Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 May 1991

Vol. 408 No. 5

Local Government Bill, 1991: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 5a:

In page 7, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3.—The Oireachtas shall enact such further Acts as are necessary for the general purposes or for any particular purpose of this Act.".

—(Deputy Dukes.)

Mr. Dukes

Last evening before I reported progress I had made comments on the Minister's reply to what I said in moving my amendment and to comments made by other Deputies on this side of the House. I would like to repeat that I found the Minister's reply to be absolutely, utterly and indomitably bureaucratic. The purpose of my amendment is to clarify in this important matter of reform of local government what the function and purpose is of primary legislation in this area and to clarify the distinction, where the borderline should be, between primary legislation and what the Minister chooses to call subsidiary legislation. I am very concerned with clarifying that boundary because what we have before us is primary legislation which gives us only a bare outline of one stage of the kind of reform the Minister claims he has in mind but it is backed up by an enormous potential volume of subsidiary legislation which is where the Minister's real intentions will be given a force. This is an undemocratic method of bringing these matters before the House and a method which will not allow this House to legislate in the full knowledge of the facts and of what it is doing.

This Bill strikes entirely the wrong balance between primary legislation and subsidiary legislation. It provides for a very cosmetic transfer of powers from the Government to local authorities and takes back most of those powers under the provisions of section 3 and the orders and regulations the Minister may make under the provisions of that section. I hasten to add that clearly I am not the only one who is worried about this. Those worries are shared on all the Opposition benches in this House and by no less a person — I hope I am in order in quoting his name in this House because he went public a couple of days ago — than Mr. Dick Haslam, the former county manager of Limerick County Council and, much more important, a member of the expert advisory group the Government set up to make proposals on local government reform.

If the Minister cares to re-read — if he has read it in the first place — the article by Mr. Haslam in The Irish Times a couple of days ago he will see there exactly the same concern as I have expressed about the balance struck in this Bill between primary legislation and this form of subsidiary legislation which, as I said, is all very fine in its place but is not the proper instrument for bringing about reform of local government.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is straying very far from his amendment, No. 5a.

Mr. Dukes

I am afraid I cannot agree with that. My amendment is to the effect that we should have primary legislation instead of the kind of subsidiary legislation provided for in section 3. I think, Sir, in making that case I am entitled to say why I believe primary legislation is the proper way of going about the action set out before us in this Bill. If this amendment is accepted — and I hope it will be — it will require consequential amendment to 13 sections. I have already recited what they are and I want to give you notice of my intention, to ensure that there will be no misunderstanding when we come to Report Stage, that this amendment, if it is not accepted, and those consequential amendments to the 13 other sections — which I hope we will be able to discuss during Committee Stage — will be repeated on Report Stage because this is the central issue of principle and importance in the Bill. Those amendments would be intended to focus on the correct balance between primary and subsidiary legislation in this matter.

It is absurd for the Minister to claim, as he did last night, that my proposal would lead to the business on the Order Paper of this House being clogged up with an unending series of administrative details; nothing could be further from the truth. What I want to do is to make sure that we have one proper piece of primary legislation so that this House does not have to keep coming back again and again to all the fiddly details that the Minister wants to bring before us. The Minister promises us that he will have before us an unending stream of orders and regulations which he hopes will be passed on the nod or passed under the 21-day rule. It is the Minister who wants to clog up the Order Paper of this House with all of these statutory instruments and other measures. What I want and what my amendment seeks to bring about is that we would have adequate, clear well-defined primary legislation and this House would know exactly what it was doing. The Minister is getting it wrong in both ways.

The orders and regulations he proposes, which cannot be amended by this House — they can only be accepted or rejected — are not the appropriate way to do the important business in sections 9, 12, 24, 31, 33, 40, 41 and 43. Why? It is simply because primary legislation is the proper way to deal with those issues of weight and substance and not a raft of orders or separate regulations or even a raft of separate Bills. All those matters should be dealt with in this Bill which is before the House. Equally, such orders and regulations are not appropriate for section 47. That is more appropriately a matter for primary legislation and for the Bill before us today.

As another example of the kind of interference the Minister is proposing to operate under the provisions of this Bill I draw the attention of the House to sections 46 and 49. These are two areas in which the Minister can give directions. He can give directions whether, and to what extent, local authorities can confer honours or bestow gifts on distinguished persons who come to visit them. The Minister for the Environment will have the power to give directions — if I may take one example — to the Newbridge Town Commissioners if they want to give the President a marble clock when she comes to visit the town. The Minister for the Environment can give directions to the Castlebar Urban District Council, of which I have been a guest, if they want to give an illuminated scroll to me — as they have done — to commemorate my visit. That is not the business of the Minister for the Environment and that is not why he is paid a ministerial salary to sit down in the Custom House and legislate. He should not be involved in those things.

Mr. Roche

That is not the intention of the section.

Mr. Dukes

The Minister is proposing to grant powers to himself under the provisions of this Bill to do just that. I cannot for the life of me see the slightest reason why he should have that power, nor can I see any reason why the Minister should have any power in deciding expenses for members of local authorities who represent their local authorities at conferences or anything else.

Mr. Gilmore

May I make a point of order?

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes.

Mr. Gilmore

I happen to support Deputy Dukes's amendment. I think he spoke for almost an hour last night in proposing the amendment. Having regard to the fact that there are a very large number of amendments and that a number of Members are anxious to contribute, I suggest that he is now repeating substantially the contribution he made last night. Having regard to the limited amount of time available to us I am concerned about the degree of repetition in Deputy Dukes's contribution.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair does share, to a large extent, the view of the Deputy in that this is a limited debate and there has been an element of repetition. Speeches are, perhaps, overlong and tend to be more appropriate to a Second Stage debate than Committee Stage. I have adverted already to the desirability of confining remarks to the amendments under discussion rather than ranging over the whole Bill as is the tendency. I hope regard will be had to the atmosphere in which are seeking to operate and that strict regard will be had to the amendments before us.

Mr. Dukes

I can understand Deputy Gilmore's concern. It is not my fault that there is so little time for this Bill and that there is not enough time to deal adequately with all the amendments. I am being as brief as I can, but we are talking about section 3 which is the instrument by which all these powers will be given to the Minister.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are having a rather wide-ranging speech from the Deputy.

Mr. Dukes

These are very wide-ranging powers.

An Ceann Comhairle

Speeches must be relevant to the amendment.

Mr. Dukes

The Minister is being given powers to interfere and to get his finger through every aspect of local authority activity. I will reply to the nonsensical claims the Minister made last night against the proposal I have made and which, I gather, has the support of The Workers' Party and the Labour Party.

The Minister alleged last night that in putting forward this amendment I had suffered in some way a change of heart compared to the time I was in Government. He read out the numbers of various statutory instruments that had been passed during that time. I have been very clear on that issue. Ever since I entered this House I have been of the strong view that orders and regulations of the kind the Minister is proposing here are not suitable ways to bringing about the effect we seek to achieve with primary legislation. I would be happy to sit down with the Minister and look through the hundreds that have been passed and tell him which of them are not appropriate and were not appropriate at the time. I have argued against the use of that instrument while in Government and in Opposition. I will take no lessons from the Minister for the Environment about that issue because on no occasion did he or his party colleagues ever exercise themselves to look at what is the proper dividing line between primary legislation and subsidiary legislation. The balance between those two is what is at issue in the section and in the amendment before us.

I urge the Minister to accept this amendment. If he does we will then have to proceed to amend the other sections to which I have referred and we will have done a good day's work for the proper definition of primary legislation. If the Minister does not accept this amendment, then he is telling this House that he is opposed to real democracy, to any real independent functions for local authorities, and he is actually against giving any reality back to local government.

Mr. Roche

I listened with great interest to the debate last night on the distinction between secondary legislation and primary legislation. It is not a new debate. The arguments which were put forward by Deputy Dukes, interesting though they were, were hardly novel because many of those arguments were put forward in the twenties when the new despotism, the whole issue of secondary legislation, was a very lively debate.

As the Minister pointed out last night there were no fewer than 1,130 statutory instruments or regulations of one form or another, pressed through in three years while Deputy Dukes was in Government. No doubt it will be of interest to historians to note that Deputy Dukes was opposed, perhaps vehemently, to some of them but it is obvious, because they were put through, that his opposition and his arguments in principle did not cut ice with his colleagues at that time. The arguments mustered by Deputy Dukes today and at excessive length last night, cut no ice.

Mr. Dukes

Who are you to talk about excessive length, you jumped up little devil? The Deputy is sent in here to be the political bootboy on every Bill that comes before the House. He thinks he is expert and spokesman on everything. He has the nerve to come in here——

Mr. Roche

With respect to Deputy Dukes——

Mr. Dukes

The Deputy is a disgrace. He is a fraud and a sham. He is wheeled in here when the Government have nothing decent to say.

Mr. Roche

I would have expected more from Deputy Dukes than name calling. The Deputy has been consigned to the furthest backbench in his own party. I had possibly expected too much of him. I would have expected more of Deputy Dukes than to come in here and get involved in a crude and rude exercise in name calling, but I will not descend to that level.

Mr. Dukes

The Deputy is wheeled in when the Government have nothing of substance to say. He is making a clown of himself day in and day out.

Mr. Roche

I will, however, deal very briefly with the proposition Deputy Dukes has put forward. It is clear that there is a balance to be struck between primary and secondary legislation and it is clear that on occasions that balance is not properly struck. The only practical way this or any other Minister for the Environment can deal with the very substantial problem of off-loading and devolving certain activities and functions from the centre, where they have been gathering over the years the State has been in existence, to local authority level is by order. It is not practical to suggest that every one of those items should be the issue of primary legislation, and I am sure that is also Deputy Dukes's belief. Just because Deputy Dukes raised a number of hares during his speech, it is hardly rational to suggest that the later sections he instanced will be used by this or any other Minister to say whether the scroll which is presented to Deputy Dukes or any other visiting dignatory by a town commissioner or urban district council will be of one form or another

Mr. Dukes

The Minister has power——

Mr. Roche

I accept that the Minister has some powers in this regard but the point I am making is that a power like this could be needed. For example, if a local authority decide to cede some valuable property belonging to the local authority to somebody of Deputy Dukes's august standing, it might be something that a Minister at some stage in the future may wish——

Mr. Howlin

What about trusting them?

Mr. Dukes

Big brother in the Custom House has to watch over you.

Mr. Roche

This argument about big brother simply does not cut ice. When Deputy Dukes was in office he did not raise his little finger, or any other part of his anatomy to progress local authority in the direction the Minister wishes.

Mr. Shatter

Perhaps the Deputy would indicate what parts of the anatomy would be helpful.

Mr. Roche

The Deputy's concerns for local authority, which I am sure are genuine and are probably even shared by the spokespersons on local authority for his party, never manifested themselves when he was in office to the extent that he would have moved local authorities in the direction the Minister is moving them. This is the first Bill which allows for the widescale devolution of functions to local authorities.

Mr. Gilmore

Has the Deputy read it?

Mr. Roche

That is the sense in which it is being introduced.

Mr. Doyle

Some other Minister——

Mr. Roche

I will deal with Deputy Doyle too. I noticed he slipped in a lot of extraneous issues yesterday, even though when he was in the Chair and I was speaking about local government reform he regarded the issue of reform as extraneous. None of the arguments on the issue put forward so tediously and at such grave length by Deputy Dukes is persuasive. While I accept the Deputy's sincerity in the concerns he expressed about the problem of balancing between primary and secondary legislation——

Mr. Harte

Is this a concluding speech by Deputy Roche?

Mr. Roche

No, this is not a concluding speech by Deputy Roche. Deputy Roche, like every other Deputy, has the right to come in here and not to be harassed or harangued by the fascist bootboys from Fine Gael. Deputy Roche, like any other Deputy, has the right to come in here and put his views, but not at such tedious length as Deputy Dukes.

Mr. Howlin

The Deputy is a close second.

Mr. Dukes

Deputy Roche will never achieve the same lengths as Deputy Dukes no matter how hard he tries.

Mr. Roche

I do not know about the lengths Deputy Dukes has achieved, I regard his reign as one of the briefer. However, he is possibly right in that regard.

Mr. Shatter

The Deputy is getting anatomically confused now.

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us avoid personalities.

Mr. Roche

As you know, a Cheann Comhairle, it was not I but Deputy Dukes who raised the issue of personalities nor have I ever called Deputy Dukes names here or elsewhere. I would not descend to that level. I would argue very strongly that the proposition which has been moved here at such tedious length by Deputy Dukes is singularly unconvincing. He seems to wish to portray elements of this Bill in a perverse light. The reality is that this Bill enables the Minister to do something that Ministers should have been doing for years, that is, moving functions from the centre, where they should not be, to the local authorities where they should be.

Mr. Doyle

No one believes that.

Mr. Roche

The spurious arguments trotted out here by Deputy Dukes have no basis in reality. The amendment which he discussed at tedious length has nothing to commend it.

Mr. Howlin

I will try to focus exclusively on the issues before us to avoid any extraneous matters and certainly any personal comment. We covered a lot of ground last night and I just want to restate the case. We are discussing three amendments in my name together with amendment No. 5a in the name of Deputy Dukes. Basically there are three options in relation to the enactment of regulations that are consequent to this legislative provision. The Minister was good enough last night to acknowledge my consistency in any legislation that comes before this House in trying as far as possible to have the greatest degree of scrutiny of legislative provisions by the Members of this House. It is totally undemocratic and wrong for the bulk of important and substantial policy issues to be decided primarily by civil servants and Ministers outside the scrutiny of this House. In the series of amendments I put down, some of which are being taken now, I am seeking that the consequent regulations would have to come before this House.

The Minister started off by being kind in acknowledging my consistency but then did his best to rubbish the proposal. The methodology used to do so was that it would be too burdensome — that is one of the phrases the Minister used last night — on the Legislature to have this onerous task of having to positively pass regulations of substance in relation to local government. Another phrase used by the Minister last night was that it would clutter up the Dáil programme.

Being a party Whip, I have had an advantage over the Minister when it comes to setting the time-table of business of this House in recent years. On Thursday of each week we set out the legislative programme and other matters to be discussed in this House. Quite often regulations go through by agreement without debate. They are formally moved in a matter of seconds at the commencement of business but they have to be drawn to the attention of the Whips on the previous Thursday and the spokesmen have a chance to look at them to see if there is anything of substance that requires debate.

That is the mechanism I am seeking here. There would be no cluttering of the Dáil programme. It is surely not beyond the wit of this House to establish a monitoring committee of statutory instruments. My fear — it is a very genuine fear — is that increasingly the volume of real legislation carried out by this House is diminishing and the volume of real and all-encompassing legislation being undertaken by civil servants and Ministers is increasing. What we want to do is bring back power to this House, and nothing would be more appropriate in a Bill that deals with local democracy and local government. If we are to have democracy extended and the notion of empowering and devolving powers to local communities, surely it is out of synchronisation and at odds with the notion of diminishing the power of this House as a national assembly.

Three mechanisms were put forward, one by Deputy Dukes which would require primary legislation — and for a great deal of the subsequent regulations required by this Bill it is a good idea — the second mechanism, which I have consistently endorsed, is the requirement to have a positive vote or the assent of this House to regulations or orders; the third, minimalist, mechanism, the one supported by the Minister, is, by and large, to have the power vested in the Minister with only the power to annul vested in this House.

The Minister in making the case last night repeatedly asked how many times annulling orders had come before the House and accused me of never having brought forward an annulling order. I corrected him by instancing two cases in which, when I was spokesman on Health, I brought in annulling orders in relation to charges for in-patient and out-patient services. However, it is, I agree, an exception because the vast bulk of statutory instruments are consequent on legislation agreed in principle by this House. We should have a monitoring role and I am increasingly of the view that as we enact more and more enabling provisions and devolve more and more authority to civil servants and Ministers outside the scrutiny of this House, we diminish our own democratic controls and indeed democracy itself.

I wish to briefly comment on the specifics of my amendments. Amendment No. 6 simply requires the Minister in subsection (1) to insert "subject to subsection 4". It is a very powerful sentence which gives very wide and sweeping powers to the Minister to delineate and delimit his powers to some degree by making them subject to a new subsection which I propose in amendment No. 13, that the positive assent of this House would be required in regard to legislation.

Amendment No. 7, in my name, seeks to remove one phrase from the sentence and, if accepted, would mean that the Minister may make regulations for any particular purposes of this Act and to remove the power from the Minister to make regulations for the general purpose of the Act. The Minister did not address this last night and perhaps he will do so today. Why does he need powers to make regulations for the general purposes of the Act? His response, when questions like this are posed, is to say that it has always been done this way. I have every legislative provision since 1800 here but the fact that it was done in the past does not make it a good way to make progress today.

I am fearful of giving power to the Minister to make regulations, as he sees fit, for the general purposes of this Act because it means, in essence, giving power to the Minister to make any regulations as he sees fit in relation to any aspect of local government. If that is not the case, perhaps the Minister will set the record straight. The Minister should have the power, subject to the new subsection I wish to include, to make regulations but he should not have the power to make them on a sweeping basis on any related matter in local government. In essence the case has been well made and we should make a decision on this fundamental principle before we get to the meat of the debate.

Mr. J. Mitchell

Unlike the previous speaker, when I say I will be brief I intend to be brief. The amendments to this section get to the core of a fundamental issue which goes way beyond the scope of this Bill, which has been taken under a guillotine motion of the Government. Unilaterally, the Government have suspended Standing Orders, which is fundamentally wrong, because Standing Orders are the constitution of the House to protect its Members and they should not be put aside by the vote of one side of the House. The practice has grown because Standing Orders have been set aside by agreement of both sides of the House but now it is by the vote of one side. I am not saying it is without precedent but it is wrong.

As the Minister said, there are many precedents for providing for secondary legislation by either regulation or order. The Minister is correct in saying that some regulations or orders must have a positive vote of both Houses of the Oireachtas and that there are other types of orders — passive orders — which do not require a positive vote of both sides of the House. However, even if an annulling motion is put down, it does not have to be taken unless the Government order it.

In section 3 of the Bill the extent of the regulations, orders, directions and prescriptions which the Minister takes on himself are quite astounding; they go beyond any Bill I can recall and give the Minister extraordinary powers. This House is not being given an opportunity to scrutinise and to properly examine the possible implications of all these sections, orders and regulations. Even under the guillotine, we will never have an opportunity to discuss most of the regulations and orders made by the Minister. We are probably not creating any precedents but we are certainly pushing out the frontiers, which is dangerous. In calmer moments, away from the heat of debate on any issue, this matter should be looked at in the interest of protecting democracy in future.

Mr. Gilmore

I want to deal with the Minister's reply last night to this amendment. The section with which we are dealing gives general power to the Minister to make regulations for the general purposes — or any particular purpose — in relation to this legislation. It is, as has been said, a very extensive power which the Minister is asking the Oireachtas to give him. The Minister's defence was that if we denied him section 3 he would be left naked before the whole system of local government, unable to make regulations about important matters like councillors' expenses, the allowances for chairmen of councils and matters relating to the twinning of local authorities. Of course that is typical of the kind of disingenuous and dishonest contribution which the Minister regularly makes in this House.

The question of councillors' expenses and entertainment expenses in respect of a council is covered in section 46 (3) where the Minister gives himself specific powers to make regulations in this regard. On the question of the expenses and allowances for chairpersons of local authorities described by the Minister as chairmen, under section 42 (4) the Minister has specific powers to make regulations governing those matters. Therefore, he does not need section 3 for that.

On the question of reserved functions, the Minister under section 41 (2), has given himself specific power in relation to these functions so he does not need section 3 for that either. On the question of the establishment of regional authorities he is giving himself specific power under section 43 (1) to make regulations regarding the regional authority. In regard to twinning he gives himself the power to make regulations under section 49 (4); on the tenure of office of managers he has given himself the power to make regulations under section 47 (1) (a) and (b). On the composition of local authority committees, he has given himself the power to make regulations under section 40 (1) and on the question of boundary alterations he has given himself the power to make regulations under sections 31 and 34.

The Minister informed us yesterday that he intends to introduce further legislation to reorganise local government in Dublin. The question I want to ask him, therefore, is a very simple one and that is, having given himself specific powers to make regulations in relation to a whole range of matters covered by the Bill why does he need section 3? Furthermore, what additional regulations does he propose to make under that section for which provision has not already been made in the individual sections of the Bill dealing with important matters such as councillors' expenses and the twinning of local authorities?

That is a question which the Minister must address. I ask him to state if he envisages a need to make regulations which would require the House to give him the wide-ranging powers contained in section 3. I suspect that what he has in mind is a provision which would allow him, where a local authority adopt a particular position in representing the interests of the local community and he does not like what they are doing to make regulations to limit their powers. I also suspect that he has in mind a provision which would allow him, where a local authority take the initiative in the provision of services or want to enter a joint venture with a company to build a leisure centre and he does not like what they are doing, to make regulations to prevent them from doing so. I fail to see why the Minister needs to include section 3 and I would ask him to state if he envisages a need to make regulations under that section.

I am fearful that instead of this Bill devolving power to local authorities or giving them greater autonomy it will provide the Minister for the Environment with a long lead on the local authorities with the result that each time they become wayward, as he sees it, he will be able to check them. Certainly in terms of its concept, section 3 has been lifted directly from the legislation introduced in Britain by the Thatcher Government to control the local authorities in Britain. This is a Thatcherite approach to local government. This is what they did to the Greater London Council and local authorities in Britain when they did not like the initiatives being taken by them and when they wanted to impose the centralised control so dear to the then Prime Minister. This is the kind of legislation that they introduced which gave the Department of the Environment rigid control over the activities and initiatives of the local authorities. Unfortunately, our Minister seems to be locked into that approach and that is the reason section 3 is being included in the Bill.

Mr. Shatter

I have listened to all the criticisms made of the section during the course of the debate on the amendments tabled by Deputy Howlin and Deputy Dukes and I would have to agree with speakers on this side of the House and acknowledge that this section, which the Deputies are seeking to amend, is the one which will ensure that the dead hand of the Minister will control everything that happens in local authorities throughout the length and breadth of the country. I do not wish to provoke Deputy Gilmore as I agree with the arguments he has made but I listened with some wry amusement, nevertheless, to the comments made by him this morning. If we can sum up the intent of the Bill, it seems that the Bill makes provision for the so-called system of democratic centralism which The Workers' Party advocated for so many years, a system of democratic centralism which the Fianna Fáil Party have now apparently adopted at a time when it is being abandoned——

Mr. Gilmore

More like bureaucratic centralism.

Mr. Shatter

——and discredited throughout Eastern Europe. It seems that the brief liaison between The Workers' Party and the Fianna Fáil Party in 1982 rubbed off more on Fianna Fáil than on The Workers' Party and has left the Minister for the Environment advocating policies which Mr. Gorbachev's predecessors in the Soviet Union successfully implemented.

An Ceann Comhairle

Are we not straying rather far from the amendments before us?

Mr. Gilmore

He has been told to say this, he has a script.

Mr. Roche

He is the new guru and he is paying for it.

Mr. Flynn

Bring him back to this side of the Urals.

Mr. Dukes

On a point of order, Deputy Gilmore was worried about me straying around Greatconnell, Littleconnell and Roseberry but I did not get as far as London. If Deputy Gilmore is worried about the extent to which we are straying from the Bill perhaps he might take his own lesson and stay at home.

Mr. Gilmore

It did not take me as long to get to London as it did for the Deputy to get to his constituency.

Mr. Shatter

I apologise, Sir, for creating so many problems in a very brief contribution but as an addendum to what I have just said and in relation to Deputy Dukes's contribution, I should note that Karl Marx found the connection between London and Moscow quite amenable.

Mr. Gilmore

Who is telling the Deputy all this?

Mr. Roche

It is a Harris script.

Mr. Shatter

It is clear that the Minister for the Environment intends to follow that well-trodden path. The amendments proposed by Deputy Howlin and Deputy Dukes are very serious ones because there is a fatal flaw in the Bill. In effect, what the Minister is doing is, as it were, creating a skeleton and leaving it to him and his Department to flesh out and shape that skeleton in whatever way he deems appropriate by way of regulation. Rather than this legislation marking a return to local democracy it is copperfastening the controls which the Minister for the Environment of the day, be it this Minister or any future Minister, will be able to exercise over the local authorities. The Minister should not have the power, without a vote of this House as envisaged by the amendments, to amend the legislation or to flesh out specific parts of it.

I do not want to delay the House unduly but I want to refer to two of the powers the Minister will be able to exercise which I regard as extraordinary. It is not stated in the Bill what powers will be devolved from central Government to local government. One of the essential planks of the report of the committee on local government was that there be an extensive devolution of powers from central Government to local government. The Minister will have the power to devolve whatever functions he sees fit. Indeed, nobody knows if functions will be devolved from his own Department, the Department of Tourism, Transport and Communications, the Department of the Marine, the Department of Justice or any other Department. The Minister has not enlightened us to any great extent about what powers will be transferred. Neither do we know if his colleagues in other Departments will resist this move, nor, for that matter, do we know if they will resist the transfer of powers or whether Deputy Harney or the Progressive Democrats and Deputy Connolly and Deputy Flynn of the Fianna Fáil Party within the Department of the Environment are ad idem and in harmony on the question of what powers should be devolved.

Not only do we not know what powers will be devolved but it appears that if the Minister does devolve a power and he does not like the way the local authority are independently exercising that power he will be able to bring it back to himself by way of a statutory instrument without a discussion having to take place in this House. That is the exact antithesis of local democracy. What is even more insidious is that the Government will be able to exercise control over the various powers of the local authorities. It may be a good idea that a city or county manager be appointed for a specified term of office but it is not a good idea in the context of the Minister having the power to decide whether to renew the appointment. That means that local authorities are not only going to be the play things of the Minister for the Environment with no real political independence but that the city and county managers are going to be the play things of the Department of the Environment.

What city or county manager who is on a specified term contract and is dependent on the Minister of the day to renew his contract, is going to do battle with the Minister on behalf of his local authority to get essential funds for a project that the local representatives believe should be brought forward but which the Department are resisting? That city or county manager will know that his future job prospect will depend on how meek and co-operative he is with the Minister.

The ultimate irony in this Bill, and in the inter-action between the Minister's powers to make statutory orders and effect the future framework of local government, is the inter-action between this section and section 43, which deals with the establishment of local or regional development authorities. The Minister may or may not establish regional authorities under the Bill. We know the Minister is confused about the need for regional authorities because he is now reversing a policy he implemented four years ago, or at least on the face of it it appears so which was widely regarded as wrong and inimical not only to local government but to the economic wellbeing of this country. This is the Minister who abolished the regional development organisations.

At a time when the European Community was pressing for greater local democracy and for a greater local and regional contribution in the use of structural funds, this Minister wiped out the regional development organisations. Subsequently the Minister had to set up cosmetic groups around the country to satisfy the European Commission's requirements. The Minister has now taken it upon himself, by way of a statutory instrument, to decide whether he will or will not establish regional development authorities.

In his public relations exercise the Minister has made a great deal of the fact that this Bill provides for regional development authorities but what he has not told the media — and it is not understood — is that it does not. It gives the Minister a discretion. The Bill does not say the Minister "shall" establish such authorities but says that he "may" and, equally he may not. He can establish such authorities in any size or shape but he can abolish them if he does not like them without getting the approval of this House. I suspect they will not be established by this Minister and that this is another cosmetic exercise. However, if we see such authorities, they will not have teeth. If they are established and do something the Minister does not approve of I expect they will be rapidly abolished. It should not be possible by way of statutory instrument to play around with legislation that is supposed to be establishing a new form of local democracy.

This Bill is a sham. The fact that the Minister is not willing to take on board the amendments tabled by either Deputy Howlin or Deputy Dukes to section 3 confirms that it is a sham. Basically, this Bill is a public relations exercise designed for the local elections and makes a pretence at local government reform. It is a disaster in the context of the Dublin area, but we will deal with that later. I do not know what the Minister intends to do with regard to his powers by way of statutory instrument in the context of the city and county of Dublin. The proposals he is bringing forward are no real reform and will leave no one responsible for the way Dublin city works and with no central focus of responsibility for local decisions that are essential for the running of both the city and the county of Dublin.

I regret that the Minister is not willing to take on board the amendments that have been tabled to this section. This section, in conjunction with the other sections I and other Deputies have referred to, confirms that this is not a Bill to reform local government but one that seeks to ensure that everything done at local level is controlled absolutely by the Minister for the Environment from the Custom House.

Mr. Doyle

The real fear of Members on this side of the House is that the Minister wants to contol fully the powers of local authorities. Members who are also members of local authorities have seen that happen over the past few years and this Bill convinces them that that is the Minister's policy.

The Minister has pointed out where he can introduce regulations. Deputy Dukes pointed out that the Minister can make regulations and orders but, in case he forgot anything, he included a blanket provision in section 3 that gives him power to make regulations for the general purposes of this Bill. For Deputy Roche to say that the Minister's proposals are to remove the power from central Government and give it to local authorities is laughable, because it is the other way round. We all know that. Members of local authorities see that.

Mr. Roche

Councillors in Bray will be amused at the Deputy's interest in local government.

Mr. Doyle

I was interested to hear the Minister say last night he would give us the general principles of local government reform but that he would retain the "subsidiary government functions". The Minister, and his officials, will use that power to introduce statutory instruments, regulations and so on. Members of local authorities know about ministerial regulations and statutory instruments; we deal with them regularly but the Minister will continue to issue them at a greater pace when this legislation is passed.

In arguing against Deputy Howlin's point the Minister said that if we were to have primary legislation to deal with regulations we would be here 365 days of the year. I have only had one experience of Members of the Opposition expressing anxiety about regulations and that was in relation to the Criminal Justice Bill. The Minister of the day gave an undertaking that the Bill would not become law until he introduced the regulations in primary legislation. It is only right that the Minister for the Environment should consider announcing the powers he intends to give himself by way of regulation.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Flynn)

If one were to respond to all the points raised, it would be like responding to a Second Stage debate. I do not think that was intended and I agree with Deputy Howlin that we should get on and dispose of this matter. Invariably the debate will continue and we will use up all the time available without reaching some of the other essential matters on which I would like to hear Deputies' contributions. I take Deputy Howlin's point, that if we are going to have a vote, let us have it.

Mr. Gilmore

If we ask questions we are entitled to a reply.

Mr. Flynn

Yes, and the points will be responded to at the proper time.

Mr. Gilmore

This is the time.

Mr. Flynn

I am not intent on ranging over every section when we are dealing with a specific amendment. There are three ways of looking at this. Deputy Dukes wants to replace the entire regulation-making process by way of primary legislation. Deputy Howlin would like every order or regulation made under the Bill to be approved in draft by both Houses of the Oireachtas. The third view was promoted by Deputy Mitchell. He sees the necessity for regulations in the traditional way but he would like to see some changes, and these should be brought in by draft.

The fundamental question to be asked is whether we accept the role for subsidiary legislation. We have to accept that this is a way of allowing legislation to work. We have to have a system and this is the best system and has been proven over the years to be a responsible way of dealing with legislation. Subsidiary legislation is a basic principle in formulating workable primary legislation. That is principally what I am doing here and I have to consider how best I can do it. It must be borne in mind that the important regulations will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas in draft form and the whole raft of other regulations dealing with the minutiae will be dealt with in the ordinary way. Experience has proven that this system works well. Every regulation made under this Bill will come before the Dáil. Listening to Deputy Howlin one would believe that this will not happen——

Mr. Howlin

It will not happen.

Mr. Flynn

It is worth putting it on the record that the important regulations will certainly have to be approved in draft. All the other regulations can be annulled by resolution of the Houses within 21 sitting days. Therefore, in effect, Parliament will have absolute control over all regulations, be they draft or otherwise, so far as the implementation of this legislation is concerned. The making of regulations is a fundamental and necessary part of the legislative process and, consequently, I do not think it is realistic to pursue this matter in the way the Deputies have been doing. For this reason I cannot accept the amendment.

Deputy Shatter referred to a range of matters. His contribution was similar to contributions he made on a whole range of legislative measures. He has adopted the same attitude and used the same speech — the Minister is getting too much power and he must not do this and that. I accept that he has to oppose the legislation, and he can find a good reason for doing this, but there is a similarity in the style he uses——

Mr. Shatter

I have been right every time.

Mr. Flynn

The Deputy was wrong so far as the regional bodies are concerned. However, I will deal with this issue at a later stage. I outlined both in my press statement and Second Stage speech what these boards will be asked to do. I believe they have a function so far as co-ordination is concerned and that they will play an important role in Dublin.

To suggest that managers will have to depend on the Minister to have their contracts renewed is patently dishonest. The managers will be appointed by the Local Appointments Commission for a certain length of time and if they wish to continue in that job or to apply for a different job, this will be done in the normal way, through the Local Appointments Commission. He also made the point — I reflected on this for a moment — that the Minister can devolve powers to the local authorities and said he would like to think that the Minister would do this either through his Department or after consultation with other Ministers. He also said that if the Minister did not like the way things were going he could take back these powers. The point is that if the Minister devolves a function to local authorities and they do not carry out that function in a satisfactory manner, then the Minister should have a residual power to step in. Otherwise services could be disrupted——

Mr. Doyle

They might not have the money.

Mr. Flynn

I thought Deputy Shatter would recognise the principle underlying this procedure.

Mr. Shatter

If the Minister does not like the way they exercise those powers, he can take them back.

Mr. Flynn

The Minister will devolve the function and give them the right guidelines and every assistance to enable them to carry out that function. If they decide for some reason not to carry out that function, then surely the Minister should have residual powers to do something about it. That is simply what the Minister is going to do.

Mr. Shatter

Local authority members would be accountable to their electorate if they do not exercise these powers.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Sherlock)

There have been undue interruptions in this debate. An tAire to continue without further interruption.

Mr. Flynn

Deputy Gilmore rightly noted that some sections will give the Minister specific power to act. He referred to certain sections which will give the Minister power to do things by order and written direction. He was quite right in his assessment of these sections. I should explain that the convention in drafting is to provide for order rather than regulations to establish a new body or assign functions. I think this is catered for in a fashion which is acceptable to Deputy Gilmore. Regulations are used essentially for procedural, incidental and supplementary matters. Those words are specifically used in the section. This is what the Bill is all about. The major matters will be covered by draft and the procedural matters and the implementation of the section will be done by way of regulations. This system has worked well.

One can have a fundamental objection in principle to the system, which Deputy Howlin has. He makes this point on a continuing basis. Basically it is a question of whether we believe in subsidiary legislation, which I do. This has proven to have worked well over the years. The broad matters are dealt with in primary legislation and the other matters are dealt with by way of regulation. This amendment would clutter up the time of the Dáil and inhibit the good working and intentions of this legislation. Consequently, I cannot accept it. I ask the Deputies, in good faith, to recognise that what is intended here is to devolve powers, to provide a mechanism which will enable that to happen and to improve the situation so far as local authorities are concerned. The Minister is only taking the necessary functions and powers onto himself to enable this to happen in a practical, proper and efficient way.

Mr. Rabbitte

I want to put a brief question to the Minister. I am going to be unashamedly parochial about this issue as we will not have time to elaborate later. Does the Minister think that the regulations and powers being given to him under this section will be capable of dealing with the problem in my constituency where some 4,000 houses have been built by Dublin Corporation, and are the responsibility of that corporation, but no elected representative of any party in that vast area of public housing is represented on Dublin City Council? In other words, there is no accountability to the people, through their elected representatives, for the management of that vast housing area. Dublin Corporation have proved unwilling to hand over, by whatever arrangement is necessary, those 4,000 plus houses to Dublin County Council, who elect members to deal with these matters. The result is that there are terrible problems in this area.

There is no estate management policy in Tallaght and very little care is taken in the allocation of these houses. In addition, there is a very defective maintenance policy. As a result there are endemic problems in that area which seem incapable of being dealt with purely because no elected representative of any party can get up at the city council and make the managers accountable for the manner in which they have neglected and let the estates run down. These estates are unkempt and there are severe environmental problems in the area. It is now emerging that the policy of Dublin Corporation to take troubled families from other parts of the city and put them in Tallaght, the area where there will be least outcry, has given rise to very serious problems of vandalism and petty crime in the area. Will this section enable the Minister to deal with such problems?

Mr. Flynn

This is an interesting point. I take it that the Deputy is saying the corporation have purchased property outside their area, built houses there and that the income from these houses is going into an administration which is not responsible for that general area. Is that correct?

Mr. Rabbitte

Yes.

Mr. Flynn

I considered this matter at some length in the formulation of the Bill. The Deputy has made what is a reasonable suggestion that in the new arrangement, where there are four authorities — the corporation and the three county councils — that matter will have to be addressed.

Mr. Rabbitte

I welcome that response from the Minister.

Mr. Flynn

It would not work if we had four authorities, crossing over, as they do now. We must settle the matter finally in the break up of the county councils into the new three areas, and the corporation.

Mr. Rabbitte

I welcome that change. It will deal with a serious problem that has been neglected for 15 years.

Mr. Flynn

I thought it might be the 4,000 houses that Deputy Rabbitte's colleague, Deputy Gilmore, referred to last night in another context.

Acting Chairman

An bhfuil an Teachta sásta leis an bhfreagra?

Mr. Rabbitte

Tá mé an sásta. We will have the moral authority.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 74.

Tá

• Ahearn, Therese.
• Allen, Bernard.
• Bell, Michael.
• Belton, Louis J.
• Boylan, Andrew.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
• Bruton, John.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Connor, John.
• Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
• Cotter, Bill.
• Creed, Michael.
• Crowley, Frank.
• Gregory, Tony.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kemmy, Jim.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Lee, Pat.
• Lowry, Michael.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• Mac Giolla, Tomás.
• McGrath, Paul.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Currie, Austin.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Deasy, Austin.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Dukes, Alan.
• Durkan, Bernard.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Farrelly, John V.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• Finucane, Michael.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Garland, Roger.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Gerry.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Owen, Nora.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Reynolds, Gerry.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Sheehan, Patrick J.
• Sherlock, Joe.
• Spring, Dick.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Yates, Ivan.

Níl

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Mattie.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John (Wexford).
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Cullimore, Séamus.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Ellis, John.
• Fahey, Frank.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
• Flood, Chris.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Harney, Mary.
• Haughey, Charles J.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Hilliard, Colm.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kelly, Laurence.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Lyons, Denis.
• Martin, Micheál.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McDaid, Jim.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Morley, P. J.
• Nolan, M. J.
• Noonan, Michael J.
• (Limerick West).
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Desmond J.
• O'Toole, Martin Joe.
• Power, Seán.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Roche, Dick.
• Smith, Michael.
• Stafford, John.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Wallace, Mary.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Flanagan and Boylan; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. Howlin

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 7, subsection (1), line 36, after "regulations" to insert "subject to subsection 4".

An Ceann Comhairle

This amendment has already been discussed.

Mr. Dukes

On a point of order, a Cheann Comhairle, I wish to establish something before the Committee move on to discuss the amendment. May I take it that this is the appropriate moment to make known my intention to come back to this amendment on Report Stage?

An Ceann Comhairle

There is a normal procedure for dealing with amendments on Report Stage.

Mr. Howlin

As you rightly said, a Cheann Comhairle, the amendment has already been discussed. We have laboured at length the principles involved. However, the principles are of such importance that I wish to press the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Howlin

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 7, subsection (1), lines 36 and 37, to delete "for the general purposes or".

An Ceann Comhairle

This amendment has also been discussed, and I ask Deputy Howlin what the position is in respect of it.

Mr. Howlin

The amendment was somewhat lost in the general discussion. Although I referred to it twice, the Minister did not give me a satisfactory reason in either of his contributions why the provision is in the Bill and, in particular, why he needs the power and whether the provision is, as I fear, an all-powerful provision that allows the Minister to interfere with virtually every aspect of local government. Could I ask the Minister to respond very briefly to those questions before I determine my attitude to the amendment?

An Ceann Comhairle

That would be quite reasonable.

Mr. Flynn

The amendment seeks to delete the words "for the general purposes or" in relation to section 3 (1). I was not too much taken by the amendment. I felt it was thrown in for the sake of making an amendment.

Mr. Howlin

That is not my fault.

Mr. Flynn

It is because of that that I thought I had better take a closer look at the amendment. I think the section as it stands is a reasonable one. It allows for minor matters arising from any provision of the Bill to be dealt with when there is no specific porvision for them. I shall not go to the stake about this issue; is it the Deputy's wish to leave out the word "general"? Is that the main thrust of what he wants?

Mr. Howlin

Yes, "general".

Mr. Flynn

Does the Deputy wish to substitute "for any purpose"?

Mr. Howlin

No. There is not difference between "any purpose" and "general purpose". What I want to achieve is that the Minister would have the authority under this section to make regulations arising from the enactment. What I want to prevent is having the power divested to the Minister to make regulations on any matter that occurs to him in the general ambit of local Government. That is what I feel the import of "general purposes" in this section does. If the Minister feels he needs the power to make regulations on anything that comes into his head in relation to local Government, let him tell the House that.

Mr. Flynn

No.

Mr. Howlin

If it is not his intention, let him remove those phrases and let him have the power to make regulations for the particular purposes of this Bill.

Mr. Flynn

I have no great difficulty with that. It is for the purpose of the Bill that I wish to do that. If that would settle the matter I would be pleased to accommodate the Deputy.

Mr. Howlin

By accepting the amendment?

Mr. Flynn

Perhaps I would have to move an amendment in terms that I wish to see it stated on Report Stage.

Mr. Howlin

I am grateful to the Minister.

Mr. Flynn

I want to do it now, a Cheann Comhairle.

Mr. J. Mitchell

You cannot do it now without our agreement.

Mr. Flynn

I know that, but I take it we have agreement on all sides in this matter.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister may do it now by agreement of the House.

Mr. Howlin

Agreed.

Mr. Dukes

The new emollient Minister.

Mr. Flynn

We are deleting "for the general purposes or for any particular purpose", and I want to substitute "for any purpose of the Bill". Is that the general tenor?

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the amendment to the amendment as outlined by the Minister agreed?

Mr. J. Mitchell

Would it not be better for the Minister to table this amendment on Report Stage?

Mr. Howlin

It probably would be better. It would give the Minister's officials time to come up with a form of words. If the Minister will give a commitment that he will come back with a form of words on Report Stage, I will withdraw my amendment now.

Mr. Flynn

I do not want to do that, a Cheann Comhairle, I would like to deal with the matter now. I suggest that we deal with the matter now and dispose of it. All I wish to do is to substitute "for any purpose of the Bill" for the words "for the general purposes or for any particular purpose of this Act".

Mr. Gilmore

I intend to oppose this section of the Bill. I really do not think the Minister's amendment fundamentally changes subsection (1) as originally proposed. It deletes the words "for the general purposes" and the word "particular" but as it would now read it says the Minister may make regulations for any purposes of this Act. That leaves him still with powers as wide as we talked about here for the last day and a half. I do not think the Minister's proposed amendment substantially changes things. It still leaves the Minister with the wide ranging powers that we have been complaining about over the last several hours.

An Ceann Comhairle

I take it that there is no agreement then.

Mr. Flynn

If there is no agreement in the matter, I cannot do anything to accommodate Deputy Howlin. I thought perhaps we might have got the general agreement of the House and it would be dealt with now expeditiously rather than doing anything else. The offer is still there, but unless Deputy Gilmore reconsiders his position I will have to withdraw it.

Mr. Howlin

My objective in this section was to curtail the power of the Minister as far as possible. We have failed in that amendment No. 5a has been defeated. We have failed in my amendment No. 6 to make any regulations subject to positive affirmation of the House. The last unsatisfactory element was that phrase in subsection (1). I would be happier with the new form of words for, I am legally advised, the phrase "for the general purposes" is a very sweeping one. I would like to confine it to the particular functions of this Act. While it is not a satisfactory situation — we can vote against the section if people are minded — the small half-step the Minister is willing to take in this regard is better than the broad sweeping powers that are there. I would, therefore, urge my colleagues to accept at least this small step. It is not satisfactory to any of us but it is better than the existing provision.

Mr. Gilmore

To be honest, we are probably being a bit semantic. The new subsection will not refer to particular purpose of the Bill; it will refer to any purpose of the Bill, and that could be either general or particular. In order to help I will reserve my position until we come to vote on the section as a whole.

An Ceann Comhairle

Can I have the agreement of the House then for the amendment to the amendment as outlined by the Minister?

Amendment to amendment No. 7 agreed to.

Amendment No. 7 agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

We now come to amendment No. 8 in the name of Deputy Mitchell, and No. 9 is related. I suggest, therefore, that we take amendments Nos. 8 and 9 together.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 7, subsection (2), line 40, to delete "supplementary".

I do not want to delay the House but this word "supplementary" seems to give the Minister an additional layer of power on top of the extensive power he already has under the other provisions of this Bill. It seems that if the Minister deems a matter not specifically covered by this Bill to be supplementary to the provisions of this Bill he can make regulations or orders or provisions. I would like to know exactly why the Minister wants to insert this word and what he considers it will cover. This legislation has gone much too far and this word "supplementary" pushes the limits even further.

Mr. Flynn

The central point Deputy Mitchell is making is that he objects to the word "supplementary". My attitude is that regulations should be capable of including any supplementary provision necessary to enable them to operate properly. Not to provide for that would be careless. The Deputy seems quite happy that regulations should include incidental or consequential provisions but not supplementary ones. I do not see why he makes that distinction because the three words often go together in drafting provisions of this kind and there is not a great deal of difference between them. I do not think it is necessary to split hairs and I would ask the Deputy to see it that way. These three go together and it would be an omission if we neglected to include it at this time.

Mr. Howlin

I support Deputy Mitchell's amendment which is being taken in conjunction with my own amendment. This really is the catch all section. Subsection (1) gives the Minister omnibus powers to make regulations as he sees fit. But, just in case this is not enough, subsection (2) reads:

Without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, a regulation or order under this Act may provide for such incidental, consequential, supplementary or transitional provisions ... as may appear to the Minister to be appropriate for the purposes of this Act or any regulations or order made thereunder.

In case he had not crossed every "t" and dotted every "i", in case there might be a loophole, we have this omnibus provision to make sure that he has all powers again. We have flogged this issue to death, so the Minister knows our views on it.

The import of the amendments in mine and Deputy Mitchell's names is to try to delimit the power of the Minister which seems to be all pervasive in this regard. I am seeking to remove the words "as may appear to the Minister". There is almost a whimsical nature in this because whatever comes into the Minister's head he can regulate for as he sees fit. It is important that we put down a marker that that is not in accordance with the democratic principles we would like to see enshrined particularly in a Bill on local government and local democracy.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I want to assure the Minister that this is far from splitting hairs. I accept the need for the Minister to have power to deal with such incidential or consequential matters as may arise obviously consequential on the provisions of the Bill. However, to add the word "supplementary" pushes the boat out too far. It gives the Minister scope of a kind that this House may very well not want to give. We do not know what the Minister may consider as supplementary now or in the future. It seems a very wide-ranging power, the sort of power I imagine Dr. Salazar in his heyday had in Portugal. He could announce whatever diktat he thought was appropriate and this could happen here in the hands of this Minister or some future Minister if we allow such a wide-ranging section to go unamended. I ask the Minister to make some concession in regard to the concern of the House for the excesses of this Bill and particularly the excesses of this section and to agree to delete the word "supplementary".

Mr. Flynn

I do not accept that and there is no point in going over it. I think it necessary for the good and effective use of the section to include that. I ask the Deputy to see there is nothing unnatural about that. The effect of Deputy Howlin's amendment would be that the regulations could include appropriate provisions, but they have to seem appropriate to someone——

Mr. Howlin

To the House, in subsection (4).

Mr. Flynn

——so why not say so? Amendment No. 9 does nothing to improve the test; I see it as a disimprovement. The section should stand as it is. If the Minister has no good grounds for claiming that the regulations are appropriate then of course it is a matter for the House to settle and to challenge him in that matter. The safeguard is there. Consequently, I think the thing should stand.

Mr. Howlin

Again, I do not put in amendments for cosmetic reasons. The whole thrust of what I want to say on this is that control should not rest with the Minister. If that has not sunk into the Minister's head yet I have been wasting my time for the last day and a half. The power should rest with the Dáil. Under amendment No. 13, when we reach it, I will be proposing that a positive decision of the Dáil will be required for regulations. It is to the Dáil the regulation should seem appropriate and not to the Minister. It waters down the provisions because the Minister may make regulations as he sees fit under this wording. I want to take those words out to provide that the Minister may make regulations not as he sees fit but as appropriate. It must be this House which decides what is appropriate when the regulations come before us for positive affirmation.

Mr. Flynn

There is no point in pursuing it further. It is a follow-on of Deputy Howlin's point. Once he started the chain of events he set in motion under section 3 he must pursue it in this way to be consistent. I recognise that, but the argument still stands good.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. Howlin

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 7, subsection (2), line 44, to delete "appear to the Minister to".

Question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. Howlin

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 8, subsection (3) (a), to delete all words from and including "to a specified class" in line 2, down to the end of the paragraph.

This amendment seeks to delete part of the areas that would be under the authority of regulation. Section 3 (3) (a) provides that:

Regulations or an order under this Act may—

(a) apply to local authorities generally, to a specified class or classes of local authorities, to a particular local authority or to a particular part of the functional area of a local authority.

I read that several times and really it goes down to the Minister being able to designate streets over which he has authority. Can he give decisions and make regulations about streets facing north having to be painted blue and streets facing south having to be painted red? It is a sweeping, insidious power. He can divide up towns; he can make regulations to apply to specific areas of towns or counties. What exactly is the purpose of having this omnibus power to specify who the regulations apply to? Surely in general terms the regulations should apply to the generality of a local authority. Will he give instances and specific cases where he feels he needs this all-pervasive power? I would like to hear the Minister argue his case for the inclusion of this power to go down virtually to the individual houses in an electoral area.

Mr. Flynn

Amendment No. 10 would mean regulations could apply only to local authorities generally and amendment No. 11 would mean that the different provisions could not apply to different local authorities. The whole basis of local government law is that different legal provisions apply to different classes of local authority. We have town commissioners who, the Deputy will be aware are not planning authorities, whereas urban district councils are. Counties are fire authorities but a few of the larger urban district councils are also. Section 3 (3) simply allows regulations to reflect those arrangements and it is the basis on which local government regulations have been made for very many years. Obviously, different regulations will also be necessary to cover the Dublin provisions and even within County Dublin we will need different provisions for the Dún Laoghaire area. That is the basis and I think it is reasonable.

Mr. Howlin

I am not sure I understand the Minister. Will he give us a specific example of a regulation that would apply to a specific area and not to another in the same local authority?

Mr. Flynn

The transitional order to cater for Dún Laoghaire, but the power to give directions is not new. An example is section 15 of the 1978 Act which relates to directions or instructions by the Minister to enable things to be done. Different clases of authority, giving different classes of services in a wide range of activities, would require separate directions for the purpose which would not apply generally to the whole area of local authority. For that reason you are going to need different regulations to deal with different circumstances because of the sizes and the activities of the various authorities.

Mr. Gilmore

I am afraid I do not understand the Minister's reasoning. He mentioned as an example of what he has in mind the transitional arrangements which might apply to Dún Laoghaire in relation to the changes that will take place in the Dublin area. I do not follow that. One area I can see being very controversial in relation to Dún Laoghaire is water charges. At the moment Dún Laoghaire Borough is the only part of the greater Dublin area which has water charges. On one side of a street in Sallynoggin people pay water charges and on the opposite side of the street they do not.

In a throwaway remark on Second Stage the Minister made reference to the possibility of extending the borough boundary as far as the Bray Road. People who live between the existing borough boundary and the Bray Road are not liable for water charges because Dublin County Council abolished water charges. People in those areas would strongly resist a change in the boundary if it would result in their paying water charges.

What is the Minister talking about here? Is he talking about making a regulation that would prevent, as an interim measure, Dún Laoghaire Borough Council imposing water charges or is he talking about making a regulation which would prevent the new proposed authority, Dún Laoghaire Borough Council or Dublin County Council imposing charges for the area between the borough boundary and the Bray Road? I cannot recall off hand any function which is carried out by Dublin County Council that is not already carried out by Dún Laoghaire Borough Council as they have basically the same functions. Dún Laoghaire Borough Council probably have more functions as they are a fire authority whereas Dublin County Council, for the south county area, are not. Perhaps the Minister could give some practical examples of what he has in mind.

Mr. Flynn

What the Deputy is concerned about is whether the Minister will be giving directions so far as water charges are concerned. Let me state unambiguously that it is not the intention of the Minister to do that in any shape or form; that matter is a reserved function for local authority members. I do not intend — and it never was my intention — to direct that charges of that kind would be applied in any area other than where the reserved function has been addressed by the members themselves.

Mr. Shatter

That is something that needs to be teased out a little further because, in the context of the Minister's powers in relation to boundaries and the implications of the exercising of those powers, it is not sufficient for the Minister to tell the House that it is not his intention to impose charges. I represent a constituency in Dublin South where, currently we are represented on the Dublin County Council when it debates in sub-committee. As I understand this Bill, the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown sub-committee and Dún Laoghaire Corporation will be subsumed into one. At present water charges are imposed on the citizens of Dún Laoghaire. There are no charges currently imposed or paid by my constituents living in Dundrum, Clonskeagh, Mount Merrion, Stillorgan and Kilmacud areas. It would seem to me that after these elections, on the assumption that Dún Laoghaire Corporation and the Dún Laoghaire Rathdown sub-committee will be subsumed into one, by implication and of necessity it is the intention that the charges imposed by Dún Laoghaire Corporation extend into that part of south county Dublin that will form part of that committee area. The Minister needs to clarify that.

What we have here are charges by stealth. People in south county Dublin are not being told the implications of this legislation. If charges are to be imposed let the Minister tell the people. If charges are not to be imposed can the Minister explain how some of the people who live in one local authority area — those who live within the boundaries of the old Dún Laoghaire Corporation area — will be required to pay for services which another group will not. Their view is that they do not get them free but rather, by virtue of the income tax they pay, they are paying for their services and they do not want to be taxed a second time.

I do not want to labour this point as we will be coming back to it in other sections but there is an implication here. The Minister cannot wash his hands of it and say this has nothing to do with him but is the responsibility of the local councillors. He is changing the shape of the ballpark; he is changing the political playing field; he is changing the political forum and the local authority and subsuming the two into one. That means local charges will be abolished in Dún Laoghaire or that they will be extended into a large part of South Dublin where they are not currently charged. You cannot impose charges on some people in one local authority and not on others. The Minister should clarify his intentions.

I am sure he communicates with members of the Fianna Fáil groups in Dún Laoghaire Corporation and in Dublin County Council and I assume they have sought some clarification from him as to what is happening in this area. I am sure that behind closed doors discussions have taken place and, if so, we should be told that those discussions are. After 27 June next people should not suddenly find bills coming through their letter boxes which nobody told them they would get. The Minister should clarify this issue.

I regret, Sir — and I say this on behalf of all of us who are taking the trouble to debate this legislation — the absence of the media from listening to this debate. It is a disgrace that there is not a single representative from one of our national newspapers who appears to regard the substance of this Bill and the debate taking place as worthy of reportage as opposed to the political skirmishes that have taken place over time, which have been very important but which do not deal with the substance of the issue. If people outside this House knew of this Bill and this amendment——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That was a personal view. It is not entirely relevant to the amendment before us.

Mr. Shatter

It is a serious issue.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The presence or absence of members of the press is not pertinent to the amendment before us. I would ask the Minister in reply to refer to anything that is appropriate to the amendment and, even though he may have been encouraged, not to stray from that.

Mr. Flynn

I would like to say one thing to Deputy Shatter: there have been no meetings behind closed doors with anybody to determine what might or might not happen consequent on this legislation. The Deputy should not suggest such things. I would have thought Deputy Gilmore was quite happy when I gave the assurance about this matter but I will put it on the record again. No part of County Dublin is being added to Dún Laoghaire under this Bill. That is not the position. Why then should charges or any other provisions that apply in Dún Laoghaire be extended to anybody or anywhere else? It will be purely a matter for the newly elected councillors of that county council area to determine whether they will impose charges. That is what applies in every local authority now. Everybody knows it is not a matter for the Minister one way or another and Deputies know that. To suggest that some kind of deal is being perpetrated is unworthy of Deputy Shatter.

Mr. Gilmore

The Minister assumes incorrectly that I am happy with his reply. We are dealing with an amendment which refers to a section which will enable the Minister to make regulations which will relate to local authorities generally, a specified class of local authority, a particular local authority or a particular part of the functional area of a local authority. In teasing out what exactly this meant, Deputy Howlin asked the direct question if this meant the Minister could make a regulation in relation to an individual street. In reply the Minister said one of the things he had in mind in putting this provision into the Bill was the interim arrangements which would apply between Dún Laoghaire and the rest of south Dublin in the transition period, between the existing Dún Laoghaire Borough Council and Dublin County Council, and the creation of the new Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown Council, whenever that will be created by new legislation. As I am a member of both Dún Laoghaire Borough Council and Dublin County Council I was exercising my brain to think what functions the Minister could possibly have in mind. What functions do either Dublin County Council or Dún Laoghaire Borough Council have that the other do not have or do not exercise? The only one I can think of relates to water charges. Since 1986 Dublin County Council have not imposed water charges. In 1988 Dún Laoghaire Borough Council voted to reintroduce water charges in Dún Laoghaire Borough. That became a very controversial topic, and is a very sore one with the citizens of Dún Laoghaire Borough who cannot understand why they, of all the people who live in the greater Dublin area, should have to pay for water, and very often for a water supply that is inadequate. There are parts of Dún Laoghaire Borough where, on a Saturday, you cannot use a washing machine or get enough water to wash you teeth at certain times of the day. There is a great deal of opposition within the Dún Laoghaire Borough area to water charges. There are people living outside the Dún Laoghaire Borough boundary who have read in their newspapers that it is proposed to create a new Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown council——

Mr. Flynn

County council.

Mr. Gilmore

——and one of the questions they ask is whether this means they will now have to pay water charges? People living in Shankill, Cabinteely, parts of Sallynoggin and Glenageary, immediately outside the Dún Laoghaire Borough area, who see their neighbours having to pay water charges are now asking if they will have to pay water charges after this legislation is passed. The Minister said he is not going to make regulations to the effect that people living in the existing county part of south County Dublin will have to pay water charges, but is he going to make regulations in relation to the funding of these local authorities? It is the peculiar funding arrangements that apply in Dún Laoghaire that have given rise to a situation where some of my colleagues on Dún Laoghaire Borough Council have felt they should reintroduce water charges.

I would like some clarity on this matter. It was the Minister who raised this question and not I. I had no intention of discussing Dún Laoghaire in the context of this Bill until the Minister raised it, but now that he has raised it I would like to see it through. What did the Minister have in mind when he said he would use this section to make regulations as part of the interim arrangements in relation to Dún Laoghaire? It seems the only thing he has in mind relates to the imposition of water charges. We have only the Minister's word that he will not introduce such charges. This Bill gives the Minister power to make regulations in relation to any part of the functional area of a local authority. Does this Bill not empower the Minister to make regulations in relation to charging for water in the part of County Dublin which is currently outside the Dún Laoghaire boundary but which will become part of the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown Council? We have only the Minister's word that he will not introduce those charges but the Bill empowers him to do so.

If a successor to this Minister feels like introducing such charges the Bill would empower him to make a regulation directing Dublin County Council or the Dublin county manager to do so. What would stop a Minister from making a regulation and saying to Dublin County Council: "You may only exercise your reserved function to make water charges, or not to make water charges, for all of your administrative area with the exception of the administrative area of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown"? In relation to reserved functions the Minister will have power to make regulations and give directions.

Under this Bill it will be open to a Minister for the Environment, as an interim arrangement, while he is trying to get people in south County Dublin used to the idea of paying water charges, to make regulations in this regard. He would be empowered to direct Dublin County Council that they can exercise their reserved function only in relation to water charges solely for the Belgard and Fingall areas. That power is given to the Minister under this Bill and we only have his word that he will not exercise it. That is what this section is about, and it relates to any part of the functional area of a local authority. Far from being happy with the Minister's reply, my fears and suspicions are growing by the minute in relation to what the Minister has in mind in regard to this section of the Bill.

Mr. Howlin

The further we go down this road the more alarmed we have all become. The Minister has been more than a little disingenuous and a little less than forthcoming in his response to the specific question I asked. He led himself down a path that opened up the argument we are putting forward now. I simply asked what is intended in this provision. The Minister has not mentioned any specific regulation he has in mind that would require this sort of targeting with such precision. As other Deputies have mentioned, it was the Minister who raised the issue of the transitional arrangements for the creation of the three new councils. It was not my colleague, Deputy Gilmore, who raised the issue of water charges. As he was speaking the Minister was thinking about water charges, and the Deputy knew what he had in mind.

Mr. Flynn

I knew well what Deputy Gilmore had in mind.

Mr. Howlin

Let us tease out this matter. Rather than trying to mind read let us deal with the specifics. The Minister put forward an immediate defence and said he is not going to give an instruction, issue a directive or make a regulation requiring a local authority to introduce charges. We take his word for that, or do we? One of the Minister's predecessors, as Environment spokesman for the Fianna Fáil Party, Deputy Robert Molloy, stated not only verbally but in writing in "Power Back to the People," the Fianna Fáil alternative local election manifesto of 1985, that Fianna Fáil would restore financial stability to local authorities by repealing the Coalition Government's Local Government (Financial Provisions) (No. 2) Act, 1983. That was his word but, without straying beyond the bounds of what is allowed to be said in the confines of this House, I do not think his word counts for very much with the electorate. In 1985 they stated they would keep their word. We on this side of the House have to take the Minister's word today in the context of that of his predecessor who is now departed from the Minister's party but not from his company.

There is a very fundamental issue here. There is more than one way to skin a cat. The Minister might achieve the objective, if that is his objective, of requiring a local authority to impose charges without having to make regulations that specifically require them to do so. Let us tease this out and have an accurate, open response from the Minister. What regulations has the Minister in mind that would require him to have the precision of power that he would be able to target particular parts of the functional areas of a local authority? It is interesting that the first idea that came to his head was the one we are trying to tease out now. Why did that idea come to his head? What power has he in mind in this regard? I am sure his officials are struggling valiantly to come up with something, but our suspicions have been aroused. The fact that the Minister thought of this before anyone on this side of the House underscores that those suspicions might indeed be realised. Let the Minister come clean on this. I will pose again the question I posed earlier: what powers by way of regulation are needed for this level of targeting that requires the Minister to maintain the paragraph as it is worded in section 3 (3) (a)?

Mr. J. Mitchell

It is worth spending time on this section and the amendments thereto because I cannot over-emphasise how sweeping the powers are in the Bill and which are controlled, to some extent, by this section. In some amendments I seek to change the Minister's power to make regulations or orders, even without the prior approval of the House, where the Minister is taking power by regulation to amend existing regulations because, in that case, he should come before the House. This is the equivalent of a ministerial patriot missile because he can even decide the colour which Dublin Corporation or county council can paint the door of No. 47B Fatima Mansions. That brings it to absurdity but it is the power the Minister is taking to himself.

As I said many times before, it is dangerous to give the Minister so much power and, unfortunately, it means that the system of local government will be even more clogged and lethargic than it is at present. Local government needs to be liberated from the dead hand of ministerial regulations, order, directions, prescriptions and interference. When local government needs to be re-invigorated and reawakened, the Minister is coming down on an already nearly dead body with another ministerial steamroller. The Minister has gone too far because the Bill is the reverse of what is needed, which is to return to local people power and influence over their local environment. I asked the Minister the other day about the number of dwellings within a mile of his plush office which did not have a bathroom or inside toilet. The Minister said that he did not know the answer.

Mr. Gilmore

Or care.

Mr. Flynn

Deputy Mitchell should be careful of the echo over there.

Mr. J. Mitchell

The local authority cannot build one lavatory or bathroom extension without the Minister's funds. He has spent millions of pounds redecorating and refurbishing the Custom House——

Mr. Flynn

The Deputy knows that is not true.

Mr. J. Mitchell

Well, the Government have spent it. The Minister has very plush offices which I would not mind occupying sometime because they are very comfortable and have a lovely view over the Liffey. However, the Minister does not know whether people who live within one mile of him have toilets or bathrooms and, what is more, they will never have them unless he gives the go-ahead. The whole system is choking because local councils are told by their management that they cannot do this, that or the other because there is no money; all they can do is pass motions about refurbishment of flat complexes or run-down housing estates, most of which are a legacy of the Fianna Fáil low cost housing policy of the late sixties and early seventies when Deputy Molloy——

Mr. Howlin

Another Bobby Molloy one.

Mr. J. Mitchell

The Minister for Energy, Deputy Molloy, who has been so loquacious in defending this Bill, presided over low cost housing and another Fianna Fáil Minister presided over the high rise flats which are an environmental nightmare for the residents. The point is that local councillors had repeatedly voted to have these areas refurbished or to have those bathrooms built; I began a campaign in Dublin Corporation in 1974 to have 400 houses in Ballyfermot provided with bathrooms, which was agreed. The programme was started in 1976 but the Government changed in 1977 and one quarter of those houses still do not have a bathroom because the Minister has, since 1977, repeatedly taken to himself more and more contol and power with a consequential and equal reduction in power and influence of the local council and the local people. Now, there is a question of more power and centralisation for the Minister; more Salazar type authority, which had the effect in Portugal of running down the economy. That is the position in local government today. Nothing is happening.

Much of what local authorities do depends on their finance. Since the abolition of domestic and agricultural rates in 1977-78, because of an offer of fixed costs, local authorities are almost entirely dependent on funds from the rate support grant. Since the Minister came to power in 1987 the provision of the rate support grant to local authorities has gone down from £256 million to £196 million in 1988, to £168 million in 1991. The local authorities have been run down by the Minister in his four years in office and they cannot do anything without ministerial approval.

I said on Second Stage that the Minister could, at least in theory, decide the colour of the toilet paper which local authorities should use and some people thought I was joking. It was a way of illustrating the powers in the Bill and I am not joking as the Minister could, in theory, say that he wanted the local authorities to use lilac toilet paper instead of pink toilet paper. That is the extent of the power he is taking in this section. While he may protest he will not do that, the reality is that he can do an awful lot of other things to control specific items in each local authority. I appeal to the Minister to liberate the local authorities and to agree that he will on Report Stage introduce a redrafted section 3 which would include the provision that any regulation or order which he seeks power to make, which has the power to amend or override existing legislation either generally or in a particular case, would require the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Section 40 (1) says that the Minister may make regulations and it specifies many specifics in this regard. Subsection (2) states:

Upon the commencement of this Part and of regulations under this section, the matters to which this Part relates and with respect to which the regulations were made shall, as respects any local authority concerned, be governed by the provisions of this Part and the regulations, and such previous provisions (whether made by or under statute) as may be specified in the regulations applying to that authority and relating to those matters shall cease to have effect as respects that authority.

By regulations under section 40 the Minister can override existing legislation without the prior approval of this House.

Mr. Flynn

That is not true.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I beg the Minister's pardon, it is true. The Minister told me that it was not true to say that he would have the power to change electoral boundaries but he has had to concede that he will have that power. I have to acknowledge that he is moving amendments which are more in line with my way of thinking than the way he thought originally. Taking section 3, which deals with regulations, orders and directions——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair appreciates that section 3, which deals with the right to make regulations, is fundamental to the legislation, but I suggest that we should confine ourselves to the amendment to this section rather than fly to others which we know are not appropriate. A passing reference may be necessary but for the last while there has been a certain amount of repetition of the points the Deputies would wish to make. Perhaps we should exercise a certain economy, given the limited amount of time available to us, and confine ourselves to section 3.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I do not think anyone could accuse me of intervening at great length too often. As I said, section 3 is fundamental to the extensive powers the Minister seeks. I feel very strongly about this matter. I also feel, even if this is a futile exercise and, as Deputy Shatter said, there are not that many members of the media present to alert the public, there is a duty on the Opposition to highlight the dangers presented by the provisions of section 3. The Minister has just said that what I said about section 40 was not true——

Mr. Flynn

That is not important. The Deputy started off by referring to section 52 and then drifted over to section 40 which deals with regulations.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I quoted section 40 and did not even mention section 52.

Mr. Flynn

Section 40 is entirely different. That section deals with regulations in relation to committees.

Mr. J. Mitchell

Therefore the Minister now accepts that he will be able to override existing legislation by making regulations under section 40?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister will have an opportunity to reply.

Mr. Flynn

It has been made clear in that section what I am going to do in relation to committees. These go back to the 1830s and 1840s.

Mr. J. Mitchell

It is stated that any provision shall cease to have effect once the Minister makes regulations, which will not have to be laid before the House. Therefore it appears the Minister will be able to override existing legislation passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas, for either a specific or general purpose, by making regulations which will not be discussed by the House, even if a motion to annul them is put down within 21 sitting days because it is the Government who order the business of the House. There are ample precedents for Governments to make time available to take a motion to annul regulations. I have no bones about labouring the point in the House today that some of the provisions of this Bill are dangerous and are moderated by section 3.

Mr. Flynn

I am aware that I am going to fall foul of you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, but if the discussion hangs over the housing and remedial works programmes in a way that is not accurate, I will find it difficult not to respond.

The remedial works scheme has been high on the list of priorities of the Minister for the Environment for a couple of years now. Indeed, the amount of money made available for that scheme has been increased substantially since the date referred to by Deputy Mitchell when the figure stood at around £2 million. This year £16 million has been made available to carry out the work which he considers to be necessary, and I agree with him. In relation to the sub-programme dealing with bathrooms, I would have thought that the Deputy would have been very happy to conclude that the Minister had done something worthwhile in allowing bathroom as well as sanitary facilities to be provided under the remedial works scheme. No one had ever contemplated doing this previously.

I resent the fact that he referred to one part of the city as an environmental ghetto given that a major works programme is under way there. A substantial amount of money has been provided to allow improvements to be made at that location. He did not name the area and I do not intend to do so either except to point out that that work is under way. I have visited the area and the residents are most happy with what is contemplated. They look forward——

Mr. J. Mitchell

The Minister does not even know how many of them have no toilets.

Mr. Flynn

Of course, I do.

Mr. J. Mitchell

The Minister informed me the other day that he did not.

Mr. Flynn

What I am saying to the Deputy is that the matter is being addressed.

Mr. J. Mitchell

It is an area within a half a mile of the Minister's own office.

Mr. Flynn

The Deputy is upset that for the first time in many years——

Mr. J. Mitchell

It has not been addressed.

Mr. Flynn

——that finance is being made available to deal with these matters.

Mr. J. Mitchell

He oozes complacency.

Mr. Flynn

The Deputy has grossly distorted the facts relating to the rates support grant. He gave no recognition to the fact that the accumulated deficits of local authorities, which amounted to £80 million when I became Minister, have now been halved, or to the fact that the Government spend £26 million under the voluntary redundancy programme——

Mr. J. Mitchell

Are my figures accurate?

Mr. Flynn

They are not. The Deputy grossly distorted the facts.

Mr. J. Mitchell

Will the Minister give me the figures?

Mr. Flynn

What I am saying to the Deputy——

Mr. Howlin

How many workers were let go?

Mr. Flynn

It is not a question of how many were let go.

Mr. Howlin

It is a very important question if you were one of those let go.

Mr. Flynn

A certain amount of money was made available to those who wished to leave the service voluntarily.

Mr. Howlin

They were squeezed out and not replaced.

Mr. Gilmore

There is no one to sweep the roads.

Mr. Flynn

No reference was made either to the circular transfer arrangements in regard to the financing of capital grants operations and the great savings made. Neither was reference made to the statutory demands that have been eradicated.

Mr. Howlin

The Minister has bled the local authorities dry.

Mr. Flynn

I did not intend to raise this matter at all but Deputy Mitchell keeps saying the same thing. He is not interested in this legislation and only wishes to put items of particular local interest to him on the record. He likes to refer——

Mr. J. Mitchell

The Minister is hurting me now.

Mr. Flynn

He likes to refer to individuals in other jurisdictions who are long gone. During the past two days it seems that Members have been preoccupied with Salazar, Stalin, Gorbachev and Ceausescu. Everybody seems to have had a relationship with one or other of them and I cannot understand it at all.

Mr. Gilmore

The Minister managed to combine all their talents.

Mr. Flynn

The regime from whom the Deputy took his philosophy——

Mr. Gilmore

Wolfe Tone and Connolly.

Mr. Flynn

——would be anathema to either Deputy Mitchell or Minister Flynn. I think we would be in agreement on that point.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is of the opinion that matters relevant to the amendment and the section have been exhausted, whether satisfactorily or otherwise the Chair does not know, but it is time the question was put.

Mr. Flynn

I agree. I would not regard Deputy Gilmore as a look-a-like of Mr. Ceausescu. The regime——

Mr. Gilmore

The Minister should withdraw that remark.

Mr. Howlin

That is not helpful.

Mr. Flynn

I am not saying that. What I am pointing out is that——

Mr. Gilmore

My physical appearance has nothing to do with this debate.

Mr. Flynn

——there are ideologies and regimes which it has been suggested might be usefully replicated in Ireland, but I do not support those regimes. They are now in disgrace and those who supported and pontificated about them should know where they are going.

Mr. Howlin

What has this got to do with the section?

Mr. Flynn

It has to be recognised that different legal provisions apply to different classes of local authority. It also has to be recognised that local authorities are of different sizes, scales and capacities. It is only proper therefore that regulations be made for small as well as large local authorities. It will be necessary to make regulations for different local authorities and in particular to deal with the position in Dublin. The position in Cork is that there are three health districts which must be dealt with in different ways. All I am saying is that we have to take note of this fact because it has always been the practice to deal with authorities in different ways. I was asked to state the maximum allowance payable to a chairman. Would the same upper limit be set for Newbridge, Tralee and Ballybay——

Mr. Howlin

It should be a matter for the local authorities.

Mr. Flynn

It will be a matter for the local authorities, but Deputies must understand——

Mr. Howlin

Subject to you, Minister.

Mr. Flynn

——if a local authority were to proceed to do something totally out of the norm, there must be some residual power available.

Mr. J. Mitchell

The local authorities are accountable to the people.

Mr. Flynn

Are we to apply the same level of allowances and expenses to certain county councils as to what the ordinary town commissioners get?

Mr. Howlin

It is up to the local authorities. The Minister should give them their independence. Does the Minister have to decide everything?

Mr. Flynn

In normal circumstances there will be no interference whatsoever, it is only a residual power, and if local authorities were doing something that was out of proportion it would be necessary in the public interest to do something about it. Let me say there is an overriding principle that has to be established here and now. In the final analysis, responsibility for the local government system rests with the Minister and the Government have to bear that in mind.

Mr. Howlin

It rests with this House.

Mr. Flynn

That is the point, because the Minister represents the House. Surely if the Minister who is representing the House should have the residual power to see to it that there is not any abuse — I am not talking as if there is going to be any abuse — he should at least have in law the means of dealing with it if it needs to be put to rights in the wider public interest. That is all that is involved here. There is no point in Deputy Gilmore seeking to put out scare stories about things which the Minister has no intention of doing——

Mr. Gilmore

But the Minister has the power to do it.

Mr. Flynn

——and no interest in doing so. Let me say that Deputy Gilmore knows full well that as I stated we are not adding on anything, we are talking about a new council and whatever reserved functions a council have, they can use them in whatever way they choose and it will not be a matter for the Minister to direct them or prescribe or make regulations as to what they will do in so far as the reserved functions were concerned.

Mr. Howlin

But the Minister would do it.

Mr. Flynn

If it is a reserved function, the Minister in those circumstances does not direct what members of local authorities do.

Mr. Gilmore

But the Minister can direct what the reserved functions are.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Does Deputy Howlin accept that his amendment has had a more than reasonable airing and that in view of the amount of work ahead of us I should put the question?

Mr. Flynn

By the way, Deputy Gilmore, planning law is different in the various sized areas.

Mr. Howlin

We are dealing with amendment No. 10 in my name. I sought answers from the Minister in relation to this matter. My worst fears have been underscored by it. I was fearful that the Minister wants to have all-pervasive powers in this regard and I am determined to resist that. The very real fears raised by Deputy Gilmore in relation to the Minister's power to impose charges are real unless we modify them. I wish strongly to press this amendment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That was the impression the Chair had.

Question: "That the words proposed to the deleted stand" put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 65.

Tá

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Mattie.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John (Wexford).
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Cullimore, Séamus.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Ellis, John.
• Fahey, Frank.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
• Flood, Chris.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Power, Seán.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Roche, Dick.
• Stafford, John.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Harney, Mary.
• Haughey, Charles J.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Hilliard, Colm.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kelly, Laurence.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Lyons, Denis.
• Martin, Micheál.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McDaid, Jim.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• Morley, P. J.
• Nolan, M. J.
• Noonan, Michael J.
• (Limerick West).
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Desmond J.
• O'Toole, Martin Joe.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

• Ahearn, Therese.
• Bell, Michael.
• Belton, Louis J.
• Boylan, Andrew.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
• Bruton, Richard.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Connor, John.
• Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
• Cotter, Bill.
• Creed, Michael.
• Crowley, Frank.
• Currie, Austin.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Deasy, Austin.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Dukes, Alan.
• Durkan, Bernard.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Farrelly, John V.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• Finucane, Michael.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Garland, Roger.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kemmy, Jim.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Lowry, Michael.
• McCartan, Pat.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• Mac Giolla, Tomás.
• McGrath, Paul.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Gerry.
• Owen, Nora.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Reynolds, Gerry.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Sheehan, Patrick J.
• Sherlock, Joe.
• Spring, Dick.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Yates, Ivan.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Deputies Howlin and Stagg.

Amendment declared lost.

Question delcared carried.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.