As the House has already lost valuable time, I ask for order while we deal with the Bill. Amendments Nos. 1 and 298 are related and it is proposed, therefore, for discussion purposes to take them together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Local Government Bill, 1991: Committee Stage.
SECTION 1.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, subsection (1), line 10, after "Government" to insert "(Enabling Provisions)".
As we begin debate on this important and complex Bill I ask for prior knowledge of amendments being taken together so that we can organise our thoughts.
They are now being circulated.
Thank you, it helps to focus on them. My first amendment is related to the very last one. It is significant that there are almost 300 amendments to this legislation. Last week Members on the Opposition benches said it was imperative to put the Bill under close scrutiny. Most of us have done that to the best of our ability, given the time constraints imposed by the guillotine motions passed here, and have endeavoured to discuss this matter with outside interests and with those who have a general regard to local government.
It might be thought that this amendment is not of great moment or substance but it is important to underscore that, while the Bill purports to reform local government, in fact it gives a whole range of powers to enable the Minister to bring about changes in local government which should be recognised in the provisions of the Bill. That is why I seek to insert in the name of the Bill that the Bill is regarded as the Local Government (Enabling Provisions) Bill, 1991 and, therefore, that the Title of the Bill, in accordance with amendment No. 298 would read: "a Bill to amend and extend the law relating to local government and to enable the Minister for the Environment to effect certain reforms", because that is what it does. This Bill is not, of its nature, reforming although it purports to be. Those of us who read it last Thursday week felt, at first glance, that it did not go far enough but the more opportunity I had to look at it the clearer it became to me that what in essence is attempting to be done in this Bill is to devolve not to local authorities but directly to the Minister himself a whole range of powers which, in many ways, delimits the powers of local government.
In many ways the Minister has asked us to make an act of faith in him that the powers he is taking upon himself will, at some future date, be devolved downwards. However, that is not in the Bill. We have been asked in the Bill — and we will deal with issue by issue as they arise — to vest new and sometimes worrying powers in the Minister. At the outset, it should be recognised that the Bill simply enables the Minister to take to himself new powers which should be recognised in the Title and description of the Bill.
I do not think Deputy Howlin has gone far enough in his comments. I do not have a problem in supporting his amendment but he is far too kind to the Minister in saying that he is taking enabling powers. The reality is that the Minister is taking extensive powers and any one of us who have been in Government will know that those powers are almost certain to be used. They come under several different headings. The Bill starts with the definitions section which defines the word "prescribed", which means prescribed by the Minister for the Environment. The word "prescribed" appears many times throughout the Bill. There are regulations, the vast majority of which will never come before this or the other House; there are orders, the vast majority of which will never come before this or the other House, regardless of whether we on this side of the House table a motion within 21 sitting days to reject them. The Government order the business of the House and can prevent, as they have done in the past, motions to reject regulations or orders being debated in the House within 21 sitting days. In addition to prescriptions, regulations and orders, reference is also made in the Bill to directions. This is a recipe for clogging up local government even more. The Minister wants the power to make regulations in relation to twinning, the expenses of chairmen and civic honours for which provision has been made in statutes dating back over 100 years. He wants to intervene and have the power to direct, prescribe, regulate or order but this is unnecessary.
There is one fundamental defect in the proposals before the House. They do not address how local authorities should be funded. We are all aware of the Minister's record in this respect. We are aware that he has cut the amount available to the local authorities during his four years in office. We are also aware that it is he who decides, not the local councils who are answerable to local people, which projects should receive national lottery funding, even if only a small grant is to be paid to a small project. That will continue to be the position under this Bill. Indeed, he will now have the power to give directions and prescriptions and make orders and regulations in relation to a far greater number of matters than heretofore.
This is not a local government reform Bill at all; it is a centralisation of power Bill because there is no way in which the Minister will be able to delegate, in a meaningful way, extra functions or roles to the local authorities unless he delegates a role or gives discretion to local authorities in relation to funding. We should be clear in discussing the first amendment to the Bill — which seeks to change the title of the Bill from the Local Government Bill to the Local Government (Enabling Provisions) Bill — that the only person who will be enabled to do anything is the Minister for the Environment. He will be enabled to dictate, control, stifle or clog up local government even more. No vigour will be returned to the local authorities under this Bill as urged by the Minister's own expert committee and many others. There will be stagnation. What we need is the liberation of the local authorities from the Minister's dead hand.
I would like to refer at the outset of this two day Committee Stage debate to the fact that 300 amendments have been submitted. At a rough calculation, we will have, on average, three minutes to discuss each amendment. This means in all probability that the bulk of the amendments and most of the section and Parts of the Bill will not be debated. That is extremely serious because, as has been said, not only will the Bill transfer to the Minister for the Environment the powers of the local authorities, it will also transfer the powers of this House in relation to local government. What the Bill is saying to the Minister, effectively, is: here is the legislation, reorganise local government.
Under this Bill the Minister will be able to make regulations to establish regional authorities, to decide on the membership of those authorities, and how they should relate to other bodies. He will also be able to decide when the sub-county structures will be established and when, if ever, there will be elections to those sub-county structures having regard to the fact that he will have the power to postpone indefinitely urban council and town commissioner elections. No date has been set for elections to those bodies.
This Bill will transfer to the Minister the power to decide what functions, if any, should be given or devolved to local authorities. Where new functions for local authorities are proposed they are circumscribed by a qualification that the Minister for the Environment will be able to make regulations. It is our experience where legislation which enables the Minister to make regulations has been passed, it might be many a long day before the regulations see the light of day. Where, for example, are the building control regulations which were supposed to be made under the Building Control Act which passed through the House over a year ago? We are still waiting for them.
It takes Ministers, and this Minister in particular, a very long time to produce regulations on anything. Therefore this Bill, which will allow the Minister to make regulations to reform local government, leaves me in a state of despair as to when, if ever, regulations dealing with the sub-county structures and boundaries the establishment of regional authorities, and so on, will ever see the light of day. What is even worse, it will prevent us from debating these matters in the House again. Regulations are not brought before the House. Indeed, we cannot even ask on the Order of Business when regulations will be published and brought before the House. Not only will this Bill undermine local government and transfer the powers of local authorities to the Minister for the Environment, it will also transfer to him the rights of this House to decide on the structure of local government in the future.
I have no problem with the amendment to the Title although if I had a choice there are many Titles we could use — the Centralisation of Government Bill, the Central Government Bill, the Undermining of Local Government Bill — other than the one proposed by Deputy Howlin, but his proposal certainly describes the Bill more accurately than the Minister's. While I can agree with an amendment which seeks to change the Title of the Bill, I am fundamentally opposed to a Bill which will enable the Minister to reform local government.
The question of the establishment of structures and the reform of local government are matters that should be debated in this House. I refer to the situation in Dublin, in particular. The Bill proposes the estabishment of three area committees corresponding to the existing district committees of Dublin County Council. In a throwaway remark in the course of his Second Stage speech, the Minister referred to the possible boundaries of the area committees, if they were ever constituted, as county councils in their own right. I do not think this is a matter which should be left to the discretion of the Minister for the Environment, whoever he might be. The matter should be debated in this House so that the elected Members have an opportunity of discussing it.
I interrupt in order to be helpful. The Deputy has indicated that time is not as plentiful as the House would wish. I think we would all be the better if we would confine ourselves to what is specifically relevant to the amendments. Deputy Gilmore is moving towards a Second Stage contribution rather than confining himself to the matter under discussion. There are many sections where different matters will be dealt with and if we make appropriate contributions on each amendment and on each section, the end product will be the better.
I was moving to the conclusions of my remarks. One newspaper commentator in the course of the weekend referred to the Minister's superior knowledge. I think it is worth putting on record:
The Opposition devoted lengthy criticism to apparent flaws which the Minister, with his superior knowledge and expert advisers, easily countered.
We know what the Minister did — by and large he ignored what the expert advisers had to say. I suppose the quality newspapers use the phrase "superior knowledge" as a way of saying "the Minister knows best". It is an apt enough phrase because, effectively, the Minister is asking us to leave it up to him, the Minister knows best and the Minister, with his superior knowledge will decide on the future structures of local government. I do not think that is the way we should deal with the question of local government reform. It should be debated in detail in this House but, unfortunately, we are not going to be given the opportunity to do so.
I disagree fundamentally with the previous speakers. I am convinced that the Minister is introducing a process of real reform of local government. I have some experience of a county council that is too big and I am sure Deputy Gilmore shares my view that it is unworkable.
What about after 2 June?
I was re-elected to that council in 1985.
Will you be re-elected in 1991?
At that time three new councils were promised and I would have been a member of the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown council. The Minister is introducing a Bill which will initiate this process. It has taken years to reform local government in other countries and people should remember that.
It was put on the long finger.
If we do not make a start some time, we will never see any real reform. The Bill has come through expert committees, Cabinet sub-committees and there is a broad framework for reform. Quite frankly, I cannot see any other way of dealing with this issue except that you begin by setting up structures, systems and functions and, quite rightly, the funding will fit into the structures in due course. In 1985 we were all re-elected, those of us who were on Dublin County Council, to councils of Fingal, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown and Belgard, but nothing happened. The system is grinding to a halt. The Bill provides us with real opportunities. There is provision for three new statutory committees and Dublin County Council will be required to delegate functions to area councils and each area will have an area manager. The area managers will consult the area committees and then they will bring forward a joint report on the establishment of new councils. The Minister is putting the whole system together and it deals with the transfer of assets and staff. There is an innuendo that there is something wrong with this. There will be consultations with the trade unions.
What about consulting with the councillors for a change?
Under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress The Government are involved in consultations with the social partners. I can only presume that this type of consultation will continue. We are living in an era of consultation with the social partners and surely when the processes are established, the Bill will fit quite comfortably within that structure.
I believe games are being played at this early stage. Something in the order of 298 amendments have been tabled and we should move on to some of the more substantial elements of this legislation.
Unlike Deputies Gilmore and Kitt I did not have the opportunity of making a Second Stage speech and I do not intend to do so now. I will confine my remarks to the amendment under discussion. The amendment seeks to insert the words "enabling provisions" into the Title. I have no quibble with that. We might as well call a spade a spade. This Bill will enable the Minister to do what he likes. I do not agree that the Minister should be allowed to do what he likes but the Title of the Bill should reflect the reality.
The Minister should not be allowed do what he likes; once bitten twice shy. I would not like to give the Minister a free hand in local government. The Bill proposes to transfer the power from the Oireachtas to the Minister and we must realise that. If this Bill is passed, the Minister, or future Minister, will have the enabling power to reform local government. That is not the way it should be. As soon as the local elections are over and members of the Minister's party have overcome the shock of meeting the electorate will rates on houses be brought back or will we have a property tax or a tax by a name that the Minister proposes to give it.
An issue without a name. He is afraid to put a name on it.
This Bill enables the Minister to do that and I would not have much confidence in him. The Minister will not do anything to upset people before 27 June but I have great fears of what might happen after that. We might as well call it the "enabling provisions" Bill.
Deputy Kitt has said that games are being played but if games are being played, they are being played by the Minister.
I would remind the House that people who were expected to give an informed opinion on the Bill received the explanatory memorandum on the day the Bill was presented. It was intentional that information be delayed so that the Minister would be able to slip through proposals without us being properly informed of them until it was too late.
This provision will strangle local authorities. From his performance up to now, the Minister cannot be trusted with extra powers. What he has done with national lottery funds is disgraceful. He has failed to give local authorities the flexibility to spent their block grants as they see fit. Letters about the use of national lottery funds are like confetti, they are all over the place——
I do not think this is relevant to the amendment we are discussing.
I think it is very relevant.
The Deputy has not given that impression to date.
As I said, letters about the use of national lottery funds are like confetti. The Minister is abusing his powers and I do not believe he should be given any of the additional powers proposed in the Bill. As I said, these additional powers will strangle local authorities.
The inclusion of the words proposed in Deputy Howlin's amendment in the Long and Short Titles of the Bill is unnecessary. I agree with Deputy Howlin that the amendment is not of great substance. This is a Local Government Bill and there have been more than 20 Local Government Acts. The Title "An Act to amend and extend the law relating to Local Government" describes exactly what the Bill will do. I hope the Deputy does not intend to press his amendment which, as he rightly said, is not a substantive amendment.
The Bill contains provisions which are not enabling provisions and have effect directly from the legislation. It is important to remember that. I want to give a few examples of these provisions — the postponement of elections, the change in regard to section 4 motions, the disqualification of Ministers from local authority membership and the continuation in office of certain members of harbour boards and VECs. The Short Title is meant to be short and introducing the words "enabling provisions" would be a misnomer. This, of course, begs the question why other descriptions of the Bill should not be included in the Title. This would lead us well away from the idea of the Short Title.
While Deputy Mitchell raised some other points which are not properly before us at this time, he did make the point about clogging-up local government by regulations. I found that an extraordinary opening remark from Deputy Mitchell; although maybe not so extraordinary when one considers his lack of understanding of some of the fundamentals of this legislation. I want to point out to Deputy Mitchell that Deputy Howlin proposes in amendment No. 13 that every regulation must be laid in draft before each House of the Oireachtas. I ask the Deputy, who wants to clog up the system? The proposal in Deputy Howlin's amendment will do exactly what Deputy Mitchell spoke about — it will clog up the system.
We will reach that point in due course.
The Minister does not make too many regulations.
Now that we are talking about regulations——
We will reach that point in due course.
These matters were raised——
Excuse me, Aire. This is the unfortunate position in which we find ourselves; when making their contributions, Deputies were inclined to stray beyond the spirit of the amendment.
We did not discuss the specifics of the Bill.
The Chair will deal with the Minister and every Member in the same fashion. If the Minister feels he is entitled to make a passing reference to something which has already been mentioned, I could not deny him that right. I hope that once we have dealt with this amendment no Deputy will give anyone else the opportunity to be out of order.
I do not propose to detain the House too long on this amendment, but as the Deputies referred to the regulations, I felt I should point out that under section 3 (4) the regulations will, of course, be laid before each House and any Deputy can challenge any regulation in this House. How many Deputies ever attempted to challenge regulations in this House during the past couple of years? I cannot remember. How many of them can cite even one example of an improper use of the power to make a regulation? It cannot be done. Why are the Deputies talking about things which have no substance and are inaccurate?
This is real reforming legislation and the Opposition in a strange, convoluted way accept this. In fact, Deputy Gilmore went so far as to tell me to reform local government, which is precisely what I am attempting to do.
That is not what I said. I said we should reform local government. The Minister is the last person in the world I would want to see reforming local government.
This legislation will provide a valuable vehicle for the Minister to do exactly what the Deputy wants him to do, to reform local government.
We would prefer to give the Minister a hand in this.
This Bill will reform local government. I cannot accept amendment No. 1 which, as even Deputy Howlin said, is not a substantive amendment.
While I said that this amendment was not of great substance — it deals with the Title to the Bill and I want to get on to more meaty points quickly — it is important that book is given an accurate title, the name of a book should reflect what is in it. This Bill purports to be reforming legislation but it is clearly not that, and I think the Minister has begun to realise this over the past few days. I want the reality of the Bill to be reflected in its Short and Long Titles.
The Minister has teased us to respond to a number of extraneous matters and apart from making one important comment I shall do my best to restrain myself. During my first term as a Member of the Oireachtas I served on the committee which dealt with legislation and which took as one of its duties the duty to monitor and look at Statutory Instruments. The committee was abolished together with many other committees. It is very important that there would be a monitoring committee of this House who would look at the huge volume of legislation which is enforced by fiat, direct order of the Minister, and which is not subject to public scrutiny. There is grave cause for concern among the electorate and the elected Members of this House in relation to more and more powers being given to Ministers to act outside the scope of this House and to put into legislation important measures by way of Statutory Instruments. I hope we can have a monitoring procedure in regard to such issues. I believe the amendment is important enough to be put to the House.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 6, subsection (10), line 6, after "days" to insert "(being a day or days not later than twelve months from the date of its enactment)".
This amendment also deals with the framework of the Bill. It is important to know when the provisions of the Bill will come into effect. Under section 1 (10) the Minister gives himself the power to fix the day or days on which this Bill will become law "either generally or with reference to any particular purpose or provision and different days may be so fixed for different purposes and different provisions and for the repeal and revocation effected by section 4 of different enactments”. I have acknowledged on national radio that, even though they are few and far between, there are welcome provisions in the Bill, unfortunately in many cases prescribed by the Minister, but I hope we can improve on that as we debate the Bill. The Labour Party believe that whatever is to be done should be done within a reasonable time frame. My amendment seeks to include in subsection (10) the words “being a day or days not later than twelve months from the date of its enactment” so that the Minister will have the responsibility to act on the measures he has lauded over the last ten days. There are many provisions in this Bill which may never see the light of day. Deputy Kitt already referred to the creation of three independent county councils for the county of Dublin. These county councils have existed since the last local elections as committees. The provisions of this Bill will maintain them as committees. They are not being made into statutory county councils on enactment of this legislation. It is possible that they will be long-fingered forever. That is one of the many issues in this Bill that will not automatically come into force when this Bill is enacted. Many of the parts will come into operation at the discretion of the Minister and they may never see the light of day.
We in the Labour Party want to add to the number of Bills and enactments that are annulled by this provision. We want to know that if the provision to impose domestic charges is carried in this House, it will come into effect within a reasonable time. In relation to the monitoring of enabling powers, the democratic assembly must have control over when and how these provisions become applicable as the law of the land. That should not be left to the discretion of one individual. We can all instance laws which are ignored although theoretically they are binding, but it would be far worse to have provisions enacted here and left to gather dust on the shelf. There is no reasonable argument against the provisions of this Bill coming into effect within a period of 12 months which is surely enough time for the Government and the Minister to bring into effect the modest contents of this Bill.
The amendment deals with the question of times. I support the amendment although I have mixed feelings in two respects. There are aspects of this Bill that I would like never to come into effect, much less have brought into effect within 12 months. On the other hand there are some aspects of the Bill I would like to see brought into effect immediately, for example, amendments proposed to section 4 in relation to material contravention procedures. Will the Minister indicate when he proposes to bring these changes into effect. If it was to take a year, within the space of a year I could see Fianna Fáil members of Dublin County Council rezoning on average 30 or 40 material contraventions. The record over the last six years shows that provision for about 4,000 houses was rezoned since the last local elections. Deputy Kitt, who is now advising the Minister will be able to inform him about that. I would not like there to be a delay between the enactment of these measures and their being brought into effect because the practice in Dublin County Council has been that when there is a deadline, local elections or whatever, there is a big push to rush through material contraventions. I would hate a similar situation to develop if there was a delay in the introduction of this Bill.
Will the Minister commit himself as to when we will see the sub-county structures? How much longer will the people of the towns of this country be denied a vote? They already have urban councils and town commissioners which are in place for six years and which are now proposed to be continued indefinitely. When does the Minister propose to have the sub-county structures put in place? Can the Minister give us some indication of the timescale in relation to regional authorities, in relation to the proposals for Dublin and in relation to the devolution of any powers from central Government. It would help the rest of the debate if the Minister gave us some indication as to the timescale he envisages for these provisions coming into effect.
This amendment in the name of Deputy Howlin is like the curate's egg, good in parts but bad in parts and I will not support it. There are several orders, regulations and directions permitted by the section which relates to his amendment, which I do not want to see brought in. I do not want to force the Minister to do something within the next 12 months which I do not want him to do at all. That would be the effect of Deputy Howlin's amendment.
When we come to the subsection I will strongly oppose it because it gives the Minister extraordinary extensive powers. It says:
This Act shall come into operation on such day or days, as by order or orders...either generally or with reference to any particular purpose or provision and different days may be so fixed for different purposes and different provisions and for the repeal or revocation effected by section 4 of different enactments.
This subsection gives the Minister extraordinary powers even to change legislation enacted by the Houses of the Oireachtas. Deputy Gilmore made a case in relation to section 4s. The provisions of this Bill should have effect from the date of the publication of the Bill and any motion tabled after that date should be subject to the provisions of this Bill. I am as committed as anyone else to getting rid of abuses under section 4. At the same time I am concerned because we are further eroding the power of councils, and thus the power of local people, to influence events around them. There is an implication that the only people capable of wrongdoing or capable of being wrongly influenced are elected representatives. We know that it is officials both at central and local level who have a much greater role and much more power in relation to planning matters. Only a fool would believe that officials are above making wrongful decisions or being wrongfully influenced. The general view of the House is that we have to do something about abuses under section 4. The effect of what is proposed will restrict councillors in planning matters but it could very well facilitate greater bureaucratic abuse. That is not something which the House wants to achieve. For those reasons I will not support the amendment of Deputy Howlin.
I support what the Fine Gael spokesperson said on this section. It allows the Minister to fix a day when the Bill will become law. It is essential that that date be spelt out. I do not want to see several parts of the Bill passed into law, but the good parts of it have to be taken with the bad parts. If the Bill is to be passed into law, as it will be, that date should be named. The provision allows the Minister to fix the date. I would not have great confidence in allowing the Minister to become involved in the fixing of dates, but if he has to fix the date then that should be when the Bill becomes law.
The Bill make provisions concerning local charges. Can the Minister also fix dates when changes in local charges will come into force?
It is essential that the proposed, or supposed, reform of section 4 motions should come into force immediately rather than leaving a valley period which could result in people being tempted to use such motions more than necessary. In his Second Stage speech my constituency colleague, Deputy Molloy, the Minister for Energy, made great play of the part played by the Progressive Democrats in that matter. He claimed credit for any reform of section 4 motions for his party. He made a very hypocritical speech.
He used section 4 motions.
He was the only person to introduce a section 4 motion at corporation level in Galway. He supported and used many of them at Galway County Council level. The Deputy spent half an hour lecturing our spokesperson, and everybody else, on what be described as our hypocrisy in relation to the Bill, yet his speech was the most hypocritical I have ever heard in the House.
The Minister for Energy said his party would have gone further and would not have allowed Deputies to stand for local authorities. However, he, as a Minister, has stayed for two years as a member of not only one local authority but two local authorities in my county, Galway Corporation and Galway County Council. He is also a member of several sub-committes of those local authorities. Despite my valiant efforts to get that Minister to see the light of day and resign from those local authorities, he had the audacity to come into the Chamber on Second Stage and say that the Progressive Democrats would have gone further than the Minister and would not have allowed Deputies to stand for local authorities. Deputy Molloy, still has 28 days or so to resign from the local authorities. He should not come into the House to try to fool the people.
I am sorry to have digressed from the amendment being discussed. I got a little carried away on the issue although I did not mean to. The dates should be set quickly. The House should not allow a long period to elapse because that would be a very dangerous procedure.
I am reminded of what my colleague, the Minister for Energy, did when he was Minister for Local Government at the time of the 1973 election and when it was obvious that his party were losing power and that there would be a new Government. That was before the time of section 4 motions and the setting up of the planning appeals system. He dealt with numerous planning applications in the three weeks from the time the Dáil fell and the new Government were elected. How can he talk about the hypocrisy of this side of the House in our contributions to this debate? I wish I had an opportunity to speak about that on Second Stage, because I do not want to abuse Committee Stage by putting those matters on the record.
I have allowed the Deputy some latitude but he cannot continue.
I applaud my colleague, Deputy McCormack, but I shall not stray as far as he did. I too, have serious reservations about the way in which the section is framed. I do not entirely agree with Deputy Howlin's amendment but I can understand why he feels concerned. I can think of a number of precedents elsewhere in legislation, not the least of them being the Criminal Justice Act, 1985. That Act contained a number of parts that came into operation at different times under conditions that had been specified in the Act. The Bill before the House is exactly the same kind of legislation, in that it is composed of a series of different parts that provide for a number of different measures in relation to local authorities, some of which clearly cannot be carried out immediately because much preparatory work has to be done.
The Bill could quite reasonably provide in some or all of those parts that when a certain number of measures have been accomplished that part would come into operation. It would be much wiser to proceed in that way than to give the Minister the very general power he has in the section. I am convinced further in that view by considering the number of provisions in the Bill that propose to give the Minister a series of different powers. With the exception of Part I, which is purely procedural, no part of the Bill does not give the Minister power to make provisions by order or by regulation. Those provisions are excessive, and I shall return to that matter when section 3 is being considered. All of that simply reinforces the case for a much more systematic approach to the implementation of the provisions of the Bill and changing section 1 (10).
I do not entirely agree with the amendment proposed by Deputy Howlin; I agree with my colleague, Deputy Jim Mitchell, on that matter. Consideration should be given to bringing more certainty, more predictability, and more conditionality into the implementation of the different parts of the Bill. I urge the Minister, who has already shown a small degree of openness, in one respect at least, to consider the matter between now and Report Stage and introduce more clarity and predictability into the Bill by amending section 1 (10).
First, I should like to say that I am pleased that many Deputies welcome certain provisions of the Bill and that they have been generous enough to express their views at the start of Committee Stage. The amendment is unnecessary and would have undesirable consequences, and I should like to try to convince Members about that.
If a provision we would want to commence, and that everybody would agree was necessary and desirable, had not commenced within the specified period then it could not be commenced but would, in effect, lapse as it would not then be possible to commence it. That would defeat the whole purpose of a good measure. I intend to commence as much as possible of the Bill immediately or as soon as possible following its enactment. That would obviously be the case with electoral matters listed out in Part III.
As many as possible of the new general powers will be brought into operation on the commencement of the term of office of the new councils in July. That is what I hope for. I shall deal with the Dublin reorganisation, contained in Part IV, and the section 4 procedures, which have been referred to later. In other cases it will be necessary that orders or regulations be prepared. Deputy Dukes recognised that. They will have to be prepared, and that sometimes takes time. For example, the issues of committees and boundary alterations would, of course, take some time. The issue of expenses for members might take even longer to resolve than the time talked about by Deputy Howlin.
Appropriate consultations will have to be carried out in other cases, which might not enable me to pursue the matter as quickly as I might otherwise wish to. A study group is to look at the question of changes in the reserved functions in section 41. I have explained that at a previous time. I would like to give that study group ample opportunity to discuss that and to go into the existing situation of reserved functions as against executive functions of the managerial acts so that whatever recommendations they could come up with would not be just rushed at the Minister or anybody else who would seek to implement changes in that area of the reserved functions being given to elected members.
A boundary committee must be appointed before the other sections can commence. In the circumstances the amendment could not be accepted as it would simply have the effect of cancelling provisions in the Bill which, despite our best efforts, might have to be delayed in coming into operation.
I think Deputy Howlin would like to have it both ways. He criticised the use of regulations to get changes made. He wants to do it a different way. This is not his first time articulating his attitude in this regard; he has done it in respect of several other pieces of legislation. At least he is consistent. He wants to criticise the use of these regulations to get changes made. Yet he criticises the fact that the Bill does not allow regulations to take the Dublin reorganisation right through to finality. Which way does he want it? He should spell it out. I take the view that we should certainly use regulations to make as much progress as possible in the next year to bring about the reorganisation of Dublin. I would like to pursue that matter by regulation as quickly as possible.
On the other hand, dealing substantially with the setting up of three new county councils will need new legislation and it would be wrong to do that by regulation. New legislation should and will be produced to deal effectively with that matter. That is the clear example of my attitude in framing this. The example I would like to suggest is that we should discriminate between matters proper to regulation and those which are proper to legislation. This is an example of where we have got it right and I ask the Deputy to accept that.
Deputy Mitchell referred to the question of section 4 motions and how quickly he would like to see this matter dealt with. In effect that could be brought into operation immediately after the Bill becomes law. It does not necessarily have to go beyond this June or July or any other June or July. It could be happening right away and it allows for that to happen. I have already stated that I will seek to pursue that issue as quickly as possible. I am not saying I will do it the first day but I am proposing it as an issue that we want to see brought on. It would not be in the Bill otherwise.
Deputy Mitchell spoke about the influence of officials in planning matters. That is the reason the Minister does not want to do away with section 4 motions in their entirety. I have always believed that we have to have a certain amount of balance between what the expert input is in planning matters and the democratic view of what is right and necessary. I take his point about section 1 (10). I have to say it is purely a standard matter. I will not pursue the matter of 4,000 houses that were built because it would not be proper at this time, but I am sure there are 4,000 families who are very pleased to have their homes.
And 130 developers who are very happy, too.
The Deputy and I would both agree that there is a need for the construction of homes, for accommodation for people. I would dearly like to see county councils generally getting on with the review of their development plans and not persisting in seeking my support for having extensions given to them on a continuous basis. I do not like doing that. In the case of every application for an extension that comes before me I really sit down and consider it because I want county councils to review their development plans in the first instance. they set themselves in the first instance. Then we might not have half the material contraventions that we continually talk about in this House.
First, I welcome the teasing out of this issue which, is important. At least we have drawn the Minister some way to giving commitments on the record in relation to the implementation of this Bill section by section. It is bland to say that this is a standard provision that is slotted in, in other words, that it is left to the discretion of the Minister. I am opposed in principle to this being a provision blandly slotted in. That is why I raise it here. I am very much in agreement with the view expressed by Deputy Dukes in relation to the need for clarity and predictability. There is also a very strong case for the phasing in of the provisions in this Bill for practical and obvious reasons. However, they should be time scaled into the Bill. We should know about them in advance and they should not be subject to the whim of an individual Minister without proper legislative control. Quite frankly, I do not think it is a good argument to say in this House that they might not be done at all or that if we set 12 months and they are not done in 12 months they might fall off the table altogether so let us not put pressure on ourselves. It is time we did put pressure on ourselves, and it is time the Custom House and the Minister put pressure on themselves to enact the provisions before us here.
Some other Opposition spokespersons spoke of rejecting the amendment on the basis that there is a number of matters in the Bill they would not agree with. I, obviously, started on that premise too. We will deal with those, and hopefully we will change the Minister's mind on them. The ground rules should be that whatever comes to it — and we hope that it will be a better Bill when it is finished — there will be a predictable time scale that will be mapped out in a way that allows local government which is outside this House now, but looking in, to plan for itself and know where it is going.
I am interested in the Minister's declaration now about the actual structures for Dublin, which were being lauded a few minutes ago by Deputy Kitt when he said that this Minister had grasped the nettle. However, the Minister has just told us that, basically, he has not advanced one whit on the position of one of his predecessors, Deputy Liam Kavanagh. He is setting up those three committees and the establishment of those three county councils will require a further Act. When will we see that? When will we see the sub-county structures? What shape will they have or are they all kicked forward another six years until the next local elections come around, now that we go through this ritual when local elections are looming? I said — and I do not want my views distorted on it — that I have a suspicion of the volume of real legislation that is enacted by way of statutory instrument. More and more legislation going through this House contains enabling provisions for the Minister and his officials to bring in important changes by way of regulation. We do not even have a monitoring committee in this House now — we used to have the old committee on legislation — to routinely bring before the elected Members what is being brought in by statutory instruments. I am not arguing that the Minister should bring in more by way of statutory instrument or by way of regulation. What I am arguing, lest the Minister missed the point, is that his intentions in this regard be spelled out clearly in legislation. What does the Minister intend to do with Dublin? He has said we need a new Bill. Let him publish the Bill and let us have the totality of discussions in a complete framework and not hints at one thing and promises of things to come.
We have a lot of work to get through so I do not want to labour this much further, but before we put the question perhaps there are other Deputies who wish to contribute.
I would like to be sure that I understood the Minister correctly. I understood him to say a few moments ago that he envisaged further legislation for the purpose of establishing the three proposed councils in the Dublin area.
Yes.
If that is correct, Sir, I am very happy to have that on the record of the House. I would also like to say, however, that so far as this Bill is concerned, if you will allow me just a little latitude, that will mean when we come, if we ever do, to dealing with that part of the Bill that covers this, that is, Part IV, the Minister will have to think again and that we will need substantial amendments to that part.
Sections 23 and 24 in particular deal in some detail with the arrangements to be made there. If, contrary to what we have understood and in accordance with what the Minister has just said, there is to be legislation to set up these three new councils, it seems to me that most of the matters dealt with in those two sections in particular and in that Part in general should be remitted to legislation. It is far better for this House to pass legislation to deal with these things than to have it done in the way proposed in this Bill.
I, too, would like to refer to the comment the Minister made about his intention to introduce further legislation to provide for the establishment of new sub-counties in Dublin. That flatly contradicts sections 24 and 25 of the Bill as it stands which allow for the establishment of the new sub-counties by regulation, the Minister having received a report from the respective managers. I would prefer to see the reorganisation of local government in Dublin dealt with by way of legislation. I had hoped it would be dealt with in this legislation and one of the criticisms I had of the Bill before us is that it does not reform local government at all. Effectively it provides for the re-establishment — renaming really — of the existing district committees of Dublin County Council as area committees and for the assignment of a separate manager for them. The Minister himself when speaking here last year on the postponement of the local elections described that formula for Dublin as a half-baked proposal for reorganising local government in Dublin and I must say I agreed with him on that. I think the establishment of three sub counties in Dublin in 1985 was a half-baked idea and I do not think it has improved anything in the six intervening years; in fact, the six intervening years have confirmed how half-baked and unworkable it was.
The Minister should explain further what he has in mind by way of further legislation because the situation that will arise in Dublin after the local elections is that members will be elected to precisely the same authorities on 27 June as they were elected to in 1985. The Bill before us will not change that except in a few minor respects. The one area where there might have been some possible change is that of Dublin County Council and Dún Laoghaire Borough Council devolving some of their powers to the area committees, but I cannot see Dublin County Council and Dún Laoghaire Borough Council now agreeing to devolve any of their powers to area committees, given that the Minister has just announced there may be further legislation to provide for the establishment of separate counties. The Minister's announcement about further legislation in relation to Dublin not only confirms what I have always believed, that there was no reform in this Bill in relation to Dublin, it has now put the cat among the pigeons in Dublin post-27 June. The situation will be totally confused with people elected to the same bodies as have existed since 1985, provision in the Bill for some kind of loose devolution of power, a promise of further legislation along the way, and sections 24 and 25 of this Bill which in the meantime give the Minister power by regulation to establish bodies and decide what functions they may perform and so forth. The situation in Dublin has been chaotic for a very long time and the Minister's announcement now, while in its own way welcome, is compounding that chaos. He should clarify what exactly the local government situation may be after 27 June. Half-baked it may have been in 1985 but I think the cake is in danger of getting burned.
(Interruptions.)
I am still very much aware of what is happening and still very much behind the Minister.
Do not worry, Tom, I have the Exocet to deal with that.
Saddam Hussein thought that and look at what happened to him.
He used scuds, that is the difference.
Deputy Gilmore should read section 24 again. It provides for regulations in relation to preparations for establishment of proposed councils. I feel the Minister had no option but to adopt this approach. It is a process. It is going to be difficult to achieve for three new councils. There is a manager. There is a principal officer in charge of, say, the Parks Department and we have an excellent park on the south side, Marley Park.
With the Deputy's name on the gate.
With my name on the unique playground actually. We have fine parks all over the country. We have one in Newbridge demesne on the north side. Look at the problems there of finding new principal officers or new managers.
There are 257,000 people unemployed. There would be no problem.
Allow Deputy Kitt to continue.
That comment about the unemployed is not relevant to this. We are involved in establishing something important, significant and historic and I cannot see how the Minister could handle it in any other way. As I understand it, the area managers will be consulting with their new committees which will have a new significance. There is an interim period. You must channel the committees into new, fully fledged councils. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong. They will be involved in consultation and will be required to submit a joint report on preparation for the new councils. The section Deputy Gilmore referred to relates to regulations governing preparation. The Minister will be involved in an evolving process. After the elections the new committees will take on a new significance, a new meaning. There will be a gradual devolution and evolution of power within those committees. It is a very sensible way to approach it, not just for the elected members but also for the managers. That is one area we must monitor. Some of the principal officers in the various departments have tremendous expertise and experience on a county basis and each of the new councils will be head hunting for principal officers to be the managers of the various sections of the councils within the new area. It has to be done this way. You must evolve the system. What happened the last time was a total sham. The newly elected members felt they were getting involved in something new within the three new committees and nothing happened. Still the agenda clogs up on a monthly basis; it is too big. I feel this Bill is the correct approach.
I would like to expand a little on what my colleague Deputy Kitt referred to. I recommend section 24 to the Deputies who raised the question about further legislation because it is set out clearly there. The side heading is "Regulations in relation to preparations for establishment of proposed councils". That spells it out rather starkly. The Deputies suggested the Bill provides for nothing new in Dublin as compared with the provisions of the 1985 reorganisation Act. That is wide of the mark. Let me state precisely what is intended here.
The only common factor between this legislation and the 1985 reorganisation Act is that the existing electoral counties are being used for practical convenience but with provisions for future adjustments if necessary. The Government accept it is necessary to take definite steps now to get the process under way rather than repeat the half-hearted measures provided for in the 1985 Act. Accordingly, as I indicated in my Second Stage speech in some detail, and it is worth reiterating, as a first step in the process of the transition to the three new county councils three statutory committees of the new elected county council corresponding to the new county council areas will be established under the Bill after the elections, one for each of the proposed county areas and composed of the members elected to those areas. Dublin County Council will be required to delegate functions and to operate as far as possible through those committees and each will have their own area manager to be appointed through the Local Appointments Commission. Pending this, three existing assistant managers will be assigned responsibility for the area committees, each exercising delegated functions appropriate to the area. I stated this in my Second Stage contribution but it is worth putting it on the record again.
It is not in the section.
Over a period the role of the committees will be progressively widened and the area managers after necessary consultations with their area committees are required by the Bill to submit a joint report on the preparations for the establishment of the new county councils for their three areas. In the light of that report, the Minister will make regulations in preparation for the establishment of the three county councils, the dissolution of the present authorities and the transfer of staff, assets, liabilities and property to the new bodies.
While further legislation will be required formally to abolish Dublin County Council and Dún Laoghaire Corporation and to establish the three new county councils, I would like to emphasise again that unlike the arrangements made in 1985, the provisions in Part IV of the Bill in relation to Dublin will not cease to have effect after the holding of the local elections. In fact, the provisions to which I have referred will ensure that all the necessary preparatory steps connected with the structural reorganisation in Dublin can be worked out and given effect in anticipation of further legislation.
In effect, what the Deputy wished to happen so far as the three new county councils are concerned is being catered for in the legislation. I think the statutory instruments committee on which Deputy Howlin served was a Seanad Committee.
It was a Joint Committee.
There is one item to which I should refer so that we can proceed and make some progress. Local Government (Reorganisation) Act, 1985 put through the House by a Labour Minister of which both Deputy Mitchell and Deputy Dukes were members, contains a section which is virtually identical to section 1 (10).
The Minister described it as half baked.
Wait a moment.
It is fully cooked.
It has been brought to my notice that the section in that Act which was identical to section 1 (10) was section 1 (6). If it was all right then it should be all right now.
It was not as all encompassing.
If it was not all right then I do not know why Deputy Mitchell and Deputy Dukes could be part of a government pursuing it.
The Minister had not become——
Acting Chairman
Please allow the Minister to make his contribution without further interruption.
The point is——
It is a very broad and rambling Second Stage contribution.
I have put on the record the situation so far as the three new county councils are concerned. I think the Deputies are taking a liberty in straying from the amendment, but if they do, and if they persist, then I have to answer them.
I have been listening to the debate on the monitor; I feel about 60 already because of the time it will take to do all the things the Minister has read out.
The Deputy does not look 60.
I suspect I will be 60 if I am lucky enough to be elected to Dublin County Council by the time the Minister carries out the various things he has talked about. He must recognise the urgency to change the format particularly of the council of which I am a member.
This is an utter and total farce. He has only to turn his head and address the backbench Deputy behind him and he will agree with everything I say.
He already has.
I realise that, but I want to make sure that the Minister is hearing it from behind as well as in front of him.
I am trying to change all that.
The Minister may not be aware that the bulk of business at local authority level on Dublin County Council now centres totally on section 4 motions and not the ubiquitous planning section 4, but basic section 4, to have walls built, estates taken in charge and all the day to day business. I have a motion down on the agenda of the Dublin County Council — and you, a Chathaoirligh, will empathise with this — for one and a half years. It relates to the announcement by the same Minister of the setting up of the national roads authority. I put down a motion to Dublin County Council asking what the implications were for our work on Dublin County Council.
The Lord save us.
I know Deputy Mitchell is disappointed I pushed it through.
That motion is still there two years later and it is as relevant as ever because the legislation is not passed. I suppose in one way it is as well it was not taken because I would have got a nonsense of an answer. The intent of this amendment and what is being said here must highlight for the Minister the urgency and the need to have the next piece of legislation in the House when the Dáil resumes in October so that as members of the council — I may be preempting the electorate at this stage — we do not have to give bad representation to our constituents because the structures disallow us from giving better representation.
The amendment I tabled in relation to the coming into effect of this Act has certainly engendered a broad ranging and good debate. I perceive that the restructuring of Dublin is somewhat more vague now than it was at the beginning of this debate. It would have been helpful — I do not say it would have been impossible — if the Minister had published the other legislative provisions in relation to the restructuring of Dublin and the other sub-counties, and they could have been debated in tandem with this Bill. If they had been published we could refer to them in the course of this debate. Section 24 seems to put a process in place; the side note to section 24 looks like something the poor pressured Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would come up with——
Regulations in relation to preparations for the establishment of proposed councils.
Talks about talks.
They are hedged in so many tiers, proposals to discuss proposals. I would like to see the reality of that in clear legislative terms. Perhaps the Minister in his final comments on this amendment would tell us when he intends to publish the statutory enactment for the new Dublin councils and at the same time answer the other questions. When will we see his proposals in relation to the sub-county tiers because that hinges very directly on my amendment. If we knew the legislative proposals would be published within a reasonable time, I would withdraw the amendment.
The debate has been much too wide ranging and has gone into the Dublin issue. That issue is not addressed in the amendment or in the sections to which it refers, except in so far as there are provisions in the sections dealing with the Dublin reorganisation which allows the Minister, by regulation and by order to make certain changes. The sections dealing with Dublin are those with which I have least objection because something has to be done about Dublin. I do not happen to be enamoured with the idea of three county councils, I think we have to go much further than that in Dublin to bring the local authorities nearer to the people while streamlining and co-ordinating their functions. I wonder that my colleagues in the other parties are surprised that new legislation is required because the Minister already said that.
I did.
I knew that legislation would be required.
The Deputy is quite smart.
I am well informed. Even the Minister for Energy, Deputy Molloy, would now acknowledge I am better informed than he is.
What is at issue in Dublin is the matter of reorganisation and when it will happen. As I understand what has been stated here, if on 27 June the people of Ballybrack return me as a member of the local authority I will still be a member of two local authorities, namely——
Acting Chairman
I would remind the Deputy that we are not going to discuss his election campaign now.
I am very relieved to hear that.
The Deputy should give us a tour of his constituency.
Acting Chairman
If Deputies come back to the amendment we would make more progress. I have allowed a lot of latitude to Deputies and we have spent a great deal of time on this amendment. Deputies are straying away from the amendment. It is in their own interest that they speak to the amendment and everything else will then fall into line.
As I understand it after 27 June members in Dublin will be elected to the same bodies as in 1985. The existing district committees will be called area committees. The managers of those committees will prepare a report and the only function the members will have is that they will be consulted. The report will go to the Minister who may then look for further report. He may then make regulations about whatever preparations might be made and some time after that he will introduce legislation. It seems that that is a long way from the reorganisation of local government in Dublin that we were promised. It seems that Deputy Kitt, Deputy Owen and myself, if we are still members of Dublin County Council, will be grappling with long agenda and section 4 motions in a 78-member authority for a very long time to come. Deputy Owen's motion and indeed my own motions, one of which has been on the agenda of Dublin County Council for a lot longer than that of Deputy Owen, will be still sitting there waiting to be attended to. The bottom line is that this Bill does not reorganise local government in Dublin. After 27 June there will be the same chaotic, unworkable position as has existed since 1985, and that is an absolute disgrace. Local government in Dublin has been crying out for reorganisation for a very long time and the Minister has failed to reorganise it.
Acting Chairman
Is Deputy Howlin pressing his amendment?
I would like to have had a response from the Minister to the specific questions I asked in relation to the publication of the additional Bills in this area.
The best way to answer that is that many of the matters Deputy Gilmore referred to will happen in parallel with this legislation. As I have said on several occasions, once the matter is sufficiently advanced, legislation will have to be produced.
What is the Minister's timescale?
I would like to think that it will get under way immediately after the elections and that it will be concluded within the 12 months the Deputy originally mentioned. There are many other matters in relation to agendas of county councils that I am aware of, and it is with a view to doing something in that regard that this legislation is formulated. I think Deputies will agree that the section 4 changes in planning matters referred to in the legislation will do much to allow the items the Deputies would like to see on the agenda to be finally discussed.
Maybe a National Roads Authority would be a standard body then.
I know it is a great disappointment to some of the Deputy's colleagues that the National Roads Authority legislation has been published. We will have an opportunity to discuss that legislation at some length here.
It has nothing to do with 27 June.
I will very foolishly trust the Minister in this regard and will withdraw the amendment.
It is my intention to proceed with all haste on this matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Acting Chairman
Amendment Nos. 3 and 5 are related and may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 6, subsection (1), between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following definition:
" `local community' means all persons normally resident in the functional area of a local authority;".
This is the interpretation section of the Bill and I wish to add two new definitions to two phrases which recur repeatedly throughout the Bill but which have not been defined. It is important that we define these two phrases in particular. Not only do they recur throughout the Bill but local government reform should revolve around the needs of the community and the persons of the local community. Before we can progress we should acknowledge that fact and try to put into the Bill a definition of each of those phrases.
I seek to include a definition of "local community" to mean all persons normally resident in the functional area of a local authority. It seems to be an omission from the Bill that that term is not defined. The other amendment to be discussed in conjunction with this one, amendment No. 5, seeks to insert a definition of "represents the interests of the local community", another phrase that recurs in the Bill. The definition I seek to insert is worthy of teasing out. I suggest to the Minister that "represents the interests of the local community" would mean "to ascertain in a democratic manner, to reflect and to carry out the wishes of the local community to the maximum extent feasible, subject to the rights of every citizen (including minority rights) being fully protected".
When we see the phrase "represents the interests of the local community" it is legitimate to ask what the Minister means by that. There are many statements that I described on Second Stage as banal, statements that look fine, and this is one of them. In legislation we have a responsibility to be a little more accurate than that. This is an important focus for the Bill. The local community should be the heart of all our considerations and therefore the two definitions are necessary. If the Minister wishes to take issue with either one of the definitions or amend them in any way I will certainly look favourably on any suggestions he, or any other Member of the House, wishes to make. The local community should be at the heart of this Bill and therefore they should be defined in the interpretation section of the Bill.
I support these amendments. There are a number of amendments tabled which make specific reference to involving the local community, particularly community organisations, in the work of local government. We have to see local government in a wider sense than simply the elected members of councils and the administrative and other staff apparatus of local authorities. We have to arrive at a point where the consumer of local services and community organisations, whether they be residents' associations, tenants' organisations or voluntary groups, are involved in a participative way in the system of local government.
I will give two examples. Since the present Government abolished the right of NATO to negotiate a national rents scheme for local authority tenants, those tenants no longer have any say in the way in which the rents schemes for their dwellings are formulated. We need to build into this legislation, as of right, a consultative role for bodies such as tenants' organisations. Similarly, we need to build in a consultative role for residents' associations where a local authority propose to carry out works in their area. The definitions proposed by Deputy Howlin emphasise the need to steer this legislation in the direction of giving the community greater involvement and participation in local government.
Amendment No. 3 seeks to describe a local community as meaning all persons resident in the functional area of a local community. In relation to the largest county — Cork — if this amendment is accepted would it mean that people in Castletownbere would be considered part of the local community in relation to an issue affecting Fermoy or Macroom, 100 miles away? A certain amount of common sense must be applied; my understanding of local community is that it is a different thing in different places.
While I welcome an attempt to define local community we will need to elaborate and to be more precise in this regard on Report Stage. I take local community to mean the local community directly affected by an issue. As I have repeatedly said in my comments on the Bill and in discussions on local government reform, the Fine Gael policy is to seek to return power and influence in regard to local matters and environment to local people. Let us take the proposed electoral county of South Dublin; is the area amenity order on the Liffey Valley in Lucan-Palmerstown something in relation to which people in that area should have the same say as those on the other side of the electoral county in Rathfarnham who are not interested in it? I share Deputy Howlin's intention to involve local people in local power and influence and, to that extent, I support the spirit of the amendment which, it must be said, is in defiance of the whole spirit of the Bill, which is to remove power and influence even further from local communities when we should be seeking to do the opposite.
I also support the principle of the amendments because at present local communities do not have the input they should have in regard to decisions affecting their everyday life. We have structures and sub-committees and some local authorities have community development committees which involve community and residents' associations but it is up to individual councils to decide the extent of their willingness to allow local people to become involved.
One area in which there is a need for a greater input from local people in issues which affect them — and I ask the Minister to bear it in mind — is the role of the local community associations in major projects affecting their area. For example, when an environmental impact study is done on a major project affecting an area, the local community have maybe just one month to respond to sometimes very technical and detailed issues. Often the time was up before the community can get their technical and legal advisers together tp put forward their views.
They usually have a lot of prior notice.
No, I do not want to go into specifics but the most recent was the Blackpool flyover in Cork. The environmental impact study was published and the local people were given one month to make a submission. They looked for an extension but did not get it. We have a duty to ensure that people have the right to make a detailed informed submission on something which will affect their everyday life. There is a defect in the system and, for that reason, I support the amendment. I agree with Deputy Jim Mitchell that it needs to be flushed out on Report Stage but I agree with the principle.
I also agree with Deputy Howlin's sentiments. Perhaps his amendment could have been a little more carefully worded because I could see a difficulty arising in a local authority which covers a very wide ranging geographical spread. However, the principle of trying to get the local community involved in what is happening at local authority level is a very good one. Arising from any changes which we bring about in local authority legislation, I hope that rather than taking away from the local community their monitoring and involved role we would increase it. I raise such issues as the persistent need — certainly in relation to the local authority of which I am a member — to keep raising the price of the weekly planning list. That is one way in which local communities can be involved in what is going on in their areas; first they were given out free to all the registerd residents' associations, they then cost £30 and now cost £50. The same applies to the continuous raising of charges for local communities to make an appeal to get information on planning files. I understand that if you ask for a copy of literature from a planning file you are sometimes asked for as much as £25 for a letter. That kind of system is building up by stealth, it is just creeping in and eroding communities. We all know of residents' associations, etc., who cannot get planning lists because they cannot afford the charges.
Amendment No. 5 states "represents the interests of the local community". I do not know whether Deputy Howlin has in mind something on the lines of the Swiss canton system where if a local authority decide to utilise an area as a graveyard and want to know if the local people agree, they carry out a referendum. I am not thinking of going that far, that individual matters like that should be the subject of a referendum, but I should like to see some further extension of the system which exists in our council. We have a system called "deputation" where, once a month, community groups can write to the council and ask to be received in deputation. They may submit five items on the agenda, the relevant officials sit in on the council and the councillors from the area can be present. We have a kind of three-way discussion on problems relating to local areas. There is the germ of a very good policy and system there which I should like to see being used more effectively throughout the country to allow communities to feel they are a part of it.
Under Deputy Howlin's amendment I should also like to see a system whereby these community groups could be properly registered with their local authority and properly elected from their own communities. There is a case to be made for better accountability by some of the community groups. Very often residents' associations are elected at meetings where there might be only ten or 15 residents represented and perhaps those committees do not properly represent the views of the people. If we assisted community groups to be properly structured, then they would be allowed to have a real and relevant input to policy decisions. In some instances the councillors could have a real input in their organisations because very often you run foul of one group who say that another group do not properly represent their community and there is a fight between them. Local authorities should help in setting up structures so that these groups can be properly registered.
As I said, I agree with the sentiments of the amendment but I am not sure it fully gets to grips with bringing together local involved communities. The whole Bill needs to be changed to do that.
Progress reported: Committee to sit again.