When this Bill is passed tonight no doubt toasts will be drunk in the Fine Gael and Labour rooms of this House and in Glengall Street, Belfast. Fine Gael and Labour, and the supporters of Glengall Street, have a common interest in this legislation. It is the most disgraceful legislation introduced since the foundation of the State. It has been introduced by a week, inept, undemocratic Government, whose only purpose in putting this legislation before this House is to provide the means by which their weakness can be overlooked by the electorate and by which they can be re-elected in time to come.
This legislation was put before us by a Government which could be described as a Labour tail wagging a Fine Gael dog. One has only to study the legislation to realise that in Dublin city and Dún Laoghaire, the Labour tail wagged effectively but that in rural Ireland it gave way to the Fine Gael Dog. In Dublin city and county the Minister has taken the precaution of ensuring a strong bonus for Labour but in rural Ireland he has given the bonus—he thinks—to Fine Gael.
Before the Fine Gael Members of the Oireachtas drink too many toasts tonight I should like to ask them to study very carefully what this legislation could mean to them. The wealthy element in the Fine Gael—and there are many—only want to be associated with Labour until such time as it becomes unnecessary. As far as they are concerned, the shorter the term the more suitable it would be. The Minister for Local Government in this legislation is attempting to ensure that never again in the history of this State will Fianna Fáil get an overall majority. But the Minister is shrewd enough to realise that Fine Gael only agreed to an alliance with Labour as a very last resort; and if they had any possible chance of securing an overall majority on their own they would not touch the Labour Party with a 40-foot pole.
The Labour Party know this, the Minister for Local Government knows this. So we find in this legislation that he has taken steps to ensure that not along will Fianna Fáil find it difficult to secure an overall majority in the future but that Fine Gael will never get such a majority. Labour have written into this legislation a charter guaranteeing that if there ever is a Government other than Fianna Fáil elected in this country they must be part of it. I would say that despite this legislation, despite the gerrymandering that has occurred, Fianna Fáil will face the electorate with confidence in the future and with confidence that the people of this county will give their true and just answer to the Government for this misdeed and their other misdeeds during the last 12 months. I also would say with confidence that as a result of this legislation Fine Gael will never be elected as a single party Government.
It is a pity that in the year 1974 any Government in this country should consider it necessary to put before the Houses of the Oireachtas undemocratic legislation such as we have before us tonight. I believe that not alone is it undermocratic but that it is unconstitutional. In his speech on the Second Stage the Minister stated:
The population of each constituency shall, so far as it is practicable, be the same throughout the country.
It is obvious from studying the explanatory memorandum issued to us that that is not the case, that the population of the constituencies vary drastically. The Minister also stated:
It is generally accepted that these provisions mean that it is not sufficient to have equality of representation at the time of the 12 yearly review. This equality must, as far as practicable, exist at all times.
I submit that that equality of representation which may have existed when the census was taken in 1971, does not exist today as a result of the growth in population in certain centres, particularly in the Sligo town area and in County Donegal. It is not stated anywhere in the High Court ruling of 1971 that that equality must exist only at times when the census is taken. That ruling clearly states that that equality must exist at all times.
If this case was tested in the High Court it could be proved beyond doubt that in the Sligo-Leitrim constituency, for example, the population has risen to such an extent that the ratio per Member is in excess of the 21,123 persons laid down by an earlier High Court ruling. In Sligo-Leitrim the population ratio per Member is 21,010, which is only 113 people fewer than the maximum allowed by the High Court. This means that if the population of Sligo town increased by more than 300 people since 1971 the ratio per Member today has gone beyond the maximum. When one considers the growth of Sligo town, the industrialisation of that town in 1971, 1972 and 1973 and the number of new factories provided there, it would not be difficult to achieve an increase in population in that area of more than 300 people. I am convinced that if the numbers were counted now it could easily be established that the population of the Sligo-Leitrim constituency has increased by at least 1,000 people in three years.
The same situation applies in County Donegal where for years, since the Famine, our greatest curse was that of emigration. During the last three of four years there has been a marked changed of pattern. This has taken place for two reasons. First, the availability of more jobs and the desire of more people to remain at home. Secondly, the economic situation across the water and the lack of employment there has discouraged people from emigrating. If we look at the figure of the population ratio per Member for the Donegal constituency we will notice that the Minister has laid down that it takes 21,102 people to elect a Deputy. That is only 21 people fewer per Deputy than the maximum laid down by the High Court rulling.
This means that there has been a population increase of more than 105 in County Donegal, that the population ratio per Member exceeds that provided by the High Court and that this legislation, so far as County Donegal is concerned, is unconstitutional. Since this census was taken in 1971 there has been a population explosion in County Donegal. It is difficult to assess this from the register of electors because of the availability of the vote for 18 years olds.
Even taking this into account it is clear that the population of this constituency has increased from 500 to 1,000 people, approximately, since this census was taken. If that is so I suggest that the legislation before us tonight is unconstitutional. I mentioned this point during the Committee Stage of this Bill but I failed to get a comment on it. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about it.
It is regrettable that legislation such as this should be considered necessary by any Irish Government in 1974. I hope, no matter what Government is in office in future, that this is the last time such legislation will ever be put before us. It is a definite attempt by the Government to gerrymander the constituencies in a most ruthless, arrogant and undemocratic way. The only purpose was to ensure better representation for themselves in the future.
I feel that the excuses made by supporters of this Government are simply not acceptable. It is categorically and emphatically wrong to say that this legislation is necessary because of the Constitutional requirements of this country and because of the High Court decision in 1961. It is true to say that legislation of some kind or another is necessary. It is very wrong to attempt to confuse the people of this island by saying that the Constitution of the land laid down that two seats should be taken from the Western seaboard of this land and given to Dublin city. The only reason two seats have been given to Dublin city is because the Minister and the Labour Party believe that those two seats will go to Labour. The only reason why Dublin city has been turned into 14 three-seat constituencies is because the Minister, the Labour Party and their allies in Fine Gael are convinced that this Government in the future will win two out of three seats in each constituency. If they had been left as four-seat constituencies the result in most cases would have been two seats for Fianna Fáil and two seats for the Government. This would have been a democratic result and would indeed have reflected the wishes of the Dublin city electorate. The voting pattern or percentages between Fianna Fáil and the parties comprising the Government would have very little between them.
For Fianna Fáil to win two seats out of four would have been a fair and democratic result. This Government, in order to maintain themselves in office and in order to ensure reelection on the next outing, obviously were not interested in democracy. They were interested only in getting in Dublin city a two-to-one result, which is completely out of proportion with the voting patterns.
Once again I make a strong and emphatic protest at the reduction in value of the country man's votes in comparison with those of the people living in Dublin. In order to secure this gerrymander and to give three seats to Dublin South-East the Minister was fit to adopt a population ratio per Member which is practically the minimum allowed by the High Court ruling. We find in the three-seat constituency of Dublin South-East that the Minister and the Government are satisfied to have 19,292 people electing a Deputy in that constituency.
In my constituency of County Donegal it will take 21,102 people to elect a Deputy. It will take almost 2,000 people more in County Donegal to elect a single Deputy than in the constituency of Dublin South-East. This, to my mind, suggests that in County Donegal almost 10,000 people have been disenfranchised by this Government. The Minister has previously denied that this is so, but the explanatory memorandum is there, the figures are there and the population ratio per Member for each constituency is there for all to see. Anyone with an sense of fair play and justice must acknowledge that it is painfully obvious in the city of Dublin, in many constituencies, it takes 2,000 people fewer to elect a Deputy than in the north-western portion of this country.
That has been done for one reason and one reason only. It was done to give this Government a two-to-one majority in this city. The Minister has stated that the electorate judge a Government on their record and that if they approved a good Government they would be elected again. The Minister said that if the people believed they were a bad Government they would be defeated. The Minister is in public life much longer than I am. He knows, and I know, that in this country the family voting pattern remains the same. While there are signs that this is changing in regard to the younger generation the facts are that throughout the length and breadth of this country many people still vote the way their fathers and mothers voted. Many people still vote the way their grandfathers and grandmothers voted. The Minister must know that in his own constituency in County Meath there are people who would vote for Labour and vote for him no matter how bad this present Government prove to be.
While I say that there is definite evidence that the pattern is changing in regard to the younger generation, it will take another decade in this country for any dramatic changes in this field. I believe the Minister knows that as well as I do. The Minister knows perfectly well that in the city of Dublin the voting patterns will not change all that dramatically, although I would say that they will change more quickly here than in the rest of the country. For that reason the Minister is smug and happy to have a situation where the constituencies, particularly in Dublin city, are so devised and divided in three-seat constituencies that they ensure a two-to-one majority for his Government.
Objections to the proposal to have Dún Laoghaire a four-seater constituency have been raised many times during the course of this debate. The excuse given at all times has been that 43 cannot be divided by three evenly. Forty-two could have been divided by three. While I realise it would not be in order for me to discuss anything that is not in this legislation at this state——