Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 10 Jul 1968

Vol. 236 No. 5

Referendum (Amendment) Bill, 1968: Report and Final Stages.

(Cavan): May I move the amendment now?

: Could we hear the amendment?

(Cavan): There may be three or four copies of the amendment available from the Bills Office.

: I have not one anyway.

(Cavan): It is a very simple amendment, and the Minister will not have any difficulty in following it. In the Appendix to the Bill are set out two statements, one statement dealing with the white ballot paper and another statement dealing with the green ballot paper. The statement dealing with the green ballot paper 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;

That is the only part that is relevant for the purpose of my amendment. My amendment proposes to delete the word "straight" and substitute therefor the more appropriate word "crooked".

: I would point out to Deputy Fitzpatrick that the Chair would not accept such an amendment because it is derisory and frivolous. The practice has been all down the years that amendments offered in a spirit of derision have been ruled out by the Chair.

(Cavan): With the greatest respect, may I make a submission, because it is of considerable importance? The Bill as drafted describes this system as straight. That is a well recognised word to describe something that is fair, something that is just. The decision of this side of the House and, indeed, the decision of the majority of the people on a previous occasion, has been to reject that description of the system, and to propose the opposite; the only opposite that I know to the word “straight” is “crooked”. I respectfully submit with the greatest force at my command that this is a perfectly serious amendment put forward in an absolutely serious manner.

I attempted on Committee Stage to get the Minister to describe this system by the words of the Act. The Minister refused to accept that description, and I have no alternative, if I am to try to ensure that the people are not deceived, than to put down what I think is a proper description of the system proposed by the Minister. I do not wish to make any longer submission than saying that I respectfully and forcefully submit to you, Sir, that the opposite of "straight" is "crooked" and that that cannot be regarded as being frivolous in any manner or form. I urge on you to accept the amendment. If you rule it out of order, I am prevented from proposing it on this Stage as I am entitled to do; and if I had known that I certainly would not have agreed to the Report Stage of the Bill being taken at this notice.

: The amendment is being ruled out of order not to deprive Deputy Fitzpatrick of the right to speak on such an amendment but merely because the amendment is offered, I feel, in a spirit of derision.

(Cavan): I take it we are all here in an effort to co-operate with one another and get this measure through. If the word “unfair” is any more acceptable to the Chair and is less frivolous, I am quite prepared to use that word, and I ask you to accept that amendment.

: "Crooked" is the right word for it.

: This is a ruling that has been given all down the years, on words such as "unfair" or "crooked". Unless the Deputy can get around it in some other fashion, the matter cannot be discussed. I do not want to deprive Deputy Fitzpatrick of his right to discuss this point.

(Cavan): I assure the Chair that my effort is to have a helpful discussion on this, and I am prepared to adopt the word “British” or the word “spot” to describe it, if either is acceptable. The word “spot” has been used in this report.

: Yes, I would be prepared to accept the word "British", if the Deputy so wishes.

(Cavan): I move:

In page 3, line 38, to delete "straight vote" and substitute "British".

I do so for the purpose of making this further effort to rid this statement, which is meant to be an explanatory statement, of this misleading word "straight". If the new system is to be described to the people as "straight", that will certainly have a misleading effect on them. The word "straight" is synonymous with the word "fair", with the word "just", and with the word "honest". In my respectful opinion, the system which it is sought to describe by this word is neither fair, nor just, nor straight.

It is, of course, obvious that in so far as the word "straight" has any relevance at all to this system of election, it presupposes two candidates, and two candidates only, in an election, but as we all know, in any election held here there will be at least three candidates in each constituency.

: Or four or five.

(Cavan): How therefore can you refer to that as a straight contest? In so far as the word has any meaning or any relevance, it would suggest a straight contest between two people, between two candidates in a constituency, but the Minister knows that there will be three and perhaps four or five candidates in a constituency, and therefore the system cannot be regarded or described as straight. In fact that is where it becomes patently crooked, patently dishonest and unfair, because it means that in those circumstances a person with anything as low as 25 per cent of the votes can get the seat, and can hold himself out as representing 51 per cent of the people in that constituency.

The system which the Minister proposes would not be accepted by a GAA convention or by a creamery committee for the election of a chairman. The Minister knows that at GAA conventions all over the country, when there are more than two candidates proposed for the chair, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated, and the people vote again and so on until one candidate gets a majority. The system which the Minister calls straight would not be regarded as straight by a Fianna Fáil convention, and has not been used at any political convention down the years. If the Minister were presiding at a convention at which three or four candidates were proposed, and if he wanted the candidate with the highest number of votes to get elected, I should like to see what sort of reception he would get if he tried to impose that procedure on the convention. Why? Because the people would not regard it as fair, would not regard it as straight, would think the whole thing was crooked, and would insist on the candidate with the lowest number of votes being eliminated until there was a straight contest between two candidates, and until one candidate got more votes than the only other remaining candidate.

What the Minister proposes to do here is to put the description properly applicable to the procedure where candidate after candidate is eliminated on the procedure whereby if you have three or four candidates in the field and one gets the highest number of votes, even if he has far less than 50 per cent or a majority of the votes cast, he is deemed — the Minister likes talking about something being deemed — by the Minister and his Party to have got a majority of the votes and therefore gets the seat.

: Is the Deputy advocating the French electoral system?

(Cavan): Deputy Booth probably was not in the Chamber when this was discussed. We are discussing an amendment to——

: Delete the word "straight" and put in the word "crooked".

(Cavan): ——to the Appendix dealing with the proposal to abolish PR and substitute what the Minister calls the straight vote.

: I was wondering was the Deputy advocating the French system.

(Cavan): I proposed to delete the word “straight” and substitute the word “crooked”, but the Ceann Comhairle ruled me out of order on the grounds that it was frivolous. I now propose to insert the word “British”.

: I am fully aware of the situation.

(Cavan): My argument is simply and solely directed towards endeavouring to demonstrate that the system proposed by the Minister is not straight within the accepted sense of that word.

: Hear, hear.

(Cavan): I am not advocating any particular system. I am pointing out that the word “straight” does not adequately or properly describe the system which the Minister proposes. The Irish as a nation are noted for their sense of fair play. That is why all these rural societies and rural organisations, when they are electing their officers at their annual meeting, do so in a manner which will ensure that the person who is elected on that basis has a majority of the votes cast. That is why I say that if the system proposed by the Minister is described as “straight”, they will be deceived, because they would regard a system described as “straight” as being a fair, just and honest system, a system that would ensure fair play and justice for everyone, and which would give everyone an opportunity of expressing his opinion, and making his vote effective. That is the case I am making.

Last evening I challenged the Minister to get from the Report of the Committee on the Constitution, December, 1967, a description of the straight vote for the system which he proposes. I could not get it. At page 24 it is described as the first past the post system. At page 115 it is described as the spot vote. When the Minister started his campaign for this change in the electoral system — and his predecessors too, I suppose — he decided to describe this as the straight vote in order to deceive, in order to put a respectable name on a dishonest system. I have no objection, good, bad or indifferent, to the Minister using that description in his election literature or in his election speeches. Indeed I could not have. He is perfectly entitled to do that at the expense of his Party and of his supporters. But I do object to its being written into the official description. I object to this description being written into the official literature that is to be circulated in order to inform the people what this proposal is all about. Deputy Tully very correctly asked the Minister yesterday evening, how he proposes to describe the change in the Constitution, if it is carried through. Of course, the answer is he will not describe it as the straight vote because if he did so, the courts would not know what he was talking about.

The Minister knows that. He knows that "the straight vote" is meaningless. The description I wanted him to put on this in the literature that is sent out in the form of official notices and statements was the description by which it would be known in the Constitution, if the people are crazy enough to fall for the Minister's deceit. The Constitution would be amended and the following subsection written into the appropriate Article: "The Members shall be elected on the relative majority system by means of the single non-transferable vote." Yesterday I spoke for a good while trying to get the Minister to delete the words "straight vote" and substitute therefor "relative majority system by means of the single non-transferable vote". The Minister refused to accept that amendment. It was because he refused to accept it that I have now been forced, in discharge of my obligations in this House, to devise another description for this system which is more realistic and more accurate. I propose that we describe it as the "British system" or indeed I would be satisfied with the "spot vote" or "first-past-the-post vote". Would Deputy Booth be prepared to accept Deputy Dillon's "normal system"?

: Deputy Dillon will tell you all about this proposal. When you have heard from me, you will know enough about it.

: He has already told us about the normal system.

: You will hear all about it today with knobs on, and Taca knobs on as well.

(Cavan): I do not know what Deputy Booth's interjection is meant to suggest, whether it is meant to be helpful or obstructive. I would like to ask him whether he has any objection to describing this in the official statements as the “relative majority system by means of the single non-transferable vote”. I put it to Deputy Booth and every Member of this House that that is a reasonable, perfectly plain description of the system. It is a description which is clear enough to write into the Constitution, clear enough to convey the meaning of the House and the meaning of the people, if they are foolish enough to accept it, to the Supreme Court, if it has to decide it.

Surely, if the Minister's advisers thought that the "straight vote" was an adequate description for this system, they would have advised him to put it into his Bill because the Minister obviously has a great affection for the term "straight vote". The House may be sure that he did his best to get the parliamentary draftsman to write it into the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution but obviously the Attorney General and other advisers of the Minister told him it meant nothing and that if he described the system in the Constitution as the "straight vote system", the Supreme Court would not know what he was talking about and it would lead to chaos.

It is very difficult then to understand why the Minister insists on using the description "straight vote" in the appendix; or it is not difficult to understand it because the obvious reason is that the Minister wants to convey to the people that the system he proposes is a fair system, a straight system, an honest system. But it is not. I urge on the Minister, even at this late stage, to accept this amendment. I have noticed since the discussion on these Bills began that the Minister is ready enough to give way on some amendments. He is ready enough to give way on amendments put down by myself and others to clarify the position but he is holding out on this particular amendment. Of course, the reason he is holding out is that he hopes to get votes out of it, not because it will explain to the people what he is asking them to do but because it will deceive them into thinking they are voting for a fair system, for a straight system.

The Minister, even at this late stage, should reconsider the position and undertake to accept the amendment, as originally drafted by me, which he refused yesterday, that is, amendment No. 4, which proposes to delete "straight vote" system and substitute "relative majority system by means of the single non-transferable vote". If he does that, I will be satisfied. If he does not do that but accepts the present amendment, I will be satisfied. If he does neither, I will be absolutely convinced, and I think many Members of this House who think straight will be convinced, and the people will be convinced, that this is an attempt to put something over on them, an attempt to confuse the issue, an attempt, as I said, to label this dishonest system with a respectable name.

The Minister said yesterday that the description which I propose was used in the referendum on the last occasion. The reason why the Minister is changing it is that he lost the referendum then, because the people knew exactly what he was proposing. That is another reason why he is determined to do what he is doing now. I urge on the House and the Minister to see the sense of this, to be fair with the people, to be straight with the people and to put the issue to them in language that means what it says.

: I cannot agree for a moment with Deputy Fitzpatrick in his strictures on the Minister and in his allegations of all sorts of intentions to deceive. I would challenge Deputy Fitzpatrick to go out into the street and ask any ordinary man: "Are you in favour of an electoral system providing for single member constituencies with the relative majority vote." I am prepared to bet that the ordinary man in the street will immediately react by asking: "Do you mean the straight vote?" because the relative majority vote in single member constituencies is a shocking mouthful of technical phrases. In his heart of hearts Deputy Fitzpatrick knows that the correct technical description must be used in an amendment of the Constitution which is subject to interpretation by our courts. Therefore, very correct detailed wording must be adopted.

We are not suggesting for a moment that we are trying to over-simplify the matter in order to deceive the voter. On the contrary, what we are trying to do is to get the facts fairly before them but Deputy Fitzpatrick was in favour of the electoral system adopted by a certain body where in the case of a number of candidates a vote is taken and the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated and there is then a fresh ballot and this is continued until finally someone comes out with a clear majority. Mind you, there is something to be said for that because it goes some way to meet the Minister's contention which he has been making consistently throughout this debate, that, in fact, the proportional system we have gives an added advantage to voters to give their first vote to the least popular candidate.

Those voters get their votes counted twice, three times, or maybe more. We do not want, and I certainly do not want, to adopt anything like the French double ballot system. I do not know whether Deputy Fitzpatrick appreciates that system or whether he approves of it but he seems to be tending towards it. There is something to be said for it but the amount of expense involved in having a double ballot is quite ridiculous and puts the matter out of the realm of serious consideration. The French system is a system of single member constituencies and when the votes are counted one candidate will be elected only if he receives 50 per cent of the votes. If he does not, the first leg of the election is over and a further ballot takes place on the following Sunday, a week later, and then the man who gets the highest number of votes is in. It is a pity that Deputy Fitzpatrick did not come back on this. I do not know whether he regards that as a better system——

(Cavan): It is not relevant on this.

: The Deputy must introduce this other system of eliminating the bottom man and having a further ballot. When it comes to a suggestion by the Deputy that we should refer to the proposed new system as the British system, I must part company with him altogether. Unless you are going to elaborate still further and describe the proposed new system as the system at present in operation in the United Kingdom, I think the use of the words "British system" is completely confusing or could be to many people. It has been quite clearly established that the system we operate at the moment of multi-seat constituencies and the single transferable vote is one which originated in Great Britain.

I am not going into the question as to whether that system was imposed on us or whether we were persuaded to accept it but the system we operate under proportional representation at the moment is essentially a British system. It is one which they have not adopted. They have too much sense to do that. That is where it started in the late years of the last century when people believed that this was a new and liberal conception. It has proved entirely disastrous in so many countries where proportional representation has been adopted that the British have refused to consider it and have preferred to retain the system which Deputy Dillon himself very accurately regarded as being the normal system. The system is the one which everyone can most readily understand but I cannot accept for a moment that either of these two systems can be differentiated from the other simply by the use of the word "British". Both systems are, in fact, British almost exclusively. The advice in the explanatory literature puts it across to people in words which they readily understand——

: Who is speaking, Deputy Dillon or Deputy Booth?

: Deputy Booth.

(Interruptions.)

: I am sorry to see the Deputy in a quandary suffering from irresistible temptation but that is one of his weaknesses. He yields to temptation rather too readily but when it comes to putting this matter before the people I challenge anyone to say that the average man in the street will have any doubt in his mind when we use the phrase which has already been used extensively throughout this debate and extensively in the public press— the straight vote system. To regard it as being in any way unfair is, to my mind, ridiculous. It is the system which has been used in every election, either parliamentary or local government, in this country. Every normal committee, with the one exception possibly, as Deputy Fitzpatrick has stated, is elected in this way.

(Cavan): Does the Minister say that a county convention of the GAA is not a normal body?

: It is an obvious system. Under undue stress that representation does tend to confuse what is the real issue at an election. The real issue at any election is to secure an executive Government. That is the most important thing. It has to be as representative as possible but that is not the most vital aspect of this whole matter. If representation were the only matter to be considered this House would be reduced simply to a talking shop and that is something to which Deputy Dillon has also referred in previous discussion when he says he wishes certain views to be expressed in this House, but this House is not a place simply for the expression of views. This House is the legislative assembly to consider legislation and for exploring the affairs of the Government.

(Cavan): Does the Deputy think it should be a Government steamroller?

: The Opposition always feel that simply because they are in a minority it is fair that their views should prevail. The Chair, on another occasion, has brought out a matter which is very often overlooked by the Opposition, that, while minorities have rights, majorities also have rights and it is the right of the majority to prevail.

(Cavan): Provided they are a majority. That is my objection.

: Provided they are a majority. This straight vote system is one which will ensure that the Government in power will have a majority and also that, if it fails to retain the confidence of the people, it will rapidly and decisively be defeated and replaced by some alternative Government which, in its turn, will have a majority.

This system is a much clearer and much more sensitive barometer of changes in public opinion. To say that the Government which has a majority in this House is steamrolling simply because it has a majority is, of course, quite ludicrous. We propose a system which has operated extremely well in Great Britain and in many other countries — it is generally known as the "straight vote" system — as compared with proportional representation which is used extensively on the Continent of Europe with unanimously disastrous results. I do not think the public are in any doubt as to the issues at stake.

However, to put that matter beyond all shadow of doubt, we are using in the Explanatory Memorandum a phrase which everyone, the ordinary man and woman in the street, knows perfectly well and can understand. It is completely impossible to go into technicalities but we say that anyone who wishes to go into the technicalities has a perfect opportunity of doing so by purchasing the Act, when it is passed, and satisfying himself or herself on those grounds. Lawyers and other people with technical knowledge, university professors, and so on, can purchase the Act or, if they are a little short of "the ready", they may go down to the Post Office and spend a few minutes there reading it without cost to themselves. I do not think anything could be fairer than that.

All these accusations of power mania, and so on, are so much hot air. People do throw these accusations out — the mad craze for power which, they say, afflicts the Front Bench of the Fianna Fáil Government — but nobody has said that to my face. It has clearly been established from the start that I am one of the strongest advocates of this amendment. Nobody has ever said to me: "You are a power-maniac, anxious to steamroll the country." It is easier to do that to somebody you do not know. However, people do, in fact, appreciate that this is a highly technical matter on which the Opposition itself is deeply divided and on which the real politicians — those who realise the political issues at stake — are unanimous that this is the best system on which to operate a Parliamentary democracy. We are not trying to confuse anybody. We are certainly not trying to do a "double-think" nor are we trying to "load" the question. We are simply using a word in very common circulation and using it in all good faith. We expect it to be accepted as such.

: I certainly would not accuse Deputy Booth of doing a "double-think" after what I have just heard him say and know to be his considered opinion. His trouble is that he has not thought at all. First of all, he tells us we should not hold on to what he describes as the "continental" system. He describes the turmoil in continental countries as a result of elections there. He was one of those who were shouting about getting into Europe and about having everything here on a par with Europe: that was a few months ago. Things have changed since.

: No, no——

: Now, Deputy Booth has had his opportunity to speak. Please let me say my little bit now.

: Keep to the facts.

: Deputy Booth thinks everybody understands the straight vote system —"Just put down `straight vote' and that is it". That system has succeeded in keeping the Unionists in power in Northern Ireland for so long. That system has allowed 27 constituencies there to remain permanently uncontested because the Unionist bosses have got control and will not allow anybody else to get in. This is what Deputy Booth wants here.

: No——

: You have had your say and it is quite sufficient for you.

: It was exactly the same under proportional representation.

: Deputy Booth condemns what we have now even though the present President, when he was Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party in 1937, thought it was a great idea. He thanked God for proportional representation which gave a fair representation to everybody and now the Minister last night said of course he was talking through his hat.

Let me take a hypothetical case. The Fianna Fáil Party are electing a Taoiseach and there are 70-odd Members present. Deputy Jack Lynch gets 30 votes and Deputy George Colley gets 25 and the Minister — just to pick a third one — gets 15. What does Deputy Booth say? Does he say that the "straight vote" man, the first-past-the-post man, must be Taoiseach? Of course, he does not. What he says is: "We must eliminate the last one and allow those people to have a say in what way it will go."

: What makes the Deputy say I am going to say all these funny things in the situation?

: Very funny. This is the argument you have been making for the past 15 minutes. The Deputy and the Minister have been saying here for the past month that there should not be a second distribution of votes, that the fellow who is first-past-the-post has a majority behind him and therefore should be elected. The ordinary people in the country do not know any better, according to Fianna Fáil. However, when it comes to electing somebody within the lodges in Fianna Fáil, it is different. In that case, then, you must give the fellows a chance. There must be more than half or he does not get elected. If what the Fianna Fáil Party people have been arguing had been the situation, it is quite possible that Deputy George Colley would have been Taoiseach. I do not know how Deputy Booth would have taken it——

: There were only two candidates.

(Cavan): There were several.

: Do not try that one. In the manoeuvring, eventually——

: No. Talk sense.

: We know what happened. Deputy Booth is now leaving the House. If this hurts him, let him go. He is quite entitled to leave the House any time he likes. I shall not stop him. However, he should not come in here and talk a lot of bloody nonsense — pardon the expression — and try to get away with it and, as soon as the tide turns against him, then get out of it. Week after week after week, the Minister has been here and so have Deputy Fitzpatrick, Deputy Dillon, myself and a number of people. I suggest we have exhausted this. There is no doubt at all about it that the Minister's proposal to describe on the ballot paper the "straight vote"— something which is anything but straight — is a lot of cod to fool the people with it. As I said last night, as soon as this comes before the country, he will get his answer in double quick time.

: What was Taca established for? It was established to raise funds for the purpose of purchasing votes and the Minister and his Party are rightly ashamed of letting the people know, and the instrument by which the money raised by Taca is to be made effective is the section which we now seek to amend. The facts speak for themselves. As Deputy Fitzpatrick pointed out, when it comes to declaring for the purpose of amending the Constitution, and this is what will be submitted to the judiciary if the occasion should arise, these words are used "The Members shall be elected on the relative majority system by means of the single transferable vote"; when we turn to the form in which that issue is to be submitted to the people, we discover that it is to be "to substitute for the present system of voting at Dáil elections the `straight vote' system in single-member constituencies".

Most of us know when a married man comes into a mixed company and presents a lady as his lady friend what is the appropriate word whereby to describe her. All of us know when Fianna Fáil comes to describe what is mentioned in the Constitution Amendment Bill as the "straight vote" how to describe that. The use of the words "straight vote" here has no other purpose than to mislead the people. The proper description of the vote in this context is the "crooked vote" and I say that with the full knowledge of all the implications. If these amendments to the Constitution were carried, which they will not be, and this Bill were to be made effective, the purpose of Fianna Fáil is to create a situation in a limited number of seats in which one candidate will get 5,000 votes, the second candidate will get 3,000 votes, the third 3,000 votes, the fourth 2,000 votes and the fifth 1,000 votes and in a constituency in which 15,000 votes were polled, the man who got 30 per cent of the electorate would come in here not only to represent a constituency but to elect the Government.

Now, we are not dealing here with the House of Commons of some 624 Members; we are not dealing with the House of Representatives in the United States of some 600 Members; we are dealing with a House of 144 Members in which I have never seen in 36 years any Government get a majority in excess of five or six, and that was very rare. Most often it was one, two or three. To what end are the funds being raised by Taca? I am told that at this moment Taca has placed at the disposal of Fianna Fáil £200,000. Wait and see the publicity campaign which is going to be launched by the Fianna Fáil Party to put across this plan to assassinate the Labour Party and see if it costs much less.

: May we deal with fund raising, Sir?

: Yes, for the crooked vote. The purpose is, and it is as clear as crystal when dealing with a House of 144 Members, that you use that money, however you have got it, if you are in the Fianna Fáil Party, to ensure that you get a majority sufficient to grab power. The plan is perfectly clear: it is, in constituencies where they apprehend defeat, to hire one or two persons to stand in addition to the genuine candidates who honestly seek election in the hope that those persons will get a margin of votes sufficient to ensure the election of a Fianna Fáil Deputy with a manifest minority of the total vote cast. All you need to do if this system is successfully foisted on our people is, in 12 constituencies, to hire one or two local people to stand to secure the 2,000 and 1,000 votes and thus effectively to prevent the election of a truly representative candidate to enter this House not only to represent the constituents but to participate in the election of the Government.

If ever there was a time in the history of this country in which political stability means much to our people, it is the present moment. The whole of Europe, if not the whole world, is boiling up into a cauldron bordering on anarchy. As one Deputy of Fianna Fáil said recently, one of the immense assets, not only political but economic, of this country are stable political institutions.

: I might remind the Deputy that we are not discussing the merits of the system but the amendment which deals with the substitution of words.

: I am trying to make the case that the words "straight vote" are inserted in the Bill for the purpose of misleading the electorate. I wanted to substitute the word "crooked" so that the people would sufficiently understand the purpose Fianna Fáil had in mind. Surely at this stage we are entitled to tell the people that when Fianna Fáil reject the words used in the Constitution Amendment Bill which has been passed by the House and substitute for them the word "straight", they are deliberately seeking to mislead the people.

: It is not in order to discuss the merits of the system.

: Surely we can discuss whether the vote is straight or crooked? I want to make the case that they have deliberately dropped the words of the Constitution Amendment Bill and substituted another word, "straight", the only purpose being to mislead the people as to their intention. Why do I describe the vote as a crooked vote?

: I might point out to the Deputy that the amendment has been amended by the substitution of the word "British" for the word "crooked".

: Because the word "crooked" was ruled out on the ground that it was derisive. Derisory it certainly is and derisory it ought to be, but within the rules of order, whether we take "British" or "spot", or anything else, one word that should not be there is "straight".

(Cavan): Far be is from me to come to the assistance of Deputy Dillon, but surely it is relevant to discuss whether the proposed system is worthy of the description “straight”? Surely that is the essence of the whole thing?

: The ruling, as far as the Chair is concerned, is that there should not be further discussion on the merits of the system. What is before the House is the amendment and not the merits of the system.

: Surely what is before the House is the "straight vote"? Is that agreed?

: Very well; may I argue then that, whatever we call it, we must not call it the "straight" vote? If we agree on that, then let us go searching around to find some other word to describe it. Let us call it the "corrupt" vote; let us call it the "lousy" vote; let us call it by any adjective you agree to name except the "straight" vote. The reason we are to call it the "straight" vote is that it is designed, in this House of 144 Members, to make it possible for a Party, with access to almost unlimited funds, so to manipulate elections in single-seat constituencies that they can come in here and, with the assistance of a sufficient number of persons, who do not represent more than one-third of the electors who have actually polled their votes in their constituencies, elect the Government of Ireland.

I say that to describe that as the "straight" vote is to do violence to language and, not only that, but I charge the Government with a deliberate attempt to mislead the people. This is not the "straight" vote; this is the "corrupt" vote. If we had an amendment at this stage, perhaps the Chair would consider accepting an amendment from me that we substitute for the word "straight" the word "corrupt". There is nothing derisory about the word "corrupt". It is clear and meaningful. It is what I want to say.

This is the plan to use Taca money to put up false candidates for the purpose of securing a sufficient number of seats by a minority vote in carefully chosen constituencies so as to enable these corruptly purchased votes to be used for the purpose of electing a Government of Ireland. I say that in a country which has stable institutions anything which makes it possible for a Government in power, with access to very large funds raised by an organisation established by themselves and open, by declaration, to rich men who want favour and whose function is to raise money to enable the Government of the day to retain office, by fair means or foul, anything which makes it possible for such a Government so to retain power is an iniquitous injury to the stability of the political institutions of this country. I say that the Government elected by a Dáil in which our people know that the majority which served to elect them the Government of the country got into this House by fraud is a weak Government, a bad Government and a Government exceptionally vulnerable to civil disturbance and to general defiance.

Whether we like the Fianna Fáil Government, or whether we do not, at the present time they are the legitimate Government of Ireland and nobody can challenge that fact. Nobody can challenge their right to use whatever forces are requisite to maintain order and uphold the law and anyone who does challenge that challenges not only the authority of government but the authority of God, as I understand the Christian philosophy of government.

But what if we have a Government in this House elected by the votes of Deputies, ten or 15 of whom we know do not represent the majority of the electors of the constituencies they profess to represent? What if we know that the Government of Ireland is being chosen by a majority consisting of ten, 12 or 15 Deputies who every Deputy with political experience knows have been corruptly foisted on the electors of the constituencies they profess to represent? What if we know there are ten, 12 or 15 Deputies whereby the Government of Ireland have been elected, who have reached this House because in the constituencies in which they were candidates false candidates were substituted by the slush funds of Fianna Fáil because Fianna Fáil knew that, if they did not provide slush funds to finance such candidates, they could not win these seats and would not win them?

Sometimes I think that you are all gone mad. I know, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that in the secret conclave of the Fianna Fáil Party the case was most strenuously and effectively put that the political stability of this country was being put in jeopardy by these proposals. I do not believe that at that time, when that case was put, the terms of this Referendum Bill were made known to the members of the Party. But suppose the members of the Fianna Fáil Party, when that case was being put on the basis of the two amending Bills, had seen themselves that the Government were afraid to put to the people the words of the Referendum Bill, because they knew that, if the words of the Constitution amending Bills were incorporated in the Referendum Bill, the people would laugh, as well as vote against the proposals of the Government. It is now manifest that what was sold to the members of the Fianna Fáil Party, not without great difficulty, is a proposal that the Government themselves know they dare not put to the people and so they chose for their lady of doubtful virtue a new tactic: instead of attaching to her the common law name, they offered this proposal to the electorate as "me lady friend", the "straight" vote, an honest woman. That is fraud. It is worse. I smelt fraud in this proposal from the first moment it was brought before this House. With every step the Government have taken, the wrong and fraudulent character of these proposals has become more manifest.

Now, I rejoice to hear ill of the Fianna Fáil Party because I know their nature from long experience, but I do not rejoice to see any Irish Government involved in a conspiracy of this kind because political stability and respect for the Government chosen by our people are precious to everybody who is a citizen of this Republic. But the people are coming to see that a Government who fear to ask in express terms the approval of the people for what they truly intend are dishonest. They seek to achieve by fraud what they are ashamed to admit they covet, that is, the retention of power by fraud, by the use of the money of rich men who hope for benefits from a Government that should be incorruptible.

Take out this word, this adjective, "straight" and substitute any other adjective you like except "honest" but any other phrase will do — spot, corrupt, British, foreign, fraudulent— they will all suit and they will all tell most eloquently why the words of the Constitution Amendment Bill are not to be employed.

I hate fraud. I hate the constant invitation emanating from the ranks of Fianna Fáil to our people to live a lie. The whole public life of this country is becoming riddled with fraud and the use of the phrase "straight vote" in this Bill is typical of the atmosphere which Fianna Fáil are permeating through this country.

I want to conclude, Sir, by drawing the attention of the House and of the country to this fundamental fact: We are dealing in our Irish circumstances with a House of Parliament representative of our people consisting of 144 Deputies. That condition is entirely distinct from the circumstances of a country dealing with a Parliament with 624 representatives, as is the case in Britain, and about 600 Deputies, as is the case in the United States of America. You cannot manipulate a sufficient number of constituencies in a Parliament of 600 Deputies materially to affect the result. Even the resources of Taca would not extend to that. But, where you are dealing with a Parliament of 144, in the knowledge that at least 350,000 electors are going to vote for Fine Gael and that a certain corresponding number will vote for the Labour Party and a certain corresponding number will vote for Fianna Fáil, it is not only possible, but eminently practicable, if you have enough money, carefully to choose a dozen constituencies and in those 12 constituencies, by the prudent deployment of corrupt funds corruptly collected and corruptly used, to create the position I have described in which Fianna Fáil get 5,000, Fine Gael get 4,000, Labour get 3,000 and two Fianna Fáil hirelings get 2,000 and 1,000 apiece with the promise of suitable reward for engaging in that discreditable conspiracy and so there are coming to this House ten, 12 or 15 Deputies, each supported by one-third of the electors who voted in their constituency, and it is their voices — their voices — that choose the Government of Ireland.

I warn you, if you do that or if you allow this Government to embark upon that corrupt transaction, with the help of Taca money, this country will have reason bitterly to regret it but it is for that reason, Sir, that I want deleted from this Bill the word "straight" and the substitution of any other adjective you choose which will communicate to the people that, whatever else this proposition is, it is not the straight vote. It may be the corrupt vote; it may be the crooked vote; it may be the foreign vote; it may be any other adjective you choose, but there is one thing certain: it is not the straight vote and, in my judgment, for what it is worth, it is the crooked vote, the corrupt vote which Fianna Fáil hope to purchase with the Taca money, the inducement for which are corrupt considerations for those who are prepared to fill cheques of sufficient size.

: We have had a great deal of bogus sound and fury over nothing. The fact that Deputy Dillon has to be roused up early in the morning to come in here and make his usual abusive contribution is an indication, of course, of the poverty of the Opposition's case. It is an indication that they themselves appreciate that they have no case on this whole referendum, an indication that they appreciate that public opinion generally is coming round to see the benefits of the system of election and representation that we propose and, in particular, that opinion within the Fine Gael Party is moving towards the viewpoint of the Leader of the Party, Deputy Cosgrave. Whenever the Fine Gael Party find themselves beaten in an argument, Deputy Dillon is always produced to make one of his typically scurrilous, cowardly and abusive speeches here and it is quite obvious that he has been preparing overnight to excel himself in scurrility by his offering here today.

The fact of the matter is that it has already been decided by this House that there should be a referendum on the proposal to amend the Constitution in regard to the electoral system and the question that has to be put to the people must be put in a certain way.

Is it in order, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, for private conversations in a loud tone to be going on while I am speaking?

: Interruptions are not in order.

: Perhaps, when Deputy Dillon is running away from the reply to his contribution to the debate, he might do it in a quieter manner, when he is not able to take it. We know it has been established over the years that Deputy Dillon comes in, throws as much dirt and mud as he possibly can and scuttles out of the House——

(Cavan): Like Deputy Booth.

: ——because he has not the courage to face up to and to listen to the reply to the scurrility in which he specialises.

The only way in which the question can be put to the people is: "Do you approve of the proposals contained in the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill?" on the white ballot paper and on the green ballot paper "Do you approve of the proposals contained in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill?" We believe since that is the manner in which the question must be put that, in order to make reasonably certain that the voters will be aware of the issue to be decided on, the proposal which is being made in each of these Bills should be made readily available to them. We decided in order to do this, first of all, that the Bill itself should be available at post offices throughout the country for the modest price of sixpence. Secondly, in the knowledge that the vast majority of the people would not purchase the Bill, that a summary of the proposals in each of the two Bills should be printed on the voter's card which will be sent to every voter. Obviously, the summary should be as clear and concise as possible.

(Cavan): Hear, hear.

: I showed last night that the name by which the proposed system is known to everybody in this country, including prominent members of the Fine Gael Front Bench, including the Leader of the Labour Party, including my own colleague, Deputy Dunne, and other members of the Labour Party, the name by which it is known to all the political correspondents of the newspapers in this country, the name by which it is known to the famous TV professors who indulge in such amusing flights of fancy with regard to the possible results — that name by which it is known is the straight vote. It is recognised throughout this country as the title of the proposed system. Whether everybody agrees that it is an accurate description of the system is beside the point. It is the name by which it is known. It is the name by which Deputy Fitzpatrick knows it. It is the shortest, clearest and least ambiguous way in which this system that is proposed can be described to the people.

It is the fact that it is clear that annoys the Opposition, the fact that by putting this in, the people will know exactly what they are asked to vote on. It is this that annoys Fine Gael in particular, and of course Deputy Dillon especially. They appreciate that within their own Party opinion is moving towards the view held by the Leader of the Party, Deputy Cosgrave. Their only hope of retaining the present system, of retaining the system under which a number of them succeed in getting in here, is to create as much confusion as possible in the minds of as many people as possible.

The terms of the amendment I have here are to delete "straight vote" and substitute "British". Although I did not hear any member of the Opposition who spoke on this amendment mentioning the actual proposal, I think we should once again deal with this question of whether or not this is the British system and, if it is, whether or not that should be something that should rule it out. In view of the fact that this is what the amendment asks for — that the word "British" should be substituted for "straight vote"— I can deal with that. Of course, I can well understand why it is that Deputies opposite have not adverted to this again. It is because the argument has been so definitely refuted already.

In regard to whether this is the British system or not there is no doubt it is the system in operation in Britain. But, as I pointed out already, it is also the system that operates in many other democracies and in most of what would be looked upon as the more well-established and stable democracies in the world. It does operate in Britain. But the system that we have here is also a British system. Therefore, to describe the proposed system as the "British" system would be wrong and misleading because the system we have here is also, as Deputies opposite know, a British system. This has been accepted by the main Opposition Party right from the time of their foundation — that this is a British system, that it was forced on us by the British and that it was in their own words "tried out on the dog" here.

Certainly, the only difference between these two British systems is that one is the system they have for themselves and the other is the system they invented for people like us. I quoted already the words of Mr. Samuels, the British Attorney General, when introducing the system we have here for this country but not for his own country. If necessary, I can quote them again, but they are already on the record a number of times. Apart from that, as we know, in opposing this proposal of ours the Parties opposite are being guided by a British society. Their propaganda is being formulated outside this country by a society that has its headquarters in Great Britain.

: What a lot of damn nonsense.

: This British society is pulling the strings and the Opposition Parties are dancing to them. They tell them what to say. The whole propaganda is being supplied by this British society, which exists apparently for the purpose of ensuring that we retain here this system of election which was invented in Great Britain.

: The rules of procedure do not allow me to call that a lie.

: As far as anybody knows, this society only conducts its activities here although it has its headquarters in Britain. Both of these systems are British systems — one the system that they have wisely adopted for themselves and the other the system which was invented for people like us, which was forced upon us for obvious reasons and reasons which we have no doubt will prove to be justified eventually if the people do not take this opportunity of getting rid of this system. As I proved last night, the proposed system is one that everybody in this country knows as the straight vote. Part of the Opposition's objection apparently, is that one connotation of the word "straight" is that it is fair. Obviously, nothing could be fairer than the system of voting we propose. If enacted by the people this proposal for the first time will establish here the principle of one man, one vote, the principle of treating every voter in the same way which is inherent in democracy as opposed to the present system which discriminates between voters, which gives multiple votes to some and only one vote to others, and discriminates in a most unjustified way completely opposed to democratic principles, the multiple votes being given to those who can find the smallest possible number of their fellow electors to agree with their views and the single vote being given to those who find themselves in agreement with the largest numbers of their fellow electors.

If one voter is entitled to a second vote because his candidate is not elected, surely every other voter whose candidate is not elected is entitled to the same treatment? There is no reason why, merely because a voter finds himself in agreement with the greatest number of his fellow electors, his vote should be down-graded and he should be treated as a second-class citizen not entitled to the same voting power as other people in the constituency. Not alone are some people given two votes but they may be given three, four, five or six and the limit, in fact, is decided only by the number of candidates in a particular election.

The straight vote, apart from the fact that it is the name by which the proposed system is known by everybody in this country, is a good description because, as I said, the system is fair in that it treats every voter in the same way. Apart from that, it describes the operation of voting as accurately as possible. It indicates that the people vote and do no more. It describes the actual voting operation quite accurately — it is a straight vote. The people vote for their candidate and do no more, again as opposed to the present system which, on the ridiculous basis of meaningless figures put opposite the names of different candidates, allocates some votes to candidates for whom they are not cast and allocates them as full votes.

The present system is clearly crooked, unfair and blatantly discriminatory and it is just as undemocratic as any system of election could possibly be. It has been most adequately described by people on the opposite side of the House, by the old Cumann na nGaedheal Party in their official organ on 10th May, 1930 which had a special article headed "The Faults of Proportional Representation." I quoted this before but I think it is essential in view of the case that has been made here to quote it again. It says:

One of the factors which has delayed normal political development in the Saorstát is our bad electoral system. The particular form of Proportional Representation which is in force here is perhaps not so bad as that in force in Germany but that is the best that can be said about it. It has all the ineradicable faults which attach to the system. It may be added that such faults have manifested themselves in every country in which Proportional Representation has been tried. Both before the outbreak of the Great War and after its close a great many nations enshrined the principle of proportional representation in their electoral codes. For a while theorisers and faddists succeeded in pushing their views in many countries, with the result stated. Proportional Representation has proved to be like prohibition in two respects. Those who have had experience of it and who are prepared to judge it impartially are satisfied that on the whole its results are evil, but vested interests have quickly grown up around it which renders its abolition difficult. In our case Proportional Representation was thrust upon the country by the British. Generously subsidised propaganist societies had, for a long time, been at work in the neighbouring country endeavouring to persuade the people there to abandon an electoral system which in its main outline had been in existence since parliament was first established. The British people, or at any rate certain sections of them, were interested but not convinced. When the Home Rule Bill establishing two Parliaments in Ireland was passed these kind people arranged, on the policy of trying it on the dog, that the new Parliaments should be elected on the principle of Proportional Representation.

That was quite a good description of the present system and it shows that as early as 1930 the Party which had accepted this in the Treaty of 1922 appreciated that it was thrust upon them by the British; that it was arranged "on the policy of trying it on the dog" that it should be operated here.

Again, this system which the present Opposition are trying so desperately to hang on to was fairly adequately described when the main Opposition Party decided to abandon the old discredited name of Cumann na nGaedheal and formed themselves into the new Party which they called Fine Gael. When the Fine Gael Party was formed in 1933, point 7 of its Declaration of Policy was the "abolition of the proportional representation system so as to secure the more effective democratic control of national policy and to establish closer personal relationship between parliamentary representatives and their constituents".

Again, in 1937 Deputy McGilligan and Deputy Costello described the faults of the present system and, of course, we had the classic description of it as late as 1947 by no less a person than Deputy Dillon. I quote from the Dáil Debates of 12th November, 1947, volume 108, column 1715:

Proportional representation is, in fact, as we all know in our hearts, the child of the brains of all the cranks in creation. So far as this country is concerned, it was tried out on the dog....

Deputy Dillon still remembered the phraseology utilised by the Cumann na nGaedheal Party in 1930:

... I doubt if any other sane democratic country in the world has put it into operation in regard to its Parliament. It may have in regard to its corporations or county councils. The single transferable vote is quite another story. I think it is true to say that the kind of proportional representation that we have operating in this country has not been adopted in any other country. It was foisted upon us by a collection of half-lunatics who believed that they had something lovely that would work on paper like a jig-saw puzzle....

This is the system which the Opposition want to retain, and if these adjectives that Deputy Dillon has been hurling around here are applicable to any system of election, it is obvious they are applicable to the system we have here and of which the people are now being given an opportunity of ridding themselves.

I dealt already with the allegation that it was this system of election which was responsible for the permanent majority of the Unionist Party in the North of Ireland. I pointed out, too, that the system we have here at present was in operation in the North of Ireland up to 1929 and that in the election immediately preceding the change to the system we propose, the line-up in the Parliament resulting from that election was 37 on the Unionist side and 15 on the Opposition side, and that in the election which followed held under this system, the anti-Government situation improved slightly from 37 against 15 to 35 against 17.

: Does the Minister deny that if the system——

: It is not the system that does this. The reason it is possible to maintain that situation there is the co-operation of the Parties opposite in the setting up of the Border, in drawing the line there so as to exclude the maximum possible number of our citizens from the control of a native Parliament.

: You should be ashamed to talk about that.

: It is due to the connivance of the Parties opposite in that act of treachery in 1925——

(Cavan): Recent events prove you are beginning to see clearly you were wrong, and I shall deal with that when replying.

: The Minister, without interruption.

: Contrary to what Deputy Fitzpatrick stated, the term "relative majority" was not used in the 1959 description, but as regards the 1959 summary there were complaints from the Opposition that this confused the people. The whole objective of the Opposition and the whole purpose of this bogus amendment — because it is not intended seriously as an amendment — is to try to confuse the people and conceal from them exactly what the proposition is on which they are being asked to vote.

In view of the fact that Deputy Dillon confined practically the whole of his speech to an attack on certain supporters of Fianna Fáil who have decided to carry out the very commendable operation of providing a limited amount of funds for this Party — limited in comparison with the funds that are available to both sections of the Coalition — I think I should at this stage make it quite clear that we are proud of the fact that we have people who have sufficient idealism to carry out this very necessary and desirable task in the face of the type of scurrilous attacks that are made by contemptible people like Deputy Dillon and Deputy Fitzpatrick. I have no doubt that these people will continue to support Fianna Fáil in future as they have in the past. We have not got access to unlimited funds; we have not got access to funds of anything approaching the size of those of either of the Opposition Parties. These people who have formed themselves into the organisation known as Taca subscribe a comparatively small amount of money each to the funds of the Fianna Fáil Party.

: Small to them anyway.

: A comparatively small amount, nothing approaching, for instance the single subscription of £11,000 which Deputy T.F. O'Higgins obtained for his Presidential election campaign.

(Cavan): From whom? I defy the Minister to mention from whom it was received.

: Indeed, it is often made very obvious here in the House whom it is from.

(Cavan): I defy the Minister, even under the privilege of the House, to tell us. Would he let us know the secret?

: It is made fairly obvious whom it is from. In fact it would take anything from ten to 20 of these people to subscribe anything approaching the amount that Deputy Cosgrave gets as a personal subscription to his election campaign from one individual.

(Cavan): Do they give £500 each?

: We are proud of the fact that there are people like these who are prepared to give to the Fianna Fáil Party this amount of support, which enables us, in addition to the fact that we have so many voluntary workers available, almost to keep pace with the propaganda and the general election effort that is made by the Opposition Parties. We are not in any way ashamed of that, nor have these people themselves any reason to be ashamed. There is nothing dishonourable in subscribing voluntarily — voluntarily, I say — to a political Party.

Deputy Dillon again alleged that the intention of this proposed change is to bring about the destruction of the Labour Party. This is a system of election under which in the 144 constituencies there will normally be one candidate representing each political Party. In those circumstances Deputy Dillon alleges that this must ensure the destruction of the Labour Party and must also ensure the perpetuation of the Fianna Fáil Party. In these circumstances, where the people will have a clear choice in each constituency, it is inconceivable, according to Deputy Dillon, first of all, that the Labour Party could get even one candidate elected and, secondly, that the combined Opposition could get more people elected than Fianna Fáil. Of course that is obviously a ridiculous argument. If there is any Party here that has in mind the destruction of the Labour Party, it is Fine Gael whose plan is to entice the Labour Party into yet another Coalition, in the confident belief that they will not survive a third period of association with them; in other words, that the trap will be finally sprung on the Labour Party at the third attempt.

Deputy Dillon produced from the depths of his imagination an example of five candidates contesting a single seat under this system. He pointed out that it would be conceivable that a candidate with 30 per cent of the votes would be elected. Deputy Dillon did not have to go to his own imagination for a situation such as this. He could have dealt with the Wicklow by-election, where there were six candidates, and the candidate with 30.5 per cent of the votes was deemed to be elected, although there was a candidate with 37.2 per cent of the votes there. It is true that by fraud and trickery, 30.5 per cent of the votes cast were converted into 51.1 per cent of the votes remaining after the ridiculous and fraudulent operation of the transfer of votes had been gone through.

It is true that the 37.2 per cent of the actual votes were by the same means converted into 48.9 per cent of this final bogus figure. That did not prove that 51.1 per cent of the voters in Wicklow were in favour of the candidate in respect of whom the people themselves had said only 30.5 per cent were in favour. I pointed out that if the same treatment were accorded to every voter, if the principle of one man, one vote operated in that election, the very least that could be done or should be done would be that the 9,788 who voted for another candidate who was not deemed to be elected, namely, Miss O'Neill, the Fianna Fáil candidate, should have been given the same treatment as was given to the 191 who voted for the Independent candidate, the 509 who voted for the Liberal candidate, the 2,009 who voted for the Sinn Féin candidate, and the 5,761 who voted for the Labour candidate.

In what way did the 9,788 prove themselves to be less worthy to have their votes given the same value as was given to those of other people who Deputy Dillon would probably describe as hirelings of the Fine Gael Party? He could hardly allege that they were hirelings of the Fianna Fáil Party. During his contribution here today, he alleged that in any case where there were more than three candidates, those candidates would be hirelings of the Fianna Fáil Party put there to perform some function on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party. If that is so, it is obvious that these other candidates in the Wicklow by-election performed a function on behalf of the Fine Gael Party, and so we must assume Deputy Dillon would describe those people as hirelings of the Fine Gael Party.

The fact that they are hirelings of the Fine Gael Party is not any reason why some of them should be given five votes, some four votes, some three votes and some two votes, nor is it any justification for in those circumstances giving only one vote to those who are not hirelings of the Fine Gael Party and who voted for the Fianna Fáil candidate. If there were any desire to treat voters reasonably equally, after this bogus result which had been established on the fifth count as a result of giving some people five votes, some four votes, some three votes and some two votes, after this bogus result, had produced an artificial and fraudulent majority of 546, the least that could be done would be to give the 10,343 that were at that time credited to the Fianna Fáil candidate the same opportunity of expressing a second opinion as had been given to the others.

As I pointed out, if this had been done at that stage at the fourth count the difference between the Labour candidate and the Fine Gael candidate was only 1,931, so it is quite obvious that if any effort were made to treat all the voters in the same way it would be established that there was a majority also in favour of the Labour candidate as opposed to the Fine Gael candidate. So it is quite clear that the whole basis of the present system is illogical and fraudulent, because if the principle is put into effect and if all voters are treated equally, then you could arrive at a position where you would have a majority in favour of more than one candidate, and of course that just cannot be.

The reason you get such a ridiculous result is the orginal assumption that a preference vote of any degree, even a second last preference, is of equal value as an expression of support to an actual vote. So, the present system if applied in a single-seat constituency would not get over the possibility of a candidate with as low as 30 per cent of the votes being deemed to be elected. As I have shown, that has happened on occasion.

We have had a lot of sound and fury here over nothing. Everyone in this House, including Deputy Fitzpatrick, Deputy Dillon and Deputy Tully and everyone else who spoke, realises that this summary given in the Bill is an accurate representation of what the Bill proposes to do. Everyone here knows that the proposed system is recognised by everyone in this country as the straight vote. The only desire on the part of the Opposition is to create as much confusion as possible in the minds of the people to try to disguise from them exactly what it is they have to vote on. The reason for that is — and in particular in regard to the Fine Gael Party — that they appreciate that their supporters are gradually coming to accept the view of the Leader of the Fine Gael Party.

(Cavan): We are dealing with an amendment to the Referendum (Amendment) Bill, 1968. Referendum are expensive contests. We had one in 1959 which cost over £100,000 and this referendum will cost about £150,000. It is important, therefore, that we conduct it in such a way, if it has to be conducted as to give the people every opportunity of knowing what they are doing. It is also essential, in my opinion, that we set a precedent when so much money is to be spent, and that that precedent should establish that in a referendum the issue is put clearly to the people. I say that because it is quite likely — as a matter of fact, it is inevitable — that we will have another referendum next year on Article 18 dealing with Seanad representation for the universities and perhaps on proportional representation in Seanad elections.

I cannot see how that can be avoided because the National University are entitled to three Senators and Trinity to three Senators. If the scheme as announced goes through, the Constitution must be amended again and that can only be done by way of a further referendum next year. Therefore, I say we should be very careful on this occasion to establish a decent precedent, a precedent that will ensure that the people get every opportunity of clearly understanding what they are being asked to do.

That is the sole object of this amendment. We have been discussing in this House now for a few months the rights and wrongs, the merits and demerits, of the present proportional representation system as against the relative majority system in single-member constituencies operated by means of a single non-transferable vote. Whatever can be said about the arguments put up by the Minister or the arguments put up from this side of the House, one thing is abundantly clear, and cannot be contradicted, that is, that there is a violent difference of opinion, both in this House and in the country.

The Minister is of opinion that his system is the right system. Everybody else in this House, except in the Fianna Fáil Party, is of opinion that it is a wrong system, a bad system. The Minister in his explanatory statement which will be sent by post to every elector in the country — and will be widely advertised in various other ways, has decided to call the system "the straight system". He might as well call it a good system, a perfect system. He might as well tell the people that the proposal in the referendum is to substitute the perfect system of election for the present system. That would obviously be misleading but in the ears of most Irish people the word "straight" and indeed the word "perfect" is synonymous.

All I am asking the Minister to do it to tell the people clearly in the simple words of the Fourth Amendment Bill what they are being asked to do. I do not think a very long discussion here on the rights and wrongs, on the merits and demerits, of the two systems is very relevant. The purpose of the statements contained in the Appendix is allegedly to tell the people what they are being asked to do. They are clearly being asked in the Fourth Amendment Bill to abolish proportional representation and to substitute for that system the relative majority system by means of the single non-transferable vote. That is plain language. It is simple language. It is language which, I think, any man can understand. He will have to understand it if he is to exercise his vote intelligently. It has been said and cannot be repeated too often——

: Of course, that is not the proposal. The proposal is to call it the British system.

(Cavan): I am saying what the proposal in the Bill is. I will come to how we should describe that later on. The proposal, I repeat, in the Fourth Amendment Bill is to abolish proportional representation and to replace it by the relative majority system by means of a single non-transferable vote. That is plain language. I spent a lot of time yesterday trying to get the Minister to use that language in his explanatory statement, which he has steadfastly refused to do. I had no alternative but to come in here today and attack the description which the Minister uses in his explanatory statement, that is, the “straight vote”. I think that in proposing my amendment, I clearly demonstrated that to a vast majority of the Irish people the proposal by the Minister is not straight, is not fair, could not be regarded as such and would not be acceptable to the committee of a parochial football club, be acceptable even to any of the mittee of a parochial hall or would not be acceptable even to any of the Fianna Fáil cumainn or to a Fianna Fáil election convention in selecting officers or candidates.

None of them would accept the proposal suggested by the Minister because they do not regard it as fair; they do not regard it as straight and they do not regard it as giving every man a fair crack of the whip. When Deputy Booth was speaking this morning, he spoke about majorities and stated it could not be said that a Government which had a majority in this House was steamrolling its way through the House. I would respectfully agree with the Deputy if that majority in this House was backed up by a majority of the votes in the country, but when as few as one-third of the votes in the country can convert themselves into a 65 per cent majority in this House, then I say that that is not a majority, and I say that any decisions taken by such a Government is a steamrolling operation by a minority of the wishes of the majority.

That is the core of the matter here. That is why the system is unfair. That is why it is not straight and why the words "straight vote" do not accurately describe it. My anxiety here is to get the word "straight" out of the Appendix. I do not mind whether it is substituted by the word "spot", which is used in the Committee's Report or the words "first past the post" which are also used in the Committee's Report. Nowhere in the Report of the Committee, which consisted of representatives of all Parties in this House, including six or seven Government members, and which deliberated for months, nowhere in this Report of the Committee on the Constitution which was published in December. 1967 can I find—and the Minister cannot find—the words "straight vote" to describe his proposal because it is not in it. I am prepared to take either of the descriptions contained in that report "first past the post" or "spot vote". I am prepared to take the British system as a description in order to differentiate from the present system. I think it is not fair and it is dishonest to call it the "straight system". He is a straight man and an honest man. How often have we heard that description applied to Irishmen and applied to our neighbours—a straight man and an honest man. The Minister is prostituting the word "straight" here in an effort to cover up a dishonest and an unfair system of voting.

The Minister says that the word "British" may be confusing or misleading because he says that the system of proportional representation is a British system. Of course it is not. When we speak of the British system, we speak of the system at present in operation in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The proportional representation system here was accepted by the old Cumann na nGaedheal Government and endorsed by the Fianna Fáil Government in 1937. It was endorsed, more important still, by the people in 1959. The Minister has given quotations from Cumann na nGaedheal literature in speeches in 1933. I have quoted and put on the records of this House a speech by the Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party in 1937 in which he described the system of proportional representation, and seeing that the Minister has put ad nauseam quotations on the records of this House, I propose to put this quotation of the present President on it for the last time in the debate on this amendment. In volume 67, column 1343 of the Official Debates of 1st June, 1937, the then Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party, the present President, spoke in relation to this very topic which we are discussing today, proportional representation. He said:

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. It gives a certain amount of stability, and on the system of the single transferable vote you have fair representation of Parties.... My view is that it is better, when dealing with the fundamental law, with the right to vote and how the vote shall be exercised, to define, and take away from Parties the temptation to manoeuvre with systems so as to get Party advantage.

That was in 1937 and subsequent to 1930 and 1933 and the Minister seems to explain it away by saying that the man who made that speech did not mean it, or made it for some other reason, for the purpose of getting something else through. Those are clear, unambiguous words and the man who spoke that either meant what he said or he did not.

: That is 31 years ago.

(Cavan): I can tell Deputy Gallagher that more important still the people endorsed that, when that man tried to get them to repudiate it in 1959. He changed his mind apparently between 1937 and 1959. The people accepted his invitation to elect him to the position of President but so sophisticated were they and in so sophisticated a manner did they deal with the two questions that they were able to sort out the position and say: “We will elect you as President but we will not take your advice to abolish PR.” Does that not show that the people clearly understood what they were doing, and they decided in a very definite manner to retain the system which perhaps the British thought they were trying out on the dog? But it worked very well on the dog and provided him with a very good diet. It provided here, if the dog is to be taken as an Irish State, a stable government during the 20s and the 30s and up to date.

I want to deal with an allegation by the Minister just before he sat down, in which he described the Cumann na nGaedheal Party as a discredited Party and alleged that that Party was in some way or another responsible for the Border. I want to say that when history comes to be written the services of the Cumann na nGaedheal and the founders of that Party in this State will be clearly understood. Indeed, I am beginning to think that before it is written at all, it is dawning on some of the Fianna Fáil leaders that a lot is due to Cumann na nGaedheal and to the founders of Cumann na nGaedheal. I am glad——

: You can say that again.

(Cavan): ——to regard the belated attendance of the President at a commemoration Mass for Michael Collins a few days ago as evidence that even he is seeing things straight at last, and that he knows now that a lot of credit is due to Cumann na nGaedheal and to the founders of Cumann na nGaedheal, like General Michael Collins, Arthur Griffith, O'Higgins, Mulcahy and the rest of them. As I say, if his attendance at that Mass is evidence of that and evidence of a change of heart, I welcome it.

This system is not straight and to describe it as straight is simply dishonest. The only issue here is whether the word "straight" is a fair and accurate description of the system which the Government propose. I think that it is incumbent on this House and the Government Party in putting this matter to the country to avoid using in official publications words which are calculated to deceive, words which are calculated to mislead and confuse. I say that to use the word "straight" which everyone regards as being fair and honest is simply to use a word that does not accurately describe what we are seeking to do.

: Surely the word "British" does not do it either? You suggested it.

(Cavan): I do not think Deputy Gallagher was here early this morning.

: We were all here early this morning.

: We were all up this morning. We were prepared to vote.

(Cavan): He probably got three hard slaps for not being here last night. This is only a last-ditch stand. The words I really wanted to put in here are the words contained in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill. Do I have to go over this again for Deputy Gallagher?

: Go ahead.

(Cavan): Yesterday, I wanted to strike out the words “straight vote” and substitute “the relative majority system by means of the single non-transferable vote”.

: I heard it. Why not let the people hear it.

(Cavan): Those are the words in the Bill. The Minister would not accept them. This morning, I put down an amendment to substitute the word “crooked” for the word “straight”—which is a fair and accurate description of it.

: It suits your Party.

(Cavan): Deputy Cunningham has to render some service to his constituents amidst all the big guns in Donegal. He has to come in here and bark in order to make his presence felt whereas all his colleagues have to do is to hoot. If Deputy Cunningham leaves me alone, I shall leave him alone. I do not envy him his position up there at all. He is private amidst a regiment of generals—but that is only beside the point.

: You must have privates in any army.

(Cavan): Deputy Dillon said here this morning that it would be possible to get a wrong decision from an electorate in a small constituency by getting one or two stooge candidates to stand. That is obvious. If you have an election in a constituency with an electorate of 10,000 and there are candidates representing the three Parties in the House, then, if it is possible to get a couple of stooges who, between them, will freeze 1,000 or 2,000 votes——

: Fine Gael stooges.

(Cavan): No, Taca stooges. Fine Gael would not have money to pay them.

: If you had, you would.

(Cavan): If Deputy Cunningham had been here this morning——

: I was here. I listened——

(Cavan): The Minister spoke about the surplus candidates in Wicklow.

: I spoke about the £11,000—the single subscription.

(Cavan): I defy the Minister to say from where it came. In Wicklow, the hirelings—if they were hirelings—would not count because, under the fair system which we have here today, when the votes were ineffective, they were distributed and passed on in the order of choice. However, in a situation spoken about by Deputy Dillon in constituencies which I could name, if those same people stood there and secured a couple of thousand votes between them, then those votes would be frozen and would not be effective and, in that way, the will of the people would not prevail.

: The British way works well.

(Cavan): Maybe it does; maybe it does not. What is wrong with our present electoral system?

: We are asking the people to decide on it.

(Cavan): Deputy Gallagher is behaving as if proportional representation arose recently for the first time whereas we have had proportional representation in this country for 50 years and it has worked well.

: It kept you over there. Are you prepared to stay there?

(Cavan): Well, we are prepared to serve the Irish people. We have served them and we shall serve them as and when they ask us. There was certain talk this morning about Taca. Throughout this debate, there has been talk about by-elections.

: Throughout this debate there has been talk about anything except what is relevant, from that side of the House.

(Cavan): If the Chair will bear with me for a minute, I should like to refer to a statement last week about city architects taking part in the Limerick ballot.

: The Deputy should keep to the Bill.

(Cavan): It is more or less a personal statement.

: If there was, it would be on your side.

(Cavan): I understand that could be about architects of city corporations.

: That is what the Deputy said. That is what he meant. If there was, it was on his side — not on ours. It is typical of what Deputy Fitzpatrick and Deputy Dillon say. They try to involve people who have no involvement whatever in the election, certainly not on our side. It is typical of the dirt of Deputy Fitzpatrick.

(Cavan): I understand there are only three positions of city architect—one in Cork, one in Limerick and one in Dublin.

: That is the only reason you are saying what you are saying now.

(Cavan): I certainly want to make it clear that I did not refer to an architect——

: You were told to take the mud back.

(Cavan): I did not refer to an architect in the employment of Cork Corporation or Limerick Corporation. I understand the position of city architect is vacant in Dublin. I was referring to architects from the city of Dublin who went down to Limerick on behalf of Fianna Fáil and obviously they were in search of the vacancy which exists in the city of Dublin. Those are the fellows I am talking about.

: Some of your big subscribers put the squeeze on you.

: Whom did you bring down with you?

: There is a well-known architect who has a connection with politics—the brother of Senator Garret FitzGerald.

(Cavan): The description of “straight vote” is deceiving here and is calculated to deceive. I do not believe the Irish people want a system or would describe a system as “straight” or “fair” under which 33? per cent of the electorate can grab 65 per cent of the seats. That is why I am saying it is an unfair system. That is why I am saying it is not straight. If the Minister really had any confidence in putting this proposal through, he would not attempt to put a label on it which does not accurately describe it. He would be satisfied to rely on the merits of the proposal. He would not rely on catch-cries and labels, as he is doing here. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Minister is not prepared to accept the simple words contained in Part II of the Schedule to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill and simply describe it as “the relative majority system by means of the single non-transferable vote”.

: Those are simple words, are they not?

(Cavan): They are. I can only believe that the Minister fully appreciates that if he put a card into every household describing the new system as “the relative majority system”, the people would clearly understand that a relative majority rule. When they had the words of the Bill before them, they would see that the word before “majority” qualified the word “majority” and that in effect, it would make for less than a majority, considerably less than a majority. That is what the Minister is afraid of. That is why he is using words other than the words that would be written into the Constitution to describe what he is going to put into the Constitution. I am convinced that the people will see through this move in 1968 just as they saw through it in 1959 and that they will reject it in 1968 as they did in 1959 but they will reject it by a far bigger majority.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Bill received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

(Cavan): The Third and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution have been passed by this House and this Bill or some such Bill is necessary as a result. I agree with that. A Bill to amend the Referendum Act of 1963 is necessary and the Minister introduced this Bill to deal with the proposals which were presented. However, I deplore the fact that the Minister with his majority is using this occasion to provide at public expense Party electioneering material for himself, because that is what he is doing. I have no objection at all to the Minister describing on Fianna Fáil posters the new system as the straight system but I object to his action in using this House and the referendum machinery as part of his electioneering campaign. To describe, as this Bill does describe, the proposed system of election as the straight vote system is the sheerest nonsense; it is dishonest and an attempt to describe a dishonest unfair system, which does not accept the principle of majority rule, as straight. My Party and I will do everything possible to expose this attempt to use public funds and public time to try to mislead the people instead of trying to instruct them or to clarify the position further. Every time the Minister describes this as the “straight vote” this Party will describe it as the “crooked vote”.

: I welcome this from the point of view that it is going to bring about the downfall of Fianna Fáil. The arrogance of the Minister is going to bring down Fianna Fáil. I warn them that it is the beginning of the end and for that reason I welcome this. PR shall stand for "people's rights" and the people should be paramount in this.

: As Deputy Fitzpatrick admits this Bill is necessary. I think he also found it impossible to deny that it is right to put in the possession of every voter a summary of the proposals. All he has done is to make this ridiculous suggestion that in some way the description of the proposed system by the name by which it is known to everybody will gain some advantage for Fianna Fáil. He has not been able to substantiate that ridiculous suggestion in any way.

I produced evidence that every political commentator uses this term to describe this system, that university professors who are looked upon as experts in the matter by the Opposition also utilised the same expression and that various members of the Opposition have used the same description including Deputy Oliver Flanagan when he was expressing his support for the proposal. I should also like to draw to Deputy Fitzpatrick's attention the fact that one of his colleagues on the Front Bench, one of the number, I do not know how many there are, who are apparently opposed to the proposal, also described it in the same way. Deputy Michael O'Higgins speaking here on the 5th March, last said:

Various arguments have been made against proportional representation but very few arguments have been advanced in favour of the straight vote.

That is what is annoying Deputy Fitzpatrick, that the system is known as the straight vote and he wants to have it described in some way that will not make it so apparent to the people what exactly they are being asked to vote for or against. The fact that this summary will make the position clear annoys and frightens him. As I have pointed out even within his own Party opinion is gradually coming around to the opinion of his Leader.

(Cavan): This is the end of the record all the time.

: I can well understand that Deputy Fitzpatrick finds it amusing to think that opinion in the Fine Gael Party should actually coincide with the opinion of the Leader of the Party.

I do not think Deputy Coogan's contribution deserves any comment from me except that I should point out the ridiculousness of his suggesting that putting a proposition to the people for them to decide is imposing on the people the will of the Fianna Fáil Party. The people will vote on this in a referendum. It is they who will make the decision. I have the same opinion about this as Deputy Fitzpatrick, that is that, once they clearly understand what is proposed, they will make the electoral reform we are asking them to make.

Question put and agreed to.
Business suspended at 1.25 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.
Barr
Roinn