Vol. 357 No. 3
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, subsection (1), line 29, after "‘functions"' to insert ", except where the context otherwise requires,".
This is a purely technical amendment being moved on the advice of the parliamentary draftsman and its effect is to avoid a duplication of language as the phrase "powers, functions and duties" occurs in the Second Schedule in article 4. To avoid duplication it is necessary to provide that the definition of "functions" will not apply in this case.
Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the name of Deputy Molloy are related and, if it is agreed, may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, lines 3 to 14, to delete subsections (1) and (2) and substitute the following:—
"(1) Where it is proposed to make an order or regulation under this Act, a draft thereof shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order or regulation shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.".
Under section 3 certain orders or regulations made by the Minister are required to be laid before the Oireachtas after they are made and if, within 21 sitting days, a resolution is passed annulling such order or regulation, such order or regulation shall be annulled. Section 3(1) goes on to state:
but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
I am concerned about that part of the section. The Bill, principally, is an enabling measure. Section after section gives the Minister power to make orders in regard to the boundaries of local authorities, orders in regard to the boundaries of electoral areas in local authorities, orders to enable him to vary the number of councillors to be elected within any electoral area and a whole range of powers which would have a very dramatic effect on the structure of the local government system as we know it. If the Minister can make these orders and have the contents of the orders made valid by way of section 3(1) despite the fact that the Dáil may subsequently annul the order there seems to be a slight anomaly. I hope the Minister will be able to give the House some reasonable explanation which might encourage me to withdraw my amendments.
Another point I should like to raise is that though subsection (1) states that the order shall be laid before the House it also excludes from that requirement orders made under sections 5, 7 (7), 8 and 24. Section 3 (2) provides that orders made under section 8 or 24 shall be laid in draft form before the House. They, according to the section, shall not be approved until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each House. That is a much more satisfactory provision. In view of the extensive powers available to the Minister under the Bill to make orders which will have a dramatic effect on the whole structure of local government as we know it, it should be incumbent on the Minister to publish his proposed orders in draft form and they should not come into force until a resolution is passed in the Dáil approving of them. That would be a more satisfactory way to go about such major changes in the local government system.
My amendment would require that all orders or regulations made under the Act be laid before the House in draft form and that a resolution would have to be passed approving of them. They would not come into force in any way until the House had an opportunity of examining them and until the House had given its approval to them. I am concerned about the last sentence in subsection (1). If we are to allow the section to stand the Minister will have power to make orders and the matters required to be done in those orders shall be deemed to have been valid despite the fact that they may subsequently be annulled. I should like to hear the Minister's explanation of the effect of his section and what he thinks the effect of my amendment will be. The Minister should bear in mind that under the Bill his power to make orders is very extensive.
I hope to be able to persuade the Deputy that his fears are groundless. When he has listened to my explanation I hope he will agree to withdraw his amendments. The effect of these amendments would be that all orders under the Bill would require to be formally approved by resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas. This would be without precedent and if this approach were adopted generally in regard to legislation the business of the House would come to a standstill.
The Bill adopts a reasonable approach and accords with well established precedent in that orders under sections 8 and 24 which confer wide powers on the Minister to amend legislation must be approved by both Houses; orders under section 5 and 7 (7) are a matter for the Minister and all other orders must be laid before both Houses for 21 days. As I have said these are the normal provisions relating to orders and in these circumstances I would ask Deputy Molloy to withdraw the amendment.
Generally, the approach followed in regard to orders is that those which give effect to something set out in an Act are required to be laid before both Houses for 21 days. However, where powers are given in an order to, in effect, make new legislation and amend existing legislation then such orders are usually subject to the formal approval of both Houses. This approach has been followed in the case of this Bill. Orders under sections 8 and 24 must be approved by both Houses. All of the other orders must be laid before both Houses for 21 days which is the usual provision applying to orders. The only exceptions are orders under sections 5 and 7 (7).
The order under section 5 fixes the appointed day for the upgrading of Galway to county borough status. Appointed day orders are not usually laid before both Houses. The order under section 7 (7) allows the Minister to terminate the joint management arrangement in Galway where the city and county councils so decide. A similar provision applies under the Local Government (Dublin) Act, 1930, in relation to Dublin City and county and in that case the order does not have to be laid before both Houses. I am satisfied, therefore, that orders under these two sections do not require to be laid before both Houses.
The order under section 8 enables the Minister to make any provisions necessary to give effect to the upgrading of Galway. The order under section 24 enables the Minister to make any provisions necessary to enable the Bill to have full effect including the power to amend, repeal or adapt enactments. As these orders allow the Minister to, in effect, make new legislation it was felt that they should be subject to formal approval by both Houses and section 3 (2) provides accordingly.
I have explained to the Deputy that the matter is well covered and I ask him to withdraw his amendments.
I do not think the Minister has given any explanation of subsection (1) which provides that any matter in orders laid before the House and, subsequently, annulled will be deemed to have been valid if the Minister had acted under the order before it was annulled. The Minister did not explain what will happen in such cases. For instance, if the Minister makes an order changing the boundary of some electoral areas — that is one of the powers he has under the Bill — and that change is subsequently annulled by the Dáil, what is the effect if an election had taken place prior to that, of any action taken under that order despite the fact that it had not been approved by the House? Why is it necessary to include that reference to any matter which the Minister had carried out as proposed in the order? Would it be deemed valid in spite of the fact that it could be annulled subsequently?
The Deputy seems to believe that the annulling power of the Houses of the Oireachtas would have no force in the event of the Minister for the Environment making a certain order. This is not so, if an order is annulled by the Oireachtas it stands abolished. The saving clause "without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder" validates the situation obtaining between the making of the order by the Minister and its annulment by the Oireachtas. The provision in section 3 (1) about which the Deputy is concerned is a standard provision and is used in the majority of Bills. There is no hidden danger in it.
Could the Minister state what type of action he thinks could be taken under an order in the period from the making of the order to the completion of the 21 days sitting period or the annulment? What powers would the Minister have to act under that order which would require validation under this subsection?
The Minister, in the normal course of events, will not be using the 21 days provision to take action for an ulterior motive. The Deputy seems to be of the opinion that in this subsection we are involving the House in giving power to the Minister to get around the normal methods and orders which I explained earlier. This is not the case and I should like the Deputy to accept that there is no suggestion that anything would be done in the timescale within the 21 days while the order is laid before the House. I do not know what the Deputy has in mind in this regard and perhaps he would enlighten me.
If the Minister is saying that he will not be doing anything why does he require these words to be included in the subsection, giving validity to any action that the Minister takes?
It is just standard procedure.
That is not a satisfactory answer, there must be a reason for these words being included.
The Deputy knows that it is just standard provision which is contained in all the Bills which go through the House. He is trying to find an excuse for raising this although I have given a very full explanation under the various headings raised. As I said, this is a normal provision.
It is not satisfactory to be told that it is normal to have these words in a Bill. If we require explanations for words contained in any section they should be given. It is not satisfactory to be told that this provision is normal and included in other Bills. This is not a normal Bill, it is proposing additional powers for the Minister which he did not have before. I do not see any necessity to give the Minister power to make an order which, despite the fact that this House might subsequently annul it, nevertheless, the Minister, under this wording, is giving validity to any action he takes prior to the annulment. If there is no need for it it should be removed and, if it is needed, we should be told why.
There are powers under existing legislation for the Minister to include electoral areas and to fix the number of members per area by order. The provision applying to these orders is the same as those in section 3(1). I have given a complete explanation in regard to sections 5, 7, 8 and 24 and I do not know why the Deputy is persisting in his inquiry. He is making a mountain out of a molehill.
Whether it is fully realised, under the Bill the Minister will have full power to change the number of councillors elected in any area, to change the boundaries of the electoral area and he will even have power to change the boundaries of a local authority by order, not by legislation. If I am interpreting this correctly, they are very extensive new powers. I do not see how we can be expected to accept that the Minister can have those extensive new powers under a section of the Bill enabling him to do these things by way of order which subsequently this House may not agree to ratify. Despite that fact, it seems that as the Minister made the order, he may deem that any action taken by him while that order was in force before its annulment would have been a valid action on his part supported by this section of the Bill. If the period of the order was to transcend the election date, it could cause electoral consternation. If a boundary was changed and an election held under that boundary which was subsequently changed by the House, the election would be deemed valid in spite of the fact that the House did not support the boundary change.
I did not mean to intervene and I had a completely open mind on the Bill until I heard Deputy Molloy making his case. However, he overstated it. As the Minister said, this is a perfectly familiar formula and I have seen it many dozens of times here. Deputy Molloy, who has been here for much longer, must have seen it perhaps hundreds of times. I have no doubt that he sponsored legislation when he was a Minister which contained this formula. I know that if you approach it from scratch it looks sinister but it is a very common form and is intended to protect officials against actions which might lie against them or proceedings which might be taken in relation to acts which, if the power they are acting under is subsequently annulled, turns out to have been done without legal authority. That is the purpose behind this very common form and it is not as sinister as Deputy Molloy suggested. The alternative is the so-called positive resolution and by far the commonest form which power to make regulations is contained in is the form which incorporates the negative resolution which the Bill now contains. Deputy Molloy is seeking to replace it with the positive resolution which is a much rarer form but the disadvantage with that is that it inhibits a Minister from making any regulations during periods when the Dáil is in recess or when its load of work is so heavy that he may not be able to get his proposal before the House. The Deputy is putting a sinister construction on something which he must have sponsored many times in the House.
Deputy Kelly is quite right. I did not like to jog Deputy Molloy's memory but the Local Authorities Services (Corporate Bodies) Act, 1971, was put through the Oireachtas when he was Minister for Local Government. That Act allows corporate bodies serving local authorities and health boards to be established by an order which does not even have to be laid before the Oireachtas in the way envisaged under section 3 (1). The changes we will be making to the boundaries in Galway will form part of an amendment which we will deal with later, but all other changes in the boundaries will be those suggested by the Boundaries Commission. No other changes will be made by me with or after the passage of this legislation.
There is nothing in this Bill which says that the orders made by the Minister in changing electoral boundaries shall be confined to the recommendations of the Boundaries Commission. There is not one reference in the Bill to the Electoral Boundary Commission which the Minister established.
That is the situation.
It is all very well for me to accept the Minister's word but——
It is on the record of the House.
Being an honourable man, I accept his word; but I cannot accept that Deputy Kavanagh will always be the Minister and he cannot speak for future Ministers. It is very sloppy to make legislation on the basis of a promise. What is written in this Bill is what will be on the Statute Book.
In 1971 the Deputy must have been satisfied with what he did. I can assure him that, God willing, that I will be on this earth after June and therefore I will be the Minister.
I would not wish anything to happen to the Minister's health. The House was satisfied to accept the 1971 Bill but this Bill introduced vast new powers into the electoral arena where political advantage can easily be taken by one side over the other because the Minister of the day has the power, by order, to alter the electoral areas under which local authority elections will be fought. They are very extensive powers for any Minister to have, as the Minister knows. If at some time in the immediate future some irresponsible person were to be made Minister — I am not implying the present Minister would, although he might be tempted to, like many others — it would be open to him to alter the electoral boundaries in whatever way he wishes. He has absolute power under this Bill.
All I am asking in my amendment is that the orders be made in draft form, published so that the public and the Members of this House see them, then debated in this House and passed by way of resolution. Not until then should they come into force. What disturbs me is that any action taken in implementing the provisions of that order would be valid up to the time of its annulment. I find that extraordinary. I do not believe any order of this political significance should be made without first being published in that form and brought before the Dáil for approval. Then, with the majority approving it, we would all have to accept it. If this section goes through as it stands the Minister may take this step for political or other advantage and it would be deemed valid despite the fact that subsequently the majority of the House would not agree.
I do not want to delay the House too long, but I thought the Minister would have a much more reasonable and logical explanation for what he is doing. Deputy Kelly is right when he says that this is a very sinister provision. It gives the Minister very extensive powers to do something without the authority of the House. We are all particularly anxious and sensitive about matters in this area which affect political fortunes of individuals and political parties.
Deputy Molloy's amendment is not unreasonable and I ask the Minister to reconsider it for the protection of the present Minister and all future Ministers for the Environment. To say that a precedent has been set in previous legislation is not justification for including it in this Bill.
I have given the Deputies an assurance that this order will lapse as soon as the boundaries, as drawn up by the commission, are instituted, and no other boundaries will be included. This will die with the setting up of the boundaries. The Deputies opposite can take this as my assurance and I ask them to withdraw these amendments. As Deputy Kelly and I said, there is nothing unusual in this. Even Deputy Molloy used this formula in the past——
Not in an electoral Bill.
He should accept that it has been done on several occasions.
A very poor explanation.
Like other Deputies, I was not aware of the implications of section 3. May I ask the Minister for clarification on the last point he made: that he has given an assurance that this power would lapse after the boundaries having been agreed by the commission, are made? Is he saying in the section, as drafted, that it will extinguish itself, or does he propose to come back to amend the Bill further in order to delete this section?
The purpose of this Bill is to set up boundaries for the local elections on 20 June 1985. As soon as this Bill is passed these boundaries will be set up in accordance with the decisions of the Boundaries Commission. It will have no other application beyond the 1985 local elections.
What about the 1989 elections? Will they apply then?
If we need a new boundaries commission to recommend new boundaries, the same provisions would be included in a future Bill.
I think the Minister misunderstands me. When this Bill becomes law I take it that it will be still in existence in 1989 and that the power the Minister is taking under this Bill will still exist in 1989. Is that right?
The county councils can put up their own ideas and proposals for boundaries at any time and it would be up to us to discuss them. As I said, this legislation relates to the 1985 local elections.
There is no reference to 1985 in this Bill.
On Report Stage, will the Minister write in an amendment stating that section 3 will lapse after these elections?
I do not know why we are going on about this. These powers will lapse automatically after these elections. There is no need for this.
I may be misreading the Bill if the Minister is saying that all these powers will lapse after the 1985 local elections. I am not reading the Bill that way. Will the Minister clarify if that is what he is saying? Will he point out the sections in the Bill which state that all the powers to make orders under this Bill will lapse after the 1985 local elections?
Under various sections which we will come to, we will consider the application under this Bill. This section will lapse after the local elections have taken place. The Deputy has no need to worry in that respect.
Can the Minister indicate the section or sections where that is stated?
Sections 14, 19 and 21. As we go along we will be dealing with these.
I do not accept that the power given to the Minister under this Bill will elapse after the 1985 local elections. Certain provisions in the Bill relate to changes which are to be made for the purpose of the 1985 local elections. There are references in the Bill to certain orders in regard to changing the polling districts and registers in preparation for the 1985 election, but I am concerned principally with the wide-ranging powers given in the Bill to the Minister to enable him at any time in the future to alter boundaries of local authorities or electoral areas and to determine the number of members to be elected in any electoral area. Is the Minister saying that those three powers will lapse after the 1985 local elections?
Again I must tell the Deputy that this is a once-off exercise to bring the boundaries which have been drawn up by the boundaries commission into effect for the 1985 local elections, and that is the extent of what I am doing in this section. I wish the Deputy would accept that from me.
We can come to the sections and examine them. I still feel that it would not be proper for this House to confine the Minister in the making of these orders but to require him to publish them first in draft form for public examination and public debate in the Oireachtas and have them adopted here prior to their being approved. That is in effect what is proposed in amendment No. 2, and amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are consequential. I see no reason from the Minister's explanation so far to alter my view that the powers are too extensive and that the correct way to proceed in this area in the electoral field is to require the Minister to put everything up front so that it can be examined critically by the public and the Oireachtas itself can then decide whether these matters are to be approved. For that reason I am not prepared to withdraw the amendment and I am asking the Chair to put the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 are cognate and can be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed?
Agreed. I move amendment No. 5:
In page 6, subsection (2), line 8, to delete "Mayor" and substitute "Lord Mayor".
These amendments are put down by me to clarify the position with regard to the position of lord mayor in county boroughs and the office of mayor. At present in the county boroughs of Dublin and Cork and chairman of the city council carries the title of lord mayor. In all other local authorities including the county boroughs of Waterford, Limerick and now Galway and all the borough councils the official title is that of mayor. I put down this amendment to clarify the historical source for this title, where it comes from and what is the reason for it. If it is to be retained as the title of the chairmen of local authorities then surely it should be accepted that some rules apply to where it will come into operation. The section refers to Galway merely because it is dealing with the change in the status of Galway from borough council to county borough, but I am conscious that the county boroughs of Limerick and Waterford do not have the title of lord mayor for the chairman of the councils there. I am not sure whether the House is particularly enamoured of the title anyway, but a tradition is attached to it and the office holders command a certain respect. It is a tradition which goes back a long way and which is highly respected and none of us would wish really to change the title now, but if we are to retain that in our local authorities and some county boroughs then why not in all county boroughs? What is the historical background for this title in this country?
I appreciate that Deputy Molloy has put the matter very temperately. I was inclined to think that he might make an impassioned plea that Galway be upgraded into a lordmayorship as well as a county borough, but he was quite rational in asking that the thing be clarified. It is strange that in this country we, having made so many efforts to throw off foreign domination, cling so tenaciously to the traditions of foreign panoply which the storms and hurricanes of history have left intact still. Deputy Molloy did not say this and I am not going to put the words into his mouth, but I know there are people in the city of Galway who will feel slighted if they do not have a lord mayor as distinct from a mayor. I must say that I consider that there is no justification for keeping a title of this kind at all in a republic like this and least of all perhaps in a city which, rightly or wrongly, claims to be the capital of the Gaeltacht.
I never made that claim. It is not in the Gaeltacht. It is the capital of the west.
I think it is a reflection on us that we cling to things like the title of lord mayor and to dignitaries like "alderman" which, as far as I know, is Anglo-Saxon. It is not even Norman; it is a pre-Norman title going back to the Anglo-Saxons. This Celtic people, as we in other moments think of ourselves, would feel naked to the world if we were stripped of the panoply of lord mayors and alderman not to speak of the other panoplies which local government keeps intact for itself, while apparently indifferent to the fact that seven-tenths of its functions have been stripped from it over the last 80 years because they proved impossible to discharge efficiently in the structure which existed.
We ought to look at a matter like this, trivial and marginal though it is, when we are looking at the whole question of reform of local government in the more substantive sense. I know the Minister has not pretended that this Bill is doing that but we should be looking more at the substance of what we should be trying to get from a locally elected organisation and not worry about names and titles. I do not think many taxpayers care two trawneens what an elected representative is called who happens to top the poll in the ward in which the taxpayer may have voted. I am sure he feels a kind of pitying contempt for a man who gets excited if he is not accorded the title of "alderman" or "lord mayor". We ought to get a grip on ourselves in the reform of local government and start right here.
I admit it is a trivial matter but by our approach in attaching so much evident importance to titles and very little to what the system is doing and whether it might not be done better in some other way, we are letting ourselves down and behaving in a non-republican way. I do not say that in a contentious way. Deputy Molloy did not invite contention or contradiction.
Do not imply it then.
It is not republican to be concerned with frivolities like this and pay less attention to what the very expensive and elaborate structure of local government should be there for.
As I said on Second Stage, legislation is being prepared and reforms in the organisation and procedures of local authorities will take place. Among the matters being considered is the question of titles: lord mayors, mayors, chairmen, and the possibility of standardisation in regard to these. As the issue raised in the amendment will be considered, I hope the amendment will not be pursued.
Deputy Molloy mentioned that some areas have lord mayors and some do not. The present title of "lord mayor" applies in the case of Dublin Corporation by virtue of section 12 of the Municipal Corporation (Ireland) Act, 1840. In the case of Cork the title was made under patent of 1900. These were made by some other authority which had little to do with what we have been doing for the past 60 years.
There were royal visits in both those years.
The Deputy would be more impressed with that than we would be.
I am sure it would be found that the occupant of the Chair of these authorities was jolly glad to have this title and his wife even gladder.
We all welcome the extra little bits of information Deputy Kelly can give us in this area. The 1840 Act provided for the title of "mayor" to apply to the boroughs of Clonmel, Drogheda, Kilkenny, Limerick, Sligo and Waterford. Wexford obtained a charter and the title "mayor" in 1846. Galway was incorporated and acquired the title of mayor under the 1937 Act. Galway is the only one which received a title since the State was founded. Dún Laoghaire revoked the possibility of having the title "mayor" and chose "cathaoirleach" under section 46 of the Local Government (Dublin) Act, 1937.
I hope the explanation I have given about how the titles came about will result in the amendments being withdrawn. It is appropriate that Galway is in the same league as places like Limerick, Waterford and to a greater extent Clonmel, Drogheda, Kilkenny and so on.
We have had no expression from the Minister as to whether he supports the continuation of the title "lord mayor" in county boroughs where that title applies at present. I take it from what the Minister said that these matters will be considered at a later stage when the other Bills appear before the House. On that basis I will withdrawn the amendments referring to "mayor" and "lord mayor." However, there is need for uniformity. I am inclined to go along with the attitude of Deputy Kelly regarding the retention of the title "lord". The international title of "mayor" will be acceptable everywhere. One need not be too concerned about one's republicanism being diluted in agreeing to the title of mayor. The title is in operation in France, the home of republicanism, America another great republican country and many other countries.
I raised the issue to draw the attention of the Minister to the need for uniformity. Perhaps those titles could be formally adopted into our legislation. If not they should be made extinct. We should not continue to have titles which were introduced under legislation which predates the establishment of the State.
Will the Minister explain subsection (4) and what exactly the procedures will be in regard to the extension of Galway borough and the special temporary arrangements being made for the pending local election whereby that part of the country which is being added to the city will form part of the electoral area for election to Galway borough council but will not be part of the borough council until a subsequent order is passed? People in the city who were previously entitled to vote in a council election are being excluded despite the fact that they will continue to live in a borough council and not a county borough. The Minister is debarring the people in Galway city from voting in elections to Galway County Council, as was their right heretofore, because it is proposed to upgrade the city at some future date to a county borough. However, it will not be upgraded prior to the election. I should like the Minister to confirm that people residing in the area that is being added to the city will be excluded from voting in the county council elections despite the fact that they will still be residing in the county and not in the borough.
Under the subsection, as the Deputy said, the Galway city electorate will not vote in the coming county council election. This is because we are upgrading the borough to a county borough. No county borough votes in a county council election. I hope that status will be conferred on Galway as quickly as possible. It would be inappropriate for the people concerned, since the borough is to become a separate county borough, to vote, when they would not have the status of county borough, in the county council election. We are extending the number of seats in the new county borough of Galway. We expect that, in a very short time, Galway will be a corporation, a county borough, and therefore will have the status and standing county boroughs elsewhere have. They voted in county council elections in the past, but this will not be available to them now. This is the situation in every other county borough.
I take it that the changing of the status of Galway may entail a delay of eight or nine months. Can the Minister outline the matters which have to be resolved before Galway is upgraded and before a pronouncement can be made that the city is to become a county borough. Will another Bill have to be brought in here to change the status of Galway and what further legislation will be required before the change can take place?
One of the matters of great concern to the county council is the question of compensation for the very valuable areas which are being ceded to the city. The major part of the Galway industrial estate is located in the townlands which are being added to Galway city. They have very high valuations and are potentially very high revenue earners for Galway County Council. That revenue will now be lost to the county despite the fact that the services which enabled those factories to be established were provided and paid for by the county authority. It seems they are now to be handed over to the city without adequate arrangements for compensation to be paid. That is one important matter which will have to be resolved before any final transfer can take place.
After the elections are held on 20 June we will have a new city council elected for Galway who will continue to exist in a limbo until they are formally approved by further legislation after a number of matters have been resolved. I should like the Minister to indicate to us what other main matters remain to be resolved between both local authorities. In the event of a dispute, what procedure will be adopted? Further on in the Bill the Minister seems to say that he will resolve any difficulties. Heretofore, I understood there was provision for independent arbitrators to make decisions which were binding on both parties. Is the Minister assuming that role in the event of nonagreement locally? Before upgrading Galway to county borough status can take place, it seems that many matters have to be resolved.
We are dealing with the upgrading of Galway to the status of a county borough in this section. I do not think the questions raised by the Deputy are pertinent at this stage. He mentioned compensation. It will be open to both local authorities to have an independent arbitrator to consider the level of compensation. If this is agreed locally, it will be accepted by me and that will be the end of it. If it is not agreed, as in the past I will be the adjudicator.
There are areas of operation which are common to both such as the fire service and lighting. These topics will have to be discussed over the next few months. I hope this will not take too long and that we will get agreement. I understand there is a level of agreement in Galway at the moment. There should not be any great delay. I hope there will not be a contentious debate between the two authorities. I am led to believe there probably will not. In this section we are dealing with the status of Galway city and I do not think this point is really pertinent. We can deal with other aspects later on.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 6, subsection (2), line 50, after "the appointed day" to insert ",and the persons who were members of the Borough Council immediately prior to the appointed day shall on that day become and be the members of the City Council and shall in relation to the City Council, hold the same offices as they held, respectively, in relation to the Borough Council".
This amendment is intended to put beyond doubt that the persons elected to the Galway Borough Council will become the members of the new city council on its establishment and will continue to hold the offices of mayor and aldermen when the borough council becomes the city council. It is a purely technical provision inserted on the advice of the parliamentary draftsman.
Section 6 (2) as it stands provides for the establishment of a city council to consist of a mayor, aldermen and councillors, 15 members in all. However there is no specific provision that the particular individuals who are members of the borough council will become the members of the city council. This amendment puts the matter beyond doubt.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 7, lines 37 to 48, and in page 8, lines 1 to 12, to delete subsections (5), (6) and (7).
These subsections refer to the office of the county manager and the office of the Galway city manager and suggest that they should be held by one and the same person. I want to have a discussion on this because, with the enlargement of Galway city and the proposal to upgrade it to the status of a county borough, the city should have its own manager. I want to hear the Minister's arguments in support of these subsections which provide that the holder of the office of county manager on 1 March 1985 shall continue as the county manager of the county council and the city manager of the new county Galway borough until such time as resolutions are passed agreeing to the appointment of separate managers by Galway County Council and Galway Corporation.
Is it proper that the same individual should continue in the role of manager of two adjoining local authorities? The provision in the Bill giving the county council equal authority in the matter of terminating the operation of this procedure is doubtful. Surely that should be a matter solely for Galway Corporation. If the corporation subsequently decided that they wanted to have separate management from the county, legislation by the corporation should be adequate. As I read the section, the provision is made where the legislation is passed by both authorities. In other words, the county council, who would not be directly but indirectly affected inasmuch as their manager was having to devote some of his time and energies to management of another authority I presume would have an interest in that it might suit them to have him devote all his time and energy to their authority.
The authority most concerned is the city council who are going to continue, despite upgrading, with the same management structure as heretofore when Galway was a borough council. Under that system there was a town clerk and an assistant county manager acting as city manager. That is purely a nominal office. It does not carry any functions other than the powers delegated by the county manager to it. The person with ultimate responsibility for the management of Galway city is the man who also has the post of county manager. That layer of management is not helpful to the growth of Galway city. It is an encumbrance on the day to day management of Galway city local authority since decisions cannot be made by the person most concerned, the town clerk. He must refer any major decision to his assistant manager or city manager, who will refer the decision to the county manager. That layer of bureaucracy is acting as a disincentive to initiative and an obstacle to dynamic management in the growth and development of Galway city. For that reason, I have put down this amendment, principally to hear the Minister's arguments in support of what he is proposing. Having listened to the Minister and considered the matter, we will decide whether to put the amendment.
If the Minister, for purely administrative arrangements, wants to continue for the time being with the same manager, it should come within the compass of the city council, on the passing of a motion there, to separate management of city and county. They would have a much greater vested interest in that decision and should not be blocked from making it purely because of non-agreement of the county council, who would not be involved in the management of the city. Later in the Bill the Minister has given power to the Minister to terminate the arrangement by order. It may not be the wish of the Minister of the day to do that. It is the desire of the local authority that it should be done.
The Deputy has already mentioned, in discussing an earlier amendment, that he is aware that there will be complex matters involving the transfer of property, staff, liabilities, assets and so forth to be sorted out arising from the separation of the county and county borough. No doubt, various practical difficulties will arise. It is essential that in the initial phase there be joint management in order to secure that the separation of city and county and the subsequent development of each authority is handled in a co-ordinated fashion and that any problems arising can be readily sorted out. In due course the two authorities may themselves decide that separate management is a more appropriate arrangement and section 7 (7) allows for this, once the present manager ceases to hold office. This strikes a reasonable balance between the need for joint management in the initial phases in the interests of proper co-ordination and efficiency and the desirability of allowing the two authorities to choose the particular type of system which they feel is most appropriate. For these reasons I would prefer the Deputy not to pursue this amendment. I have outlined my reasons for saying that the present situation should continue until the end of the present term of office of the county manager there.
For clarification, if the county council, under section 7 (7) and the corporation both propose resolutions that the management of the county and city should not be held by the same person, may I take it from what the Minister is saying that there will then be an appointment of a separate city manager and the county manager will become manager for the county council only and that that would be agreed to by the Minister? Am I to take it that there would be no other obstacles to implementation of that resolution? Is it solely up to the local authorities to decide what form of management they want? Can they decide that they want two managers, one for the county and a separate individual acting as city manager? Can the local authorities make that decision, or is there any way in which the Minister can interfere in the matter and stop this being done?
The word "interfere" is a bit contentious. I certainly do not want to interfere at all.
I know that.
If both authorities wish to set up separate managerial arrangements for each separate local authority, then this can be done. If the resolutions come to me in due course, I shall certainly agree to them. The only problem is that I cannot agree to them until the present incumbent ceases to hold office. If the present incumbent is there, I will not accept the proposal until his term of office ceases.
Could we have some indication as to when the present incumbent of that office will retire on normal retirement age? For how many years will this situation hold, if he continues as manager?
That is a personnel matter. I do not think that we should get into such a discussion. I do not know the intentions of the person involved.
If, I said.
I am not inclined to get into a debate on personnel matters such as this.
I know that the Minister is being advised that this is a personnel matter, but it is more than that. There may be a person involved, but the Minister is asking us to agree that so long as the present county manager, who held that office on 1 March, continues to hold that appointment, Galway county and the new Galway City Council shall be managed by one person. If it happens that the man is 50 years of age — and he is a very fine, healthy gentleman, I do not know what age he is——
He is a little older.
If he were 50 years of age and intended to continue and did continue in the office for the next 15 years up to the age of 65, this subsection, in effect, means that we cannot have separate management of Galway city for a period of 15, ten, five years or whatever time is involved. I did not introduce the personnel aspect. The Minister introduced it in the wording of this subsection, where he makes reference to the individual who holds that office at present. I cannot avoid making reference to the office and the holder thereof when the Minister has mentioned that office and the holder thereof in that subsection. The Minister should give us some indication of the number of years he has in mind because that would influence our thinking in regard to withdrawing our amendment.
I do not think I have mentioned the name of the holder of the office in the subsection.
No, but the person has been mentioned. I did not mention the name either.
I do not know how long he will remain but, assuming he remains until retirement age, that could be a maximum of seven years.
It could be a maximum of seven years?
Yes, but I do not know whether he will stay, or when he might feel like retiring.
But he has seven years left to serve and, if he is granted an extension, it could be eight years——
I did not say anything about granting extensions. I said he is entitled to seven years service.
Therefore, the Minister is not merely asking us to agree to the section, as written, to facilitate what he describes as the necessity to have the one manager during this interim period, when all of these complex arrangements must be made to facilitate the transfer of part of the county to the city, the enlargement of the city, and arrangements for compensation in regard to property transfers and other matters. It is not solely for that purpose that the Minister is asking us to agree that the person who held the office on 1 March should continue in that office because it appears from what the Minister has just said he could continue in that office for seven years. Therefore, this newly expanded city of Galway is being denied the opportunity of having separate management for a period of seven years if the present incumbent continues to serve for the remainder of his period. That is not satisfactory. The Minister said earlier that if the two local authorities came together and passed a resolution that there should be separate management, he would arrange for separate managers to be appointed.
I said a little more than that.
It appears now that the Minister is debarred for seven years from doing so in the case of Galway. It is unreasonable that the opportunity should be denied this new city to have separate management. It is necessary for the city, for its growth and development, in order to introduce some dynamism into the administration of local government in Galway city that there be separate management. Let us face it, there is a general need for change in legislation to allow local authorities fulfil their real role in the community. I consider that to be one of leading development, that local authorities in urban areas should act as development corporations for their areas and should be leading in that role. To promote that type of local authority, to introduce that type of dynamism into local government, separate management constitutes one of the prerequisites. If one individual has to carry responsibility for the administration of Galway, which is the second or third largest county in the country, and this newly expanded city with all its inherent arrangements, then we shall have been denied something which would benefit the growth of the city in years ahead. Is there not some way in which the Minister could change that arrangement, or confine the guarantee to the present incumbent to a period of 12 months? Surely that would be an adequate period to allow for the transitional arrangements to be effected?
I am interested in a smooth transfer of functions between the two authorities. The person who will have to ensure that that happens is the present incumbent. For example, joint management has not delayed the development of this city and county, where a county and city manager operate——
Many mistakes have been made in Dublin.
Had we not decided on this side of the House to grant Galway this enhanced status that individual would continue managing the city and county of Galway. I do not understand why the Deputy is so firm in advocating that he should not hold office until the end of his normal term in the territory to which he was appointed, which is the city and county of Galway. Seven years is a brief enough period in the life of any city, town or county. I am not aware of any reason why he should not continue in the enhanced office of city and county manager until the end of his period of employment.
Will the Minister apply the same principle in the case of Dublin where he is purporting to establish four local authorities where there is now one manager? Will we have one manager, the existing incumbent of the office of city and county manager of Dublin? Will he continue as the county or city manager under the new Dublin corporation and each of the three new Dublin county councils? What will be the position in that case? What is the difference between what will apply in the case of Dublin from what the Minister proposes for Galway?
That has not been decided and discussions will take place on that matter. I would be very keen to ensure a continuation of joint management throughout the whole of the Dublin area, whether that be in the metropolitian council to be established, or in some other way. But that has not been decided. Therefore it is premature to comment.
It is obvious the Minister will not agree to our suggestion in the amendment which removes part of the section. Neither does it seem he is agreeing to the other suggestions I made in the course of this short discussion, just to limit the guarantee he is giving the existing incumbent to a period shorter than the seven years he has remaining to serve.
The Minister says he wants to ensure a smooth transition. Is he suggesting that it will take seven years to implement the transition because earlier he said he hoped it would have taken place, I think, by Christmas next? If that is so, why is the Minister so insistent that the manager should remain on for a period of seven years, that we should be denied the opportunity of having separate management if that is what the local authorities decide?
After the establishment of the Galway county borough with the new council of 15 members, after these transitional arrangements have been worked out, when the matter is finalised and the Minister's order made for their establishment, I can foresee them becoming very disgruntled at having to continue under the management of the county manager who has other responsibilities over a very wide area. The city of Galway is faced with many challenges, particularly in the line of development, housing and industry, in the area of job creation, of maintaining its premier position as a tourist resort. This means that there is a very large task to be carried out and supervised by a competent, full time manager and not a part time person sharing his time with another major local authority. That is not satisfactory. I can see the need to have him there for the transitional period but I do not see the need to guarantee him this position for seven years. It is very strange that that should be written into legislation or that anybody be given that kind of guarantee. Why should the manager's position supersede the optimum position for the town and city as a whole?
Is Deputy Molloy pressing the amendment?
Well, it can be put anyway.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 9, subsection (1), line 25, to delete "fifty-two" and substitute "eighty-five".
My purpose in proposing this amendment is to establish equality of representation as between the Dublin County Council area and the Dublin City Council area in terms of the proposed new boundaries. The Minister is proposing 52 seats for the new Dublin city area. The votes then of the people in the city area will be worth about half what the votes of the people in the county area will be worth. That is an undemocratic procedure but, in addition, there is the Minister's suggestion — and that is all it is in relation to the municipal authority — that the membership of the proposed municipal authority will be drawn from the three new county council areas and the Dublin City Council areas, presumably on the basis of the number of seats in those areas. This compounds the inequality and the undemocratic procedure.
This whole question of the numbers of seats has been raised before, and the Minister has indicated that he considers a council comprising 85 or 90 as being too unwieldy. I suggest that when he has finished his reorganisation the Dublin County Council area, which will have 78 seats and which will operate as a single county council area, will be no less or no more unwieldy than the proposal I am making now. The greater number of seats in the Dublin area, as being proposed by me, would provide for a greater degree of contact between local representatives and their electorate. Local democracy depends very much on the sort of contact that representing a smaller number of people would provide, both to the representatives concerned and to the electorate.
To highlight the kind of inequality I am talking about, I would refer the Minister to the Howth, Sutton and Baldoyle area which under the new proposal will have four seats and which has a population of slightly in excess of 21,000. Until this Bill is passed that area remains part of the city, but next door to it there is the Clontarf electoral district which has a population of 49,900 but only five seats. The people in the Clontarf area are at least as entitled to the same representation as the people in the Howth, Sutton and Baldoyle area. I am simply using these examples to illustrate the inequality that will result if the Minister's proposal of 52 seats in the city area and 78 seats in the county council area is accepted.
I should like the Minister to indicate how the additional seven seats he is proposing for the city were decided on. The present number in this respect is 45. What kind of rationale was used in this decision? Why not five seats, ten seats or 17 seats? I urge the Minister to accept the amendment.
I am not prepared to accept the amendment. In considering equality of representation as between local authorities, it is necessary, from a practical point of view, to give some weight to factors other than strict equality. If a council are to function properly a certain minimum membership is necessary, but if the membership is above a certain level the council may become unwieldy with a consequential fall-off in efficiency. Similarly, the same level of representation may not be essential in, say, a compact fully built-up county borough as in a county that is physically large but thinly populated. It may be that different scales might be appropriate in different kinds of authorities. It might be said, for instance, that Dublin city is under-represented by comparison with the rest of the country. I would emphasise that representation of the county borough is being increased substantially — from 45 to 52 seats as from the next election —and it should be noted, too, that the effect of the boundary changes is to increase the population in the city area by only 18,000. The overall population of the county borough has shown a small but steady decline in recent years. Unlike the county council area, Dublin county borough is no longer a growth area. I regard it as being treated reasonably from the representational point of view.
The Deputy has referred to the number of seats in terms of ratio to population in what will be two different local authority areas. Equally, he could point out the difference in representation between Leitrim and, say, Kildare and Wexford and ask why there are so few members in Kildare or Wexford compared with Leitrim. The purpose of the proposals is to equalise the ratio as between members within their own local authority area. With the setting-up of three county councils a basic number of members is required so that the work can be done efficiently. It is not reasonable to talk in terms of the new council membership being 78. I prefer to indicate that the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown area will have 28 members, that the Dublin-Belgard area will have 26 members and that the Dublin-Fingal area will have 24 members. These represent even a higher ratio than is the case in county councils in other parts of the country. However, the lowest number one can reasonably apply to county councils is one to 180,000. It is not a valid comparison to take what will be part of a county council constituency and compare it with a corporation constituency. The addition of seven members was a gesture to the corporation to increase their membership and to allow for more seats with the passage of time since the last election and in that way to bring more representation to population that is declining. If we are to believe the reports that will be coming before us, the populations in these expanding areas, particularly in the case of Dublin-Fingal and the electoral county of Dublin-Belgard, will increase significantly in the coming years. I cannot accept the amendment that has been put forward. An attempt has been made to increase representation for the corporation area. However, it is a compact homogenous area and the representation at 52 is a reasonable balance.
My amendment does not propose a decrease in the membership of the county council area but rather for an increase in the Dublin City Council area. The Minister suggested that my example of comparing the Howth-Sutton-Baldoyle area with Clontarf was similar to comparing Leitrim with Kildare. That is not so. The geographical spread of the Clontarf area is smaller than the Howth-Sutton-Baldoyle area and the Minister's argument does not stand.
I recognise there is need for a higher proportion of representation in the Leitrim area because of the sparse population and the distances involved but that does not apply in the areas I mentioned nor does it apply in the county council area as a whole. To some extent there is a degree of spread in the county council area, say, as between the Balbriggan area and the Malahide area, but it does not compare with travelling from one end of Leitrim to another or from one end of Kildare to another. His argument does not hold on that basis. The Blanchardstown and Tallaght areas are heavily populated. In the Tallaght area there is in the region of 90,000 people and it is expected that the population in the Blanchardstown area will be the same if not more. Again, the argument of population spread or sparseness of population does not hold when arguing for a higher level of representation in those areas than in the city council area.
The other key point to which the Minister did not refer is that the municipal authority for the county and city will be drawn from councillors elected in the city and in the county area. With a population of 100,000 fewer in the county area they will have 78 seats while Dublin city will have 52 seats. There will be an undemocratic imbalance as between the two areas when the municipal council is established unless the Minister accedes to our request and the municipal council is elected by direct vote of the electorate. As the Minister is proceeding at the moment he is proposing to draw from representatives of the county council and the city council.
The Minister said he would prefer to consider Dublin County Council as three county councils which are what will exist following the final reorganisation. He is also proposing to split Dublin city into six district councils. I ask the Minister to respond in relation to the municipal council and the undemocratic imbalance that will arise because of the imbalance in representation. Will he not agree there is no valid comparison between the Howth-Sutton-Baldoyle area and the Leitrim county area? Will he also indicate how he arrived at the figure of seven extra seats?
When the Deputy speaks about a municipal council I assume he is referring to the metropolitan council as mentioned in the Bill. It is very difficult to see how a further increase of 33 members in the corporation, as proposed by the Deputy, can be justified on democratic grounds, that suddenly there would be more democracy because there are more members. If that were so perhaps we should have another 200 Members in this House but that would look laughable when one compares the situation in Germany where there are 450 members for a population of 60 million. I do not think 33 more members on Dublin Corporation can be justified in the present economic circumstances. On the basis of efficiency, I do not see how that additional number would make Dublin Corporation more efficient. If we were to accept this amendment it would mean an enormously increased workload for the present staff who would require extra personnel. Judging by the amount of correspondence I get from Deputies, I can imagine what the housing section in Dublin Corporation would get in correspondence from 85 members, many of whom would make representations on behalf of the same person. This proposal would be inefficient, uneconomic and totally unwieldy. The Government have made a gesture to have increased representation and they have provided for an extra seven seats for Dublin. That decision was made on the basis that, with the passage of time since the last local elections, Dublin County Council could accept an additional membership of seven. The numbers on the three new county councils being elected are no more than needed to enable the new councils to function properly. Committees have to be set up, members have to be represented on various bodies and so on and a basic number is needed to properly service these committees. On both sides the proportions are reasonably well met. Time will tell if we are wrong. The membership of the metropolitan council and the basis on which it is nominated by the mainline authorities has not been settled at this stage. The Deputy in suggesting that it would be a 50:50 split is away ahead of us. It would be the aim that the nomination procedure should reflect a reasonable balance of population and interest as between the different councils making the nomination. That would be the basis in relation to the nomination of the metropolitan council rather than to take the simplistic solution that the county councils will nominate 50 per cent and the corporation 50 per cent.
The Minister has raised an interesting point. I referred to the metropolitan council and not to the municipal council. The Minister suggests that it will not be a 50:50 allocation from the three county councils and the Dublin City Council. I am not arguing for that case either. Dublin City Council and the three county councils would be right to expect to have representation on a new metropolitan council in line with the elected representation they have on their own councils. That is why I say that 52 seats for a population of 540,000 presents an imbalance as against 78 seats for 450,000 people in the county council areas. So far the Minister has not come up with an argument for or against maintaining that imbalance.
The Minister referred to the increase in costs which would result in increasing the number of seats from 45 to 85 in the city area. If that argument is valid at all, it is as valid in the county area, which is having an increase from 36 seats to 78 seats. There would be more than double the expenses in the administering of the county area as three separate administrations are being set up. In the city area we are talking about a single administration. I propose that local representation be increased. I know this will create additional costs but if we are to use that argument we would not go ahead with the county council divisions or the increase in the number of seats in the county council area and we would not establish, for instance, the new Galway Borough Council. Where do we draw the line on costs? Is the line to be drawn only in relation to Dublin City Council? I do not accept that as a valid argument.
In relation to democracy, more seats meaning more democracy, it could be validly argued that more seats could mean more democracy in the sense that people would have a closer relationship with their representatives and they would have easier access to them and there would be an easier flow of information. We are not talking about democracy in a general sense but about local democracy. Local democracy is very necessary in highly populated areas because these are the areas where people feel most alienated and most separated from the community. In these areas we need more involvement of the people at local level and greater local representation on councils.
I am intrigued that the Minister has not yet given us the basis on which he has come up with the seven extra seats for Dublin. Does it relate to the expected decline in the population, or is it based on so many seats per head of population over 65, or what? What was the logical, rational basis for providing seven extra seats? If we knew that we could decide whether we could apply that to increasing or decreasing the number of seats across the board.
Is Deputy De Rossa pressing the amendment?
Is the Minister going to reply?
The setting up of three new county councils and dividing the old Dublin County Council is a fundamental part of the Government's decision on local government reorganisation in the city and county of Dublin. Taking into account the likely expansion that will take place in these areas, we have decided on the level of seating. It was appreciated that there was to be a considerable increase in the number of seats in the county council area and, although one would not identify a county council seat as being the equivalent of a corporation seat and one could not consider a corporation member as being equivalent to a member of a county council in one of the smaller county councils — the comparison cannot just be made on that basis at all — it was decided that this increase in the county council should be reflected by some increase in the corporation area. The figure decided by Government was seven. This was considered a reasonable increase on the basis that the population of the corporation area was in decline while in the other areas a considerable increase, which was likely to continue, took place. That was the figure arrived at to represent some balance between the additional seats going to the totality of the three councils and yet, at the same time, to afford a reduction in the ratio of members to population in the corporation area. This is a fundamental part of the Government's approach to the reorganisation of local government in the city. I have given as complete an explanation as possible on this and I do not accept the Deputy's amendment.
Why is it that the Minister considers that the amendment will be imposing too large a city council when he proposes that the county council shall consist of 78 members after the election? That county council can continue in office for quite a long period if there is any difficulty about reaching agreement on the division of powers, staff and the other administrative arrangements.
We are setting up three county councils in the Dublin County Council area. I have spent some time explaining the numbers and the population ratio in those areas. I am assuming that for some time after the election a procedure will have to continue whereby the county council will remain for a certain period.
With 78 members?
Yes. To go ahead and hold the elections on the basis that this will be done some time in the next election would be putting off the whole concept of the reorganisation of local government. It should be done now. New councillors will be aware of the new county council areas. They will be familiar with the area they will be representing after the arrangements between the old council and the new body are operating. A number very much less than 78 would not be applying true democracy to county council status for three county councils. It is a fundamental part of the reorganisation that the three councils be set up but in advance of them becoming operational and for a lead in period there will be a county council of 78 members. It is envisaged that that will disappear in a year or two, as soon as progress is made on the arrangements that will bring about independence in the three areas. That is the reason why we have 28, 26 and 24 members for the three proposed county councils.
Vótáil.
Will those who are demanding a division please rise?
Deputies Mac Giolla and De Rossa rose.
In accordance with Standing Orders, the names of the Deputies dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the proceedings of the Dáil.
This section proposes the establishment of the new city council. When the Minister of State was speaking here last week he said that, after the establishment of a new city council, it was proposed to establish district councils in each of the electoral areas to Dublin City Council. In effect, that means a district electoral council in the Artane-Coolock-Raheny area, in the Glasnevin-Drumcondra-Clontarf area, in the Finglas-Cabra-Ashtown area, the inner city area, north and south, in the Crumlin-Drimnagh-Inchicore-Ballyfermot area and also in the Pembroke-Rathmines area. I should like the Minister to clarify whether that is the proposed intention of the Government. I know that it would require further legislation but, as the Minister of State went so far as to announce this, I should like confirmation.
The boundary commission decided that there should be district electoral areas inside the Corporation area, as the Deputy has indicated, and that this will be considered by the new council when elected. The next Bill will take cognisance of what the new corporation members say about the setting up of these district councils and will take heed of their views. After the June elections, the new membership of Dublin Corporation will be installed and they will have clear and precise ideas regarding the areas which will comprise the district councils. In consultation with them, the new district councils will be brought in under further legislation.
Is the Minister confirming that there will be six district councils established for Dublin?
Yes; the boundary commission recommended that there should be six district councils for Dublin.
The commission were only asked to delineate six districts for electoral purposes and they were not given any brief to make recommendations for the establishment of new local authority structures such as district councils. I refer to a statement made by the Minister of State that there would be six district councils, in other words, a second or third tier, as he chose to call it, of local government in the Dublin area. I want the Minister to confirm that it is the Government's policy to have a district council in each electoral area.
Not necessarily in each electoral area but there will be six district councils set up which was a recommendation made by the commission. They will not be identical to the electoral areas. There are possibly two electoral areas in each council.
Is it intended to establish district councils in each electoral district?
Electoral districts will be set up in each of the council areas. I think the Deputy is confused.
I am quite clear as to what I am saying. Is it proposed to establish new councils called district councils in each of the electoral districts which have been designated?
There will be two for the county council areas. There will be two electoral districts in the council areas for Belgard-Fingal and six in the city.
One minute the Minister is talking about electoral districts and, in the next, about district councils. The electoral districts are the areas where elections will be held. We know that some kind of metropolitan council is proposed which would have representatives who are not directly elected from each of the four local authorities to be established in Dublin, of which Dublin County Borough is one, but within Dublin city the Minister of State said that it was proposed to create six district councils, new local authority units, to which people would be elected and that they would be elected in each electoral area. Could the Minister clarify this?
They would not be elected but they would represent electoral areas, probably two to each district and each county borough would represent two of the electoral areas.
Sorry, I am more confused than ever.
The Deputy should get a map.
Dublin County Borough is to comprise six electoral areas which I have already named. Is it proposed that, within each of those electoral areas, new units of local government, a lower tier than the county borough, will be established, namely, district councils, to which further elections will be held, which will form a second tier of the county borough and which will form part of the overall reform in the local government system?
Of course it will form part of the overall reform but it has nothing to do with this Bill. There will be six districts comprising two electoral areas——
I understand that.
——and there will not be direct elections to them. They will be comprised of members elected to the corporations for those areas.
When is it proposed to establish these district councils? Will they involve the establishment of any new administrations? Will that mean additional costs for running the local authority system in the city area?
This will be part of later legislation. I have indicated the basis of this lower tier of local government and how it will be established. At the moment we are dealing under this Bill with the setting-up of the elections for next June and as a result of those elections there will be further discussions. I have given an outline of the Government's thinking on the setting-up of these districts within the corporation and the county council areas and said how they will be represented at local level. There will not be a direct election but there will be a combination of members who will be elected to Dublin Corporation in the June election.
Am I right in thinking that members of the corporation elected from those districts will in the interim period be appointed to district councils and that there will be direct elections to those district councils in 1989?
That will be the subject of further legislation but it is proposed that councillors elected at the next local elections will form the council members of the district.
Section 11 deals specifically with the increase in the membership of Dublin City Council.
These are part of the functions of the members who will be elected. The Minister asked us to accept that this was part of a package——
I accept the Deputy's concern and he will accept that this is a very restricted Bill dealing with boundary changes and that section 11 deals specifically with the membership of the proposed new Dublin City Council.
I accept that, and I will not delay the House. But I thought it was important when the Minister was here to get clarification of what was intended because the Minister of State was off script when he said that after the new city council were elected it was proposed that the Government would bring forward legislation to enable another tier of local government to be established, namely, district councils. It seems from what the Minister says that the members elected to Dublin City Council in each of the six electoral areas will automatically also become members of these new district councils and that the district councils shall also comprise other persons who will represent the community but they will not be directly elected either through community councils or——
The Deputy is moving from the section.
I appreciate that, but we have extracted a commitment from the Minister in regard to his thinking on the future structure of local government other than what is proposed in section 11. People elected under this section will have to perform these additional duties.
I think the questions raised have a bearing on section 11 because, in opposing my amendment to this section increasing the number of seats to 85, the Minister clearly put most weight on the additional costs involved. Now he confirms that it is proposed to provide six district councils with six administrations to cater for those district councils. I am not arguing against district councils but this highlights the spurious nature of the Minister's opposition to the increased size of the city council and that it has no valid basis——
Is section 11 agreed?
May I answer, because the word "spurious" was mentioned in regard to some of the answers I gave? It is not envisaged that district councils will have huge administrative bodies; indeed, the opposite would be the case. This will be discussed in the future legislation and we have outlined what we intend to do in the next Bill. This has been helpful because now Deputies know what is involved.
Would the Minister explain what the position will be in regard to persons who are elected to these new authorities? In his introductory speech the Minister said that the people elected in the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown area will serve temporarily on Dublin County Council, which will consist of 78 members and which will continue in existence until agreement is reached on the divisions of staff, properties, responsibilities and so on between the new authorities, which the Minister confirms may take as long as two years. If he estimates it will take as long as two years, it is obvious that it will take a lot longer. It is also proposed that the Borough of Dún Laoghaire will continue in existence after the elections and that some of the people elected to the county of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown will serve on Dún Laoghaire Borough Council and on Dublin County Council, which will have 78 members. What exactly is the Minister proposing as regards the role of the elected members, particularly of the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown area, after 20 June?
I accept that Deputy Molloy and others may be a little confused about the interim period. As regards Dublin city, the situation is straightforward. The city boundary is being adjusted under this Bill. The electorate in June will be the electorate within the adjusted boundaries. The electoral area will be the areas recommended by the boundary commission, electing a total of 52 members. The new city council will continue as before to be fully responsible for functions and services over the whole of the area of the city within the adjusted boundary. There is no question of any interim or transitional situation in the city area.
In the county three new county councils will be elected: Dublin-Fingal with 24 members, Dublin-Belgard with 26 members, and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown with 28 members. The boundaries of these county councils are being laid down in this Bill and take account of the changes in the city and county boundaries. The electoral areas in the three new counties will be as recommended by the Dublin commission.
The members elected will assume normal county council responsibilities in the three new counties as soon as the necessary arrangements for this have been made, and this will require further legislation and will take some time. A considerable amount of detailed planning and consultation will also be essential. In the meantime the members elected for the three new county councils will constitute the membership of the existing Dublin County Council. The existing Dublin County Council with this membership will continue to function and to be responsible for services over the whole of the county area, excluding Dún Laoghaire Borough, during this transitional phase. This transitional county council, therefore, will have a membership of 78. Some may consider this too big and unwieldly to be an efficient council and, as I said to Deputy De Rossa, I am inclined to agree that the type and number are indeed too large. The arrangement is not ideal in the interim but it is the only means to satisfy two basic objectives.
The first objective is that there will be elections in June, and by now I think we all agree to a new system of county councils in Dublin. If this decision and commitment were not made now, there would be no fundamental organisational reform for another term of four or five years, and that kind of delay is simply not acceptable to the Government. The numbers being elected are no more than will be needed to constitute the membership of the new county councils when they become operational.
The second objective is to ensure that there will be no disruption in local authority services as the reform takes shape. For this reason Dublin county, with the increased membership, will continue to operate and provide services until the new county councils are ready to take over. Similarly, it is intended that Dún Laoghaire Corporation will continue to function and to provide services during the transitional period in the area of the borough, with membership made up from the electoral areas which approximate to the borough. Section 16 of the Bill enables the Minister to determine these electoral areas. The Dublin boundary commission have recommended three electoral areas with a total membership of 14 covering the area to the east of the Bray road, and these would appear to be the appropriate electoral areas for designation under the section in due course.
Let me summarise the county situation. In the transitional period the 78 members elected to the three new county councils will make up the membership of Dublin County Council as we know it, and that council will continue to function and provide services over the whole of the county area, apart from Dún Laoghaire Borough, taking account of the changes in the city-county boundary being made under the Bill. In addition, the members elected for the electoral areas which broadly correspond to the Borough of Dún Laoghaire as we know it will constitute the members of the borough council and that council will continue to function and provide services in the borough during the transitional period.
I will be looking for the full co-operation of all the elected members in ensuring that reasonable and sensible arrangements will operate in regard to the holding of meetings and all other aspects of the transition programme. I hope I have cleared up what the situation after the next election will be.
Some of the people elected to Dún Laoghaire rather than the county will serve on Dublin County Council and those same people will serve as Dún Laoghaire Corporation, so they will serve on the two authorities. Is that correct?
Yes.
For the period of two years or more?
There will be an overlap.
They will serve on two authorities, having been elected to one. What is the position of the Balbriggan Town Commissioners? Are they still in existence? If they are, no reference has been made to them in the Bill or to what happens. Will there be an election to that authority?
There is no suggestion that we are touching the town commissioners. They will have their election.
Will they continue?
Yes, they will continue.
Will they be part of Dublin Fingal County Council?
Yes.
This is establishing the numbers of members to be elected to each of the councils. This section states that 24 members shall be elected to the county of Dublin-Fingal, 26 to the county of Dublin-Belgard and 28 to the county of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown. Am I to take it from what the Minister has said that that number of members cannot be changed under this Bill or under any other Bill subsequent to the enactment of this Bill?
Subsequent to the enactment, no, there can be no change.
There can be no change?
That cannot be changed.
If there was to be a change in the numbers elected to these councils would that require new legislation?
Yes.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 10, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:—
"(2) The number of members to be elected from each electoral area, shall not be less than four."
I put forward this amendment because I know from the report of the commission for the Dublin area that out of 20 electoral areas established by the commission seven are established as three-seat areas. It is probably generally accepted that as the proportionality of representation in an electoral area is reduced the smaller the number of seats. Particularly in relation to local elections, where we are looking to local representatives to represent local people, it is important that any reasonably substantial number of the electorate who want a particular party, independent candidate or individual to represent them at local level should have a reasonable chance of having that person elected to represent them. In three-seat areas that possibility is drastically reduced, given that in order to achieve election in a three-seat area something like 25 per cent of the valid poll must be won by a candidate. The chances, therefore of a person's first choice being elected is fairly slim. That is the main reason for putting forward this amendment. It seems to us that there is a reduction in the proportionality of our PR system. After all, the electorate have twice rejected an effort to do away with the PR system and it is only right that this House should ensure that any system of electoral areas ensures that the people elected are representative of the electorate in their area. It is unfortunate, regardless of what views we may hold about particular groups or political parties, that through manipulating or adjusting the electoral system we keep people, such as the Provisionals, outside elected councils. We should do everything possible to bring them in and encourage them to participate in the democratic process. As a result of having three seat areas, particularly in the greater Dublin area, large sections of the population may feel disenfranchised as a result of the representatives they want not being elected.
This amendment moves away from the principle of PR and that is unfortunate. In 1977 there was a major move towards three seat areas. Fianna Fáil won an overwhelming majority far in excess of the proportion of votes they won. I do not propose to go into the merits or demerits of that Government. However, it is significant that subsequent to that an electoral commission moved back strongly towards four and five seat areas.
I urge the Minister to re-examine the commission's proposals as they relate to the greater Dublin area and to eliminate the three seat areas.
I ask the House to reject this amendment. The House is aware that the reports of the two electoral area boundary commissions were presented to both Houses and that the recommendations of the commissions were accepted by the Government. The Government announced their intention to implement the recommendations. If the amendment was accepted it would mean rejecting the recommendations of the Dublin boundary commission.
The terms of reference of the Commission stipulated that in the case of Dublin County Borough and the three electoral councils, the new electoral areas should not have more than five seats in each. The House will accept that three seats are generally accepted as being the minimum for PR purposes. Three seats constituencies have always figured in the constituency and electoral area arrangements. The commission did not propose something new nor did they set out to prevent parties or individuals from entering local authority elections or from being elected.
In the case of the two Dáil constituency commissions established in 1979 and 1983 the terms of reference in both cases provided for three seat constituencies. This was also the position in the case of the European Assembly elections where there were five, four and three seat constituencies.
The commission were given terms of reference. One may talk about elections where there were many three seat constituencies. In homogeneous areas a three seat constituency would be ideal. The commission may well have taken that into account.
We should reject this amendment. I take the Deputy's point but this is not something new. Three, four and five seats have always been there and by and large the system has worked well. There is nothing wrong with it. The commission did a very good job. I do not think we should change their recommendations.
I did not suggest that it was a new development. In fact I indicated that it had been tried in 1977, interestingly enough under a Coalition Government. Subsequent electoral boundary commissions moved away from the three seat idea and opted for four and five seat areas. Out of 20 electoral areas seven are three seat areas. Slightly more than one-third of the electoral areas will have three seats. There are discrepancies also as regards the population-seats ratio.
The electoral system must surely ensure that the views of people in an area are fully represented and that they do not feel alienated from the process of democracy. The preponderance of the three seat areas are in the county area, particularly in Blanchardstown and Tallaght. These are all heavily populated working class areas. Six of the seven are in the county areas. I am concerned that, as a result of having only three seat areas there, a large proportion of the population will feel excluded.
The Minister said the commission reported and the Government accepted that. Therefore it cannot be changed. I have my own views about the way in which the terms of reference were drafted. I have every faith in the integrity of the commission as established. The terms of reference given to the commission, particularly as regards the Dublin area, were extremely restricted. Guidelines were set down which virtually precluded the commission from going outside particular boundaries. For example, the terms of reference referred to splitting Dublin city into six districts and indicated the geographical areas which should comprise those districts. The terms of reference for the county indicated that the Government wanted three county council areas and also indicated the geographical areas which should comprise those. They also indicated the population — elected members ratio for each of those areas and said there should be no more than five seats for any electoral area. They stated there should be two electoral areas in each district. There were tight terms of reference given to the commission and the variations which the commission could be expected to come up with, within those terms of reference, were limited.
I do not accept that the Government had no hand, act or part in the outcome of the commission's deliberations. They set the terms of reference. The commission operated within those terms of reference and came up with the answer. In the Dáil we are entitled to suggest that three seat areas are not the best, particularly for the local elections where we want to have as many political viewpoints as possible represented at local level. For that reason I urge the Minister to look again at the question of three seat areas and to eliminate them where that is practicable.
I do not think Deputy De Rossa is making a real case. He said the commission's hands were tied, particularly in Dublin city where we have six district council areas. In the Dublin city area where there are 52 seats there is only one three seat electoral area. There are five five seat electoral areas and six four seat electoral areas. That is a reasonable balance. The three seater is in a homogeneous area around the Cabra area which has its own identity. The commission were not hidebound or constricted by their terms of reference.
In the county where there are two district electoral areas they had more discretion to operate outside the three seaters if they wanted to. There are new growth towns and the commission may have taken that into consideration. I do not know. They were not inhibited in their work by the terms of reference set down by the Government. Their terms of reference were fairly wide. They had a wide remit. Deputy De Rossa talked about the three seaters in 1977 when the Government fell. In 1969 there were a number of three seat constituencies. Three, four and five seat constituencies have always been part of our electoral system. By and large this has worked well and I do not see any reason why it will not continue to operate in the same way.
I should like to ask the Minister why there was a significant difference in the terms of reference given to the commission which dealt with the Dublin area as against the terms of reference of the commission which dealt with the areas outside Dublin. In the case of the Dublin area the terms of reference stated that in establishing electoral areas new electoral areas were to have no more than five seats each. They were debarred from having an electoral area with more than five seats. They were free to range from five to one because there was no limit on the downward swing. The result of the commission's deliberations within those terms of reference was a recommendation to have some three, some four and some five seat constituencies.
When we look at the terms of reference for the county areas we see that where there were in existence electoral areas which had more than eight councillors they were to recommend the subdivision of those areas into electoral areas of not fewer than four seats. It is difficult to understand why a different set of instructions was given to them. The Dublin area with the highest population can have electoral areas with three elected members. In the rural areas the commission were not allowed to recommend three seat electoral areas when they were subdividing an electoral area which had in excess of eight councillors. One would have thought the proper thing to do would be to take cognisance of the geographic and demographic difficulties experienced by elected councillors in the rural areas. The electorate is scattered over a much wider area and it would make more sense to allow three seat electoral areas.
In the urban areas where the community are closer together there would not be the same distance to be travelled and it would have made more sense to have bigger electoral areas. The thinking was contrary to that. I wonder why there was a difference in the terms of reference. If it was thought to be correct to instruct members of the commission dealing with Dublin to create electoral areas of not more than five seats, why was the same instruction not given to those dealing with the county areas to create electoral areas of not more than five seats? This would have allowed them to establish three seat areas especially in very thinly populated areas.
In the Dublin area it has always been the established practice that the maximum number of seats was five. We did not put on a bottom rung and that indicates that we did not put any stranglehold on the commission. We put on an upper limit for Dublin because that has always been the tradition so far as I can remember. Looking at the area outside Dublin we saw areas where there were more than seven seats. Traditionally there were a larger number of seats outside the Dublin area. That was the accepted practice. We felt seven was a reasonable figure and that anything with more than seven should be subdivided. Otherwise it would be too unwieldy. It did not seem reasonable to ask councillors to represent a very widespread area. By subdividing it we brought order into it. That was the thinking in setting down the terms of reference. There was no Machiaevellian plot. In an area where there are more than seven seats we must ask should there not be some subdivision in the interests of reasonable order. On balance the Government made the right decision.
Why were the commission dealing with the rural areas not allowed to create a three seat electoral area?
They were not prevented.
They were. If the Minister likes I will read it out. As I have already stated:
...where the number of councillors representing an area as is determined above equals or exceeds eight, to recommend a subdivision of the area in question into electoral areas of no less than four seats.
They could not create three seat constituencies in those circumstances.
Where there was a division, they were to be subdivided into four, but there was no reason, if they wanted a movement of seats in a particular area where a subdivision was not required, why they could not create a three seat constituency. They were not confined to four in that situation.
Why were they debarred from creating a three seat division when they were subdividing a large electoral area? It would have made a lot of sense in some cases.
Where there were eight seats, a sensible way of dividing it was into two four seaters——
Not necessarily.
——rather than five and three.
Five and three seat constituencies are also there.
Freely dividing it by two was the right way to do it.
It could be three and three.
There does not seem to be any reasonable, rational explanation given to this. I know that in some of the exercises which some local authorities carried out it would have suited to have created a three seat constituency where there was a natural divide — such as a lake, or mountain, or community divide, natural local conditions in town centres and so forth. In some of the exercises which I did, obviously a three seat would have been the correct number to meet the particular circumstances. However, because of that bar it was not possible to do it. We are asking in the House, of the people who drew up the terms of reference, why they wrote it in that way. Why did they give permission to the Dublin commission to establish three seat electoral areas but debar the county commission from doing this, bearing in mind that the only areas where they would come up against this problem was where there was a large number of councillors, exceeding seven? Rightly, they were required to make some sort of subdivision, but it is strange that it was confined to not fewer than four.
With regard to the Dublin area, there was no question of subdivision. They were drawing up new electoral areas.
That is right.
A subdivision had already been done on them.
That is so.
No. I am sorry if Deputy De Rossa is disappointed but, by and large, this has been accepted as a reasonable job done by the commission. With regard to areas outside Dublin there was no bar on three seaters except where a subdivision was taking place. You can argue as to whether there should be five and three or whether the commission should have been given discretion. The Government, in their wisdom, decided that where a subdivision was taking place dividing it into two fours was a better way, more logical and——
On what basis?
——a fairer way.
On what basis?
The public might have seen it, otherwise, as a way of dividing things to suit a particular political party.
Was that what happened? That was not what happened? Oh, sorry.
That was not what happened and the Deputy is quite aware of that. Where the number of seats was more than seven the decision was to subdivide and the instructions given were that where there was a subdivision it would be a four-four situation. That seemed a very logical and orderly thing to do.
Not necessarily.
They were not debarred from creating three seats, except where there was a subdivision. Within the Dublin area the maximum was five and it worked down from there.
The Minister has entered an area which defies logic. On the one hand, nobody in this House has impugned or questioned in any way the integrity of either of the two commissions that have been established and no one is attempting to do so. In putting a restriction of four on areas outside Dublin, and putting a maximum figure of five on the Dublin area, it is fairly clear that the Government were making a political decision. It was not the commission who made the political decision. There is hardly anybody in this House who does not know that the Minister of State, the Minister for the Environment, the Minister for Energy and others perhaps had pored for many months over the maps and figures for all the areas, to see how best the terms of reference could be put together for their independent commission. It is treating us as little children to expect us to accept that there were no political implications in the terms of reference which were given to the commission concerned. The reality is that a third of the electoral areas in greater Dublin have three seat electoral constituencies. That will disenfranchise a great number of people in the greater Dublin area. No amount of arguing and double backtracking in this House will get over that fact. I am appealing to the Minister to apply the same rules in the Dublin area as he applied outside Dublin and have not fewer than four seats in any of the electoral areas.
First, I want to make it quite clear that nobody is being disenfranchised by anything which has been done. I repudiate that suggestion from Deputy De Rossa. With regard to the question of the number of seats in Dublin, I repeat there are five seaters, four seaters and three seaters, which always has been the practice. With regard to areas outside Dublin, the maximum is seven, not four. There is no minimum, but there was nothing to prevent the commission from making a three seater constituency, except where a subdivision was taking place.
Why are the terms of reference for the commission for outside Dublin that with an eight seat constituency it should be subdivided four and four? I do not accept the Minister's simplistic answer. In some areas there are obvious geographic divides. Take the town of Athlone, which is built mainly on one side of the river. An obvious divide would have been the River Shannon. Why were the commission hamstrung into dividing four and four, rather than five and three? I have not got an answer to my question.
The commission were not hamstrung and I answered that question.
Of course, they were hamstrung.
Is the Minister answering?
I have answered the Deputy's question.
The Minister said that nobody had been disenfranchised. I can give an example of an electoral area in County Mayo where the home town of a city councillor was put into another area. Effectively that man is now sitting on the fence. He just does not know what to do. This is something to which the commission could have turned their minds. Some of the electoral areas stretch as far as from Dublin to Mullingar — 48 or 50 miles. I cannot honestly say why if a genuine effort was made, something like that would not have been taken into account. As Deputy Nolan said, the Minister's answer in relation to the division of the eight-seater — if there were to be an eight-seater — is much too simplistic. If one looks at the maps one will see that what has happened in very many areas is that no account has been taken of natural boundaries — in some areas mountains are crossed to get four-seaters when a three-seater and a five-seater would have been much easier, effective and more representative.
The commission were put in a straitjacket. Everybody in this House knows they were placed in a straitjacket, that they did the job in accordance with their terms of reference, and they were laid down so strictly that they could do very little else. The Minister made a valiant effort to justify it but I am afraid nobody believes him.
Every commission has its terms of reference and operates thereunder.
They are not in the straitjacket this one was.
Is amendment No. 13 in the names of Deputies Mac Giolla and De Rossa withdrawn?
Is it being pressed?
Yes.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 12, subsection (1), line 29, after "provide" to insert "that".
This amendment proposes to insert the word "that" which was inadvertently omitted from section 18.
Amendment No. 15, in the name of the Minister, proposes the insertion of a new section. Amendments Nos. 15 and 27 may be discussed together, by agreement, except in so far as this amendment involves the deletion of section 19 of the Bill.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 12, before section 19, to insert the following section:—
19. —(1) (a) On the commencement of this subsection, the area described in the Fourth Schedule to this Act shall, for the purposes of the local elections next occurring after such commencement, be detached from the County Health District of Galway and from the jurisdiction and powers of the council of the county of Galway (in so far as they relate to such purposes) and be added to the Borough of Galway, and on and from such commencement the said area shall be included in, and form part of, the said borough for the said purposes and the boundary of that borough shall be altered accordingly.
(b) The Minister may by order make such incidental, consequential and supplementary provisions as appear to him to be expedient to enable paragraph (a) of this subsection to have effect for the purposes of the elections referred to in that paragraph.
(2) The Minister shall by order provide that the boundary alteration effected by subsection (1) of this section shall (in addition to having effect for the purposes specified in the said subsection (1)) have effect for such other purposes as shall be specified in the order.
(3) Where an order under subsection (2) of this section has not been made prior to the local elections next occurring after the commencement of subsection (1) of this section, then, pending the making and coming into operation of the said order, each of the persons elected at the aforesaid local elections to the council of the Borough of Galway shall be the members of and, as regards the period beginning on the day of their coming into office and ending on the commencement of the said order, shall act as the council for the said borough as it existed immediately prior to the making of the boundary changes effected by the said subsection (1).
(4) For the purposes of giving effect to the order required to be made by subsection (2) of this section, the Minister may either by that order or by another order—
(a) make a provision similar to or to the same effect (with any modifications which the Minister may consider appropriate in the particular circumstances) as any provision contained in the Second Schedule to this Act, and
(b) do anything which may be done by order under section 24 of this Act, and
(c) make such other provision (if any), as the Minister shall think proper, in relation to any matter whatsoever.
(5) Nothing in this section shall be construed as prejudicing the generality of section 24 of this Act.
This amendment arises from the recommendations of the City and County Borough Electoral Areas Boundary Commission. While under its terms of reference the commission was required to consider boundary alterations in the case of Cork, Limerick and Galway a boundary alteration was recommended only in the case of Galway. This new section will therefore apply only to Galway. It will provide for the transfer to the borough of the area recommended by the commission and agreed locally. The area to be added to the borough is described in the Fourth Schedule being inserted by amendment No. 27.
The new section 19 provides that the boundary alteration will have effect for electoral purposes and requires the Minister to make an order giving effect to the boundary alteration for other purposes. I would hope to make this order before the June elections and consultations in this regard are under way with the local authorities. This order will contain standard provisions normally included in boundary extension orders along the lines of those contained in the Second Schedule to the Bill which apply to the Dublin City/County boundary alterations.
Subsection (1) (a) provides for the alteration of the boundary of the borough for the purposes of the June local elections. The areas to be added are described in the Fourth Schedule which is being inserted by amendment No. 27.
Subsection (1) (b) enables the Minister to make by order any supplementary provisions necessary to enable subsection (1) (a) to have effect. For example, this order will deal with the register of electors and will enable appropriate arrangements to be made in regard to the polling places and districts within the added area.
Subsection (2) requires the Minister to make an order giving effect to the boundary alteration for other purposes. This order will provide that the boundary alteration will apply for all purposes. Subsection (4) relates to the provisions to be included in this order. It is intended that this order will be made prior to June.
Subsection (3) is a safety clause which provides that in event of an order not being made under subsection (2) giving effect to the boundary alteration for all purposes prior to the June elections, then the members elected at those elections would not be responsible for the added area until the order was made; this area would remain the responsibility of the county council. This would be an undesirable situation. This subsection is therefore intended as a safety net to deal with this situation should it for some extraordinary reason arise. I fully intend that the necessary order is made prior to the June elections.
Subsection (4) provides that the provisions to be included in the order under subsection (2) giving effect to the boundary alteration for all purposes may include: (a) provisions similar to any provision contained in the Second Schedule which are the provisions applying in the case of the Dublin City/County boundary alteration and are the standard provisions usually applying to boundary alterations such as phasing in of rates liability, application of development plans, by-laws, notices served, etc. It is intended that provision for the phasing in of rates and for the payment of compensation will be included in the order as in the case of Dublin; (b) provisions which may be made under section 24 which enables the Minister to make any provisions necessary to enable this Act to have full effect; (c) any other provision relating to any other matter arising in relation to the boundary alteration.
Subsection (5) is a saver designed to ensure that the provisions of section 24 are unaffected by this section. Section 24 enables the Minister to make by order any additional provisions necessary to enable this Act to have full effect.
This section has special historical significance for my native city of Galway. I welcome the proposed extension of the boundary of Galway city. Galway has a long history of involvement in the local government system and only last year celebrated the 500th anniversary of the establishment of Galway Corporation and the local authority in the city area. The establishment of the mayorship has a long history spreading back over those 500 years. The decision to extend the boundary is the result of meetings held between Galway Corporation and Galway County Council. It is appropriate that I express appreciation to the members of both of these local authorities, but in particular to the members of Galway County Council who have so generously agreed to cede part of the county area to enable this expansion to take place.
However, there is one sad fact I wish to bring to the Minister's attention, that when the council took that decision it was taken on the condition that there would be adequate compensation paid and suitable arrangements made for that, and we assumed that such would happen. It was also taken on the assumption that the agreed recommendation of both local authorities in the Galway area in regard to the new electoral areas to be created would be accepted. Unfortunately, the commission did not accept the recommendation to establish a seven-seat electoral area in the Connemara area, west of the Corrib and west of this extended city boundary.
The overall result of this is very unfair to the councillors who entered into discussions and arrived at decisions based on certain other matters. The Minister is accepting the decision regarding the extension of the city boundary but he is not accepting the recommendations from Galway County Council in regard to the new county electoral areas to be extended following the change brought about by the expansion of the city into the old Galway electoral area. That decision was unanimous at Galway County Council level but it would not have been unanimous if it had been known that the Minister would not be accepting other recommendations of the councillors, recommendations that were part of the overall package. Some councillors have been left in a very awkward position as a result of the recommendations of the commission. It is very unfair that people who acted in good faith should be let down subsequently by a decision of the Minister.
