fine Gael realise that is the only way there can be an alternative under the present system, but the Labour Party are obstinate and insist that they will never again go into any type of government with Fine Gael. They have had their experience of working with Fine Gael and maybe we cannot now blame them for their decision. I was not here but I know I suffered under the Coalition Government because of the widespread unemployment in the country and the general unsatisfactory state of the economy. Remembering that, the people will not again be so easily codded by the arguments of Opposition Deputies; their speeches lack sincerity.
I know my seat will be in danger under the straight vote. So is the seat of every Deputy. No one can forecast how he will fare under the proposed new system. Under the present system, there are many who can be quite confident of being re-elected, but there are few, if any, who can be 100 per cent sure that they will be re-elected under the proposed new system. Yet, we have the most Deputies and all of them unanimously agreed to support this proposal in the interests of the country.
(Cavan): Deputy P.J. Lenihan said yesterday “by a majority”.
Our support for the proposal is common knowledge. But Opposition Deputies are not prepared to sacrifice their seats, or themselves, for the sake of the country. I am. Under the straight vote, I may be out of here at the next general election. I am prepared to fight. If the people want me, fair enough. If they want someone else, well and good. It will be the people's choice. Why be afraid to go before the people under the most democratic system that exists anywhere in the world? Why are Deputies on the opposite benches afraid of the will of the people? Why have they stalled this debate and made all these statements designed to create the wrong impression? Why have they made false statements about our reasons for bringing forward these proposals? We have nothing to fear. We will accept the decision of the people. We know that what we are doing is in the best interests of the people and of the country.
We know that the most important thing is that there should be a government here and that that government should have at all times, as this Government have at the moment, the confidence of the people. There should be no deals behind closed doors for the purpose of forming a government never voted into office by the people. Parties should go before the people, state their policy and be elected, or not elected, as the case may be, on the policy put before the people prior to the election. There should be no second-rate type of government elected. That is the only reason why this proposal is brought forward here. The purpose is to safeguard the future. We are the Party in greatest danger when this change is made. We know where we stand under proportional representation. We cannot be knocked down from our position as the premier Party. The single seat and the straight vote will be a completely new situation.
I cannot understand why Fine Gael and some of the Labour Party Deputies are not prepared to make the same sacrifice as we are. I cannot understand why they shrink from putting their seats here in jeopardy by going forward in a new situation. Is it that they fear they will lose their seats? We stand for the betterment of the country and this proposal is brought forward for the betterment of the country and that is why every Deputy in Fianna Fáil supports this proposal.
With the sentiments of Deputy Molloy I find myself in sympathy. It is essential that there should be a government of this country. No one could contemplate with equanimity a situation in which that was not possible and, if political leaders and political Parties do not realise how necessary government is, then the people will certainly teach them. The interests of the country demand that pseudo-political differences will disappear not alone in relation to the necessity of providing government but, above all, government which is an alternative to the Government now in office, as Deputy Molloy said, for 30 out of the past 36 years. And, fair do's to them, the mark is on the country.
Were I a member of the Fianna Fáil Party, a fate from which the Lord has at least preserved me, and were I to look at my country, bearing the mark of 30 years of Fianna Fáil Government, contemplating our endemic emigration, our persistent unemployment, the low standard of living of our people, the many problems still un-tackled, the many things still undone, while, over that 30 years, the main purpose of the Government was to change one Constitution after another, bedevil and confuse the people with constitutional gimmicks of one kind or another, I should feel very badly indeed, realising that all the time the real work was left unattended and we had not used the freedom which those who went before us won for the country in order to provide a better way of life for the Irish people. I certainly would be ashamed of being a member of such a Party and I feel that those in the Fianna Fáil Party today who are concerned with the national interest must feel themselves equally ashamed.
I agree entirely with Deputy Molloy that the urgent task facing this country and anyone interested in its future is to provide as quickly as possible a new Government, an alternative Government, and a new sense of dedication to the tasks required to be done in this country. It is for that reason that I and the entire Fine Gael Party are in favour of the retention of proportional representation and propose to advise our supporters throughout the country to act in defence of this system of election.
Proportional representation is the Irish system of election. Let no one say otherwise. It was Irish in its inception in the days of Sinn Féin. It was Irish when it became part of Arthur Griffith's dream of the future free Ireland that he hoped to live to see. It was Irish when it went into our first Constitution. It was Irish when it was put by President de Valera into the Constitution of 1936. It was Irish in spirit, in sentiment, in design, and it was intended to operate fairly and reasonably in a free Ireland.
There are the Tory toadies of Fianna Fáil who now, in this day and age, some 46 years after we got our freedom, are looking back, trying to turn back the hands of the clock, to get this country to do what the British were doing many years ago and are still doing, who want to introduce the British system of election into our society.
Deputy Molloy says: "Let us have a referendum. We are going to have it." He says: "Let the will of the people take its course". Be it mar atá. Aontaím leis sin, as we have always done from these benches. We have always been prepared to let the people of this country decide the issues in controversy between us as politicians. We have never attempted to look into our own hearts and decide what is right for the people to do. We have always been prepared to state the case fairly in a democratic way before the bar of public opinion and then, as democrats concerned with the maintenance of a decent society, to observe and preserve the will of the people.
There was a referendum nine years ago on this very issue and the people gave their decision. I concede that only one out of every two voted. I have no doubt that those who went to vote were subjected to the pressure of a very strong political machine to go out and vote "Yes" to one issue in the referendum and to vote in another way on another issue being decided on the same day but the plain fact is that the people who voted in the referendum nine years ago came to a selective decision on the issues before them and, in relation to proportional representation, had no hesitation in deciding in its favour. That was the will of the people but apparently that just was not good enough because the people are now going to be told by those who talk about how important the people's will should be, that they were a bunch of jackasses, that they had no business deciding in the way they did and would they please now reconsider their decision.
I say now what we propose to say to the people of this country. What new fact has emerged in the last nine years which would suggest that the free decision of the Irish people in 1959 was erroneous or based on the wrong facts? Surely, this debate that we have had here, this discussion that is going to take place throughout the country, this controversy, will end without anything new being said? I have said everything that I am now saying many times before and will say it many times again. Every Fianna Fáil Deputy has urged the same point of view throughout the debate as was urged nine years ago. The people have heard it all before. Is anyone to suggest that an issue that has been explored and canvassed from so many angles is an issue that was decided by the people without their being in possession of all the facts.
Of course, it is said that this referendum is necessary now because there are so many people who are now on the register who were not on the register nine years ago. Thanks be to God that that is so. But is that any reason why the ordinary people should be diverted and deflected from the pressing social problems which beset our society now merely to decide an issue that was decided within the past decade? Is it to be suggested that the entry of new voters on the register justifies a Government poised and impatient to get their own way in everything going back to the people time and time again just because they got the answer "No" the first time when they wanted the answer "Yes"? It appears to me the kind of politics that one might expect in certain hospitals devoted to the care of people with particular kinds of maladies.
The only justification put forward for posing to the people the same question as they decided nine years ago is that today there are people who could not vote nine years ago. No doubt, if this issue is submitted to the people, as it will be, and when is declared, as it will be, and when there is an emphatic "No," as there will be, if things work out in the way in which I hope they will not, we might find in another few years another Fianna Fáil Government proposing precisely the same thing because meanwhile another 100,000 new voters had gone on to the register.
There surely must be a finality in political controversy and political debating in this country. I was hoping that at least after some 45 years this penchant in Fianna Fáil for constitutional changes and gimmicks might have disappeared and that the stage at least had been reached when a Fianna Fáil Government would put their mind down to the problem of trying to solve the real problems which are affecting our people. If ever a country in 36 years has had the misfortune of having the problems of ordinary people neglected, we are such a country. Since 1932—and I say that deliberately—the major portion of governmental activity has been devoted to matters of constitutional significance to the disadvantage of the lot of the ordinary people. In the 36 years Deputy Molloy has been talking about our community, which is the responsibility of the Governments elected by this Dáil, has gone backwards and our people have left our land. The young people in particular have been forced to seek employment elsewhere because of Bills of this kind. It is because of the continuance of that kind of policy and I object to the passing of this Bill.
The Bill proposes what is called a relative majority. It is called the straight vote system. I call it the British system. The people know it to be such. People throughout this country will remember that there are things which can be digested by suitable stomachs and things that a stomach may reject. In this part of Ireland, in the 26 counties for which we have a responsibility, the people have digested and accepted proportional representation— all political Parties. Despite a Civil War, despite a situation in which brothers fought against brothers and blood was shed on both sides, every political side, with the carnage of battle behind them, subscribed and supported Griffith's principle of proportional representation. Proportional representation is part of the tradition of the community in this part of Ireland. We have digested it because it suited our temperament and suited our historical environment. Let it not be forgotten that in one part of Ireland it was not digested and not accepted and was rejected in 1926——
1929.
1929—I am obliged to the Minister—when the Stormont Government after some seven years' experience decided to go back to doing what the British were doing. They changed the system of proportional representation and brought back the British system of election.
Let us remember that. What did it indicate? It indicated that in the Six Counties of Ireland there was the mentality in office that did not agree with Sinn Féin, did not subscribe to Griffith's ideals and his view of what Ireland should be, that did not tolerate the right of minorities to express a point of view and that did not subscribe to fair representation in a democratic Parliament for points of view that had significant support. There was at that time in the North of Ireland a determination by the majority Party to ensure a situation in which they would continue in office. That was in 1929, almost 40 years ago. We can look at the political development of the North of Ireland with the same political Party entrenched in office, with many constituencies never having the right to go to the ballot to decide on what candidate should represent them, because political elections in many constituencies just disappeared as a possibility.
We need not search through the atlas of the world. We need not look at contemporary political history to find the true answer to the discussion with regard to the merits and demerits of proportional representation. We have it all here in our own island. On our own doorstep we can see clearly the dangers of a system of election which results in the permanence in office of a political oligarchy of the kind we have in the Six Counties.
Deputy Molloy says Fianna Fáil are sincere. Deputy Molloy may believe sincerely the sentiments he has given expression to here. I do not doubt his sincerity, but I do not accept for one moment that those who control the Fianna Fáil Party today, and who have controlled it traditionally down through the years, have any other view in political activity or any other aim or philosophy of life except one, that is, to remain in office for as long as human effort and human ingenuity can contrive that result.
In this Dáil today there are three political Parties—Fianna Fáil, the major Party, the Labour Party and ourselves. I want to say deliberately that of those three political Parties, at least two have endeavoured to develop a political philosophy, a view in relation to the problems of our society, a way in which endemic problems should be approached. As far as Fine Gael are concerned, our policy and our philosophical approach to problems has been thought out and worked out. I detect in relation to the Government Party no evidence of a philosophy of life, no evidence of a philosophical approach to the social problems affecting our people. Their concern is merely this: to remain in office. While Deputy Molloy can say that this is a proposal brought forward with sincerity by Fianna Fáil, of whom he complains they have been too long there, I would recommend Deputy Molloy to discard a bit of his individual idealism, have a look at the log book and he will find what he is saying just does not bear examination in relation to the facts.
This proposal is a political decision by a political Party designed to maintain themselves in office for as long as they can contrive that situation to continue. They know well that in any part of Ireland today, with perhaps one or two significant and well-known exceptions, the plain fact is that the majority of the people want them out. They know well that at the moment, by reason of political decisions taken by politicians who may be a little bit behind the tide of public opinion, there is the unfortunate situation that that dominant opposition vote to Fianna Fáil is divided into sections. They fear the day when these sections will disappear. They know well that as long as the people use proportional representation as Griffith wished them to use it, as it has been used fairly consistently in this country, by using the ballot, exercising the choice between different candidates whose policies one primarily supports and then using it intelligently in relation to what one would regard as the second best, that their days are numbered. It is for that reason that this proposal comes along.
The by-elections do not say that.
They do— drop, drop, drop.
Six out of seven.
They show a consistent drop of from seven per cent to ten per cent to 15 per cent to 17 per cent.
Six seats out of seven.
I do not want to be diverted.
In my view, you have a majority who are opposed to the continuance of present policies but frustrated in their expression because of a situation that, at the moment, cannot be controlled but which, I believe, will be controlled. With that majority so divided, those who sponsored this proposal realise that here is their chance and opportunity—a relative majority. So long as they get a candidate who has the support of about 35 per cent of the people, the other 65 per cent who wish Fianna Fáil to be out of office will be subjected to a situation in which a Fianna Fáil member will be elected to represent them.
This is called democracy; this is called "straight"; this is called the "relative majority". Relative to what? Everything must be related to something. A majority is either a majority or it is not. I know dictionaries have been used in this House before to prove particular points of view but I should be interested to know in what circumstances one can adjective "majority" in the sense that it is relative, a relative majority, a system under which a candidate with the support of 35 people out of 100 is sent to Dáil Éireann claiming to represent a majority of the people in his constituency. That is called "a relative majority". There must have been great searching at the prodding of Fianna Fáil Ministers in the draftsman's office in the Department to find some term to describe this British system of election. Then they come up with their "relative majority".
This system is undemocratic. It is known to be such in England. It is known by our history to be such in this country. The fact that it is undemocratic is demonstrable in the change that occurred in 1929 in the North of Ireland. It would result—and this is where I am inclined to doubt the sincerity of Deputy Molloy unless he is very naïve—in present circumstances at an election with a divided Opposition vote, in the election of over 100 Fianna Fáil Deputies. When we have to listen to young Deputies in Fianna Fáil and older ones also trying to suggest to us that their only concern is to secure the fortunes of Fine Gael, as I said before: "Timeo Graecos——"
"Danaos", was it not?
It all depends on whether you are a hard C man or a soft C man.
The Deputy is neither.
I am a hard man when dealing with Fianna Fáil. But I do not accept that from the deliberations that have taken place in Fianna Fáil councils, from the lights that were burning and the midnight oil consumed by these anxious patriots, that these sincere democrats were worried because they had been so long in office, that the country might suffer unless they got a period in Opposition to recharge their engines. Although I am ordinarily a sympathetic person, even to the bizarre stories and theories I come across in my profession, I cannot quite see the Minister for Local Government, the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Finance sitting around a table presided over by the Taoiseach, biting the stubs of their pencils, doodling and thinking and saying: "What can we now do to help Fine Gael?" I cannot imagine a situation in which the hard boys from the grass roots, the men from Donegal and different parts of the country, are all brought together into anxious conference to devise something to help Fine Gael to boot them out of office.
I do not think this happens. I doubt very much whether the people will accept that that is the current stratagem of Fianna Fáil. They need not worry about it. If they are anxious in that regard, if they are concerned about the seats of their trousers becoming greasy and shiny from sitting over there too often, let them not trouble about it or about the electoral system because they are going out of office inevitably. When the next election comes, they will be out.
They say: "Well, that may be so. It is a terrible thing. If we are not there, who will provide for the government of the country?" I have no doubt that the temper of the Irish people and their concern will be to see that a Government will be elected to office in opposition to the Fianna Fáil Party. I hope that government will have a social philosophy, a national aim and some objective for which to use our freedom and right of action, something that is not merely designed to provide ad hoc remedies to bubbling problems as they come up, without any clear picture of what we are trying to do for our society and our people.
Many other things could be urged against this proposal. We are now poised on a proposal that this Bill pass in a situation in which this measure is going to the people. The arguments that will be urged will be better urged from this on at the chapel gates and wherever Irishmen happen to meet, wherever people who are concerned with the maintenance of decent, democratic freedom in this country happen to come together. It is better that at such gatherings other arguments and those arguments would be put. I am certain the Irish people will never take kindly to a situation in which one political oligarchy could control the livelihoods of ordinary people, that they will never accept a situation that in 144 areas throughout the country there will be a member selected by the boys, put up as the people's representative, controlling their way of life in a particular constituency.
The Irish people have grown accustomed to the kind of freedom of expression and action, individual thought, which proportional representation has made possible in this country since 1922, and they are not going to forgo that on spurious arguments, repeating the same kind of suggestion that was made over 50 years ago when the Sinn Féin movement decided in favour of proportional representation. At that time the British politicians were saying these were the theories of the madmen of the continent. Today the Minister for Local Government says it. Today we have members of our Republican Government saying so much that has been said so often before by British politicians anxious to defend a system that maintains their political posterity. It will not wash in Ireland, and I have little doubt that when this referendum takes place, it will be merely recording a decision already made.
I regret the passing of this Bill. I regret the necessity for this debate here today. The necessity is a decision ill-motivated, ill-designed and badly considered, to divert public attention from issues much more vital, much more important. However, if it has to be, let it be, and I hope that when this Bill passes, there will not be any shuffling of the feet, that there will not be any hesitation while the toe is put into the water to see how cold it may be. This Bill puts bathing trunks on the Fianna Fáil Party. They are going to take a dive into the cold water. Let them do it and do it quickly.
(Dublin): I do not intend to delay the House very long. I wish to join with the other Members of my Party in expressing my support for these proposals. The questions we must ask in this House are: why should we have this referendum, and, when we succeed in winning it, what will it do for our country? The people today are entitled to have the same opportunity in this regard as the people had nine years ago. Many other people have come on the register since then, and I believe they should get an opportunity of saying what they think of our electoral system.
The point which I believe will weigh with the people in deciding how to vote on this referendum is the instability of Europe. I would place the stability of the country first and foremost. How it affects Deputies, who will be beaten or who will return here, is immaterial. What is really important is that, when the next general election is over, whatever Party in this House form the Government will have a majority. We may never again have an opportunity of putting a Bill like this to the House. We realise we need a majority here in Dáil Éireann before we can put a referendum to the country. To get a majority under our present system is very difficult. It would be very bad for the country if, due to political instability, we experienced what other European countries are going through today. We have had two recent examples in Belgium and Greece where, due to the fragmentation of political Parties within Parliament, they are unable to implement any decisive policy. The same situation occurred in France before de Gaulle assumed power. If we maintain our present electoral system it can lead to one thing only, as it has led in other countries in Europe, to instability and even to dictatorship. The Irish people are entitled to be told the realities of the situation. They are intelligent enough to understand what the outcome may be if the present electoral system is allowed to persist.
It has been stated by the Opposition Parties that we are bringing this Bill forward for one reason only, that is, to fortify ourselves in government. The Opposition members do not really believe this. They know as well as I do that we shall remain the largest political Party in this Dáil under the present political system. If we continue with PR, the most we can lose in any general election is four to six seats. What would be the consequences? We know that Fine Gael would like to form a government with the help of some other Party, but we know also that the Labour Party are determined to go it alone. It has been our policy down through the years to remain an individual Party.
To go it alone.
(Dublin): Yes, to go it alone. What would be the position in years to come under PR? We would have minority Governments that would be unable to implement policy for the benefit of the people at large. We would have Parties on this side of the House that would have to look over their shoulder to see if they were pleasing a minority group, to see if they were pleasing a few Independents on whom they might happen to depend. This is a deplorable type of government. I am not referring back to anything; I am talking about the future.
The Minister for Local Government, in bringing these proposals forward, has no vested interest, good, bad or indifferent. He is concerned about the country's welfare. He is concerned not so much about what will happen today but what generations 20 or 30 years from now will think of us. Opposition Members, of Fine Gael especially, are saying that this will wipe out the Labour Party. I think that is completely Iudicrous. When I look around the constituencies in Dublin, I cannot see one Labour Deputy losing his seat. I have no hesitation in saying that Deputy Dunne, Deputy Cluskey and Deputy O'Leary will hold their seats in single-seaters because they are reasonably good workers. I feel they will retain their seats. So this attitude that the Labour Party will be wiped out is, in my opinion, a gimmick by Fine Gael to encourage the Labour Party to oppose this measure. This will not happen. We will ensure better political stability.
It was argued yesterday by some Opposition Members that the Commission to be set up to draw up the single-seaters would not be fair. I think Deputy Stephen Barrett even questioned the integrity of the High Court judge who will preside over the Commission. We all realise that it will be constituted from both sides of the House, three members from these benches and three from the Opposition benches, presided over by a High Court judge. Some Opposition Deputies implied that we cannot trust in the integrity of the High Court judge. That is a reflection on the integrity of those men. I have no doubt that the Commission will be fair.
I entirely endorse this Bill, and I hope that the other Parties, having put their opposition to the Bill here, will not continue it in the country. I would hope that even the Fine Gael and Labour voters would see the benefits which will accrue to this country when this is implemented. Once and for all, we will have established a good strong democratic electoral system. Without this the system in other countries in Europe has crumbled and democracy has vanished. I have no doubt that it will be more difficult to uphold democracy. If we do not get this proposal through, 20 or 30 years from now people will look back and decry us, and say we refused to give to future generations a purified form of democracy that would stand the test of time.
If we continue with this complicated system of PR, we will have fragmentation of Parties in this House who are interested only in their own vested interests, and we will get nowhere with implementing good constructive policies. I am concerned about my children and about the people coming after me. When democracy crumbles, we get dictatorships. This has been proved in Germany and Italy. We have seen it in Belgium and Greece.
The people by and large will study this proposal in depth. They will study the question posed to them. Parish pump politics which we have had in this House over the past months should be cast aside when we are trying to explain this to the electorate. We should say exactly what the issues are without clouding them in any way. We should explain what our system may be in the future. We should also point out the consequences of a bad electoral system in other countries, the fragmentation of Parties and other things it leads to. That is what I intend to tell the voters of Dublin anyway.
We should explain the issues to the people without clouding them and without any political gimmickry. intend to tell them exactly what is at stake. I know the integrity of the Irish people. I know how they will cast their votes. I believe we will win, and when we have done so, this will be welcomed by the Opposition Members. There is nothing wrong with this. It is like looking at a shadow in the distance where there seems to be something bad but when you come near it, you see it has many virtues. This will be welcomed by Fine Gael and Labour, and 20 years from now if some of us are still here, they will stand up and say they are glad the referendum was passed.
Apparently the organised filibuster of the Coalition Parties has come to an end.
Give it up.
It has not been possible to prolong it any longer. Even the repetition by Deputy T.F. O'Higgins of the walk-into-my-parlour invitation issued by his brother some time ago was not sufficient, added to the efforts of the Labour Party Whip, to produce another speaker from that wing of the Coalition Parties.
I did not speak.
The Minister can have two more speakers if he wants to sit down.
I have been called. Those Deputies did not offer. It may be that this matter is still unresolved and that the Labour Party have not yet been able to decide on their official attitude——
On the Bill.
——to the effort on the part of some sections of the Fine Gael Party to have a Coalition formed secretly before the election rather than openly after the election.
Have you decided when Jack Lynch is to go? Have you resolved that one yet?
Jack Lynch will be the Taoiseach after the next general election, whether it is held under the present system of multi-member constituencies or under another system.
Does Deputy Brian Lenihan agree with that?
Of course he does.
And Deputy Blaney?
Every member of the Fianna Fáil Party agrees with that, just as every single member of the Fianna Fáil Party agrees 100 per cent with the proposal we have before the Dáil.
(Cavan): Deputy P.J. Lenihan said yesterday it was decided by a majority.
He said no such thing.
(Cavan): He is in print as having said it.
He said no such thing.
You were all in step?
We were all solidly in step.
Who would believe that? You must be a crowd of zombies.
Every member of the Fianna Fáil Party appreciates that the best system of representation for the people is the system we are proposing here, and practically every Deputy knows that too. It so happens that in one of the two sections of the Coalition there are a majority solely concerned with their own seats, who are afraid of change and who believe that they will be able to hang on under the present system by scraping up votes here, there and everywhere over large widespread constituencies—a system under which they can scrape up votes over large constituencies and have transfers given to them at the same value as full votes.
The Minister got them from Deputy Burke, did he not?
I did once.
The Minister, without interruption.
I would probably have got in under my own steam if we had the single-seat system.
So would we.
Maybe you would, but you are afraid to face it. The majority —not all, but the majority—of the two Opposition Parties are afraid of this system because they are afraid for their own individual seats. They had not sufficient confidence in themselves to believe there is any possibility in any section of their present constituencies that they could convince a majority of the people, or more of the people than our candidate could, that they are the most suitable individuals to represent the constituency and that their policy is the most suitable policy for the country.
As I say, not even Deputy O'Higgins's effort to prolong this debate by an attempt to provoke a reply from the Labour Party could succeed in maintaining the filibuster any longer. I think the last few speakers from the Coalition benches have fairly well indicated the whole attitude to this proposal. Deputy Esmonde was typical of the unreality and the insincerity of the Fine Gael approach. As far as I could see, he devoted the most part of his contribution to the theme that nobody wants this proposed electoral reform. He knows quite well that the Leader of his own political Party wants it. It is quite obvious, indeed, from all the Fine Gael speeches, that it is only the spineless section of the Fine Gael Party who, by a small majority—a majority of one, I believe—defeated their own Leader.
(Cavan): It took the Minister's Party months to decide. On a point of order, is it in order for a Deputy to interrupt, from outside the barrier? I draw the attention of the Chair to the fact that Deputy Mooney has just done that.
Speaking from behind barrier.
Deputies
Chair.
Order, please.
It was possible to persuade only those people to come into the House and to conduct this filibuster. It is obvious from their contributions that they are making a lastditch effort to try to ensure that their Leader will not in fact have his way.
We had the cynical approach of Deputy Corish who came in and complained about the delay in getting this business dealt with through the House and who then proceeded, himself, to contribute towards further delay.
For how long?
He maintained there was no point in putting the views——
For how long?
About half an hour.
Ten minutes.
Deputy Corish maintained there was no point in putting on record the different views with regard to this here in the House.
I said there was no point in repeating them.
Deputy Corish then proceeded to spend some time putting them himself.
I did not. I think the Minister was asleep.
No, I was awake. It might seem impossible to Deputy Corish that I could be awake while he was talking, but I was.
I said it should be put——
I was awake. I could not sleep while Deputy Corish was talking. It is quite obvious that Deputy Corish's real attitude is that the views of only one side of the House should be put—that the views of the Coalition should be put. According to him, it is democratic to put the views of those opposed to the proposed electoral reform but it is filibustering and delaying tactics when opposing views are put from the Government benches.
To keep myself from going to sleep, I compiled a list of the speakers, on this stage of the Bill, from the other side of the House.
(Cavan): I think it was compiled for the Minister.
It is mostly in my writing, anyway. In fact, there were 17 Coalition speakers and only eight Fianna Fáil speakers. So, if there are deliberate delaying tactics, they must be from that side of the House.
What about the time since it was first introduced into the House?
If Deputy Corish will remember——
(Cavan): We had to challenge Fianna Fáil to speak. We challenged you to bring in your backbenchers to support something they did not believe in, and they were dragged in.
Deputies will please cease interrupting.
They came in to counter the allegations made by the Opposition.
Which section of the Fianna Fáil Coalition is the Minister speaking for?
There is only one Party in Fianna Fáil. That is what is worrying the Deputies opposite.
(Cavan): They can issue a bulletin about something that was not discussed.
They know there never has been a split in Fianna Fáil. They know we are united. They know we are one hundred per cent united in regard to the proposal we are making —and that cannot be said about any other Party in this House.
Then it is the most remarkable Party in the history of the world.
Fianna Fáil is the most remarkable Party in the history of this House. There is no doubt about that.
(Cavan): You can say that again.
Deputy Corish objects that views should be put from this side of the House.
Repeated.
When anybody from this side of the House speaks, that is filibustering but when 17 speak as against eight here——
(Cavan): Eight was all you could muster up of this united Party that believes in this measure. You could only drum up eight to come in and support it.
There was to be one Fianna Fáil speaker for every speaker on the opposite benches, so long as that was allowed. At some stage it was not allowed: Opposition speakers were called in succession.
(Cavan): On a point of order. For the past couple of days, I have been listening to the Minister making charges against the Chair. There are methods within the Rules and Order of this House for making charges against the Chair. If the Minister wants to make them, I respectfully submit he could do it in that way.
That is a statement by the Deputy, not a point of order.
Where was I?
Well you may ask.
We were talking about this allegation that the Government side are filibustering.
What has the Minister been doing?
Deputy Corish must admit that his first announcement was that this measure would be fought line by line and comma by comma. He tried to get his Party to do it but they did so only in fits and starts. On the Second Stage, he succeeded in getting 15 out of the 19 Deputies in his Party to come in and to make practically the same speech, each and every one of them, on this.
We are unanimous in our views.
If that was not a fairly respectable effort by the Labour Party at filibustering I do not know what to say. Again, on the Committee Stages of both of the Bills, we had a number of Labour Party Deputies speaking.
(Cavan): The Taoiseach said the proposal would not go before the country until the autumn.
We shall not go at all.
I admit there was one short period during which it appeared that a vow of silence had been imposed on the Labour Party— but that did not last long. They returned to their original declared intention of obstructing the passage of this Bill line by line and comma by comma. Of course, Fine Gael made several spasmodic efforts to obstruct the Bill and to compel as many Deputies as possible to come in here and to carry out that procedure. On the Second Stage, it seemed quite obvious that they must have got practically everyone in the Party who is in favour of opposing this Bill to speak. They got no fewer than 21 to speak. I think that is getting very close to the number of Fine Gael Deputies who are in favour of the attitude they are taking.
(Cavan): You could only drag in eight of your Party for this.
That is only on this Stage.
(Cavan): This is the important Stage.
Order.
This did not start until nine of the Opposition had got up.
There were plenty there. It was the Opposition's turn.
(Cavan): Deputy Geoghegan was sent out to get more in.
Cuireadh an diospóireacht ar athló. Debate adjourned.