Amendment No. 4 is being discussed with amendment No. 3.

(Cavan): The object of the amendment which I moved when this Bill was last before the House is to make it mandatory on the Minister for Local Government to hold local elections for the election of Dublin Corporation and Bray UDC in July, 1972. I moved this amendment in order to force the hand of the Minister to restore Dublin Corporation and Bray UDC. I fully appreciate that my amendment is not necessary. I fully appreciate that the Minister for Local Government at any time since he dissolved these councils could have held elections to elect new councils. It is only because the Minister has, to date, shown a complete and utter contempt not for the 45 members of the dissolved City Council or for the nine members of Bray UDC but for the electors of the city of Dublin and the urban district of Bray that I have put down this amendment in order to force his hand to hold elections.

Not alone has the Minister failed to restore the dissolved councils but he comes in here with this Bill and he postpones the holding of local elections, which were due to take place this month, for a further 12 months and he expects the Dáil to believe that these elections will be held in June, 1973, if this Bill is passed, although he tells us that before the local elections are held the entire system of local administration will be reorganised by a Bill which he will introduce here and hopes to put through the Dáil and Seanad. He knows perfectly well, if he has given the matter any thought, that what he promises is simply not practicable and that it will just not be possible for him to have these measures through before June, 1973. It is on that account that I am seeking to compel him to hold elections next month for Dublin Corporation and Bray UDC. I believe that it is not right that the capital city should be left without a city council and a first citizen. If what the Minister for Local Government says is correct, that the outgoing councillors behaved in an irresponsible manner, which I do not admit for one moment, that they failed to discharge their statutory duties, then he should have enough confidence to rely on the good sense of the citizens of this city that they will bear that in mind when coming to elect a new council. The important thing is that the citizens of this city should be given an opportunity to elect a city council, that a city council should be elected and that there should be a civic head and a ceremonial head of this city in the person of a lord mayor.

I have not heard any convincing argument or any argument from the Parliamentary Secretary or from any of the Fianna Fáil TDs for the city of Dublin against my proposition. I do not think it is necessary, for the purposes of my amendment, that I should defend the action of the outgoing city council. That is not a relevant consideration for the purposes of this amendment. What is relevant is whether the citizens of Dublin are to have a city council and a lord mayor at the earliest opportunity. I believe it is a reflection on this city to be left for any further time without a city council and a lord mayor. It creates a bad image for the city. The only argument the Minister can put up, to wit, that he could not rely on the citizens of this capital city to elect a good, suitable and responsible council, is a reflection not alone on the city of Dublin and the citizens of Dublin but is a reflection on the nation. At a time when we are going into Europe we should not be the odd man out, we should not be the only capital city without a city council and a lord mayor.

I do not want to stand between the House and any members of the Fianna Fáil Party here who think that they can put up a convincing case against the proposal to elect a city council. The proposal is not to restore the outgoing council, it is to give the citizens of this city an opportunity of electing a brand new city council of their own choice from whose members a lord mayor would be elected. I want to know what is wrong with that and I want to know what is against it; what is the virtue of continuing the present position with no city council, no lord mayor, with a city commissioner who has a bias from the establishment point of view——

A commissar.

(Cavan): ——who has served as secretary of the Department of Local Government for many years, whose whole professional career has been spent in the Custom House? There is no balance with a commissioner of that sort, a city manager and the Minister for Local Government. That is the setup at the moment.

I do not attend many political meetings in this city but since I spoke here before I had an opportunity of attending one. They were talking about amenities and planning and where houses should be built. One person who did not know about this amendment at all said: "There is no communication between the citizens and the corporation; there is no communication between the citizens and the Department of Local Government." How could there be when there was no elected city council in being? That is one of the things the amendment is about. It is an effort to establish immediately communication between the citizens of Dublin and the establishment, to give the citizens a right to put their case to a city council who in turn will present it to the city manager and to the Minister for Local Government and whose deliberations will be held in public and be reported in the mass media.

I again invite anybody here to make any sound argument against the election of a city council because, if there is such an argument, it means that there is no virtue in having elected councils in any part of Ireland. That is what it means. I should like to hear that argument, if it exists. I have not heard it to date. I have heard inquests and post-mortems on the former city council, on how and why that city council was dissolved and abolished. I repeat, those inquests and post-mortems are not relevant to this amendment. What is relevant is whether a city council, composed of responsible persons who would act reasonably, presided over by a lord mayor who would act as the ceremonial head on behalf of the citizens when the occasion arose, is desirable or not. If it is desirable, it is desirable now.

If the Minister accepts the amendment or gives an undertaking that, if the amendment is withdrawn, he will exercise the statutory powers which he has already to hold an election for Dublin Corporation and Bray Urban District Council at the earliest possible opportunity, I will be happy.

I mean no reflection on the Parliamentary Secretary when I say that the Minister should be in the House to deal with this amendment because of the importance of the amendment and because of the possibility of a decision being taken which will interfere with the rights of the citizens of Dublin and of Bray Urban District.

Local representatives act in a voluntary capacity. In rural areas local representatives receive travelling expenses. There is no salary attaching to membership of a local authority. Local representation is a voluntary form of community effort. It would be a good thing if Dublin Corporation were restored. In that case there would be 45 representatives of the citizens of Dublin giving their views and helping in the formulation of plans for the city. There are many urgent problems in regard to Dublin city. There is an urgent housing problem. It is of the utmost importance that suitable plans be prepared, that policy be formulated and necessary research carried out. If there were 45 persons elected to Dublin Corporation, irrespective of their political persuasion, they could contribute a great deal towards the capital city. It is a tragedy that they are not allowed to do so.

At present there is one man discharging the duties formerly carried out by the city council. I have never met this man. I do not know him. He is, I am sure, a very dedicated person. However 45 elected representatives would have more to contribute than any individual.

Democracy is a wonderful thing. It should be interfered with only when it is not working properly. The section of the Bill which it is proposed to amend interferes with the democratic rights of the citizens of Dublin. The Bill deprives the citizens of Dublin of their right to have local elections. It is completely wrong that it should do so.

The Parliamentary Secretary looks amused.

No. I was going to make a pun on rights by referring to Deputy Enright. It would be a poor pun, so I resisted the temptation.

I do not think that this is a very suitable subject for puns.

(Cavan): The Parliamentary Secretary might tell us about the rights and wrongs of Donegal in the past few days.

I would oppose the Bill. The people are entitled to have local elections this year. It is not right that the local elections should be postponed. Consider the composition of the former Dublin Corporation. Quite a number of Deputies were members of that corporation. Deputy Cluskey was a member. Deputy Moore was a member.

On the last occasion that the Bill was before the House, Deputy Timmons also claimed that he was for a long time a member of Dublin Corporation.

A very high percentage of local representatives are also Members of this House. One might say that the Bill would have some effect on the membership of this House by reason of the fact that one of the avenues to membership of the House is membership of a local authority. After the last general election there were three Deputies elected for the Offaly constituency that I represent who had been elected to the local authority in the 1969 local election.

We are getting away from the amendment, which deals with the date for elections.

I was indicating that membership of a local authority is one of the ways of entering into politics. This is true of the country in general but to a greater degree of Dublin. If the local elections were held now, there would be quite a few changes in the membership of Dublin Corporation. Perhaps ten or 15 people might lose their seats and be replaced by others and this could lead to a change in the personnel of this House. There should be a changeover in the personnel engaged in politics. The worst thing that can happen a democracy is stagnation, where the same people represent parties, the same people represent constituencies and the same people represent county councils and corporations. If this amendment is not accepted the people of Dublin will be prevented from having this change, and this is wrong. None of us has the right to be here permanently; we were elected at a particular time for a particular period and it would be just as wrong for the Taoiseach to try to extend our period in this House——

The Deputy should come back to the amendment.

It is wrong that the Dublin Corporation are not allowed to have new representatives who will have new ideas. One of the reasons the Government will not accept this amendment is that they are afraid to face the electorate in Dublin city. They were hammered here in the presidential election, in the last general election and in the last local government election and they do not want to face the electorate. The second reason may be that they want to hold on to party funds for any general election that might arise——

We are getting away from the Bill.

I am convinced that it is a combination of all these factors that has led them to refuse to accept this amendment. It is important that elections for Dublin Corporation should be held. Anyone who votes against this amendment is doing an injustice to the citizens of Dublin. We should treat our democracy with care but we will not do this if we refuse to give the people of Dublin a chance to elect a corporation.

Politicians do not like elections but they are necessary. There is a grave obligation on the Government to see that these elections are held. It is one thing not to want elections but the obligation to hold them rests squarely on the Government. Deputy Moore may say that the members of the corporation voted themselves out of office because they did not strike a rate. That is history. We are in a different period and we should look forward to the future. Anyone who votes against this amendment is thinking only of the past.

I could go into the reasons the 45 members of the corporation voted against striking a rate but I am not allowed to do that according to the rules of this House. If I had been a member of Dublin Corporation, as a protest to show where the corporation stood on the matter——

Why did the Deputy not take action in his own local authority where the rates were increased substantially? The Deputy says he would have taken action had he been in Dublin Corporation; why did he not do it in his own area?

The rates in Offaly at the time——

Are "awfully" high, as they are everywhere else.

The rates are higher in Dublin and the housing situation is more serious. I remember travelling near Clondalkin on one occasion and I saw hundreds of families forced to live in tents and under canvas on the outskirts of the city. I remember coming into this House when the Estimate for the Department of Justice was being discussed——

This does not arise on the Bill.

It was an absolute scandal——

Will the Deputy please listen to the Chair? It is an absolute scandal the way the Deputy is rattling on. The Deputy is out of order; if he has nothing to say on the amendment, will he please resume his seat? This is ridiculous.

I thought it was ridiculous at the time that those people should have been forced to live under such conditions. I was replying to the Parliamentary Secretary and giving him my reasons for voting against striking a rate in Dublin as distinct from Offaly. In Offaly our housing situation was not as bad.

That does not arise. If the Deputy is going to proceed on those lines, I will ask him to sit down.

I have always acted according to the rulings of the Chair, even though I did not always agree with them. I will submit to your ruling and will not continue any further with regard to the point raised by the Parliamentary Secretary.

I think the Deputy has answered it adequately.

This amendment is important. The poeple who have come on to the register since the last local government elections have rights: they still have to pay rates. It would be in the interests of Dublin and of the country if an election were held. It would give a useful guide on how the people think about the situation in the country. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will keep in mind the points I have made.

I am glad to have on record the recent statement by Deputy Enright that the housing situation in Offaly in 1969 and, presumably, since then, is in a satisfactory and healthy condition. Deputy Enright mentioned a matter I should like to refer to, namely, that the Minister should be here to take these amendments and, presumably, the entire Bill. I should like to explain the circumstances. The Minister has been ill and in hospital. Subsequently, he attended a conservation conference in Stockholm and, for that reason and because this is a Bill we must get through the House reasonably quickly, I was asked to take the Bill here and in the Seanad. Whatever about the Minister taking the Bill as a whole——

When will the Parliamentary Secretary discuss the amendment?

I am going to talk about the necessity of having the Minister here for these amendments.

Is this by way of personal explanation?

The Parliamentary Secretary is replying.

Deputy Enright was repeatedly told to confine himself to the terms of the amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary has been speaking for almost four minutes and has not once referred to the amendment.

The amendment relates to the Bill, and I am saying with regard to amendments No. 3 and 4——

If we all get the same latitude, I have no objection.

You can fight your own battle. I did indicate to the House last week that amendments Nos. 3 and 4 were not necessary, that they were superfluous and their acceptance unnecessary, because there are contained in the 1941 Act provisions which give power to the Minister to have local elections held at any time where a local authority of any kind has been prorogued or put out of office.

Many Fianna Fáil Deputies last week shouted their heads off about this amendment. They came into the House in droves.

Yes, it is a good amendment on which to let off steam.

Apparently it has to be defended.

This is the very purpose for which these amendments were put down. I want to put on the record again the reasons for having local elections postponed, and the same reasons apply to Dublin. It was agreed generally by all parties that there should not be any other matter under consideration for decision by vote at the time of the referendum, that it would not be right to have local elections so close to the referendum, and secondly, that as legislation is being drafted to reorganise local authorities and is to be introduced at an early stage such elections should be postponed. This includes any local elections which might be held in Dublin because Dublin is one place where proposals for wide reorganisation are being considered and even suggested by various groups. Deputy Byrne complained that the city is spilling into the county, with people resident in the county living in corporation houses and that there are all sorts of problems. Deputy Clinton has said the same with regard to some of the problems his constituents pose to him. In view of the fact that the Bill postpones local elections throughout the country until June of next year and that this is the end of June 1972——

(Cavan): It does not say, June, 1973. It says 1973, so that you could make it December, 1973.

No, statutorily it must be June, 1973.

Unless you introduce another Bill.

(Cavan):“An election of members of every local authority will be held in the year 1973”. That means what it says, I am sure.

Local elections must be held in June, I am talking about the local elections law—this is only a postponing Bill.

(Cavan): It says that an election for members of every local authority shall be held in 1973.

We are postponing for a year but they must be held in June, 1973.

They must not be held in June, 1973.

They must.

No.

If they are held in 1973, they must be held in June.

Yes.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that they will be held in 1973?

If this Bill passes legally we must hold them next year. I am surprised at a solicitor asking such a question. It is provided for in the Bill. It would be unrealistic to have elections some time within the next two months for Dublin Corporation and Bray Urban Council and have elections again in June, having in the meantime a reorganisation of local government. I want to get those points on the record again.

I support this amendment that elections to Dublin Corporation and Bray Urban Council be held in July of this year. I think that the people of this city and of Bray do not fully realise exactly what they have been deprived of. I do not think they will know fully the consequences of their loss of local representatives until Dublin City Council is restored and the questions that should have been asked and the matters that should have been examined since 1969 are asked and examined, but, unfortunately, at that point it will be far too late.

Deputy Fitzpatrick said that why Dublin Corporation was dissolved is of no real importance now. I think it is of considerable importance now because what happened in relation to the abolition of Dublin Corporation has been distorted, and to some extent successfully distorted, by the Government Party since 1969. I say that because very briefly the facts are that a public commitment was made by a Fianna Fáil Minister, the late Deputy Donogh O'Malley, who was at that time Minister for Health. He made a public commitment that no additional increases in health charges would be levied on the local authorities.

For one year.

That was in 1966 and the members of Dublin Corporation and I might say—there are two former lords mayor of Dublin city who are members of Fianna Fáil here—including Fianna Fáil members, did everything possible to have that commitment honoured. They sought meetings with the Ministers for Health, Local Government and Finance of the day. Eventually, a meeting took place between representatives of Dublin Corporation, including Fianna Fáil members, and the Taoiseach together with the then Ministers for Local Government, Finance and Health but because there was an absolute refusal to honour the commitment, the majority of the elected councillors of Dublin Corporation decided that they could not strike a rate that would include the additional charges for the year 1969. Despite the distortion of the facts by Fianna Fáil there never was any question of Dublin Corporation not striking a rate. They did strike a rate and all they excluded from that rate were the current increases of 1969 for health charges. They did that in an effort to honour a public commitment which was made on their behalf by a Fianna Fáil Minister.

Hear, hear.

As a member of that corporation at the time I have no regrets for voting as I did then. However, I would have regrets if I had failed to honour my commitment to the people who had elected me. Should the same sort of situation arise tomorrow I would have no hesitation whatever in putting the interests of my constituents before the interests of the Fianna Fáil Party or of any party that happened to be in government even if that party happened to be my own party. The only reason why Dublin Corporation were abolished was because Fianna Fáil, having enjoyed a monopoly on Dublin Corporation for many years, had lost control of that corporation. After the elections of 1967 the Fianna Fáil representatives were in the minority on the corporation.

I have heard certain members of the dissolved corporation stating that the Minister at the time had no alternative. Of course, there were several alternatives available to the Minister. For example, whatever money was not struck in relation to the increase in the health charges could have been secured from the city treasurer by way of a court order. Another way that the matter could have been dealt with was that Dublin City Council could have been left in existence and left to figure out how they would pare their losses with regard to health charges. Former members of Dublin Corporation, particularly Deputy Dowling, have stood up here and elsewhere and stated that the corporation would not strike a rate to pay the workers of Dublin City Council, that they would not strike a rate to provide such services as street cleaning. Of course, that is a falsehood. It was the loss of control of the council on the part of Fianna Fáil that led them to abolish the council and the only reason why the council has not been restored is because Fianna Fáil know now, as they have known since 1969, that the citizens of Dublin are not prepared to give them a majority at local government level.

We never had a majority there.

Fianna Fáil always had control of the corporation. They always had the corporation by the throat.

I would like to keep the Deputy on the straight and narrow.

The Chair would inform Deputies that the Bill must be put through all Stages by eight o'clock. Interruptions at this stage are delaying contributions that may be in the offing.

What explanation have we from the Government for not proceeding with the local elections this year? Even if there was a valid reason for postponing local elections throughout the country, what valid reason have we been given for continuing to deprive the people of Dublin and of Bray from proper democratic local representation? We were told that the elections could not he held at the time of the referendum because we should not confuse the two issues. A child would not accept that excuse. The referendum was held on 10th May and we are told now that it could confuse the issue to hold the elections in July. We are told also that the elections will be held in 1973 when there could be no confusion. Are the Government not aware that there must be a Presidential election in 1973? That is one they cannot postpone, although they might find it desirable to do so. Are they not aware also of the probability of a general election in 1973?

The Deputy should not try to frighten us with talk of a general election.

Deputy Blaney has frightened Fianna Fáil sufficiently. I shall not frighten them any further. How could one say that a referendum which is over justifies not having local elections in 1972 when we know that there must be a presidential election in 1973 and probably, also a general election? The Parliamentary Secretary, both in this House and on a radio programme in which I participated also, took great care not to commit himself to the holding of local government elections in 1973.

I have committed myself. This Bill stipulates that the elections must be held in June, 1973.

Having got an increase of £1,000 per year why did Deputy Cluskey vote himself out of a job?

Surely the Deputy knows that it is not possible to buy honour.

Hear, hear.

Is it honour to renege one's responsibilities?

Deputy Burke must cease interrupting.

I am very sorry, but I am impressing on the lord mayor——

There is no lord mayor in here, only Deputies.

It is quite obvious that there is a deliberate tactic to interrupt. Not only have they confined the discussion of this Bill to 8 o'clock but they have sent in people to disturb Deputies making contributions between now and 8 o'clock.

The situation at the moment is that there is one man in control of this city.

Order provides for only one speaker.

I do not mind sitting down until order is restored, but I want injury time if this discussion is supposed to finish at 8 o'clock.

The position at the moment is that there is one man in control of this city. The former situation was that there were 45 elected representatives.

You did not do your duty.

Deputies will have to listen to the person in possession. That is a rule of order of this House.

It is hard to listen to "cod".

The only other solution the Chair can offer——

I will not detain the Deputy if he does not want to stay.

I will not go, although it is pointless to listen to this hypocrisy from a lord mayor of Dublin.

Deputy Burke must cease interrupting and allow business to proceed.

When you start playing politics——

Will Deputy Burke listen to the Chair?

I am sorry.

I think the Deputy is overdoing it. He is exposing his own tactic. We know there are no arguments and no defence and the Deputy was sent in here to "blather" away like that. It is a poor substitute.

The people of Dublin made me an alderman.

There were 45 elected representatives with six committees which met regularly and questioned, examined, queried and made suggestions and put forward the view of the people they represented. At least once a month there was a public meeting at which the appropriate officials were present. The 45 elected representatives were present and any aspect of local government which affected the living conditions of the people, such as housing, was publicly debated. Decisions taken had to be publicly justified. What is the situation now? It is that there is one man—and I have nothing personal against him because I never met him and have never spoken to him— who goes in and is handed reports by officials and who rubber-stamps those reports. No questions are asked. I want to be fair and clear about this.

The Deputy was the lord mayor and he did not do his duty. Otherwise the corporation would be there.

Any time I have had to deal with officials at all levels of Dublin Corporation I found them, decent, dedicated and honourable men.

Hear, hear. I agree.

I do not want it to be implied that I would say otherwise. Although they were all of those things, very often there was a clash between them and the elected representatives because what was expedient for them was not, in the opinion of the elected representatives, the best method of doing something. I am convinced that when Dublin City Council are restored, and only then, will the people of this city truly realise what they have been deprived of and what it has cost them by being so deprived.

You and your colleagues deprived the citizens of Dublin of the public representation.

Deputy Burke, during his many interruptions——

It is not personal.

——has referred a number of times to the lord mayor. I happened to have been the lord mayor of this city when the City Council were abolished. I regarded that as a very high office.

Hear, hear.

It is sad and regrettable that there is no lord mayor to greet visiting dignatories but it is of no major importance. What is of major importance to the people of this city is that they are not democratically represented at local level and that decisions are being taken by officials. These decisions are not being questioned and the interests of the people are not at all times being taken into consideration. That is the vital issue.

I wish to God you had made that statement when you were lord mayor of Dublin. You were a decent man——

The point I am trying to make is that while it is regrettable that there is no lord mayor, it is not the important issue.

Are you still the lord mayor?

The important issue is that the people of this city are being deliberately deprived of their democratic rights—their rights of local representation.

Apart from the interruptions from the Fianna Fáil benches, no attempt has been made to justify the position. It is quite obvious that the only reason why this amendment is being resisted is because they know in their hearts and souls that the people of this city will not return a Fianna Fáil controlled city council.

Deputy Moore rose.

I will not delay my colleague, Deputy Moore, if he will bear with me a little. It was sickening to listen to the last speaker who is a very decent and honourable man. He was lord mayor of Dublin and did his job well. I have regard for him. There is nothing personal in this. The hypocrisy of the lord mayor of Dublin who was never superseded——

He was prorogued.

Deputy Barry Desmond, the great authority on all matters. Nobody is right except Deputy Barry Desmond; everybody else is out of step. As one of the aldermen in the Corporation of Dublin in that period I was in an invidious position. We were faced with a very difficult position. The lord mayor of Dublin, Alderman Frank Cluskey, an honourable, decent man with nothing against his character, was in office but when you have the people representing Labour and Fine Gael refusing to do their duty to the citizens——

Refusing to do Fianna Fáil dirty work. They stood by the people who elected them and it is on public record.

They refused to do their duty and they were so—

Did the Government not break their word?

No.

Why did members of that party join in a deputation to the Taoiseach?

Deputy Burke is in possession.

Do not mind Deputy O'Donovan, the gentleman who wanted to build a wall around Ireland.

We are not concerned with walls around Ireland. The Local Elections Bill is before the House.

I want to deal with Deputy O'Donovan. He wanted to build a wall around Ireland so that there would be no communication between the people and the outside world.

Let us keep to the Local Elections Bill.

The Government are preventing communication with the people of this city.

Deputy Burke on amendment No. 3.

I am sorry, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I have great regard for your rulings.

The Deputy should have.

Even if I was allowed some privilege I have been almost 29 years in the House. I apologise to the Deputy.

Soft talk is no use.

I am national first. The Deputy was not national when the challenge came.

The Deputy was boasting about being international a few seconds ago.

Deputy O'Donovan was not national or international. The ex-lord mayor, Deputy Cluskey, talks about the Minister for Local Government here and about Fianna Fáil but Deputy Cluskey voted himself out of office because he did not do his duty. We had to strike the rate for the citizens of Dublin. We wanted to see thousands of people getting employment. We wanted to carry on with our housing schemes.

There is a grey beard on that story.

The Deputy should be seen and not heard. Labour and Fine Gael were not concerned about the houses we wanted to build.

What about the years when you built none?

Is it the big, high-rise flats that the Deputy wants?

Deputy Byrne is playing politics with the people in Ballymun. Let him stay there and I will challenge him any time and I will be elected again.

We are not interested in this. Amendment No. 3 is before the House.

(Cavan): Deputy Burke should set up a school on playing politics.

I am always anxious to learn and if the Deputy wishes to give me any advice——

Deputy Burke must keep to the amendment.

When you see here the hypocrisy of the people who destroyed and abolished Dublin Corporation and hear them saying that Fianna Fáil were responsible for this and that——

They were responsible for building no houses.

I was elected alderman by the people of my constituency.

Ballymun was not built then.

Strange to say, it was. I do not play low politics in Ballymun as Deputy Byrne does and if you want to draw me any more you can have the rest of it.

We are not interested in that. The Chair must ask the Deputy to speak to the amendment.

I am very sorry but when you have people who use their profession to play dirty, low politics——

Personal charges should not be made.

I am sorry; I withdraw that.

(Cavan): On a point of order, I understood there was a standing tradition that charges were not made against Deputies in their personal, professional or business capacity. Deputy Burke has just made such a charge.

No, I withdrew that.

The Chair drew the Deputy's attention to this and he withdrew the remark.

I am sorry for saying it. If Deputy Byrne allows me to deal with the position as I see it, I shall do so. I am sorry for interfering with him but when he is foolish enough to intervene in the heat of a debate and walk into a row he cannot get out without a few scratches. I am sorry about Deputy Byrne who is personally a decent man. I want to ask the exlord mayor why did he vote to abolish Dublin Corporation.

We are not interested in question and answer sessions.

I am interested to know why he voted to abolish the corporation.

(Cavan): Why is the Deputy going to vote against restoring it? Sin an cheist.

Sin ceist eile. Restore what? Why did people refuse to do their duty as public representatives? I often went into that Lobby to vote for something of which I was not entirely in favour but it was my duty to do so as a member of a party when a democratic decision was taken. Deputy Timmons and Deputy Moore were lords mayor of Dublin. When we went out after a corporation meeting we were almost assaulted because the rates went up. Labour were not interested in building houses or in seeing——

We are not dealing with houses.

I am dealing with this problem——

There is no problem in delaying another 20 minutes.

I shall not do that. I am letting Deputy Moore in.

You might be, but we are not.

I am here almost 29 years——

And it feels like it in the past 20 minutes.

——and when I think of a lord mayor making a case for restoring the Dublin Corporation, a good and very fair lord mayor for whom I have all the respect——

He will die of flattery if the Deputy is not careful.

That is one way of doing it.

Deputy Desmond is very facetious but he will not put me off. I was speaking about the exlord mayor. I believed the position of the first citizen in the land should be enhanced and we thought we should give him an increase in his allowance——

That is not in order at all.

I know but it is dealing with my lord mayor.

It is not in order.

(Cavan): This shows the strength of the argument against this amendment.

It shows the contempt the Fianna Fáil Party have for the citizens of this city.

I want to say to Deputy Fitzpatrick: "Be silent that you may learn, have respect for my honour and judge me as you like." If I am telling the truth and if the truth is hurting the Deputy, I am very sorry because I know the Deputy is a very able politician and that I could learn a lot from him.

(Cavan): God between us and all harm, but I do not know what the Deputy is talking about.

Why did Labour and Fine Gael abolish Dublin Corporation? I want an answer to that question.

(Cavan): Why are you against restoring it?

I have got no reply to the question why Fine Gael and Labour abolished Dublin Corporation.

Deputy Moore and Deputy Byrne rose.

I will call Deputy Moore after Deputy Byrne.

May I point out to you, Sir, that you called two Fine Gael speakers in succession.

(Cavan): Who were they?

You called two Fine Gael speakers in succession.

On a point of order, in fairness to the Chair, I think the reason that happened was neither a Labour nor a Fianna Fáil speaker offered.

It was because the Deputy was going to stand up——

I will stand up when I want to and not when it suits the Deputy.

I am leaving the House in protest.

(Cavan): Fight with Deputy Burke. He came in and took your place.

Deputy Moore withdrew.

Do not forget to come back and vote.

We fail to understand why Fianna Fáil intend to vote against this amendment to restore Dublin City Council. Tenants associations and other people in Dublin find this inexplicable. The Fianna Fáil Party pretend that the people are represented, but we know they are not. Recently we had the situation in Coolock where members of the Garda Síochána and tenants in that area came to blows and many of them were injured. If Dublin had a city council some of this steam could have been let off in the council chamber and it need not have come to the situation we had in Coolock. When a situation has arisen where people in this city feel so strongly deprived of their rights that they are willing to stand up and fight against the law, the Government should be prepared to accept this amendment. Tenants associations in my constituency have expressed surprise that Dublin TDs in the Fianna Fáil Party will vote against the amendment to immediately restore the city council.

The Deputy believes in a free for all.

(Cavan): Let the Deputy go out and have a free for all with Deputy Moore. He is looking for the Deputy.

Deputy Byrne wants a free for all.

If it were possible for any Deputy representing a city consituency who is a member of the Fianna Fáil Party, to give an adequate explanation as to why they will vote against amendment No. 3, then I would think that all things are possible. The Fianna Fáil Deputies have my greatest sympathy because they are forced into doing something which will cause many of them to lose their Dáil seats in the next year or so. Every person is so conscious of the acts of representatives of this country that for many people in the Fianna Fáil Party who got in here by the skin of their teeth it means they will not come back in here. It means they will find it very difficult to get back on to the corporation. Last August I was in Santry Stadium when Deputy Frank Cluskey's trophy was presented. He was the last lord mayor and this was the lord mayor's trophy. We had no lord mayor or council representatives there.

My trophy was presented, too. You want to see the hypocrisy being adopted again by Labour and Fine Gael.

We have a very fine trophy which was also presented. In my constituency we have some ex-members of the council who were put out of office by Fianna Fáil. Fred Mullins is one of them.

That is a terminological inexactitude. You were cowardly members who did not do your duty. Labour and Fianna Fáil did not do their duty.

Surely the Deputy means Fine Gael and Labour? Is the Deputy blaming his own party?

I mean Fine Gael and Labour. Thank you for the correction.

The Deputies who represent this city should realise that when they walk through the lobby tonight every citizen and every member of NATO will be aware who voted against restoring the city council. It is not impossible to vote in favour of restoring the city council by July, 1972. Even if what Deputy Burke said was true, two wrongs do not make a right.

The Deputy is engaging in the type of hypocrisy we had before.

Deputy Burke seems to be very worked up.

(Cavan): Surely this is not the gentleman we meet at all the funerals. It is a different character altogether.

I do not want to hear any more of this hypocrisy we have had from Deputy Byrne. Why did you not do your duty? I will have to leave the House because I could not stick this hypocrisy any longer.

(Cavan): Do not leave.

Deputy P.J. Burke withdrew.

My advice would be to leave before the vote. We are faced with very active tenants' organisations in the country. Urban councils have been in a position to meet tenants organisations, but there is no council in the Dublin area, which represents almost one million people, one-third of the population of the country, to meet any representative from NATO.

Will the Deputy speak to the amendment before the House?

Unfortunately, because we have no council in the city, a certain number of undesirable events have taken place.

We must keep to the amendment before the House.

If Deputies vote in favour of this amendment these organisations could have discussions with the corporation—organisations like the community games movement and the National Association of Tenants Organisations. These associations have been hived off. The rates——

We are not concerned with the rates in this amendment.

As a result of the rates having gone up an association was formed called ACRA who have developed——

This amendment is not concerned with that either.

There is no council to which they can present their case.

The Deputy is here to argue in favour of the amendment.

I am speaking in favour of the amendment. I am in favour of the immediate return of Dublin Corporation so that people like the members of ACRA can discuss their alternatives with people who are representing them. They cannot do that at present. It was a year before they received any communication from the Department of Local Government. There was nobody to represent the city of Dublin recently when the 12 German naval ships came into the port. We had nobody to greet them officially. We had nobody to greet the victorious Irish amateur boxing team when they came back from the Golden Gloves Trophy recently. There was no lord mayor to give them a reception. There were no members of the council available to meet them at the airport and welcome them back. What will happen after Munich if we happen to have a winner over there? Will there be a lord mayor in Dublin then? Now is an opportune time to restore the corporation.

All the amendments and all Stages of the Bill will be put to the House at 8 o'clock.

A very sad stage has been reached——

This will be done by order of the House.

I am speaking to the amendment.

(Cavan): The Deputy is entitled to speak to the amendment if he feels he should, until 8 o'clock. I respectfully submit that he is entitled to point out the drawbacks suffered by the city of Dublin because it has been deprived of a lord mayor and, with due respect, that is what he is doing.

Since the proceedings must be concluded at 8 o'clock and since the Deputy is posing such a large number of questions, are they questions to which he wants a reply?

(Cavan): Members of the Fianna Fáil Party from Dublin city in particular had opportunities for two days of making a case against the restoration of the corporation. They failed to do that and Deputy Byrne is now pointing that out.

The Chair is protecting the rights of the House in this matter.

I want to know whether the commissioner representing the Minister for Local Government will recognise NATO as a negotiating body for the tenants' organisations.

That is not in the amendment.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary give any reason why there should not be an immediate restoration of the corporation?

And Bray Urban Council as well.

The Eastern Health Board is the biggest health board in the British Isles but there is no representative on it for one million people. The Eastern Health Board will be spending more money than any other health board in the British Isles. Deputy Cluskey mentioned the 75 hospitals with visiting committees with no public representatives at local level. I should like Fianna Fáil Deputies for Dublin city to try to justify —knowing that they are committing political suicide by walking into the lobbies with Fianna Fáil—voting against the immediate restoration of Dublin Corporation.

Does the Deputy think the citizens of Dublin are clamouring for this? If he does he is gravely mistaken.

(Cavan): Does the Minister think they are not?

They are taking a great interest in this.

Does the Minister think the corporation are not important?

The Deputy should not put words in my mouth.