I support the motion moved by my colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, in the belief that the approach taken by the Government on this occasion is a reasonable one to which a responsible Opposition could have no serious objection. That somewhat confused response from the Opposition indicates how half-hearted is their opposition. The Government have brought forward a ministerial order pursuant to the powers vested in them under local government legislation. That order has been debated here on three occasions. A very large number of Members have taken the opportunity of contributing to the discussion. Indeed, it is worth recalling what happened on each of the three occasions so that we may consider whether the Government are acting reasonably in moving this guillotine motion and in taking the view that the matter will have been debated adequately when the time set by the guillotine motion expires tomorrow afternoon.
The matter came before the House first for discussion on 29 February last when it was debated from 4.35 p.m. to 7 p.m., a total of two hours 55 minutes. There has been a suggestion from the Opposition that during these debates the time was monopolised by the Government. I wish to establish to the satisfaction of the House that there is no truth in any such suggestion. On that first occasion the Minister of State, Deputy O'Brien, spoke for 15 minutes during which time he, having moved the motion, explained the legislative background to it and the procedures under which the Minister was exercising his powers. The Minister of State addressed himself specifically to the motion. He spoke of the need to postpone the local elections for a stated purpose, that being the Government's intention to fulfil their commitment in the Programme for Government to introduce a package of local government reform. The Minister of State was followed by Deputy Fitzsimons who spoke for 25 minutes and who did not regard himself obviously as being bound as strictly by the terms of the motion as was the Minister of State. Deputy Fitzsimons considered himself free to comment on the general performance of the Government in considering the response of the electorate would be if the elections were proceeded with.
Deputy Fitzsimons was followed by Deputy Mervyn Taylor who addressed himself to the specific issue of the appropriateness or otherwise of proceeding with the local elections this year and raised the question of whether the case or indeed the need for local government reform was such as to justify the postponement of the elections. He placed particular emphasis on the fact that the structure of local government in Dublin has remained unreformed for a century or more and he pointed out that because of growing urbanisation, because of the population increase in Dublin and the drift to Dublin, the structures which might have been adequate once are now hopelessly inadequate. Deputy Taylor pointed out, for example, that he and his colleagues as councillors representing the sprawling new town of Tallaght are expected to represent an area as large as and as numerous in terms of population as constituencies represented by many Dáil Deputies. While Deputy Taylor is a professional politician his area will be represented in many cases by part-time councillors who are elected to represent local opinion and to stay in touch with the views of people on the ground.
Deputy Power intervened then in his inimitable fashion. He was followed by his constituency colleague, Deputy Durkan. Deputy Seán Walsh spoke then. He was followed by Deputies Kenny, Pat Gallagher and Lyons. Therefore, on that first occasion on which the matter was debated nine speakers contributed, five of whom were from the Opposition benches including their spokesman, Deputy Fitzsimons, who is replying to the motion in the absence of Deputy Molloy.
The matter was taken up again on 7 March last when it was debated between 10.45 a.m. and 1.30 p.m., a total of two hours and 44 minutes. Later that afternoon it was debated for three-and-a-half hours from 3.30 p.m. until 7 p.m. In other words, on that occasion a total of six hours and 15 minutes was devoted to debate on the issue. On that occasion we heard again from Deputy Lyons. We heard also from Deputy Cosgrave while the view of The Workers' Party was put by Deputy De Rossa. Deputy Allen spoke also on that occasion as did Deputies Kirk, Gay Mitchell, Michael Barrett, Owen, Gene Fitzgerald, McEllistrim, Hilliard, Jackie Fahey and Tunney. Again, I turn to the accusation that the Government were seeking to monopolise the time and to deny Opposition Deputies the opportunity to contribute to this debate. On that second occasion five Opposition Deputies spoke one after the other. Then we had an intervention from the Government side but it was only of ten minutes duration and was from Deputy Harte. He was followed by Deputies Lemass, Wallace, Niall Andrews and Connolly. It would seem that on that occasion we went very close to achieving Deputy Ahern's desire that the debate would proceed in an unusual fashion with contributions from one side of the House only.
In the light of the experience on that occasion perhaps his suggestion that they were prepared to accept the motion on the basis that all speakers would be saying the same thing was not as extraordinary or as preposterous as it might otherwise have been. I do not wish to be unfair to Deputy Ahern. All of us bring to the Chamber our own experiences, our knowledge of procedures and of the practices we adopt in conducting our own meetings. I know that Deputy Ahern is Whip to a party who adopt a novel and distinctive approach to internal party debate. I realise he is the Whip of a party who take the view that matters are best decided on the basis of one leader, one voice. In the event of anyone being unsure as to the meaning of una duce, una voce, the party press officer, a constituent of mine and sometime Senator, P.J. Mara, was available to interpret. He explained that the phrase so far as Fianna Fáil were concerned meant that no one was to nibble at his Leader's bum.