Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 9 Jul 1968

Vol. 236 No. 4

Committee on Finance. - Referendum (Amendment) Bill, 1968: Committee Stage.

SECTION 1.

(Cavan): I move amendment No. 1:

In page 2, paragraph (e), lines 32 and 33, to delete all words after "section" and substitute "shall be displayed by the presiding officer in and in the precincts of polling stations".

Paragraph (e) of section 1 proposes that copies of the statement referred to in paragraph (a) of section 1 may be displayed in or in the precincts of polling stations. The statement referred to in paragraph (a) is a statement set out in the Appendix to section 1, and that statement is a statement which purports to explain to the electors the Third and Fourth Amendment Bills of the Constitution. In my opinion, as paragraph (e) of section 1 stands, it would be open to any political Party or anybody entitled to enter the polling booth to display the statement referred to in the Bill in the polling booth and at the entrance to the polling booth.

Any of us who have any experience of elections know that nothing gives rise to more heat on election day and to more trouble than the display of Party election literature in and about polling booths. The Minister must be aware that even the wearing of Party emblems of personation agents, sub-agents and others entitled to enter the polling booths, gives rise to heat and bad feeling and not infrequently calls for the intervention of the garda on duty.

I have no objection whatever to the display of what I describe as the official explanation card in the booth or in the precincts of the booth. As a matter of fact, I think it is desirable that such information should be available in case anybody at that late hour has not discovered what the referendum is all about but I am apprehensive lest in putting this provision in the Bill we confer on Party agents the right to post up Party literature in the polling booths because, as surely as one Party posts up literature in the booths, so surely will the opposite Parties claim the right to do likewise. This amendment cannot, I think, be regarded as in any way controversial. It merely proposes that the statement referred to in the section shall be displayed by the presiding officer only and if the statement explaining the Bills is to be displayed by the presiding officer only, then we can rest assured that it will not be Party literature.

I do not want to be taken as arguing that the section has been drafted in this particular way to enable Fianna Fáil Party literature to be posted up in the booths. Indeed, it might be a member of either of the other two Parties who would get a brainstorm and avail of this paragraph as it is drafted and who would first post up Party literature in the booth. If that happened, surely the Minister's Party would not be behind the door in posting up their literature and, in the heel of the hunt, you could have chaos and a brawl. On the other hand, if a member of the Fianna Fáil Party, reading the Bill carefully, decided he was entitled to put up a huge placard which commenced with the words "Vote `Yes' " in the referendum. "See the explanation hereunder"— and then, in small print, have the words set out in the appendix to the section, I am perfectly satisfied that the members of the Fine Gael Party and the members of the Labour Party would feel entitled to post up literature within the booths, too. I really thought the Minister would have intervened before now to tell me he was accepting the amendment but perhaps he has the same——

Does the Deputy suggest I should interrupt?

(Cavan): I said “intervened”, not “interrupted”, to tell me he was accepting the amendment. Perhaps the Minister intends to accept it or perhaps he has some very good argument to put forward to show me that only the presiding officer can post up this notice. I await the Minister's explanation before saying anything further.

First of all, with regard to the question of substituting "shall" for "may", it is, of course, the intention that the statement will be displayed in all polling stations and instructions to presiding officers will make this clear. The word "may" is used merely to guard against the possibility that, if some presiding officer does not do it, through neglect or through forgetfulness, the result of the referendum could not be questioned because of the failure to comply with what was the law. If the word "shall" is used instead of "may", there would have to be a further subsection safeguarding this position, making it clear that the referendum would not be invalidated by reason of any failure to display it in any particular polling station.

There is a precedent for this in the law on polling cards in section 64 (1) of the Electoral Act, 1963. Section 64 (1) of that Act requires that the local returning officer shall send a polling card to every elector. However, section 64 (5) says that no referendum shall be invalidated by reason of any failure to send, non-delivery of, or error or misstatement in, a polling card. Therefore, it must be obvious that the insertion of the word "shall" could not be accepted without also the insertion of a clause such as this providing that the referendum would not be invalidated if some presiding officer failed to display the notice. The intention is that every presiding officer will do this and the instructions to presiding officers will make this clear.

Therefore, to accept Deputy Fitzpatrick's proposition that the word "shall" be substituted for "may" would obviously involve another subsection making it clear that the referendum would not be invalidated if this was not done in some particular case. The resultant position would, in fact, be no different from what it is under the Bill as it stands at present. There does not seem to be any point in making this change.

With regard to the insertion of the words "by the presiding officer" it is, of course, the intention, again, that the display of the summary shall only be by the presiding officer. I see no objection to the principle of Deputy Fitzpatrick's suggestion except, again, that it is not necessary. I am advised that sub-paragraph (e) does not, in fact, confer any right on political Parties to display a copy of the prescribed statement in any form that would draw particular attention to the course recommended by a political Party. I am advised that any marked copy of the statement could not be held to be the statement set out in the Appendix to section 1 even if it differed from the statement in Appendix 1 only by having the words in heavier print or anything of that nature — particular attention drawn to any part of it in any way such as that. I am advised that such a notice which in any way emphasises any part of the proposal or indicated which way any particular Party wanted people to vote can be removed by the presiding officer who is responsible for ensuring that polling stations are kept free of election literature.

Under section 10 of the Referendum Act, the presiding officer is required to keep order at his polling station and, under this, all polling stations are to be kept free of election literature. Any copy of a statement containing any indication that any particular Party desires voters to vote in a particular way would not be a copy of the statement and, therefore, would be removed by the presiding officer. However, I have no objection to making this clear in the Bill, if Deputy Fitzpatrick insists on it, but his amendment would have to be altered.

If Deputy Fitzpatrick insists — I do not think it is necessary but if he does insist — I have an alternative amendment here which I could hand to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. It reads as follows:

In page 2, paragraph (e), lines 32 and 33, to delete "in or in the precincts of polling stations" and to substitute "by a presiding officer in or in the precincts of his polling station."

I do not see any point in inserting "shall" instead of "may" because we would have to introduce the other subsection to ensure that the referendum would not be invalidated and this would leave the position substantially the same as it is at present.

May I say that I see a lot of point in substituting "shall" for "may". I do not suppose there is any one of us in the House who has not had experience, at some time or another, of being appealed to by Party supporters to try to stop what was considered an abuse taking place within a polling station by the display of what might be considered to be propaganda of one kind or another in favour of a particular Party. Of course, let us face it, presiding officers themselves are not devoid of all political feeling either. In fact a lot of them come to the happy position of being presiding officers by virtue of their intense political emotion. This is very natural and there is nothing wrong with it. In the course of by-elections, not in Dublin, with which I have been concerned in recent years, I have seen examples of over-enthusiastic backwoodsmen, or whatever is the equivalent for the female species, in polling booths displaying Party labels and so on without being upbraided for so doing by a presiding officer. It seems to me that we ought to be very careful that the people who will be going to decide these two vital issues in the referendum will not be subjected to any kind of partisan persuasion, once they enter the polling booth.

There is a kind of voter who becomes slightly hysterical when he or she finds himself or herself the cynosure of all eyes in a polling station and who is liable to be swayed by what he or she may see in or about the polling station. They have the experience of being made a great deal of by politicos of various denominations, of being asked about their relatives and friends by people whom heretofore they regarded as total strangers and of having concern expressed about the state of their health as they are being ushered in. All this leads to a situation in which they can be easily influenced and it is not a matter in which we can permit anybody to be easily influenced. We must take every possible step to ensure that the voter approaches the polling station, enters it and proceeds to register his vote without any attempt being made under the guise of officialdom to sway his mind one way or the other or to affect his actions. Therefore it is essential that we should establish that the people who will be running the polling stations, the presiding officer and his staff, will understand clearly that they are not at liberty to permit the display of the statement referred to herein in any form other than the cold official form, that they are not permitted, and that it will be illegal for them and most definitely illegal for them, to allow Party workers to make use of the polling booths to sway the opinions of people.

How are we going to ensure that? The Minister suggested that it would be some trouble to meet Deputy Fitzpatrick's point, where he seeks to substitute "shall" for "may", but I think the trouble would be worthwhile. The word "shall" has a definite peremptory ring about it while the word "may" is a permissive soft expression. Not every presiding officer or official worker in polling booths will understand the finer legal nuances so far as these words are concerned; he will take what he sees at face value and say that the Act says that you may do this and that that does not mean that you have to do it. However, if the Act lays down specifically that you shall follow a certain line, then that is the law saying that you must. That is the argument for Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment. It is a very vital one because as he truly remarked, and I am sure the Minister knows this, never an election goes by but we get these instances of disagreements and very often near-brawls as has been said near polling stations as to the interpretation of the rights of Parties in regard to the display of propaganda.

For instance, in a recent by-election I was called into the polling station where there was an enthusiastic lady who had stuck a Party badge on her handbag and placed in such a position that everybody coming in would see that badge. I have no doubt that there were people who saw that Party badge with "Vote so-and-so" on it and that there were people of a certain kind who were influenced by that fact, by the whole atmosphere of the place, the excitement, tension and so on, and were influenced by the fact that this piece of propaganda was staring them in the face in the polling station. When I remonstrated with the presiding officer and directed his attention to this, he directed that this should not be done. Of course the lady turned her handbag over and laid it flat on the table and then as soon as I was gone, she turned it up again for the next client to see. This goes on all the time and there is no way of measuring the extent to which it influences voters. Even if it only influences a handful of voters, it is wrong and should be stopped. I suggest that the Minister might go further than he has to meet this amendment which is a very useful one and which would put the position beyond argument when this matter comes for decision before the people.

(Cavan): The Minister has indicated that he is prepared to go some way to meet the point raised in this amendment. I would prefer that the word “shall” was substituted for the word “may” because then it would be clear that there was an obligation on the presiding officer to display these instructions. I see quite clearly the force of the point made by the Minister and that there would have to be a safety valve provided in order to avoid an annulment of the entire referendum just because one presiding officer failed to carry out the direction contained in the section. I would prefer the safety clause referred to by the Minister which has already been provided in relation to polling cards.

As I say, if the word "shall" is substituted for "may" everybody from the Minister and the general returning officer in the Custom House down to the constituency returning officers and the presiding officers will regard it as their duty to display the explanation contained in the appendix to this section and will regard themselves as failing in their duty if they do not display the explanation and will then have to fall back on a way out through the safety subsection of the section — that is that failure to comply with this particular subsection, or paragraph, will not invalidate or annul the referendum.

I certainly press the second part of my amendment, that is, that it should be made clear that this information can be posted up by the presiding officer and only by the presiding officer. I know from personal experience that all presiding officers are not infallible. I know from personal experience that not all presiding officers find it easy to interpret what appear to be simple enough instructions. They find themselves in the position of trying to adjudicate on a point raised and argued by the agent of one Party in one way and the agent of another Party in another way. We should do all we can to make clear to presiding officers what the position is. The Minister says he is advised that any variation, no matter how slight, from the wording of the appendix or, indeed, in the dimensions of the letters in the appendix, would be a violation of paragraph (e) of section 1. I must say, if I were a presiding officer, it is quite possible I would not put that interpretation on it. It is quite possible I would not hold myself bound as closely as the Minister's advisers think a presiding officer would be bound, and a presiding officer might well argue that, because a publication or a poster contained the words in the appendix, he could not prohibit its display in the polling booth. At any rate, it is not necessary for me to waste the time of the House on this any further because the Minister has indicated that he is prepared to meet me on the point.

I was interested in Deputy Dunne's argument about the display of emblems of one sort or another within the booths. I know that is against the rules. If I might make one point, I think an effort should be made to avoid having too much informality in polling stations. This may not be entirely relevant, but I have been in polling stations which consisted of a small room in a private house where everybody was cooped up together. The political affiliations of the owner of the house were obvious. The whole thing led to a sort of hail-fellow-well-met attitude. I should not like to think what might happen in the dying moments of the poll when everybody has got to know everybody else pretty well and has, perhaps, had a little refreshment, and that sort of thing. Polling stations should not be sited in private houses, if that can be avoided. There may be occasions on which it cannot be avoided but, while one does not want the barrack square or courtroom atmosphere, one can go too far to the other extreme. By and large, I am satisfied with the Minister's proposal to meet me.

I agree with the last point made by Deputy Fitzpatrick. Some of these small polling stations have outlived their usefulness. Whatever may be said for having small polling stations in rural areas, where the element of distance enters into the picture, there is no excuse or justification whatever for having them in urban areas. I cannot see why they should not be sited in schools and public buildings where better supervision can be exercised and better arrangements made. I have had experience, too, of the kind of polling station to which the Deputy referred— the ordinary furnished room in a private house. The result was just what Deputy Fitzpatrick described. I thought the situation wide open to abuse and certainly the arrangements made it virtually impossible for a voter to vote in secret. There is something to be said for rationalising polling arrangements generally. However, this is not really relevant.

To meet Deputy Fitzpatrick I am prepared to move the following amendment:

In page 2, paragraph (e), lines 32 and 33, to delete all words after "section" and substitute "shall be displayed by a presiding officer in and in the precincts of his polling station: provided that no referendum shall be invalidated by reason of any failure to display such copies in or in the precincts of any polling station,".

It is usual to circulate an amendment, but if Deputies agree——

Amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn.

We are getting copies made. They will be here shortly.

I move:

In page 2, paragraph (e), lines 32 and 33, to delete all words after "section" and substitute "shall be displayed by a presiding officer in and in the precincts of his polling station: provided that no referendum shall be invalided by reason of any failure to display such copies in or in the precincts of any polling station,".

Amendment agreed to.

(Cavan): I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, lines 30 and 31, to delete "vary by more than one-sixth from the national average" and substitute "be greater or less than the national average by more than one-sixth".

This amendment deals with the part of the appendix dealing with the white ballot paper, that is, the ballot paper purporting to explain the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1968. As the Bill stands at the moment, the explanation on the white ballot paper reads as follows:

The Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1968, proposes that in forming Dáil constituencies, the population per deputy in any case may not vary by more than one-sixth from the national average and that regard must be had to the extent and accessibility of constituencies, the need for having convenient areas of representation and the desirability of avoiding the overlapping of county boundaries.

That purports to be a brief synopsis or explanation of Part II of the Schedule to the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1968 and the only purpose in putting it there is to explain to the voter in a few words what exactly the effect of the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill 1968 would be, if passed.

I want to put to the House and to the Minister that he can use clearer language to explain the effect of the Third Amendment and, indeed, I want to put it to the Minister that the clearest possible language he can use is the language contained in Part II of the Third Amendment Bill because it says that none of the quotients shall be greater or less than the average obtained by dividing the population as ascertained at the immediately preceding census by the total number of members of Dáil Éireann by more than one-sixth of that average. The effective words there are "shall be greater or less". The proposed explanation says "shall not vary by more than one-sixth from the national average". If those words were used in the Bill itself they would be held to be vague, would be held to be uncertain. I fail to see why the Minister or his advisers did not use the exact words of Part II of the Schedule, particularly when they are clear. It says that none of the quotients shall be greater or less than the national average by more than one-sixth. That is what it means. It means that you may go one-sixth below the national average or one-sixth above it. Maybe that is what "vary" means and I am not going to have any stand-up argument with the Minister on that. Maybe that is what "vary" means but I say that the other words are clearer because they make it absolutely clear that you can go one-sixth above the national average and one-sixth below it and when you have those clear words there it is misleading to go around looking for other words which, instead of clarifying, tend to confuse.

I say that the words in Part II of the Schedule to the Bill are absolutely clear; everybody knows what they mean and they are clearer than the words which are given as an explanation. I urge on the Minister to accept the amendment.

As I have said on the Second Stage of this Bill, "vary" means exactly the same thing as "greater or less". "Vary from the national average" means exactly the same thing as to be greater or less than the national average. It is, in my opinion, somewhat clearer. It uses less words. It may be that there will be some people who will not know what the word "vary" means but, if there are such people, they will not know what "national average" is, either. Anyone who understands what "national average" means will also understand what "vary" means. I say that the only reason why we did not use the exact words of the Bill was that what we were doing was summarising the Bill. I think "vary from the national average" is clearer and, also, since two proposals have to be summarised on one small voting card, there was the point of economising in words.

However, the wording that is proposed by Deputy Fitzpatrick means exactly the same thing and if it will make Deputy Fitzpatrick any happier, I am prepared to accept it but I do not think it is necessary. I think "vary from the national average" means the same thing as to be greater or less than the national average.

Amendment agreed to.

I understand that it has been agreed that if the Referendum (Amendment) Bill, 1968, is not concluded by 10.30 to-night, the Dáil will sit to-morrow morning at 10.30.

(Cavan): Is that a point of information or a threat, Sir?

It is not a threat. I am informed that the Parties have agreed to this.

That is what I understand.

(Cavan): That is quite all right.

Amendment No. 3 is in the names of Deputy Barrett and Deputy Fitzpatrick. Perhaps amendment No. 4 could be discussed with amendment No. 3.

(Cavan): Yes, Sir. One would not make much sense without the other. The two are so closely related that it would be desirable to take the two together.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, line 37, before "system" to insert "proportional representation".

I regard amendments No. 3 and No. 4 together as very important amendments because what we are doing here is trying to explain to the people in simple language what the proposal is upon which they are being asked to vote. It would be far better to give them a misleading explanation than to give no explanation at all.

The heart of the matter, so to speak, in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill is the abolition of proportional representation and the substitution for the present system of proportional representation the system known as the relative majority system by means of the single non-transferable vote. If I am asked where I got that language or where I got that explanation, I refer the House to Part II of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1968, Part II of the Schedule, in short.

Subsection (1) of Part II states:

Dáil Éireann shall be composed of members who represent constituencies and one member only shall be returned for each constituency.

Subsection (2) says:

The members shall be elected on the relative majority system by means of the single non-transferable vote.

There is one thing that should be brought home to the electorate if we set out to instruct them, to clarify their minds and to tell them what the proposal is. The first and biggest proposal here is to abolish the system of election known as the proportional representation system, the system that has been in operation here since the foundation of the State. It is known as the proportional representation system, election by proportional representation. But there is not one word in the explanation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill about proportional representation. One would think that these were nasty words. One can remember the newspapers of some time ago referring to "an illegal organisation". It was illegal to mention the name of the illegal organisation. The explanation reads as follows:

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1968, proposes — (1) To substitute for the present system of voting at Dáil elections the "straight vote" system in single member constituencies;

I say that is misleading for two reasons. I say it would be much clearer to the people if they were told "To substitue for the present proportional representation system"— proportional representation being the operative words, because that is what the Government are setting out to destroy and to replace. Those two words should be written in black and white — that we are abolishing the system of proportional representation. That is the only system under which the vast majority of the present electorate ever voted.

If you are going to execute a citizen he at least should be named. Here we are going to execute, or attempt to execute, and destroy a system. That system should not be led into the dock without a name. It should be led into the dock and put before the jury bearing its full and proper name, and that is the system of proportional representation. I cannot see any good reason why all these notices, which will go into the hands of every elector through the post, which will be posted up outside every polling booth and presumably posted up inside as well, and which will be advertised in the public press, should not bear the accurate and well-known description of the system we are proposing to abolish — the proportional representation system. That is the argument — I think the unanswerable argument — in support of amendment No. 3 which I am moving.

The explanation says we are to substitute for the present system of voting at Dáil elections the "straight vote" system. I want to ask the Minister seriously where he got that description for the system which is described in Part II of the Schedule as "the relative majority system by means of the single non-transferable vote"; and which is described at page 24, paragraph (q) of the Report of the Committee on the Constitution, December, 1967, as "the first-past-the-post system"; and which is described at page 115 of the same Report, paragraph (4), as "the spot system"? I cannot find anywhere in that Report this proposed system described as the straight vote.

We have here something fundamental. We have here a principle at stake. The Minister cannot deny that the system he proposes to the country is a highly controversial system, to say the least of it. It is so controversial that a similar proposal put forward by his Party when in Government in 1959 was rejected by the people as unacceptable to them, as an undesirable system, as a system which they did not regard as providing a fair system of election. The Minister seeks to describe that system, which as far as we know is not regarded by the people as fair or as acceptable to them, as the "straight vote". It is anything but straight. It is as crooked as a ram's horn. It is a system which does not regard majority rule. It is a system under which in certain circumstances as little as 30 per cent of the people voting at an election can claim to represent more than 50 per cent of the people who actually voted. It is a system under which a candidate who only gets something like 30 per cent of the votes cast in an election can claim to speak on behalf of the majority of the people who voted. That, to say the least of it, is a highly controversial system.

It cannot be described as a straight system especially when in Irish minds the word "straight" is synonymous with the word "fair" and with the word "honest". It cannot be denied that any honest-to-God Irishman frequently runs the words "straight" and "fair" and "straight" and "honest" together. It is not a mere accident that the Minister called this child of his, the relative majority non-transferable vote, the straight system. He may think that it is straight but that is not sufficient. It is a dishonest description of it, a description calculated to mislead. No doubt between now and the date of the Referendum the Minister will campaign on the basis that this system is a straight system but that does not entitle him to use the official literature provided by this House and by funds voted by this House as Party electioneering material. That is what he is doing if he does not accept this amendment.

I have not been able to find this description, "the straight vote system" used elsewhere for this first-past-the-post or spot vote system. The Minister officially concedes that he has taken over the British system and says it is a good British system. If that is so he should call it what the British call it, the spot vote. I do not know how anybody can describe a system as "straight" which can and probably will, if the people are foolish enough to accept it, hand over 65 per cent of the seats in this assembly to 35 per cent of the people voting. That is not straight or honest and above all, it is not fair. Irish people couple the words "straight" and "fair" and "straight" and "honest" together. For that reason I say that this description, which it is proposed to send by post at public expense to each elector, is calculated to deceive, mislead and confuse rather than to secure what it is supposed to seek to secure, clarification.

The Minister should accept this amendment so as to make clear that it is his intention to kill, abolish, do away with the proportional representation system and that he proposes to substitute for it the relative majority system by means of the single non-transferable vote because the words "relative majority" mean something other than an absolute majority. It will be clear to the people that they are departing from a system which requires a majority of votes to elect a person to a system which requires only a relative majority, less than a majority and, as will be more easily explained to them then, much less than a majority. Why does the Minister shun, in this explanation to the people, the words "on the one hand proportional representation and on the other relative majority" which are well known to the people, the first two, "proportional representation", having been household words at election times since 1922 and the second pair of words "relative majority" being solemnly written into the Constitution if the Minister gets his way? I await the Minister's comments on the arguments I have made.

Everybody here knows that on the occasion of the last proposal to amend the Constitution there was considerable complaint that the explanation of the question that was being asked was confusing to the voters. As far as I can see the sole purpose of these two amendments that Deputy Fitzpatrick has put down is to ensure that there will be the maximum possible confusion on this occasion. The complaints in regard to confusion on the last occasion could only have been due to the fact that in the summary of the proposals two systems of representation and two systems of voting were described with the result that a number of people, it was alleged, did not know whether "yes" was voting for the present system or the proposed system. Mark you, this was when there was only one proposal to be described on the ballot paper and only one ballot paper to be filled up. Now, on this occasion as a result of the representations of the Opposition Parties that they were confused by this whole proposition being put into one proposal we have two separate ballots being conducted and therefore two separate questions to be described in summarised form on the polling card.

As I pointed out on the Second Stage of the Bill the question to be put must be in the form: Do you approve of the proposal to amend the Constitution which is contained in the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill? and, on the other ballot paper, the green ballot paper: Do you approve of the proposal to amend the Constitution which is contained in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill?

The proposal in the Fourth Amendment Bill is in fact to substitute this new proposed system of representation and election for the present system. The effect of this proposal will be to substitute this proposed new system for the present system. Obviously, the summary should describe exactly what it is proposed to do. That is what this summary does — to substitute for the present system the straight vote system and single-member constituencies. I think it is obvious that if we in the summary describe also the system which is there at present and which, as Deputy Fitzpatrick says, has been in operation since the foundation of the State and which he claims is well known, it is quite obvious that the only result can be to cause confusion and to cause some people to believe that they are being asked to vote for or against the present system while, in fact, they are being asked to vote — and can only be asked to vote — for or against the proposed system. This proposed summary makes it absolutely clear, or as clear as it is possible to make it, that the proposal is to substitute for the present system, which, as Deputy Fitzpatrick says, is well known, this proposed system of which the people in general have not had experience and which therefore needs to be described.

If we describe the present system as is requested it will lead some people to think that they are being asked to vote for or against proportional representation, whereas they are being asked to vote for or against the straight vote and single member constituencies. The description of the proposed system, as Deputy Fitzpatrick and everybody else knows, is the description by which the proposed system is known in this country. It is not a description that was invented by the present Government. I have a book here Free Elections by W. J. M. McKenzie, and on page 53 this passage occurs:

What elections should do is to face the elector with a choice, which he has to make in a particular set of circumstances between alternatives which are real and present; responsibility must be thrust upon the electorate for facing real issues, making the best of available alternatives, and abiding by the decision taken. This can only be achieved completely (it is said) by "straight" voting in single-member constituencies.

This is a term which has been used outside of this country — and before this present proposal was made — to describe this system and it is, as Deputy Fitzpatrick knows, the name by which the system is known here. I can give numerous examples to show that that is so right from the time the proposal was first made. For instance, the Cork Examiner of the 22nd February, 1968, in a leading article in a number of cases refers to the proposed system as the straight vote:

From now on the term "Third Amendment" and "Fourth Amendment" will become familiar in our political terminology, the former relating to the ratio of Deputies to population and the latter to the straight vote issue.

And further on:

The real bone of contention, of course, is the Fourth Amendment which is to be presented as a simple choice between the existing system and the straight vote in single-seat constituencies. This is a question which admits of no misunderstanding.

They did not deem it necessary to describe the existing system and they considered that the clearest way in which they could describe the proposed system was "the straight vote in single-seat constituencies". Again the same paper on the 5th April referred to the Constitutional Amendments in a leading article in which this passage occurs:

All this aside, the most intriguing suggestion that came up while the Second Reading was in progress was that the Government might depart from their proposition of the straight vote and opt for the Norton amendment...

Again it was considered that the simplest way in which to describe the system we are proposing was to describe it as the straight vote, the way in which it would be understood by people and containing the least words. Again the Irish Times in a leading article on the 9th March says:

In spite of this clear direction from their members, the Fianna Fáil Government decided to go for the straight vote,

(Cavan): I am surprised at the Minister relying on that paper.

I am only showing that even these people who are so bitterly opposed to this electoral reform refer to it as the straight vote because they know that this is a term by which it is known by the people. The Irish Independent on 1st February, 1968, described the system as the straight vote, not that they support the straight vote, I may say, but “the straight vote” is the term used. Again the Irish Times of 11th January, 1968 says:

Still some members of the Fine Gael Party see definite danger in the straight vote.

The political correspondent of the Irish Independent of the 5th March, 1968, starts off his article:

The Great Debate on PR versus the straight vote is expected to be resumed in the Dáil today.

On a number of other occasions in the same article it is referred to in the same way, for example:—

The titles, for instance, could be changed to read "Third Amendment to the Constitution Bill (Tolerance) 1968" and "Fourth Amendment to the Constitution Bill (Straight Vote) 1968".

Obviously the political correspondent of the Irish Independent visualised the words “straight vote” being incorporated in the Bill.

(Cavan): The political correspondent of the Irish Independent——

I do not think any of them are in favour of the straight vote or are trying to influence people to vote for it, but in giving this description of it they are not so concerned with creating confusion, apparently, as Deputy Fitzpatrick is. They consider that the clearest way of referring to the proposal so that it will be understood is to describe it as the straight vote. The article goes on to say:

Another method would be to have different coloured ballot papers and to print clearly on one "tolerance" and on the other "straight vote".

The Irish Independent in a leading article on the 20th June, 1968, starts off:

So we are stuck with this "straight vote" proposal after all.

After that they say:

But they have been told that the "straight vote" system will produce greater stability.

On 1st February, 1968, the Irish Independent political correspondent starts off again by describing this as the straight vote system. Deputy Corish, the Leader of the Labour Party, is quoted in the Irish Press of 1st February, 1968, as saying:

It is hypocritical of a Party which has controlled the fate of this country for as long as the Fianna Fáil Party has to argue that the straight vote is needed to stabilise Government.

The political correspondent of the Irish Press of 31st January, 1968, again describes it as “the straight vote in the single seat constituencies”. The political correspondent of the Irish Independent of the same date, 31st January, 1968, says:

Some observers feel that there will be no hard decision from today's Fianna Fáil meeting, but even if there is not, Ministers will get sufficient indication of the predominant line of thought to enable them to speak at the Cabinet table for the straight vote,...

The Irish Times of 1st January, 1968, had this to say:

The majority of Ministers in the Government is now believed to favour the complete abolition of the present system of proportional representation and its replacement by the straight vote in single seat constituencies.

The Irish Press of 25th November last again refers to “the straight vote to replace the PR system”.

(Cavan): They do not say “the present system”, I notice.

No, they do not have to economise in words as we have, and the need to avoid the charge of confusing the people does not apply to newspaper articles as much as to polling cards. The Irish Independent of 3rd February, 1968, says:

This aspect will probably be watched very carefully on this occasion, when, as seems likely, the Government will combine the two referendum proposals in one question. Roughly this would read: Abolish PR, adopt the straight vote-single seat system....

The political correspondent of the Irish Times, 18th June, 1968, again uses the words “straight vote” and says:

The Bill proposes the straight vote while Norton proposes the alternative voting system.

In the Irish Press of 5th June the political correspondent uses “straight vote”. The Irish Times of 10th May, 1968, had a heading “Only 50 at meeting to defend PR.” In that article no less a personage than Senator Garret FitzGerald is quoted as having said that the straight vote system would prove extremely unstable under Irish conditions. He does not seem to agree with Deputy Fitzpatrick that it will lead to the perpetuation for all time of Fianna Fáil in office. He does agree that the most convenient and easily understood way of describing the system is to call it the straight vote system.

(Cavan): No doubt the Senator will have another discussion with the Minister in another Chamber.

Even some of the experts, the television professors, the people from whom Deputy Fitzpatrick takes his guidance——

(Cavan): The Minister put them off the air. He blacked them out.

Under the heading "Irish Democracy can endure straight vote" Professor Basil Chubb of Trinity College is quoted in the Irish Times of 20th April, 1968, as follows:

Professor Basil Chubb, Trinity College, Dublin, said last night at a meeting of the Dublin branch of Tuairim that Irish democracy could survive the straight vote.

That is the same as saying that people have been known to survive after having had an arm amputated.

Again in an article on 4th March, 1968, the system is described on a number of occasions as the straight vote. Even Mr. S. Dunne, TD, is quoted as having remarked on the "wake tae" contribution of Mr. Cosgrave. It says:

Mr. Dunne said that the straight vote would not abolish the Labour Party.

I am afraid I was misquoted.

He described the system as the straight vote. I am not saying he advocated it, but he knew his listeners would recognise the proposal being made——

A misquotation. I would never have described anything the Minister put forward as the straight vote.

No less a paper than the Irish Times said he described it as the straight vote.

The acoustics were bad or something like that.

In Liberty Hall the acoustics were bad? In the one building in the country on which no expense was spared the acoustics are bad? That is the first I heard of it.

I find difficulty in delivering my lines sometimes as the Minister knows.

Again in an article by Mr. Cornelius O'Leary in the Irish Times he refers to it as the straight vote on a number of occasions. This article went on for two days, 31st January and 1st February. Then there was the famous projection of what would happen by Professor Basil Chubb and Professor David Thornley.

(Cavan): That got a sudden death.

The Minister should not talk like that behind their backs.

"Tables I, II and III: Fianna Fáil 97, 93, 77". The alternative to our present electoral system was being discussed as the straight vote in single-member constituencies. There is no other convenient way of describing it — even those experts who think they know what would happen——

They used the term ironically as no doubt I did.

They used it to describe the system and to express what they wanted to express so that the people listening to them or reading them would know what they were talking about. The natural way to describe it is the straight vote system. Deputy Fitzpatrick knows that the proposed system is known by that title but because he wants to create confusion he wants the system to be disguised by describing it in a way in which people in general will not recognise it. He also wants confusion to be caused by describing two systems rather than one. The present system which he wants to maintain is well known.

There is an obvious determination on the part of the Opposition Parties to create as much confusion as possible. If the wording put forward by Deputy Fitzpatrick were adopted, obviously it would be likely to lead the less careful and perceptive voter to think that he was being asked to vote for or against the only system he would recognise from the description Deputy Fitzpatrick wants to have on the voter's card, whereas in fact the question will be whether he is in favour or not in favour of the proposed system. This is another indication that Deputy Fitzpatrick recognises that the trend of opinion in the Fine Gael Party is towards the point of view of the leader of that Party and that to create confusion in the public mind is his only hope.

When I was quoting all those eminent authorities who, when they wanted to describe the proposed system, used the term "the straight vote" I should also have included the description given by a prominent member of the Fine Gael front bench, Deputy O.J. Flanagan, who said when he was questioned about this matter on television: "I am in favour of the single-seat constituency and the straight vote", because he knew that was the way he recognised it——

(Cavan): Quote some of the things he said about the Minister, and the Minister's Leader, and former leaders of the Party.

I am well aware of it. I can assure the Deputy I have no great respect for Deputy O.J. Flanagan. I am just showing that when members of the Fine Gael front bench want to refer to this system, and do not want to go to the trouble of describing it in detail they refer to it as the straight vote because that is the title by which this system is known in the country. The proposal to insert any other description is made purely and simply for the purpose of disguising what exactly the proposals are, particularly when allied to this completely unnecessary proposal to describe the present system which even Deputy Fitzpatrick himself says is well known. I presume what he means is that the method of voting is well known, because obviously there are comparatively few people in this country — and, indeed, I think there are very few on the Fine Gael front bench — who know the system to the extent of knowing how it operates. During the debate it was clear that a number of people on the Fine Gael front bench have not got the foggiest idea as to the mechanics of the system.

Deputy Fitzpatrick availed of the opportunity to make the point that "relative majority" means something other than "absolute majority", apparently yet another attempt to put forward the ridiculous and fraudulent view that the operation of transferring some votes in accordance with the unjustifiable rules of the present system could establish that there is a majority in favour of one candidate after the people have said clearly in the ballot boxes that there is not. I have made it clear on a number of occasions that it is not possible to do this. Deputy Fitzpatrick knows that as well as everybody else. He knows that the operation of the system which applies in by-elections here does not establish that there is a majority in favour of one particular candidate unless the people have already said so themselves. The recent Wicklow by-election makes that perfectly clear. As a result of according discriminatory treatment to certain arbitrarily selected voters a candidate who received 30 per cent, not even 35 per cent of the votes was deemed to be elected. Deputy Fitzpatrick pretends to believe that it was established by this process that there was a majority of the people in favour of the candidate, when he knows it is a fact the people made it clear there were only 8,035 out of 26,223 in favour of the particular candidate.

That does not apply to other by-elections at all.

It does but in all others the candidate whom the greatest number of people in the constituency voted for was elected. The argument certainly does apply to every election in which this fraudulent system operates. Of course it does. I pointed out that there is no justification at all for this, although the manipulation of the votes after the election did result in the crediting of 51.1 per cent of the final votes to the candidate who came second, and 48.9 per cent to the candidate who came first. I pointed out that there is no reason whatever to believe that 51.1 per cent were in favour of the candidate who came second. If there was any attempt to treat all the voters alike, if the voters who voted for the other candidate who was not deemed to be elected, that is the Fianna Fáil candidate in this case, were given the same treatment as the others, it is quite obvious it would be established that there was not a majority in favour of the other candidate because in the fourth count the position was that the Labour candidate in the Wicklow by-election had 6,797 votes credited to him and the Fine Gael candidate had 8,728 votes credited to him, a difference of 1,931.

At this stage there were 10,343 votes credited to the Fianna Fáil candidate but in accordance with the discriminatory rules of this system, under which Deputy Fitzpatrick pretends to believe that there was a majority in favour of the Fine Gael candidate, those 10,343 voters were not given the same consideration as the remainder. It is obvious if they were, and if their preferences were taken into account in the same way as the preferences of the other voters who voted for candidates not deemed to be elected it would have been established as well as there being an absolute majority in favour of the Fine Gael candidate there was an absolute majority in favour of the Labour candidate. Of course, I think that even Deputy Fitzpatrick will agree that there could not be an absolute majority in favour of more than one candidate. To suggest, as Deputy Fitzpatrick did, that the present system of transferring votes to establish that there was a majority in favour of a candidate, after the people had said there was not, is absolute nonsense. What Deputy Fitzpatrick is proposing, apart from the obvious attempt to confuse the people by disguising the facts, is that we should describe in the summary of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill the present system and also the system it is proposed to substitute. I say that would create confusion but even if it was done, to be consistent we obviously must do the same thing with regard to the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, that is, describe the present position and also describe what it is proposed to substitute for that. I would ask Deputy Fitzpatrick could he get agreement in his Front Bench as to the description of the present situation with regard to the ratio of population per Deputy in each individual constituency. Certainly during the debate it was not possible to do this.

What has that got to do with the amendment before the House?

It has to do with it. Deputy Tully and Deputy Fitzpatrick have this view of the debate here that it should be conducted on the basis of the Opposition putting forward their case and the Government saying nothing.

My goodness, the Minister is saying nothing.

Most of what he has been saying for the past 20 minutes is irrelevant.

What I have been saying refers to the points made by Deputy Fitzpatrick. As Deputy Corish was not here, and has only come in now, I will have to repeat what I have been saying.

For goodness' sake do not. I have been listening to it over the past four months and I have been reading about it in the papers.

This Bill was only circulated last week.

What the Minister is saying has been said before.

(Cavan): The Taoiseach will be sending a note to him in a few minutes to sit down.

He will go on until 10.30.

The attempt at filibustering is still in operation. I was just going to explain to Deputy Corish——

I have heard it all before.

The Minister, without interruption.

If we want to be consistent, and if in the summary of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill we are to describe both the present position and the change that is proposed, obviously in the summary of the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill we must do the same thing. It would be extremely difficult to get an agreed description of the present position. Deputy Ryan and Deputy Fitzpatrick, two people sitting on the same Front Bench, have diametrically different views of what the position is. Deputy Fitzpatrick maintains that the position at present is exactly the position we are proposing to establish in the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill. He maintained that here in this House and still he is bitterly opposing its being made clear that this is the position. Deputy Ryan disagrees fundamentally with him. When two lawyers of the standing of Deputy Ryan and Deputy Fitzpatrick cannot agree as to what the present position is I cannot see how we could hope to get agreement on a short summary of the position to be put on the polling card. It is quite clear that to make the position as clear as possible to voters, the best thing to do is to describe the proposal to them and make it clear that what they are being asked to do is to say whether or not they agree that this system should be substituted for the present system which, even Deputy Fitzpatrick admits, is something that they know. To do otherwise would only result in confusing the voters but as I said it is quite obvious that Deputy Fitzpatrick's whole objective is creating as much confusion as possible.

While speaking for about three-quarters of an hour, all the Minister succeeded in doing was in proving that he himself, the politicians in the House, the political correspondents and a couple of editors of newspapers are agreed that the straight vote was a description of what he is trying to do. He did not try to tell us because we would not believe him that everybody in the country understands that description.

I am interested to know a few things. Suppose his proposal is carried, how will the Minister have it written into the Constitution? Will he put "straight vote"? Will that be the term used? He must put into the Constitution the new system of voting and straight vote in inverted commas in the Bill is not what people will see drafted in the Constitution. Perhaps the Minister before 10.30 tonight, or indeed some time tomorrow, might let us know how this will be described. The Minister knows quite well that the description "straight vote" is simply a slang expression and is used by the Fianna Fáil Party to describe the proposed change on the ballot paper or in the Bill simply for the purpose of giving an air of respectability to something which is terribly crooked.

I am amazed that even at this stage the Minister should try a hoary old one about confusing people. The biggest attempt to confuse was made by the Government, and the present Minister for Justice, now Minister for Education—they move so often it is hard to keep track of them. Deputy B. Lenihan flew a kite to clarify, and in a television programme released the information that it was proposed to put the whole lot into one ballot paper and attempt to get across something which would succeed in confusing everybody. Following this disclosure, there was such a storm of protest that the Government decided to change tactics and said that they would have two ballot papers. Would somebody tell me how on earth we are to expect ordinary voters down the country who, the Minister says, are confused and find it difficult, to decide out of five or six names whom they want to vote for? How are they to vote if they get a paper that asks: "Do you approve the amendment of the Constitution contained in the under-mentioned Bill? If you do approve, mark X in this square and if you do not approve, mark X in this square."

The Minister says he does not want to confuse. The one thing he cannot get away from is that in both the ballot papers the Minister will get "No". No matter how confusing he makes it and he is the person who is trying to confuse——

The Deputy must be a mind reader.

I am a pretty good judge of what the public will do.

This is his own opinion.

I have good experience of it. I told the Minister some of the things that were going to happen and they so turned out. I will tell him something else. He is talking about this terrible system which should never be allowed, a system which should never have been considered in any society. But for it, the Minister would not be here. The Minister forgets Deputy P.J. Burke's No. 2's brought him in here first. I am not belittling him in this.

Deputy P.J. Burke would not have been up in the same constituency.

If not, somebody who was known in County Dublin would have got votes the Minister got by transfer from Deputy P.J. Burke. I know I am straining the matter slightly but I feel it would be unfair when he was criticising to say it was a disreputable system when he was the one who ensured that he came in here.

The Minister should have some gratitude.

He is an example of the queer things proportional representation throws up.

Let me say of the Fianna Fáil Party and the Government, and it has to go to the Seanad yet and they may decide to do something with it when it goes in there, that as it stands they do not mention proportional representation anywhere in connection with this and they do that because of the fact that they are afraid of the description "proportional representation". They know, as Deputy Fitzpatrick said, that the people accept that proportional representation means the proportional strength of the various Parties and it has proved itself here. What the Minister suggests now should be put down is this idea that without being given any chance at all of understanding people might put down what he describes, and he rightly puts it in inverted commas, as the "straight vote", and he asks the people of the country whether or not they want the straight vote.

Deputy Fitzpatrick described this as the British system of voting. I would not describe it as the British system but the system in Northern Ireland, the system that has ensured that 27 constituencies have not been contested for the past 30 years. They have been gerrymandered and manoeuvred so that the people get elected by adopting this so-called straight vote; nobody could put them out and, if there is no danger of being put out, the Minister knows the old trick which Fianna Fáil were good at, that of, even under proportional representation, putting in the outsider to split the vote of the third candidate and prevent him getting elected.

The Minister thinks this is the system the Irish people will accept. I told Deputy B. Lenihan the first night this was discussed on television that this was a crooked system attempted by Fianna Fáil and the sooner it goes through the sooner it goes to the people and the sooner the result will be shown that the people do not want it.

Why are you holding it up?

The Minister is talking about holding it up. He is holding it up.

You are delaying it.

The whole thing boils down to the fact that Fianna Fáil accepted advice from the Minister for Local Government and now they have left him holding the reins. Now it has got out of control and they are leaving him clear to try to make something of it and his best effort is to give it an air of respectability by calling it a "straight vote", hoping that will get it through and he will get a straight answer when it goes to the people.

I think in all courtesy I should reply. Since Deputy Tully is still not convinced, I will try to explain. First of all, with regard to the description of the straight vote, the references I gave were only a random selection which showed clearly that the name by which the proposed system is known to political commentators and to Deputies, including the Leader of the Labour section of the Coalition, is the straight vote. When they want to describe the proposed system in the clearest possible way and in the least number of words, they use the term "the straight vote"— Deputy Corish, the political correspondents of all the papers and other Deputies, including Deputy Oliver J. Flanagan, all have described the proposed system as the straight vote.

The Minister would not like to be known in the way he is described by the press, would he?

It was obviously known in those circles also as the "straight vote". I think I made it clear why we did not have to describe also the present system. Deputy Fitzpatrick also made it clear. He says the present system is well known. Therefore, it is not necessary to describe it. It is quite true that, in the summary of the proposals and in the voter's card, the words "proportional representation" will not appear. The reason for that is that when they did appear the last time — when the two systems were described——

(Cavan):——you lost the referendum.

——both the existing system and the proposed system— there were complaints that this was confusing the voters. There were complaints that, in the circumstances of going in a rush to the polling booth to vote, people would glance at the thing and would not know whether they were voting for proportional representation or for the straight vote.

It is obvious that both sections of the Coalition — Deputy Tully and Deputy Fitzpatrick — are depending completely on creating as much confusion as possible in the public mind.

What will appear in the Constitution?

That is the point.

Not alone do they want the question so framed as to confuse the voters — the proposal is to substitute this system for the proposed system — but they want "the present system" described as "proportional representation" and they want to disguise the proposed system in such a way that it will not be recognised by the people. At this stage, after the Bill to amend the Constitution has been discussed I think rather adequately in the Dáil on the Second Stage, on the Committee Stage, on the Report Stage and on the Final Stage, Deputy Tully still wants to know how the amendment will be made in the Constitution.

Yes, tell us.

He still has not gone to the trouble of reading the Bill.

(Cavan): You are trying to rub the Minister's nose in it.

Will "straight vote" be in the Constitution?

It would not be allowed.

No, it will not. The Bill specifies how the Constitution is to be amended. What we are providing for here is a summary of the Bill. Deputy Tully apparently wants the summary to be the whole Bill. Voters will be told that the Bill is available for 6d. Deputy S. D. Barrett is afraid that if the voter were not told it would be available for 6d he might think it would take an exorbitant sum of money to buy the Bill. I propose to accept Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment in relation to the 6d. For the huge sum of 6d, the voter will be able to read through the legal language of the actual Bill and see exactly how it will be described in the Constitution.

There is nothing at all about "straight vote" in the Constitution.

Deputy Tully wants to know whether a person who will purchase a copy of the Bill and wade through it will be capable of understanding it. They are not the type of people Deputy Tully and Deputy Fitzpatrick want to confuse. It is quite obvious that Deputy Fitzpatrick, as day follows day, realises that opinion in his own Party is gradually coming around to the viewpoint of the Leader of the Fine Gael Party, Deputy Cosgrave.

(Cavan): The Minister must be coming to an end now. He always finishes on that note.

This last-ditch stand of his can succeed only if he can create as much confusion as he possibly can. His amendment is intended solely and purely to make sure that the summary of the proposal will create as much confusion as possible. The present system is known: there is no need to describe it. To describe it would only lead these simple people whose votes Deputy Fitzpatrick expects to get to believe they are being asked to vote for or against the system of proportional representation — and that is what both Deputy Fitzpatrick and Deputy Tully are depending on.

We should love to see the Minister write "straight vote" into the Constitution. Let him tell us how he will do it.

I have to deal with several other matters which Deputy Tully raised. First of all, he raised what he called "the kite" flown by the present Minister for Education. The present Minister for Education did not fly any kite. It was the intention of the Government to put forward their proposals for electoral reform in the form of one proposal — just the same as in 1959. In fact, the only real difference between what is proposed now and what was proposed in 1959 is that, in 1959, it was not specified that there should be a definite limit to the amount of divergence to be allowed from the national average of population per Deputy.

(Cavan): Are we going to have another referendum to amend Article 18?

It was to be included in the proposal that it should be permissible to take account of the very same factors as we are proposing to take account of now — only, now, we are specifying that the maximum divergence shall be one-sixth and, in 1959, no such provision was made. But, in 1959, the Opposition apparently were able to understand that proposal. They did not cry that, by putting this whole complicated proposal into one Bill, they would be confused. We had no reason to believe their level of understanding had so deteriorated since 1959 that now they would not be able to understand this proposal and would be confused, as it was being put forward as one proposal.

Therefore, in order not to confuse the people, we intended just to ask them to vote for or against the proposed reform. We discovered that the Opposition could not understand it at all this time. They claimed they were being confused. They claimed they could not understand it. In order to try, if possible, to dispel the confusion in the minds of the Opposition, we agreed to put this proposal forward as two separate proposals. That is how that happened. Of course, we might have realised we would not succeed in dispelling the confusion. For the Second Stage we had to put them together. For the subsequent stages we had to separate them. By that time, the Opposition were not able to separate them in their own minds and insisted on discussing both Bills together.

(Cavan): It sounds like Humpty Dumpty.

I already have dealt with the allegation that we are proposing the British system of election. I admit that the system we are proposing is the system which operates in Britain, but it is also the system which operates in most well-established and stable democracies.

(Cavan): Including Northern Ireland. That is well-established and stable, anyway.

The system we have here is also a British system. It is a system invented by the British but not invented for themselves. It is a system invented by the British for rebel British colonies such as ourselves that were breaking the connection with Britain. This was to be their parting gift.

That is why de Valera put it into the Constitution.

Not only the Fine Gael Party since their inception but their predecessors, the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, accepted this view that this system was imposed on us by the British, and that it was given to us, as the official Cumann na nGaedheal Party organ said in 1930 and as Deputy Dillon said in 1947, on the principle of trying it out on the dog, so that both systems are British, one being the system they invented for people like us and the other the system they had the good sense to retain for themselves.

I dealt with the situation in the North of Ireland already. Everybody knows that the situation of a permanent majority up there is not due to the electoral system and that, in fact, the position is that in the last election held prior to the changeover from the old system to the present system in 1929, there were, in fact, two less seats held by the Unionist Party than in the election following——

(Interruptions.)

There were two more seats the last time it operated there than under the system we propose.

The Minister is getting even more confused.

The situation that obtains there was achieved with the connivance of the Opposition Party in this House who connived in the drawing up of the artificial boundaries there so as to ensure that it would be possible, whatever electoral system operated, to arrange for a continuation of the present régime.

That was when you people were sulking outside the Dáil.

(Cavan): When they were blowing things up and robbing banks.

This act of treachery was performed before the people who formed our Party had had time, since they came out of the jails and the internment camps, to adjust themselves——

They were in the House. Do not be codding yourself.

——to the new situaation. They were only let out in 1924 and this act of treachery was perpetrated in 1925 before they had adjusted themselves and found a way of getting over the requirement of taking the Oath of Allegiance to come in here. These two amendments are obviously for the purpose of trying to confuse the people and they are not acceptable. The proposal in the Bill is the simplest one and the one which will make the proposal absolutely clear. If we were to describe the present situation it would have to be done in a way analogous to the description of the proposed system rather than what is proposed here.

Would the Minister care to give us an old rebel song before he sits down?

No, but I will reply to every point raised.

And to many that this not raised.

I maintain that this side of the House has an equal right with the Opposition to contribute.

(Cavan): Having proposed these amendments, I think I am entitled to say a few words in reply. I put down five amendments to this Bill, some of them in my own name and some of them in my own name and in that of Deputy Barrett. It is significant that the Minister has intimated that three of those five amendments are reasonable amendments and that they are acceptable to him and that the Bill will be amended accordingly. Some of them were put down in order to clarify the position and to ensure that these dangerous measures which are being forced on the country will be made as clear as possible to the electorate. The only amendments the Minister will not accept are these two amendments which propose to make it clear to the people that we are abolishing PR and substituting for it the relative majority system by means of the single non-transferable vote. If there is one thing we should not do when giving an explanation it is to confuse the people. The explanation which the Minister proposes in the Appendix of the Bill is calculated to confuse and can only confuse.

The new system which the Minister proposes to introduce is a highly controversial system: that cannot be denied. So controversial is it that when it went to the country less than ten years ago it was defeated by a majority of 30,000 people. Some 30,000 people did not think it a fair system and they did not think it a straight system, they thought it was a crooked system. Throughout this debate I have never described the system as the straight vote. I described it as the spot vote system as it is described in the Report of the Committee. This is a crooked system but the Minister prefers to call it a straight system. My amendment does not ask him to describe it as a crooked system, that would be prejudging, but it asks him to describe it in the words in which it will be written in the Constitution if the Minister's Bill is accepted by the people, that is the relative majority system. That is what it will be called in the Constitution and as Deputy Tully said if "straight vote" was written into the Constitution nobody would be able to interpret it. The Minister must have been advised that if he wrote "straight vote" into the Constitution it would mean absolutely nothing. It is obvious that the Minister knows his Party is slipping, over the the various national contests over the past few years——

Now we have to go into them.

(Cavan):——showed that his vote was going down and, therefore, he wants to change the system of election. However, it does not stop there. The Minister knows that when he put the issue clearly to the people the last time and in his explanation described the present system as the proportional representation system and the new system as the relative majority system, he lost and now he wants to change the rules again. First of all, he wants to change the rules for electing people to Dáil Éireann and then he wants to change the rules for holding referenda in order to try to make sure he will succeed.

The Minister loves quoting what other people said at various times. I want to put on record now what the then Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party, the President, said on 1st June, 1927, at column 1343, volume 67 of the Dáil Debates. He said this:

The system we have we know; the people know it. On the whole it has worked out pretty well. I think that we have a good deal to be thankful for in this country: we have to be very grateful that we have had the system of proportional representation here.

He did not say "the present system".

It gives a certain amount of stability, and on the system of the single transferable vote you have fair representation of Parties.

He went on to say:

My view is that it is better, when dealing with fundamental law, with the right to vote and how the vote shall be exercised to define, and to take away from Parties the temptation to manoeuvre with systems so as to get Party advantage.

That is exactly what the Minister is doing here:

Who said that?

(Cavan): The present President:

Maybe the Minister would comment on that.

Yes. I have done so already, but now, unfortunately, I have to do it again.

(Interruptions.)

(Cavan): In so far as the Minister has any explanation it is this: that the man who said it was being dishonest with the people; that the man who said it was saying something he did not believe; that the man who said it was trying to put something over on the people in order to try to get them to do something else. If the Minister's explanation means anything, it means that.

The Minister spoke earlier on about this system of proportional representation not carrying out the will of the majority of the people. Of course, it does carry out the will of the majority of the people and it is utter nonsense for the Minister to start talking about the 10,000 votes, or whatever it was the Fianna Fáil candidate finished up with in Wicklow, and say they should be counted again. Those votes were effective. It is only when such votes cease to be effective that second preferences are counted. The 10,000 votes were in the front line until the election was over. That is why they were not counted again.

These referenda will cost something in the region of £150,000 and, in putting them before the people, we should be very clear and we should do everything to ensure that we put the issue fairly and squarely and that is why I am putting forward these amendments in an effort to clarify the position. Does the Minister intend holding another referendum next year to regularise the position in the Seanad and in the universities from the constitutional point of view because, so far as I know, another referendum will be necessary if the present proposal is carried? It is a wonder the Minister did not include that proposal in this Bill?

This is straying away from the Deputy's amendment.

(Cavan): I am dealing with the expense involved. It does appear to me that another referendum will be necessary and we should ensure that, whenever the referendum goes to the people——

Was the Deputy told to keep it going?

You mind your business and we will mind ours. You kept it going long enough anyway.

(Interruptions.)

There is more of it. Read it out.

I will read it: Shakespeare said the devil will cite scripture for his purpose; Fine Gael quote Dev now.

The last time we asked the Minister to read out a private note he had a baby.

That is right; he did.

(Cavan): At any rate, I want to make it perfectly clear that the object in putting down these amendments is nothing more nor less than to ensure that the issues will be put fairly and clearly before the people. The fact that the Minister has accepted three out of five of my amendments is, I think, evidence of my bona fides, evidence that my amendments are well-intentioned, and the Minister refuses to accept these amendments because he wants to confuse the people.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle——

Off we go again. Round six.

Deputy Fitzpatrick maintains that the proposal in the Bill is calculated to confuse the people, but he has not put forward a single argument to support that contention. He has himself admitted that the people know what the present system is. Therefore, describing the present system as the present system surely does nothing to confuse the people. I do not think that even Deputy Fitzpatrick could deny that the proposed system of election is known to the people as the "straight vote". That is the way in which political commentators and even university professors have described it in the newspapers. That is the way in which numbers of Deputies in the Fine Gael Party have described it, including Deputy Oliver Flanagan when he was expressing his support for it; and that is the way in which the leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Corish, has described it. It is obvious then, I think, that the people generally know what the present system is and know that the term "straight vote" describes the proposed system. There can, therefore, be no confusion in the proposed summary of the proposals in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. If Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendments were accepted, the summary would be much more confusing because the two systems would have to be described and, on a casual reading of the summary then, a less than normally perceptive voter would not see clearly that what he is being asked to do is, in effect, to vote for or against the proposed system and he might think he was voting for or against the present system. Obviously, if Deputy Fitzpatrick's proposed description is accepted, if his proposed description of the proposal is accepted, and also if his proposal to describe the present system is accepted, then, to be consistent, since we are describing the proposed system by reference to the system of election and the system of representation, we would have also to describe the present system by reference to the system of election and the system of representation. That would not be done by using the terms "proportional representation"; we would have to describe the system of voting, which is the system of selective multiple voting, and the system of representation, which is the system of multiple seat constituencies. We would then have a situation in which neither of the systems would, in fact, be described in the way in which they are generally recognised by the people.

I will, I think, resist the temptation and the challenge to go into the by-elections and the Presidential election, although I must admit I would dearly love to go into them because it gives me considerable pleasure to contemplate the fact that we have won six out of seven successive by-elections——

(Cavan): On a declining vote.

——which is something that never happened in the history of the State until now, or even anything approaching it. It also gives me pleasure to contemplate the fact that, despite the fact that there was only one of the candidates in the Presidential election actually campaigning, and despite the particularly scurrilous and vicious nature of the campaign fought against the President by each of the Opposition Parties——

He was on television, morning, noon and night.

——despite the vicious, slanderous whispering campaign——

That is untrue.

——despite the scurrilous lies——

That is a lie.

That is a lie.

He knows it is.

——he was elected for the second time as President of this country.

You are thick. You would say anything.

Despite that lowdown whispering, slanderous campaign that was conducted——

You must be like Dev — looking into your own heart.

——he was elected for the second time as President of this country. I dealt with the question of the enactment of the 1937 Constitution and the reason why advantage was not taken at that time to change the electoral system. I reminded Deputies opposite of the fact that the enactment of that Constitution was the culminating step in the first stage of the existence of the Fianna Fáil Party and of the determination with which the Opposition tried to hang on to the then existing position of the Irish Free State.

It is true that at that time the Fine Gael Party had not changed their minds about the electoral system and that they were still at that time in favour of changing from the system of proportional representation. But, not everybody in the country was. The determination to hang on to the status of a British dominion was so strong that even the concession of changing the electoral system at that time would not have been sufficient to in any way abate the Fine Gael opposition to the enactment of the Constitution of 1937. Every opportunity was taken by them to avail of every possible section of the Constitution to arouse some opposition to it in the hope that the ultimate result would be that we would remain the Irish Free State.

What has that got to do with the amendment before the House?

It has to do with the point I was asked to deal with by Deputy Fitzpatrick and by Deputy Tully.

It has to do with the Minister's efforts to keep the debate going.

The Minister's Government introduced the External Relations Act.

Every effort was made to give one more cause for opposition to the Constitution at that time.

I will not deal at any further length with the Wicklow by-election beyond saying that the people who voted for the Fianna Fáil candidate there were in no different position from the people who voted for the other candidates who were not deemed to be elected and that they did not do anything to disqualify themselves from getting the same consideration.

Why did you not go on then and win the by-election?

Because the system does not allow, because the system discriminates against the large group in favour of the smallest group——

——and for no democratic reason. There was no way in which the Fianna Fáil voters disqualified themselves from getting the same consideration paid to their votes as was paid to the votes of the other candidates who were not deemed to be elected and they were fully entitled to have their preferences considered in the same way as the preferences of the other voters.

How would you do it?

Of course, it could be done but to do it would show up the nonsense, the fraudulence of the system and would, in fact, have shown in Wicklow, in accordance with the absurd assumptions on which this system of transferring the votes is based, that there was a majority in favour of at least two candidates which, of course, is nonsense.

(Cavan): Did the Minister look privately through the votes and see?

This is based on a nonsensical principle. In the same way, the voters who voted for the Labour candidate in Limerick were entitled to have the same consideration paid to their votes as was paid to the votes cast for the Liberal candidate and the Fine Gael candidate and then we would see whether the claim made by the Labour Party there that they had done their work for the Coalition better than Fine Gael and that their votes would have transferred more solidly to Fine Gael than the Fine Gael votes did to them, was true or not, if they were all treated in the same way. The system discriminates between voters in an unjustified way.

The Fine Gael preferences of 1,600 saved your skin in Limerick.

Not at all. We headed the poll by 6,000 votes.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided. Tá, 42; Níl, 44.

  • Belton, Luke.
  • Belton, Paddy.
  • Burke, Joan T.
  • Burton Philip.
  • Byrne, Patrick.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Connor, Patrick.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Costello, Declan.
  • Creed, Donal.
  • Crotty, Patrick J.
  • Desmond, Eileen.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Henry P.
  • Donegan, Patrick S.
  • Dunne, Seán.
  • Dunne, Thomas.
  • Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
  • Farrelly, Denis.
  • Fitzpatrick, Thomas J.
  • (Cavan).
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Gilhawley, Eugene.
  • Governey, Desmond.
  • Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
  • Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
  • Jones, Denis F.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • L'Estrange, Gerald.
  • Lindsay, Patrick J.
  • McLaughlin, Joseph.
  • O'Donnell, Tom.
  • O'Hara, Thomas.
  • O'Higgins, Michael J.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas F. K.
  • O'Leary, Michael.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Reynolds, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, Richie.
  • Spring, Dan.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Tully, James.

Níl

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Barrett, Sylvester.
  • Blaney, Neil T.
  • Boland, Kevin.
  • Booth, Lionel.
  • Boylan, Terence.
  • Brady, Philip.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Brennan, Paudge.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Calleary, Phelim A.
  • Carty, Michael.
  • Colley, George.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Cotter, Edward.
  • Cunningham, Liam.
  • Davern, Don.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Dowling, Joe.
  • Egan, Nicholas.
  • Fanning, John.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Fitzpatrick, Thomas J.
  • (Dublin South-Central).
  • Gallagher, James.
  • Geoghegan, John.
  • Gibbons, James M.
  • Gilbride, Eugene.
  • Gogan, Richard P.
  • Hillery, Patrick J.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Kitt, Michael F.
  • Lalor, Patrick J.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Lenihan, Patrick.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • Lynch, John.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • Meaney, Tom.
  • Moore, Seán.
  • Nolan, Thomas.
  • Norton, Patrick.
  • Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
  • Smith, Patrick.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies L'Estrange and James Tully; Níl: Deputies Carty and Geoghegan.
Amendment declared lost.

A slow process of erosion.

We can beat you with only half our forces.

The Minister for Local Government made a mess of it again for you.

A moral victory. May you have many more of them.

Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 were discussed together.

But there will be separate votes on them.

Amendment No. 4 not moved?

(Cavan): My understanding of two amendments moved together is that you can have only one debate but that the amendments can be put separately.

There can be no opposed business after 10.30 p.m.

(Cavan): All we want is to have it put.

It will have to go over until tomorrow.

It might be as well to have it tonight.

We cannot have it tonight even though the two amendments were discussed together.

Can there not be a separate vote?

All right; 10.30 in the morning suits us fine.

The Minister for Local Government will ruin you yet.

Progress reported, Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.45 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 10th July, 1968.
Barr
Roinn