We are taking the amendments and the Chair suggests that amendments Nos. 1 and 2 be taken together. Separate decisions may be had, if necessary.
Referendum (Amendment) Bill, 1968: Committee Stage.
SECTION 1.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, line 38, before "of" to insert "of proportional representation".
The holding of a referendum is a very serious matter. It is of the utmost importance that the question at issue should be put in the clearest possible manner to the voters, that they should be given every assistance so that, in voting, they know precisely the issues that are at stake. I have endeavoured in the amendments in my name to clarify this issue with regard to the Fourth Amendment because as at present set out, the phraseology is likely to be confusing and misleading. I suggest that the minimum we can get is that the words "proportional representation" should be included, in other words, that the wording on the green ballot paper should be:
To substitute for the present system of proportional representation of voting at Dáil elections the "straight vote" system as operated in Great Britain and Northern Ireland...
I want the two choices to be made clear by quoting examples, in other words, to show that the present system is the system of proportional representation and that the system that is proposed, "the straight vote" as so called, is the system as operated in Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I cannot see that there can be any objection by the Minister to including these clarifying phrases. Even when amended in this way the proposals for the presentation fall far short of the presentation in the previous Referendum (Amendment) Act, 1959 where it was spelled out in detail, and I quote:
The following summary of the principal proposals in the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1958, is circulated for the information of voters.
This is how it was set down:
At present members of Dáil Éireann are elected on a system of proportional representation for constituencies returning at least three members, each voter having a single transferable vote.
That is a clear description of the "present system", whereas all that is offered to the voters in the forthcoming referendum is simply the "present system" without any explanation. The 1959 Referendum Act goes on to say:
It is proposed in the Bill to abolish the system of proportional representation and to adopt instead a system of single-member constituencies, each voter having a single non-transferable vote.
Again, that sets down clearly what is proposed, in other words, to abolish the present system of proportional representation and to adopt the system of single-member constituencies, each voter having a single non-transferable vote.
These are two quite effective and useful summaries and are much preferable to and much clearer than what is given in the present proposal. In fact, the name "proportional representation" is not mentioned in the present proposal. This is especially important when there are two proposals before the electorate—the Third Amendment and the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, the voter who wishes to retain proportional representation might be confused as to which one of those proposals relates to proportional representation. If he asks the question of the returning officer, the returning officer cannot answer but can merely, according to the Bill, read the summaries as attached.
I do not think it necessary to make any long case for this. It is in the interests of clarity and in the interests of putting the issue fairly to the electorate so that there can be no question of confusion. Indeed, we have the headline which was set in 1959 and which was drafted at that stage by President de Valera and has all the hallmarks of a fair summary, as we would have expected from President de Valera. I appeal to the House and to the Minister to show even at this late stage a recognition of the necessity to be impartial in what is put to the electorate. I suggest that the amendment in my name will achieve that. However, if the Minister prefers, I would gladly withdraw my amendment in favour of the description as given in the 1959 referendum. Beyond that I cannot go to accommodate the Minister.
I would like to support the amendments on the grounds that in each case they make the issue clearer. The purpose of this Bill is to show clearly, both in the cards circulated to the voters and the displays shown in the polling place and its precincts, the issue involved. There is no doubt that the present proposal to refer merely to "the present system" is correct in so far as it goes. Our objection to it is that it does not go far enough. It is valid to say that, even after the debate here and the debate throughout the country, we will still find people coming to the polling place and not being quite sure. There is a danger that voters who must have this read over to them, such as blind voters and so on, may have genuine confusion. In their minds, they may consider themselves as either being for or against proportional representation. Many people will view this great debate as being a debate about proportional representation. This may be the key word they would look for in making their choice. There is no doubt we have no option but to frame the ballot paper in the general way proposed in this Bill, but we must make every effort to assist the people. It is not enough to say that everyone knows what the present system is. I think we should put the label on it. I believe amendment No. 1 is a reasonable amendment and that we should say "the present system of proportional representation."
In regard to the second alternative, which calls this "the straight vote", I argued against this on Second Stage as not being an accurate description. But if this description is to be there, then I think it is made clearer and more meaningful if instead merely of the words "the straight vote", there are added the words "as operated at present in Great Britain and Northern Ireland." It is quite clear that people are reasonably familiar with the differences between what happens here and in Britain. Therefore, I think the second amendment also makes the issue clearer.
There are other ways in which this could be amended. The form of words used in the Referendum Act and in the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 1959, were both superior and in particular, what was in the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 1959 was a good description. Even if the Minister is not willing to accept the amendments Senator Quinlan has down, I would ask him to consider if it would not be proper to add a few words to his description here by explaining what is meant by:
the "straight vote" system.
This could be made plainer by adding the following so that the second one would read:
To substitute for the present system of voting at Dáil elections the "straight vote" system in single-member constituencies in which the candidate in the constituency who receives the largest number of votes is declared elected.
This clear statement was made in the 1959 Bill and I think the present Bill would be improved by an amendment of this type. This is a case where there should be clarity above all. I realise it is possibly late in the day to be talking about these things. Circumstances are such that this has come to us at a time when perhaps discussion is merely a waste of time and of breath. Nevertheless, I would urge again that our opinion is that the descriptions contained in this Appendix are inadequate and that they could be improved by the amendment which Senator Quinlan has suggested and could also be improved by the amendments on the lines I have suggested myself.
It is our firm opinion that, quite apart from the main debate as to the merits of these proposals, there should have been an honest attempt to get together and produce a statement on the issue, a clear declaration of what was at issue between the two parties in this debate. This could then have been used in this Appendix and become the description that would go forth as a summary to the people who would have to vote.
I am glad Senator Quinlan read for us the terms of the similar Appendix in the 1959 Act. It impels me to congratulate the present Minister for Local Government on the remarkable improvement he has brought about in the phraseology on this occasion. It is quite clear that the phraseology in the 1959 Act was calculated to bedazzle and bemuse the ordinary man in the street. All this stuff about the non-transferable vote means nothing to the ordinary person who does not take a fanatical interest in politics. When Senator Crowley was speaking last week, I called across to him in a perhaps disorderly fashion and asked him: "Does anybody understand the meaning of the words ‘non-transferable vote'?" He replied: "Everybody knows that is what we have had for the last 40 years." I accept he may not have heard me correctly, but I think this illustrates that words such as "non-transferable vote" means nothing to the ordinary person.
I was saying on the earlier Stages of these Bills that the proportional representation system was a difficult one and that many people were unable to understand it. Senators on the other side got up and said that the Irish voter was an intelligent voter, that it was wrong of me to reflect upon his intelligence, that he was perfectly able to understand it, and so on. Yet now we have Senators saying quite solemnly today that the words "the present system" are difficult and that the ordinary man in the street will be unable to understand what is meant. I should have thought that no clearer, more simple or more straightforward description of the issue could possibly have been found than "the present system of election". Surely no one could fail to understand what that means? I cannot see the difficulty.
The suggestion of Senator Quinlan to insert after these words "as operated at present in Great Britain and Ireland" has, I suspect, some ulterior motive. I think the words "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" are inserted for a purpose. However, I consider that there may be a point in this geographical clarity. It may, in Senator Quinlan's view, be of benefit to voters to know the other countries in which it is used but if so I should have thought he would have inserted other words, such as the USA, Canada, New Zealand and so on, in order to get the maximum amounts of accurate information available to the voter.
A more serious fault in this geographical amendment, I think, is that he has not made the rather necessary consequential amendment in his other proposition. In inserting the words "of proportional representation", if Senator Quinlan is interested in geographical accuracy, I should have thought he would have worded this rather differently by inserting nine other words which, if he would like to propose a verbal amendment, the Seanad might be willing to discuss. I would suggest his other amendment should then read, to insert "of proportional representation as operated at present by no other country in the world". If he wishes to provide this geographical information for the Irish voter, I think he should go the whole hog and should consider accepting that verbal amendment.
I think Senator Yeats has said most of what I was going to say about this. It is quite clear that these two amendments, when considered together, are based on conflicting hypotheses. Amendment No. 1 which seeks to define and describe the present system of voting in Dáil elections, must obviously be based on the assumption that the people of Ireland do not know what the present system of voting at Dáil elections is. On the other hand, amendment No. 2 proposes to clarify the proposed system by describing it as the system that operates in other places—but not mentioning all the other places in which it operates, only two selected such places.
Senator Quinlan's assumption then is that the people of Ireland do not know what the present system of voting at Dáil elections is but that they are fully aware of how the voting system in Britain and Northern Ireland operates. I do not see how anybody could accept such an illogical proposition. Apart from the defective reasoning on which the amendments are based, I might mention that the summary that would result from the acceptance of the amendment would not—I think nobody could say it would —be easy to read or understand for the average voter who would not take much time to consider and read the voter's card.
This is how the summary would read if the amendments were accepted:
To substitute for the present system of proportional representation of voting at Dáil elections the "straight vote" system, as operated in Great Britain and Northern Ireland in single-member constituencies.
If that makes it clearer to Senator Quinlan, I do not think it makes it clearer to anybody else.
The only obvious deduction to make from this whole operation, this whole idea of Senator Quinlan's, is that he is not concerned with clarifying the issue but that his concern is to confuse. As Senator Yeats pointed out, if he were to be consistent, he would propose to insert in amendment No. 1 "as operated in no other Parliament in the world". If he were to be realistic in regard to his second amendment, he would surely specify places other than Great Britain and Northern Ireland and give a list of such places, such as the USA and Canada and so on, in which it is operated. But obviously, the intention is somehow or other to try to prejudice the issue by the implication that this operates nowhere but in Great Britain and Northern Ireland and then, of course, that nothing good can operate in those places, obviously, an attempt to have the voter's card in some way substantiate the propaganda that the Opposition propose to utilise to the effect that this is a British system of election.
As Senator Quinlan knows, both of the systems involved are British systems, one being the system that they have been wise enough to retain for themselves and the other a system that was invented specially in order to frustrate countries such as this by imposing upon them a system of election and representation which would eventually make Government, if not impossible, at least inefficient. It is agreed that that is the intention of the system. It was devised for the purpose of providing representation for every class of a minority. Therefore, it is designed to foster the formation of political Parties on the basis of appealing to minority interests and therefore it must, if it has the effect it is designed to produce, eventually produce the situation of a number of small Parties being returned at election time and making the formation of a Government difficult, if not impossible, as has happened in other countries.
Senator Quinlan need not expect the Government to co-operate with him in his attempt to utilise the official summary to be issued by the local returning officers for the purpose of helping to further this dishonest form of propaganda that the Opposition propose to use. Unlike Senator Quinlan, I believe that the people do know what the words "the present system of voting at Dáil elections" mean. I do not mean to imply that they know and understand all the complicated processes of dealing with the votes after they have been cast but they do know what is implied by "the present system of voting at Dáil elections". It is obvious that to attempt to describe this system will only complicate the summary.
Senator Quinlan says the 1959 Act set out the position very clearly but in fact there were complaints both before and after the 1959 referendum that this was far too complicated and that the people were confused. If they were confused, they could only have been confused because two systems of election were described in the summary. The first system described in the 1959 summary was the present system which was described—not very briefly—in the following terms:
At present members of Dáil Éireann are elected on a system of proportional representation for constituencies returning at least three members, each voter having a single transferable vote.
This being printed on a small voter's card, the normal voter who was not particularly interested, would do no more than glance at it and seeing this at the outset of the description of the proposed Bill, would be very likely to form the impression that he was being asked to vote for or against this system of proportional representation for constituencies returning at least three members, each voter having a single transferable vote. If there was any confusion caused the last time, it could only have been caused in this way, and to clarify that, the present summary was kept as short as possible. I think it is clear from this summary that the proposal now is to substitute for the present system the system of the straight vote and single-member constituencies. To put anything more into it could only result in confusing the issue.
It is quite clear that this is not a genuine amendment, that the complaint is being made merely for the sake of making the complaint, and that the effort is merely an effort to delay the submission of the proposal to the people and to confuse the people. The present system is understood by the people. To further describe it would only complicate the matter by cluttering up the small voter's card with unnecessary words, making it less likely to be read thoroughly and making it more likely for people to be confused.
The approach of the Minister on this is quite typical. Nobody is in good faith in anything but the Minister, not even President de Valera in his proposals in 1959. According to Senator Yeats, the 1959 proposals were calculated to bedazzle and bemuse. I stand on the proposals as drafted, but I made an offer to the Minister that if he did not like these amendments I have made, I was quite prepared to withdraw them and to accept the statement as drafted by President de Valera in 1959. Yet he accuses me of trying to bedazzle the voters by not putting the words clearly, and so on, thus implying that the former Taoiseach was also bedazzling the voters. Here it is a crime to mention PR in the summary. It was mentioned fairly and squarely in 1959. Here the slang term is used, showing the great advance in leaving certificate English that is being brought about now; slang is now to take over when literature goes out the window. The slang term "straight vote" system is used, whereas in the whole of the Fourth Amendment Bill not once was a slang term used. It is rather strange that in drafting the Bill, it is assumed that the public, in reading it, would not understand the slang term "straight vote".
Of course, the Minister will do everything possible to concede this slavish and crawling compliance with England and everything English. Everything that England stands for must be best. Because the straight vote system is there, it must be best. It is best in the North, certainly, because it keeps the Unionist Party in power. Fianna Fáil want to keep themselves in power here, and the predictions are quite good. The best professors of political science we have got, acting in the most objective way possible, acting in a way that would stand up before any international gathering of political scientists, have predicted that Fianna Fáil will get 90 to 95 seats out of this, despite having the support of less than a majority of the voters. This is the reason the Minister is anxious to confuse the public.
In referring to the USA, he ignores the fact that in the primaries in the USA, the ordinary voters in the party get their chance of going into the booth and exercising their preference for a particular candidate, the very same preference as is exercised today by Irish voters. If an Irish voter wants to vote for Fianna Fáil in any constituency, he has at least three candidates from whom to select. He does not have to select the No. 1 candidate put forward by the Party but can make his choice. The Irish voter will exercise his choice in the same way in voting for Fine Gael candidates, having three candidates to select from in any of the constituencies. The Labour Party are also offering two or three candidates to be selected from in every constituency. That is democracy in action, and it is what the Irish voter wants.
On a point of order, what relation has this to the Referendum Bill?
The Chair is beginning to wonder.
What I am saying is relevant in so far as it shows precisely that the Minister and Senator Yeats are trying to confuse matters by saying the straight vote proposed here is exactly the same system as in the United States. I am showing the essential difference between the two, where the ordinary people make the choice and the Party bosses are kept somewhat in check. It seems to us that the ordinary Irish voters will get little help from the ballot paper as drafted and will therefore have to rely on the slogan which I hope every voter will take to heart, that is, oppose the dictatorship of the Party bosses and vote "no".
I have seldom listened to anything in this House more confusing than the speech to which we have just listened. We have had read out to us how the system was described in 1959, and we have before us how it is described today, that we substitute for the present system of voting the straight vote. We are led to understand that the ordinary voter does not know what is meant by "the present system of voting" but that he will know what is meant by a system of voting that is as being practised referred to elsewhere. It completely amazes me. The whole purpose of the irrelevancies in the last speech is to colour this——
Was Mr. de Valera irrelevant in the 1959 referendum?
You were irrelevant in the last speech when you were supposed to be dealing with the amendment.
The Chair was not irrelevant.
Acting Charman
It is improper to refer to the Chair in this way, and equally improper to refer to the President in the way the Senator has done.
By this means the Senator has indicated the motive behind this amendment. It is not a bona fide amendment designed to make things simpler and clearer. It is an amendment to give an opportunity for further remarks without sense or substance. Sometimes I wonder what really is the purpose of university education when I hear speeches like this. We are told that young men and young women go to the university to learn the truth and to follow the truth, come what may. They are instructed that before a person follows logic through to a conclusion, he should start from a correct premise. He should at least endeavour to find out what is the correct premise. Yet we have just been told a few moments ago that the straight vote has kept the Unionists in power in Northern Ireland. It would not have required very much research to disprove that. Proportional representation existed in Northern Ireland for nine years. Then it was changed.
Why was it changed?
A professor of political science in Cork University published a book "Elections and Representation". He was the late Professor Hogan, a brother of the late Mr. Paddy Hogan, who was the first Minister for Agriculture in a Free State Government. One would imagine that a professor from Cork, speaking on a matter of this nature, before making such a statement, would at least take the trouble to check a book published by a professor of political science in his own college. I want to quote now from page 252 of that book:
Furthermore, both systems have in turn been tried in Northern Ireland. The results make it clear that in fact the change-over from the proportional to the majority system in 1929 has not appreciably weakened the parliamentary position of the Nationalist minority. If as a result of the 1938 election the Nationalists were at a loss of three seats, these seats were rather given away than lost to the Unionists. Their loss was due to the differences between republicans and constitutionalists which in the constituencies of Mourne, South Armagh, and South Down led the Nationalists to boycott the elections, although they could certainly have gained these three seats as they did in 1933.
Let us once and for all dispose of this fiction that the straight vote was introduced in Northern Ireland for the purpose of keeping anyone in power. Let us consider—and this should be the sole purpose of this discussion— whether the words now being used are clear and unambiguous to every voter. Nothing is added to their clarity, and they are not improved by adding in "the present system of voting by PR as against the straight system of voting as used in Northern Ireland and Britain". There will not be more than five voters, if five, in the whole country who will ever have voted in Northern Ireland or England.
The people understand the system under which they voted here for many years, and they understand what is meant by the straight vote. If Senator Quinlan does not think the term "the straight vote" is clear, it is rather strange that in the course of a very long speech here on Second Stage when we were discussing this matter, not on one occasion only, not on five occasions only, not on ten occasions only, but on at least 12 occasions which I picked out on a summary glance through his speech, he used the words "the straight vote". He did this knowing full well that everyone present would fully appreciate what he meant, and knowing full well that if his words were published in the newspapers everyone would know what he meant. He did not say, "the straight vote as used in Northern Ireland and Britain".
I do feel that if an amendment is proposed, it should at least be proposed in good faith.
First of all, I want to make it clear that contrary to what Senator Quinlan has been saying, it was not the Taoiseach who dealt with the Referendum Bill on the last occasion. It was the Minister for Local Government. Of course, in any Fianna Fáil Government a Minister speaks for the Government as a whole. It is untrue, and Senator Quinlan knows it is untrue, to say that the Referendum Bill was dealt with in the Seanad by the Taoiseach.
Who introduced it?
It was introduced and dealt with by the Minister for Local Government, Deputy Blaney.
Who introduced it?
Senator Quinlan knows this quite well, but he goes on with this game of trying to draw a distinction between the Taoiseach and the Government. So far as Fianna Fáil Governments are concerned, there is no distinction between the Taoiseach and the Government. On a point of accuracy the Referendum Bill was dealt with by the Minister for Local Government.
That is a pity from the point of view of the Taoiseach's reputation.
The summary put forward this time is an improvement on what was there the last time, not possibly an improvement as an accurate and detailed description of each of the two systems of election and representation which are involved, but an improvement from the point of view of clarity. It is put forward as a result of the experience at the last referendum and in deference to comments made before and after that referendum. There were complaints, and many complaints, before and after the last referendum. I want to quote from the Irish Independent of 23rd June, 1959, some days after the referendum. It says:
Even the educated had to study the ballot-paper very carefully in order to know he or she was making the correct entry as desired.
It goes on:
Had the ballot paper read: "Do you favour the retention of the PR system?" to which "Yes" or "No" would be the obvious answer, that would cover the whole matter, instead of making it an involved paper by introducing a second matter as to the "straight vote system." Had the question on the ballot paper even been, "Do you favour the straight vote system," the same "Yes" or "No" would meet the matter. It must be conceded that the educated had to ponder over the ballot paper before they could see through its proper implication.
Further on it says:
It is a fact that persons voting were so confused by the "Yes" and "No" as it had to be used that they were at sea even in the polling booths as to what to put down, and many questioned the presiding officers to explain the matter again. Explanations were made in the papers, but that was of little help to the thousands who either did not see the papers or did not sufficiently study its implication until they found themselves in the booth.
It is quite clear that to describe two separate systems of voting can result only in confusion and that the voter who does not devote much time to studying-the matter and, glancing at the voting paper and seeing a description of the type of proportional representation we have here, would, if he is that type of careless person, be inclined to think he was being asked to vote "Yes" or "No" with regard to proportional representation.
With regard to Senator Quinlan's allegation that this is a slavish and crawling compliance with England and everything English, I think nobody has any doubts but that nobody in England asked us to make this change. On the other hand, it is a demonstrable fact that the whole Opposition campaign is directed by a British society. It is directed by what was described by the old Cumann na nGaedhael Party and the Fine Gael Party, in its earlier days, as a highly-subsidised British society. Every argument used by the Opposition has been promulgated in the newspapers by this British society which has already entered into by-election campaigns here on behalf of the Opposition Parties.
The Opposition are now trying desperately to hang on to this British-imposed system of election in this country. Even they who so slavishly and crawlingly—to use Senator Quinlan's words—accepted the slavish and crawling dominion status imposed here by the 1922 Treaty objected, right up to 1959, as far as we know, to this system that was imposed here, as they said, on the principle of "trying it out on the dog".
Would the Minister please quote which Member of the British Government said that?
What does the Senator mean?
The Minister purported to be quoting from the British and used the term "trying it out on the dog".
No: I am quoting from the Cumann na nGaedhael official organ, An Realt, The Star, and from different Deputies, Deputy Dillon amongst others, who utilised the same term of “trying it out on the dog”. The only Member of the British Government, at the time it was being imposed, whom I quoted was the Attorney General: I quoted him earlier on. This system which was imposed by the British on this country——
——and by Mr. de Valera, in 1937——
——was the only part of the imposition that was opposed by those who accepted the imposition —and, as far as we know, it was opposed by them right up to 1959. Certainly, it was opposed by the old Cumann na nGaedhael Party. Opposition to it was adopted as part of the programme of the new Fine Gael Party. They still maintained that attitude of opposition to this system in 1937 and they are on record as being still opposed to it in 1947. The first indication that they had changed their mind was in 1959 when Fianna Fáil proposed to do what Fine Gael had been advocating over the years. It is quite clear that they only decided to accept this part of the British imposition on this country in 1959 when Fianna Fáil came around eventually to their previous point of view.
As I say, it is quite clear that the only effect of Senator Quinlan's amendments would be to confuse the issue, apart from the fact that they would delay. The necessity to go back to the Dáil with it would delay the putting of the proposition before the people and the only possible reason for that would be to confuse and delay. I am quite sure that that, in fact, is the intention behind it.
Could it not be dealt with at the same time as the Potez scandal?
I do not think this is the place to follow Senator Nash in his irrelevancies on Professor Hogan but I shall take up that matter with him in the proper place, namely, on the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution Bill. Perhaps, if he quoted a little of Professor Hogan, he might have quoted his conclusions which were in favour of the retention of the system of proportional representation in the belief that the introduction of the straight vote system would allow the present Government Party to go on governing long past dotage.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
We are concerned here with descriptions——
I want to answer briefly the point made by Senator Nash.
Keep on answering.
I do not think it is right to believe that nobody has ever thought but Senator Nash. The Minister said people had to ponder over the ballot paper on the last occasion. I am glad, as a result of their pondering, they made such a wise decision—and they will make an even wiser decision this time. As all of us know who were present in this House on the occasion of the last Referendum Bill, it was the then Taoiseach, now President de Valera, who piloted the Third Amendment of the Constitution Bill through this House.
That is not what we were talking about. The Senator does not know what Bill we are talking about.
He was Leader of the Government at that Stage. It was that Government that gave the summary which is now derided by Senator Nash and the Minister, the summary that is said to bedazzle and bemuse——
On a point of correction. I did not use those words.
Neither did I.
I said this was more easily understood than the description at the last time.
It was Senator Yeats and the Minister——
I did not use it, either. I said there were complaints that it was confusing.
They said "bedazzled" and "bemused". As for the amendment, the easiest way possible to explain any such thing to the people is simply to refer to where it is operated and——
Would you say that about our system?
A system of election has to be judged by ordinary rational people simply by the results it gives. Therefore, the simplest way, if you want the present system, is to say to the people: "This system, in operation here, is called proportional representation and it was commended in very glowing terms by Mr. de Valera who is now President de Valera, when he was introducing the Constitution of 1937, by the late Mr. Seán T. O'Kelly and by many others.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Again, the Senator is starting to discuss the merits of the alternative system.
Repetition, now.
It is difficult at least, not to answer a few of the points made by the Minister in case it would be taken for granted that there was not an answer to them. However, in deference to the ruling of the Chair, I shall move on from those points. The other system—the new system—is the system operated in Great Britain, in Northern Ireland——
In the United States of America and in Canada.
Senator Yeats and others wish to conceal that it is operating in Northern Ireland. It is "operating", just like you put "straight vote" in inverted commas, in Northern Ireland and it is operating so successfully there that, at the last General Election, the Nationalists got nine out of 52 seats or one-sixth. Does Senator Yeats or Senator Nash or anybody else seriously contend that the Nationalists in the North of Ireland constitute only one-sixth of the population there?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Again, the Chair must intervene. I am afraid the Senator's promise to leave that point was not fulfilled.
You want to do the "thick" again.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Perhaps Senator Quinlan might conclude more quickly if he were not interrupted.
I am not interrupting.
Senator Nash thought everything was absolutely democratic in the representation in Northern Ireland, that it made no difference whether it was the straight vote or proportional representation—in other words, that one-sixth representation for the Nationalists there was fair. I will put "fair" in inverted commas and pass on. Again, I appeal to the Minister to consider what we have said. I shall withdraw the amendments I have here if the Minister will, on Report Stage, bring in the agreed version of 1959 which we all claim to be immeasurably superior and to show more concern for the electorate, more concern for presenting the issues clearly and more concern for the English language than the present one. If the Minister does that, he will at least show, even at this late stage, that he has some regard for putting the issue fairly to the people.
Senator Quinlan says that the easiest way to describe a system is to say where it is operated. He makes no attempt, in his amendments, to indicate that the system that operates here operates nowhere else in the world. As Deputy Dillon said, no other National Parliament has been foolish enough to adopt it. Indeed, as Senator Quinlan knows, we did not adopt it. It was imposed from outside originally in 1919 by the British Parliament, and it was the one thing that was imposed in 1922 to which his colleagues objected. They consistently objected to it until such time as Fianna Fáil decided to comply with their wishes in 1959 and gave the people a chance of getting rid of this system which was bound to do the people harm eventually. With regard to the question that this was referred to in glowing terms in 1937, I presume that since Senator Quinlan repeated the statement, I am at liberty to deal with it.
I was replying to the Minister.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Chair is in great difficulty in regard to the scope of this debate. If the rules of order were strictly to be applied, a great deal of what has been said would have been ruled out of order. When remarks have been made in the earlier part of the debate, it would be unfair not to allow speakers to advert to them but they should attempt to do so briefly and not at greater length than that of the original remarks.
I have already dealt with the fact that this system was included in the 1937 Constitution and possibly I can do it more relevantly on the Fifth Stage of the Bill.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
This would certainly be more conductive to good debate.
At the same time, I am sure that it did not escape the Chair's notice that Senator Quinlan insisted on drawing this matter into this debate on these bogus amendments. In regard to the suggestion that the system we propose operates in Northern Ireland, it is a fact that the system we have here did operate in Northern Ireland and it is a fact that in the first election under the present system there the Nationalists' position was actually slightly improved as compared with the last election held under the system we have here at present. The position of the Nationalist section of the community in Northern Ireland as a permanent minority stems from different causes. It stems from the fact that Senator Quinlan and his colleagues co-operated in an act of treachery——
Is this in order?
——in handing over to foreign control the maximum possible amount of territory——
On a point of information, I was exactly two years of age at that time.
The people with whom Senator Quinlan has now fused himself are the people responsible for the fact that the Nationalists are in a permanent minority and will be in a permanent minority, no matter what system of election or representation is introduced there. Senator Quinlan's colleagues co-operated in drawing that boundary in such a way as to ensure that this could be done and that this situation could be preserved for all time.
The Minister for Finance and the Minister for Education will not like that remark.
What remark will the Minister for Education not like?
Or the Minister for Finance.
The fact is that it is Senator Quinlan's friends in this House and in the other House who are responsible for that position and we have no responsibility for it whatever, nor has any system of election any responsibility for it.
You are washing your hands of it.
So far from washing our hands of it, this Party's whole existence is for the purpose of trying to end that and despite Senator Quinlan's friends, we have succeeded in rectifying every other——
I have as many friends in Fianna Fáil as in any other Party.
(Interruptions.)
It is quite clear that Senator Quinlan's only intention is to create as much confusion as possible. It must be quite clear that to describe the two systems in this short summary in the way they were described the last time could only result in confusion. I agree that the summary the last time was a more accurate description of the two systems if that was the purpose of the operation, but not every voter would go to the trouble of reading a summary of that length and digesting it and memorising it to the point that when he would go into the polling booth, he would know exactly what the question meant. The fact that at first glance the first thing to be seen is a description of the present system would indicate to the careless voter—and the majority of people do not study these things deeply—that it was a question of for or against proportional representation, for or against the present system. Therefore any confusion that could be caused would be to make people think they were being asked to vote for or against PR and the only substance in complaints made the last time could have been to that effect.
The fact that Senator Quinlan wants people to be confused in that direction must be an indication that he as well as the rest of his colleagues in Fine Gael appreciate that the view of the Leader of the Fine Gael, and of those other members who see some prospect of instilling a bit of backbone into the Party at some time in the future, is beginning to gain ground and even within the Fine Gael Party, Senator Quinlan appreciates that the majority view is coming around to favour the proposal we are making. The only hope he sees then, is first, to delay the proposal coming before the people and secondly, to create as much confusion as possible in the ordinary voters' minds. The whole purpose of these amendments is clearly to try to confuse people. One more simple and clearer summary on this occasion is to ensure that the people will be as "unconfused" as possible.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I should like to remind those taking part in this debate that the only matters which are relevant are points referring to the amendments which have not been previously made.
Or replies.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Or replies which have not been previously made.
The Minister refers to bogus amendments but I have shown my good faith by offering to withdraw the amendments, if he will substitute the 1959 statement which he now goes on record as saying was a more accurate description of the two systems. Therefore the advances which have been made in education since 1959 apparently mean that the people are less able to read now than they were in 1959. What passed as an accurate description in 1959 is now held by the Minister to be too complicated. Speaking as an Independent and as one who is happy to count as many friends in Fianna Fáil as in Fine Gael or Labour, I can assure the Minister that between now and when the referendum is held, I will do everything possible to see that the people are not confused and to see that the Minister's ruse of cutting down this summary to a despicable 1½ lines does not succeed. I think we can rest assured it will not succeed.
The only amendments I see are to section 1; first, ‘in page 3, line 38 before "of" to insert "of proportional representation"' and secondly, ‘in page 3, line 38, before "in" to insert ", as operated at present in Great Britain and Northern Ireland".' As far as I can understand, Senator Quinlan is now pretending that he has a proposed amendment to substitute the summary prescribed in the 1959 Bill; but, if that is so, I certainly have not seen it and I do not think any such amendment is, in fact, before the House.
I said the 1959 summary was a more accurate description of the two systems of voting and representation involved. Of course, it is; it is a more detailed description, but our proposition is put forward on this occasion in order to make it clearer to the average voter what it is he is being asked to do on the ballot paper; in other words, what "yes" means and what "no" means. The average voter will not go to the trouble of reading a long description, digesting it and memorising it between the time he reads it first and the time he goes to cast his vote. The complaints made in 1959 were not on behalf of voters who went to the trouble of studying the matter; they were made on behalf of what was alleged to be the average voter, who did not go to the trouble of studying the matter, who went in to the polling station with only a rough idea that he was going to vote in regard to the electoral system and who did not know, when he got the ballot paper, whether "yes" meant that he was for the present system or for the proposed system. The summary we propose now makes it as clear as possible that the question asked is whether the voter is in favour of substituting for the present system the straight vote system in single-seat constituencies. It could not be put any more clearly and, very obviously, Senator Quinlan is trying to make it as unclear and as confused as possible for the average voter who will not take the trouble to study the question deeply.
The Minister is quite right; there are only two amendments, but surely the Minister knows enough at this stage about parliamentary procedure to appreciate that my offer to withdraw this at this stage was made, provided the Minister would accept the 1959 form on Report Stage, which is the parliamentary way in which such substitutions are made. I propose now to withdraw my amendments and to table on Report Stage, in deference to the Minister and in the hope of getting agreement on it, the 1959 format.
I am not prepared to co-operate with Senator Quinlan in either delaying this or in confusing the people.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Quinlan proposes to withdraw his amendment No. 1. That can be done only by leave of the House.
Question: "That leave be given to withdraw amendment No. 1" put and declared lost.
I am quite prepared to have the amendments put, but I reserve my right on Report Stage to table the 1959 format.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill".
On the section, copies of the statement contained in the Appendix are to be displayed by the presiding officer in the polling station and in the precincts of the polling station. Are there any general directions which will be given to presiding officers as to what are the precincts of polling stations? More information on that might lead to greater clarity.
This, in fact, has been put into the Bill as a result of an amendment which I accepted from Deputy T.J. Fitzpatrick (Cavan) in the Dáil. He wanted it made clear that it was the presiding officer who would display this and not the political Parties. It will be made clear to presiding officers where this information is to be displayed.
Will it be permissible then to display Party literature within the precincts?
No, definitely not. That is why "the presiding officer" was inserted here.
Would it be possible for the Minister to circulate this to Deputies, Senators and others interested? Or would he provide for copies of the instructions at a nominal cost because people sometimes do not know what instructions are given to presiding officers.
I will do that.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill".
In the rectangle, which is blank, will the title of the Bill, which is, I understand, in both Irish and English, appear in regard to the Third Amendment of the Constitution?
It will appear in both Irish and English.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
Title put and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Agreed to take Report Stage today.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Does Senator Quinlan wish to submit an amendment on Report Stage?
Yes, for tomorrow, perhaps.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The House has just agreed to take Report Stage now.
I have the amendment written out.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
It is a matter for the House to determine its own business. It is customary when amendments are handed in at short notice to allow time for them to be circulated.
Senator Quinlan wishes to move an amendment which he has drafted. I think he should be given some time to have it circulated. I would hope that all the business will conclude today.
Senator Quinlan did not demur against taking the amendment now. All he wishes to do is to repeat what he said a few minutes ago.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is the Senator rising on a point of order to the effect that the order be changed to take this amendment at 7.30 p.m.
I propose that. I suggest that Senator Quinlan be given time to have the amendment circulated. As I have said, I would hope that the business will conclude this evening.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
This matter is in order. It is a matter for the House to determine it.
If Senator Quinlan wishes to be given time, we might agree to take the amendment immediately after tea.
Agreed.